As the horror of September 11 unfolded, the nation’s 103 commercial nuclear reactors and dozens of federal nuclear weapons facilities were put on high security alert. The U.S. government has long considered them potential terrorist targets, implementing programs to protect nuclear facilities against these threats. But is enough being done?
When President Bush launched the bombing attacks on Afghanistan, he termed the war against terrorism as “upholding and defending American values.” These “American values” were broadly defined as justice, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. Conversely, he criticized the Taliban for their “intolerance, bigotry, absence of human rights, and lack of any democratic norms promoting the rule of law.”
The dramatic turn of events in Afghanistan over the past week does not necessarily mean that the struggle against Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaida terrorists is closer to victory. The Taliban regime had offered Bin Laden and his minions sanctuary but very little in the way of direct logistical or financial support.
During a national press conference, President Bush, speaking about American efforts to reach Arab and Muslim audiences said, “we are not doing a very good job of getting our message out.” This may be the American understatement of the 21st century.
Just when it looked the Central Asian countries were facing the growing joint political hegemony of Russia and China in the region, the events of September 11 opened the door to an increased and indefinite-term U.S. military presence. This not only involves the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan but also, in particular, a new agreement recently signed with Uzbekistan to establish a U.S. military presence in this Central Asian nation. This agreement provides for American use of military bases and facilities, and it paves the way for a long-term U.S. military presence, not excluding the stationing of U.S. troops on a standing basis.
Since September 11, the United Nations has gained a rare prominence in Washington’s calculations. Of course it did once before, when Iraq invaded Kuwait–but that was more like a one-night stand turned date rape than a long-term relationship. This time, it could be a more durable courtship, based on more modest and realistic expectations on both sides.
Operation Enduring Freedom? By Ritu Sharma and Robert Gustafson November 1, 2001
If nothing is done to take international action to strengthen the ban on germ weapons, the future may hold far more damaging attacks with newer and deadlier agents, genetically engineered to be unidentifiable and untreatable. The catastrophic potential of bioterrorism is so great that prevention, not just damage limitation, must be the aim. Military and civilian experts believe that, at present, terrorists could mount a large-scale germ attack only with the assistance of a state possessing a sophisticated bio-weapons program. We need to cut off those sources, now and in the future.
The use of military force for self-defense is legitimate under international law. Military force for retaliation is not. The magnitude of these initial air strikes raises not only serious legal and moral questions but political concerns as well, as it will likely set back the fight against terrorism.
Just as the post-cold war transition to a new international system seemed to be ending, the terrorist acts of September 11 and the U.S. responses have re-opened the question of Central Asia’s strategic orientation and, through that, the structure of the entire international system.