Jingle bells have deadly ring

2 Dec, 2001 08:57 AM4 mins to read

By RUPERT CORNWELL

WASHINGTON - The season of peace and goodwill to all men is fast approaching. Not that you would notice it in Washington DC.

The White House Christmas decorations may be up, but bellicosity, not charity, fills the air. With the Afghan campaign looking all but over, the commentators, politicians and war-gamers have but one question: where next?

For all the proclaimed commitment to nation-building in Afghanistan, Washington is turning its attention to phase two of its struggle against terrorism - and it is feeling pretty good about the prospect.

Overwhelming United States air power, far more precise than in the Gulf War, unlocked the door to victory. And if it worked in Afghanistan, whose guerrilla war traditions were supposed to make air power particularly unsuitable for such a task, then why not in Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else suspected of harbouring or helping al Qaeda operatives?

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon are focusing on the long-term mission to stamp out al Qaeda in 60-odd countries where it is reputed to have a presence.

So which of them are now in America's crosshairs?

In fact, these 60 fall into distinct categories. The first (numerically the largest) consists not of Arab but Western, non-Muslim nations, among them the US itself, where terrorist cells have long since dug in. In these, Washington can rely on friends to help it do its dirty work.

Elsewhere, in Arab and other countries with Governments that officially support the coalition but which are breeding-grounds for radical, violent Islam, there are more complex legal and diplomatic issues to be tackled.

The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force, with three exceptions.

First, a country facing internal security threats can ask for military assistance. Considerable pressure is being applied to the authorities in Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere to invite US intervention directed at terrorist groups. Somalia has already issued an invitation, but others may not be so compliant.

Second, the UN Security Council can authorise the use of force. It has been strongly supportive of the US after September 11, condemning the atrocities and requiring all countries to take concrete measures such as freezing terrorist assets.

The US might argue that it already has authorisation. For a decade it has justified its no-fly zones in Iraq on the basis of the Security Council resolution that authorised the 1991 Gulf War. That might now be invoked to justify an intervention to remove Saddam Hussein, for Baghdad is increasingly conflated with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Last month, President George W. Bush suggested that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam would be enough to justify US military action. Even the cautious Secretary of State, Colin Powell, chimed in, calling Mr Bush's words a "sober and chilling" warning which Saddam would ignore at his peril.

As for targets elsewhere, one of the resolutions adopted after September 11 requires UN members to "take all necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts". The US could argue that any military action directed at terrorists constitutes a "necessary step".

But the US does not want to involve the UN. Invoking a Security Council resolution creates an awkward precedent. What would happen in future if the Security Council was unwilling to support military action?

The US is likely to focus on the third exception to the prohibition of force. The UN Charter explicitly preserves the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence".

As an inherent right, self-defence is governed by customary international law, an informal body of rules that evolves in response to the actions - and reactions - of states.

Until September 11, the right to self-defence was limited to armed attacks by other states, not terrorist acts, even when they were directly supported by a state.

After September 11, the US sought and secured support for a change in the law. Its effort was helped by universal outrage at the atrocities and evidence linking the Taleban to them. The vast majority of countries now accept that self-defence extends to state sponsors of terrorism.

The US is claiming a right to pre-emptive action against terrorist threats. Iraqi efforts to get biological, chemical and nuclear weapons are of great concern. If most nations support the US, the right to respond to state sponsors of terrorism might become a right of pre-emptive action against them.

- INDEPENDENT

Story archives: