Today the developments of international law as well as international organisations in the world are heavily influenced by the United States.
Needless to say, international order depends on a framework of agreed presumption, customs, commitments and expectations that all states, including to US, agree to abide by.
In light of this fact, is the “War on Terror” a direct challenge and violation of international law? Has it bred more terrorism and produced more sanctuaries for terrorism?
The September 11, 2001 Attacks
The 11th September, 2001, often referred to as “9/11”, was the day when four planes were hijacked by Islamic terrorists in the US – two of which plunged into the Twin Towers in New York.
American political author Charles Kegley believes that 9/11 came to be the iconic symbol in the twenty-first century and abruptly slashed any hope of lasting peace as visions of world politics shifted.
Less than a week after the atrocities of September 11, the then US President George W. Bush revealed plans for a US “war on global terrorism”.
The US War On Terror
Globalization specialists John Baylis and Steve Smith define the term “war on terror” as: “an extensive and global struggle to combat and finally defeat international terrorism”.
This is often referred to as the Bush Doctrine which reaffirms, the unilateral policies of the Bush administration proclaiming that the United States will make decisions only to meet America’s perceived national interests, and not to concede to other countries’ complaints or to gain their acceptance.
Was The US “War on Terror” Justified?
In the eyes of many American commentators, as well as President George W. Bush, the way America reacted in response to the attacks was axiomatically justified.
For example, the late International Relations writer Michael Nicholson argued that states are regarded as sovereign in the territories under their jurisdiction.
This means that the state, or rather its government, controls what goes on within its borders, and 9/11 illicitly changed this notion when the planes plunged into the Twin Towers; taking the lives of three thousand people – the majority American citizens.
On this premise, the US were totally justified in pursuing “terrorists”, wherever they were and whoever they may be.
Radical Islam and “rogue states” were identified as harbouring terrorists and so to prevent further 9/11-type atrocities, the “war on terror” was justified according to Nicholson.
In a speech at West Point on 1 June, 2002, President George W. Bush was quoted as saying that:
“The Government and the American people are on the watch...we face a threat with no precedent...if we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long”.
A “coalition of the willing” was formed with the British government then led by Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, who, himself argued that it was entirely legitimate for the USA to wage war against those who had attacked it, i.e. the terrorists.
The US Invasion of Afghanistan, 2001
As the drums of war were being ratcheted up, many countries in the international community, as well as the then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan insisted that the “war on terror” was unwise.
The terrorists he believed were criminals as opposed to soldiers, and moreover, wars have an end whereas a campaign against radical Islam was unlikely to have decisive end.
Nevertheless, his words were ignored and the first campaign in the war on terror was directed against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Having provided sanctuary for Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan was targeted. Baylis and Smith further argue that the American government also sought a wider, more assertive strategy that would attack Islamic terrorism in more than one country.
The Iraq War 2003
According to Joshua Goldstein and Jon Pevehouse, international law was bypassed, the UN trampled upon, and no sooner had the US dealt with Afghanistan, it moved quickly onto Iraq, which incidentally had nothing to do with 9/11.
Kegley believes that this propagation of the “war on terror” was totally unjustified as the political problem of terrorism should have been resolved within the international community.
Unprovoked attacks, he maintains, went against everything that the US should be as a nation, in addition to shattering international law.
Has The “War on Terror” Made Things Worse?
International relations theorist John Mearsheimer, argues that far from making the world a safer place, the “war on global terrorism” has in fact made things worse.
For example, the UN Security Council explicitly sanctioned against any attack on Iraq in an extension of the “war on terror”, however this was systematically ignored.
Furthermore, as Goldstein and Pevehouse elucidate, the “war on terror” has bolstered the view of the US being bullies on the international stage.
Baylis and Smith believe that further terrorist attacks in Madrid, Pakistan, India and London, coupled with increasing radicalization of fanatical Islam, proves that as the war on terror unfolds, the world as a whole has begun to look a far less stable place and “counter-terrorism” has proved unsuccessful.
In view of the aforementioned arguments, the “war on terror” was launched to adopt an open, multilateral approach towards terrorism.
However, reflecting on the current state of the world, few would argue that the “war on terror” has brought the US or the British government the security it desired in an age of perceived terror.
See also: Philosophies of Punishment
Sources: Baylis, J., and Smith, S., (eds.) (2005), The Globalisation of World Politics, 3rd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Brown, C., w/ Ainley, K., (2005), Understanding International Relations, (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
Goldstein, J., and Pevehouse, J., (2007) International Realtions, (N.Y. Pearson Longman) Husain, Z.M, ‘The Bush Doctrine: Will it Eliminate or Increase Terrorism?’
Kegley, C W.w/ Wittkopf, E., (10th ed.,) (2006), World Politics Trends And Transformation, (Thomson Wadsworth).
Nicholson, M., (2nd Ed.) (2003), International Relations: A Concise Introduction, (London: Macmillan).
Rosati, A.J., (Third Edition) (2004), The Politics of United States Foreign Policy, (Thomson Wadsworth).
Text of Bush’s speech at West Point Military Academy. The New York Times, June 1, 2002.
Join the Conversation