An Attack On Us All

The Warsaw Voice ^ | 23/09/01 | Adam Daniel Rotfeld

[matcrazy]

An Attack On Us All

Adam Daniel Rotfeld, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI):

Calamitous crime can leave us dumbfounded, feeling helpless and lacking words. But when the shock fades, a question arises: What should be done now? How to live in a world that will no longer be as it was before Sept. 11? Are we really helpless in the face of such outrageous attacks?

The aim of the carefully-orchestrated terrorist strikes was not merely the destruction of two great complexes in two great U.S. cities: the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. It was a premeditated attack on two symbols of American might: its center of economic and financial life and the headquarters of military and political authority. It resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. It was an assault on the freedom and security of each one of us.

The purpose of those who masterminded, financed and perpetrated this crime was to undermine U.S. leadership and authority among the family of democratic nations. The attack was intended to discredit the mightiest democratic power in the world today and wreak havoc to the international system. At the same time, it was an attack on basic human values, including the respect for human dignity and life.

International responses to this horrible crime show that the terrorist killing of thousands has proven contrary to the results that the perpetrators intended. In a rare example of solidarity, the world demonstrated full support for the United States and its values. The attack on America was interpreted by an overwhelming majority of nations as an attack on humanity, against mankind.

Momentous security-related decisions were not taken only as a result of theoretical deliberations. As a rule, they are a response to crisis situations and urgent challenges. Such decisions are made in extreme circumstances, when politicians have really no input. A situation of this kind exists today, following the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

Simple, and topical questions arise: How was it possible that in the richest and most powerful state in the world, a criminal group hijacks simultaneously several passenger airliners departing from different airports and deals precise blows, paralyzing the life of these two metropolises? What should be done to prevent such a disaster? And, last but not least, to carry out such an attack, the masterminds and perpetrators had to have considerable resources and trained personnel. We do not know yet who they are, we do not know if any rogue state helped accomplish this crime. There are still a great many unknowns concerning this event.

In search of answers to these questions, we are not helpless, however. People have the right to expect that governments will provide them with security, both external and internal. At the same time, democratic societies cannot afford the false, albeit tantalizing, alternative: freedom of the individual versus security. Such a scenario would satisfy the terrorists, dealing a blow to our values. However, the priorities should be defined anew. The aims of and means earmarked for security should be adequate to the new threats and challenges. One can expect that new national and international programs of action by the United Nations, NATO and the European Union will be launched soon. Effective implementation of such programs will need a cooperative, systematic approach, not ad-hoc unilateral endeavors or populist resolutions. Political, coordinated planning, a good organization of all services, creativity and innovation in thinking and actions will be necessary.

In 2001, CIA Director George Tenet stated in front of Congress: "Osama bin Laden and his network are the nation's most immediate and serious international threat." He specified that this assessment was primarily based on Bin Laden's interest in weapons of mass destruction. The aircraft were hijacked without the use of weapons of mass destruction. Whether Bin Laden was involved in the attacks is irrelevant in this context. One does not have to stretch one's imagination to imagine the effects of this crime had the terrorists utilized nuclear, chemical or bacteriological weapons. The only effective way of heading off terrorist attacks with a possible use of weapons of mass destruction is to reach an agreement to completely ban and destroy such weapons. Control must begin with understanding and transparency. There is a need, as the first step, to establish an international inventory of all weapons-grade nuclear material. As a significant contribution to the operational policy decision-making process, SIPRI produced two reports on World Inventories of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium. The United States should re-enter negotiations toward an effective and viable biological weapons regime, and help strengthen the chemical weapons regime. Since the threat is unconventional, the answers should be unconventionally bold as well.

The attacks carried out Sept. 11 on the people of New York and Washington, D.C. demonstrated an irrational hatred. However, they were not the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century. Nor are they a beginning of World War III, either. Democratic governments and societies will do everything possible to prevent such crime happening again, not only because the security of the United States and its citizens are at stake, but also because it is about safeguarding democracy, liberty and human rights for all. The threat of terrorism is global, so must be the responses to it- involving the community of world democracies as a whole.