The question of whether or not the military action currently being taken in Afghanistan is morally justified is one that can never be satisfactorily answered. A person’s stance on this depends very much on his background, personal experience, religious beliefs and motives.
The opinion of a New Yorker, still hurt and angry over the attacks on his city, is just as valid, though likely to be different, to that of a Muslim in the Middle East. Since it does not seem to be within the scope of the human race to genuinely agree to differ on such an emotive issue, it is better to look at the more clearly defined rule of law regarding the conflict.
However, even in the area of international law and United Nations (UN) charters, there is still much room for argument. The first question to be raised after 11 September was not if the use of force would be sanctioned, but on what grounds?
In one of his first speeches after the attacks, President Bush spoke of the crisis as being the ‘first war of the 21st century’. While the people of Iraq, whose country is regularly under attack from US and British planes, would reluctantly lay claim to that ‘honour’, the president’s words did not hold up to scrutiny.

If what we saw in New York and Washington, asked critics, was the beginning of a war, then against which nation would it be fought? The validity of Mr Bush’s claims was weakened still further when it was noted that, according to international law, a terrorist attack cannot be compared to an armed one.
This exercise in semantics may appear, at first glance, to be unnecessary, but in world politics, words, their meanings and their precise application are vital.
It was probably for this reason that, at a meeting of the UN Security Council on 12 September, the atrocities that were committed the day before were referred to as a ‘threat to world peace and security’. It was on this basis that resolution 1368 was agreed and military action given the go-ahead.
Whereas Article 51 of the UN charter affirms the right of individual and collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack against one of its members, Article 39 is, conveniently, more open to interpretation.
In it, the Security Council may agree, in accordance with Article 42, on the use of military force to ‘to maintain or restore international peace and security’. The vague nature of this has made it possible for military action to start, but it is less clear as to where it will end.
There has been talk of the military campaign expanding to take in Iraq. In these circumstances, Security Council resolution 1368 will become tenuous. Suspicions that the United States might be using the fight against terrorism as an opportunity to settle unfinished business would inevitably be raised. Members of the Security Council would become uneasy and support for the United States is likely to crumble.
Even Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the most sycophantic of George Bush’s supporters, would be reluctant to back such action for fear of damaging his own ‘bottom line’ — that of the popular support among Britain’s electorate.
The loose ‘coalition’ of Arab states, which Blair, in particular, has worked so hard to construct, would evaporate. But if terrorism against the US continues when the operation in Afghanistan ends, where will America then turn her sights?
Syria provides a haven for many groups the United States consider terrorists with global reach, which is a criterion for military strikes. Prime Minister Blair met President Bashar Assad of Syria and was promptly handed a public lecture on western foreign policy.
The president did condemn the attacks on 11 September but refused to classify the groups residing in his country as terrorists, preferring to speak of them as ‘liberators of Palestine’.
It is also believed in Washington that Al Qaeda — the group thought to be responsible for the 11 September attacks — has bases in the African country of Somalia.
The Somali president, Hassan Abshir Farah, has denied this. But Al Qaeda has been linked with Al Itihad, an Islamic fundamentalist group based in his country. Since the president’s power in his own country does not stretch to all four of its corners, it may only be a matter of time before the US assumes control of the situation.
The government of Yemen has already taken action within its own borders against suspected Al Qaeda members. The operation failed: government forces suffered heavy losses and the suspects escaped. However, Washington praised the effort and seems satisfied that Yemen has joined the fight against terrorism.

Pakistan, the United States’ newest and most unlikely ally, provides what it admits as ‘moral and political’ support to Harkat-ul-Mujahidin — a group that appears on America’s list of international terrorists.
Will the fight against terrorism be expanded to include Pakistan? It seems unlikely. Not least because Pakistan has nuclear capability. And also because, without the cooperation of Pakistan, military action in Afghanistan would have been far less likely to succeed.
Another effect of article 1368 was to relieve the United States from the constraints of proportionality. Under customary international law, the use of force must be proportionate to the purpose of repelling aggression. .

Read the full story in the February 2002 edition of The Middle East Magazine

Copyright © IC Publications Limited 2001. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means or used for any business purpose without the written consent of the publisher. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is as accurate as possible, the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any consequences arising from its use.

Back to the top
Contents