THE “WAR ON TERROR”

The Issue
The International Law Dictionary and Directory defines war as “sustained struggle of a scale and duration that threatens the existence of the government of a state and that is waged between groups of forces that are armed, wear a distinctive insignia, and are subject to military discipline under a responsible command”.  

However, the United States of America (USA) has used the more colloquial dictionary definition of “any situation in which there is fierce competition between opposing sides or a great fight against something harmful.”  

The difficulty with taking this stance is that the enemy with which the USA seeks to engage in its “War on Terror” is a shadowy force, not a government; its methods are unpredictable and there is little prospect of coming to a negotiated peace settlement as in the aftermath of a conventional war.  The impression is created that this is a war which can be won through military campaigns such as that in Iraq.

Context
Following the destruction of the World Trade buildings on 11th September 2001 the United States has undertaken a series of actions, both unilaterally and in partnerships that have included the United Kingdom.

Afghanistan
The war in Afghanistan in October 2001 led to civilian deaths variously estimated at 1,000 to over 3,000.   National security in Afghanistan has still not been achieved and the implementation of the stable and coherent plan for the future promised by the UK Prime Minister has been far from impressive.  The outlook for the people of Afghanistan continues to be bleak.

Guantanamo Bay
Following the Afghan War prisoners were taken to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and over three years after the war, 660 people remain incarcerated without trial.  Their treatment casts a stain on the USA, a nation which was founded on principles of justice, freedom and equality for all under the law.

Iraq
It is now almost a year since the war in Iraq was declared over, although fighting still continues.  Up to 9,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict with the number still rises.  Attacks on civilians, the occupying forces and the Iraqi police force continue.  The task of reconstructing Iraq has been severely curtailed by the lack of proper planning by the occupying powers and by the extremely unstable security situation.  The economy remains fragile, there are national debts that cannot be repaid and unemployment is high.  Elections to form a stable Iraqi government are not scheduled to take place until the beginning of 2005 at the earliest.

Weapons of mass destruction, whose existence was given as the reason for going to war, have not been found.



Libya
In marked contrast to the policy pursued by the USA and the UK on Iraq, the policy on Libya has been one of quiet diplomacy, which has led to some positive results.  The dismantling of Libya’s nuclear weapons programme marks the first time in almost thirty years that any nation has ended such a programme without a change in regime.

The steps taken by the UK government in response to the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK include the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.  The Act allows the Secretary of State to detain a person suspected of being involved in terrorist activities without charge and without limit of time.  This is, and is recognised to be, a power which is contrary to normal constitutional freedoms.  In February 2004 fifteen people were being detained at Bellmarsh Prison under the Act.

Discussion
Calling the efforts to tackle terrorism “a war” was a major error of judgement.  The belief that terrorism can be overcome through attacking states which harbour them has been shown to be ineffective.  Al-Qaeda operates as a "network of networks", across sixty countries, working in various types of cell structure and represents a movement that links itself to history, rather than a campaign that pursues politically achievable objectives.

The greatest mistake in this so-called war on terror was the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  We believe that this war was a monumental folly on the part of the USA and other supporting governments.  Despite there being no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, despite the warnings that it would simply increase the terrorist threat, despite the knowledge that it would probably lead to substantial loss of life, the USA and its partners still went ahead.  There was no UN backing and many international lawyers believe it was an illegal war; there were no weapons of mass destruction; there was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein and huge numbers of ordinary people protested against it across the world.  Yet still the war went ahead.  

The abuse of human rights as part of the “War against Terror”, such as the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and in Belmarsh Prison in the UK, means that governments lose the moral high ground and begin to stoop to the same level as the terrorist.  

We should not lose sight of some basic principles:
* detaining people on mere suspicion is not right.
* detaining people without a charge being brought and without a trial is not right.
* detaining people with no limit of time is not right.
* detaining people without informing them of the evidence held against them is not right.
Even if, and it is a very big if, circumstances are thought to warrant such detention, that does not make it right.  What is right remains right.  These rights are part of the foundation of our justice system.  If we remove them, we weaken the whole structure and we all lose.  It is essential that our justice system is allowed to protect the rights of those whose views we might despise.  If we lose that, then we lose much of what we are trying to protect.


Action that could be taken by your Church
It is suggested in a paper produced by the Church of Norway in January 2001 entitled “Vulnerability and Security” that there is a need for a completely new look at the relationship between vulnerability and security.  The paper could be a topic for discussion.

“Recognition of our own vulnerability can encourage a desire for cooperation instead of conflict.  Enmity and conflict are a greater temptation for the person who knows him/herself to be invulnerable.”

This has implications for governments and their policies; but it also has something we need to hear as Christians, something which speaks to us of how we live in an uncertain world.  It asks us to examine our attitudes to life and death, to risk and uncertainty, to existence and faith.

The paper is available on the Church of Norway web site www.kirken.no/engelsk/VULNERABIL.doc.  

Other Resources
These notes are based on The War on Terror a supplementary section of the Committee on Church and Nation's Report to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 2004.

A wide range of Reports on Iraq and other countries mentioned above, including updated information on the actions of the United Nations, are available on www.reliefweb.int and then following appropriate links.

Access to a very wide range of web sites dealing with Iraq can be found through the Iraq Portal on www.justinalexander.net/iraq. 

Views on the detention of prisoners in Belmarsh are available on the Amnesty International web site www.amnesty.org.uk, and on the detentions at Guantanamo Bay on the Human Rights Watch web site www.hrw.org.