Reacting to terrorism
The response should be through law not war
The first reactions of almost everyone to the
atrocities in New York and Washington must
have been horror and sadness, followed, understandably,
by anger, fear and, for many, the urge for
revenge. Deep sympathy for the victims and their families
will continue, but there will be controversy over the
relative role of military action and of a more measured
response.
Military action has begun. Currently this is being
directed at the Taliban's (fairly limited) armed forces
and al?Qaida training camps. There are said to be no
immediate plans for undercover “special forces” to
capture Osama bin Laden. Calls for a massive attack
on other countries supporting Islamic terrorists,
including Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, seem to have subsided.
Even this more limited strategy has drawbacks.
There have already been deaths; time will show how
many of these are Taliban fighters and how many
civilians. All will be regarded as martyrs, and revenge
for their killings will lead to more terrorist violence.
This process has been called the cycle of violence1: we
constantly see it at work in Israel/Palestine. Secondly,
Afghanistan was facing a humanitarian crisis before
11 September; this was exacerbated by the threat of
bombing and is likely now to turn into a major disaster.
Aid agencies say that airdrops of food will be
ineffective in preventing mass starvation.
The events of 11 September were an appalling crime
against humanity. The hijackers themselves are beyond
punishment or revenge, but others behind them are
equally guilty of mass murder. Perhaps, though, they can
be punished through the process of diplomacy and law,
though this too has difficulties. It is tedious, leading to
complaints that nothing is being done. Several years after
the Lockerbie jumbo jet atrocity only two men have
been tried and one found guilty. It will be questioned
whether those accused of the 11 September attacks
could get a fair trial in the United States. As with the
Lockerbie suspects, they could be tried under US law at
the Hague, or by an ad hoc tribunal such as that dealing
with war crimes in former Yugoslavia. An international
criminal court will exist when enough countries agree its
statute. President Clinton signed this, but his successor
refuses to ask the US senate to ratify it. Some good may
come of evil if the international criminal court comes
into being sooner.
The tragic events of 11 September must also lead to
longer term efforts to deal with wider threats to global
security, which have serious implications for health care
worldwide. Acts of terrorism merge into genocide over a
few weeks, as in Rwanda,2
and mass killings over several
years, as in Angola and the Congo (former Zaire), where
millions have died out of sight of CNN and other media.
Weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, and
nuclear) could be used by non?state groups. Such fears
led to the suspension of crop spraying in the US after 11
September, though experts differ on whether the largescale
use of these weapons is possible without the
involvement of hostile states.3
The missile defences
planned by the Clinton and Bush administrations would
be useless against such threats.
Measures in international law to counteract the
threats exist or are in the pipeline. UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan has called for a Convention
against Terrorism. As with the international criminal
court statute, some of these have been opposed by the
US, such as the Convention on the Illicit Trade in Small
Arms and the verification protocol for the Biological
Weapons Convention.4
Commentators, including Robert MacNamara (John F Kennedy's defence secretary
during the Cuban missile crisis), have pointed out that
the US must ask itself why it is so disliked; its attitude to
multilateral treaties is one reason. Retreating into a
laager is no solution.5
There is time for second
thoughts on the Biological Weapons Convention pro?
tocol at its November review conference.
International conventions are no better than the
states party to them (witness Iraq's programme of
weapons of mass destruction), and they do not recognise
non-state actors, so the ultimate need is the eradi?
cation of the causes of terrorism and other intrastate
violence. These are territorial, such as Kashmir (the
site of another recent act of terrorism), Northern Ireland
(which shows how slow the political process can
be), and the Middle East. US support for Israel is a
principal cause of its unpopularity, but President
George WBush's apparent acceptance of a Palestinian
state raises hope.
The second need is for global equity and sustain
ability. Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the West Bank and
Gaza are among the world's poorest areas, and terrorist
groups flourish in Colombia (FARC) and Peru (Sendoro
Luminoso). The richest 26% of the world's population
use 80% of its energy, the poorest fifth less than 1%.6
Afghanistan and Colombia fuel the drugs trade.
Dealing with these major economic and political
problems will be time consuming and difficult. It
requires a strengthened and reformed United Nations
able to intervene early by non?military means against
unacceptable regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein
and the Taliban.7
For health professionals the attraction
of such a programme, apart from its security aspects, is
long term benefits for global health,8
such as access to
clean water and vaccination programmes (the current
crisis may delay the eradication of polio). We in Medact
hope that many others will join us in promoting this
exercise in preventive medicine.
Douglas Holdstock, editor, Medicine Conflict and Survival Medact, London N19 4DJ
Email: mary.holdstock@ntlworld.com
studentBMJ 2001;09:399-442 November ISSN 0966-6494
- Rogers P, Elworthy S. The United States, Europe and the majority world after
11 September. Oxford Research Group, 2001 (51 Plantation Road, Oxford
OX2 6JE).
- Melvern LR. A people betrayed: the role of the West in Rwanda's genocide.
London: Zed Books, 2000.
- Mackenzie D. Invisible enemies: are chemical and biological attacks a
serious possibility? New Scientist 2001;6 Oct:6?7.
- How not to make friends. Nature 2001;412:463.
- Rogers P. Losing control: global security in the twenty?first century. London:
Pluto Press, 2000.
- World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common
future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987 (Bruntland report).
- Commission on Global Governance. Our global neighbourhood. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
- McMichael T. Human frontiers, environments and disease: past patterns, uncertain futures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
