There are now fewer wars between states. We must hope that this development that does not regrettably comprise Africa will lead governments to drastically reduce military expenditures which globally amount to more than 1.500 billion dollars annually. At the same time we must protect ourselves against other and more diffuse threats than improbable wars between great powers, invading armies or missiles suddenly dispatched by Iranian ayatollahs.
It is encouraging that in our brave new world the old type of interstate wars with bullets and bombs in reasonably well defined theatres of action appear to become uncommon. But must we accept that states hunt, catch and kill non-state enemies wherever they can find them in the world and can we protect ourselves against massive computer attacks and against the biological weapons of the new century – hyper-dangerous data virus?
A vast computer attack directed against Estonia a few years ago was traced to Russia – though not necessarily to Russian governmental authorities. It raised the question how states can protect their central nervous systems against anonymous attackers without home addresses. Another example: not long ago a highly complex data virus – Stuxnet – disturbed and destroyed a good deal of the computerized systems that guided centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium in Iran. The incident was celebrated by some – not least in Israel – but it also raised the global question how we can prevent that new viruses are created and used to destroy or paralyze vital computerized governmental and industrial systems. The question affects all and should be taken up in the UN system – not only in NATO as now is being done.
After 9/11 in New York and terror attacks in London, Madrid and Istanbul states must build readiness against terrorism that may strike anywhere and any time. All over the world a great many unwelcome and expensive measures have been introduced to control people and protect important systems. One question that arises is whether states are free to hunt terrorists and other enemies on the territory of other countries. Not only the USA but a good number of other states – like Israel, Iran and Libya – have allowed their security services to engage in search operations, abductions, murder and other actions in foreign states without the permission of these states. The abduction of Adolf Eichman in Argentina in 1960 was one famous such case. Another – shocking – case occurred in Norway in 1973 when the Israeli security service, Mossad killed a Moroccan who they erroneously thought had been involved in the terror attacks at the Olympic Games in Munich the year before.
Even though there can be sympathy for specific actions of this kind they are generally viewed as violations of the sovereignty of the ‘host’ countries and are mostly buried in elliptic phrases or ended with some apology.
Thus, an American operation to trace terrorist suspects in Sweden was recently reported to have been stopped without any public comments but after objections had been raised by the Swedish security services. In a few dramatic cases, however, the US has assumed assertive positions without apparently incurring stiff reactions.
In 1998 the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were destroyed through al Qaeda organized terror attacks. Hundreds of people were killed and the US retaliated by sending cruise missiles against two alleged al Qaeda targets – a training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory outside Khartoum in Sudan. Sadly the intelligence regarding the factory was wrong: the factory had no relation to al Qaeda. Yet, despite Sudanese protests the world and the UN Security Council seem on the whole to have left the misguided attack without comment. Condemnation and criticism focused on the terror attacks.
It is uncertain whether Pakistan had given the US any kind of green light for the military action this year in which Osama bin Laden was killed not far from the capital of Pakistan. It may not have mattered very much. Much before this event the then Senator Obama had declared that “if we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharaf won’t act, we will.”
After the killing of bin Laden a spokesman for the US State Department was reported to have said that the US will feel that it is within its right to take action whenever it has actual intelligence against someone who is responsible for thousands of American and other deaths. While this view does not appear to have been criticized or commented upon by any government it would be rash to conclude that the world accepts claims by the USA or any other state that in fighting terrorism they have a right to use force anywhere in the world. If similar claims were made by Russia, China or some other state it would most certainly meet indignation and protests. Non-state terrorism makes the world chaotic enough.
