The tragic and unbearable events of September 11have united Americans and much of the world as they have not been united formany years. The Bush administration has a unique opportunity to create effectivedomestic and international structures to deal not only with terrorism but withthe other twenty-first-century threats to national and international security.
To do so, the administration will need to maintain its resoluteness butalso change its fundamental approach in relating to the rest of the world.Before the terrorist attacks, the United States was telling other countries thatit would do what it wanted to do and that they could like it or not and cooperateor not, as they chose. Now we are demanding that they follow our lead andactively back American counterterrorism efforts. At least the administrationrecognizes that it needs the help and cooperation of other states; but it stilldoes not understand that, even in the face of this tragedy, support over the longrun cannot be commanded. We must earn the right to lead by showing that we careabout the interests and views of others and are prepared to work together tocraft solutions that respond to others' perception of threats as well as to ourown.
Initial responses from around the world have been encouraging. The NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article V for the first time in its history.Many other countries, including China and Russia, condemned the terroristacts--as did most nations in the Arab world. Pakistan pledged its cooperation andbegan to press the Taliban. But these nations will not support continuing actionunless they see our venture as their fight as well and are given a role indetermining what is done. In order to ensure international support, we need touse existing institutions and build on previous agreements.
Call Security
In my view, the key to building such a worldwide coalition is to call uponthe United Nations Security Council to handle this crisis--and to order allnations to comply with its directives any time it determines that there is athreat to international peace and security. This so-called Chapter VII authoritywas invoked with the blessing of George H.W. Bush in both the Gulf War andSomalia. Yet for reasons that are not clear, his son's administration hasdownplayed the possible role of the Security Council.
There are a number of significant advantages to relying on the SecurityCouncil. First, we would make it clear to other nations that we are acting inaccordance with the basic principles and procedures of international law. Second,we would create a framework that allows other states to justify their support forour policies: They would not be yielding to American pressure but fulfillingbinding international legal obligations. Third, we would give other statesconfidence that they will be consulted about what we do instead of blindlycommitting themselves to follow us.
The UN Charter lays out the steps that should be taken to deal with terroristsand states that help them. The relevant provisions of Chapter VII are these:
Article 39. The Security Council shall determine theexistence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggressionand shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken inaccordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peaceand security... . Article 41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involvingthe use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, andit may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. Thesemay include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail,sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and theseverance of diplomatic relations. Article 42. Should the Security Council consider that measures providedfor in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it maytake such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain orrestore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations,blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of theUnited Nations. The Security Council has, in fact, once before acted under Chapter VII toimpose an embargo on Afghanistan. In October 1999, the SecurityCouncil--asserting that "the suppression of international terrorism is essentialfor the maintenance of international peace and security" (and thus invoking itsChapter VII authority)--strongly condemned "the continuing use of Afghanterritory, especially areas controlled by the Taliban, for the sheltering andtraining of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts." Specifically condemningthe Taliban for providing a haven for Osama bin Laden, the council went on tonote that the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond constitutes a threatto international peace and security. In addition to demanding that the Talibanturn bin Laden over to U.S. authorities, it ordered all member states to prohibitflights to and from Afghanistan and to seize all of the economic assets of theTaliban if Afghanistan refused to comply with the UN Charter. Thus, the council has already moved toward authorizing the use of militaryforce. The United States should make it clear that it wants the Security Councilto respond to the events of September 11 by demanding the immediate surrender ofbin Laden. And, barring that surrender, we should ask the council to require allmember states to observe a total embargo on Afghanistan. In the meantime, we should develop military plans to seize bin Laden. Thismay take far longer than it will to go through these steps with the UnitedNations. The Bush administration seems to understand that air strikes with cruisemissiles will do no good. If we spill innocent blood in a mindless technologicalattack, we will lose the moral high ground and the support we need in the world. When our plans for military operations are in place, we should ask theSecurity Council to authorize the use of military force under the direction ofthe United States. We then can ask other countries to cooperate by providingbases and overflight rights, if not military forces. We are much more likely toachieve compliance if we act pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution. Command and Control The advantages of proceeding this way are abundantly clear. So why, as Iwrite this, has the Bush administration made only vague references to its desirefor UN support--and why has it not asked the council to invoke its Chapter VIIpowers? One possible explanation is that Bush and company do not believe thatthey can get the council's backing; perhaps they anticipate that Russia or Chinawould veto any resolution on the use of force. But it's likely that neithercountry would block such a resolution. Both Russia and China supported theearlier Chapter VII resolutions on Afghanistan. Both nations, moreover, viewterrorism by Islamic fundamentalists as a great threat to their own security.Russia sees the war in Chechnya as another manifestation of this phenomenon, andChina fears that the large Muslim populations within its borders will be luredinto fanaticism and turn to terror. Even if a resolution authorizing the use of force were not approved, theUnited States still stands to gain by approaching the Security Council: It woulddemonstrate our commitment to international law, which permits the use of forcein self-defense without the council's approval. If the council fails to act, Ibelieve we would have the legal and moral right to proceed, alongside thosecountries that are willing to support us, with a sensible plan for militaryaction. Recognizing that council support would carry a requirement to consult withother nations and with the council itself, the Bush administration is likelychoosing to avoid going to the council because it is reluctant to yield in itsinsistence on unilateralism. It wants to have the backing of other countries--butwithout being subject to their influence or control. But leaders of otherdemocratic nations know that they may invite terrorist attacks themselves if theyblindly provide assistance to the United States and have no say in what isdone--especially if the actions lack a clear foundation in international law. AndMiddle East leaders fear the wrath of their people and terrorist attacks on theirown soil if they get behind us without the cover of a UN Security Councilresolution. We should use other existing international mechanisms in additionto the UN Security Council. One promising vehicle is the Community ofDemocracies, created with little fanfare at a meeting in Warsaw in June 2000. Atthat meeting, more than 100 ministers from countries on the path to democracyendorsed the Warsaw Declaration, a commitment that their governments will "resolve to strengthen cooperation to face the transnational challenges todemocracy, such as state-sponsored, cross-border and other forms of terrorism ...and to do so in accordance with respect for human rights of all persons and forthe norms of international law." Terrorism is a particular threat to democratic states. In light of this, theBush administration should call a meeting among the convening foreign ministersof the Community of Democracies--including Chile, the Czech Republic, India,Korea, Mali, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, and the United States--whenthe UN General Assembly holds its delayed opening session this fall. In fact, thetwo key leaders in the creation of the Community of Democracies, former Secretaryof State Madeleine Albright and former Polish Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremekhave urged the convening foreign ministers to build on the Warsaw Declaration.Following this meeting, it might be appropriate to call another--this time withall 110 countries that are part of the Community of Democracies--in order toadopt a specific action plan to complement the work of the United Nations. Security and Liberty If the challenge abroad is to create an effective coalition that builds onthe structures of the international community and relies on the rule of law, thechallenge at home is to fight terrorism without undermining the basic rights andliberties of all who live within our borders. This will not be easy, and theearly signs are not good. American history is full of sorry tales of our abandoning basic values intimes of war and crisis. In World War I, Congress passed the Alien and SeditionActs, which sought to curb public debate about the war. World War II saw the internment of Japanese Americans. The Cold War produced the Smith Act and othermanifestations of McCarthyism. Anti-Vietnam War protests and the civil-rightsmovement led to a host of intelligence-agency abuses, including the infamousCOINTELPRO (counterintelligence programs), under which the FBI manipulated anddiscredited lawful political activity. After the Oklahoma City bombing, Congressrushed to enact an antiterrorism statute that severely limited habeas corpusreview in the federal courts, provided for the use of secret evidence againstaliens who seek asylum, and prohibited aid to groups labeled terrorist by theU.S. government--with no hearings or opportunity for challenge. Not only do war and crisis bring inappropriate intrusions into our liberty,but we are agonizingly slow in making amends when the crisis passes. We have onlyrecently apologized to Japanese Americans for their internment in World War II.After the revelation of intelligence abuses in the 1970s, Congress debated forseveral years about legislation that would have placed limits on theinvestigative authority of the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies. Inthe end, no such legislation was enacted. U.S. intelligence agencies would like us to believe that Congress has imposedrestrictions on them that have in some way contributed to the failure to preventthe recent catastrophe. That is simply not the case. The only limits that existare in directives issued by the U.S. president or by the directors of the FBIand CIA. The assassination ban, for example, was first placed by President GeraldFord. The limits on CIA recruitment of human-rights violators are outlined in anorder by the agency's director. Both of these restrictions are subject tointerpretation or repeal within the executive branch, and neither was intended toapply to terrorists. The legislation that Congress has enacted deals with areasof privacy that are protected by the Fourth Amendment in which law-enforcementagencies need specific authority to gather information. I, among many others, have long warned that a serious terrorist incident inthe United States would panic Congress into passing anything that was labeledantiterrorist. Thus, it is no surprise to me that the unspeakable acts committedon September 11 have brought forth calls for sweeping legislation. Two days afterthe attacks, the Senate--without debate--passed amendments to the existingwiretap laws; and within a week, there was a bill circulating on Capitol Hill "tocombat terrorism and defend the Nation against terrorist acts, and for otherpurposes." The bill includes the wish list of law-enforcement and intelligenceagencies in areas as diverse as intelligence gathering, immigration, and criminaljustice. Some changes in legislation may well be justified in light of the terroristacts. But we need a full public explanation from the executive branch of whateach change means and why it is necessary. Then, we should take time to considerthe proposals and examine their consequences, with an eye toward balancing ourfreedoms with our security. Next, congressional committees should conduct fullpublic hearings with witnesses drawn not only from the government but fromuniversities, industry, and advocacy groups. The hearings would need to befollowed by public markups, committee reports, and full floor debate. Even with acomplete process, we may end up granting law-enforcement and intelligence agenciespowers that they do not need and that could be misused in the future; but atleast civil libertarians and others who care about our freedoms will have achance to argue for precision. September 11 will change our nation and our world in ways that we are only onthe verge of understanding, but that need not and must not change our commitmentto preserve our liberty as well as our security.
