The fundamental and glaring weakness behind the matrix of international support that the United States has put together for its aggressive drive against terrorism is that there is as yet no clear definition of what constitutes terrorism.
It is in an attempt to define precisely what terrorism really constitutes in the modern world that four countries from north Africa and seven from southern Europe are meeting in Morocco at Agadir. Under the chairmanship of Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, they are seeking a form of words that will isolate terrorism as a crime and the terrorist as a criminal in a way that will be acceptable to the international community as a whole. At the root of the problem is who it is that raises the initial cry of “terrorist”. The United States as the pre-eminent superpower asserts itself as a world policeman. It boasts of its own political principles and, all too often, works on the basis that any state which does not share its world vision is simply wrong. It blithely assumes that its terms of reference will be automatically acceptable to everyone else.
This misunderstanding makes Americans leery of the rest of the world, with the possible exception of the British, who speak the same language and share an historic link. The United Nations, once used as a tool of the US State Department, through Washington’s domination of the Security Council, has become far less tractable with the end of the Cold War. American unease at this development is evidenced by its reluctance to pay its dues to a range of UN organizations.
But most significantly, the United States has refused to have anything to do with an International Court of Justice. After initial enthusiasm it dawned on Washington that the time would very probably come when the United States itself would be arraigned before the court. Unwilling to give what it saw as a weapon to be used against it by its enemies, it has rejected the whole idea. Unfortunately, the whole point of justice is that every man and indeed every state should stand equal before the law. The Americans may accept this domestically but they cannot bring themselves to admit it internationally. Thus America seriously undermines its position when it levels accusations against others. History will probably show that in the wake of Sept. 11, President Bush missed a unique opportunity to strengthen the system of international justice. By pressing ahead with its idea of justice and its definition of terror, without seeking to use the nascent procedures of a world court, the US may have allowed itself to be characterized as a vigilante, exercising rough justice, the very thing against which the American state itself once fought as its Wild West borders were pushed toward the Pacific.
The Agadir meeting has, therefore, set for itself an invaluable task in examining the definition of terror and terrorism. Its work will hardly be conclusive but it is right that responsible governments from both the Arab and European worlds should be deliberating on these difficult matters, leaving aside the fear, anger and prejudice which seems to be coloring American and British thinking. The conclusions of the meeting will hopefully form the foundation of a wider debate in the near future, a debate in which the US would do well to join.
