Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States declared war on terrorism. When considering the many wars declared by US presidents in the last decades - from the war on poverty to the war on criminality -, it would be possible to gain the impression that this is a mere rhetorical gesture. But the »war on terror« has a completely new quality. »Domestic security,« as an integral part of national security, is increasingly defined in terms of foreign affairs or in military terms. While other Western states had always stressed that the fight against terrorism meant punishing criminal acts, the USA made it clear, after September 11 at the latest, that it was openly at war.

What are the advantages of bringing the word »war« into play? When the differences between enemy and criminal are removed, the limits imposed on a state nationally and internationally in its fight against terrorism can be cancelled. From the point of view of domestic politics, terrorists are seen as pathological, violent criminals who have forfeited any claim to basic rights. From the perspective of foreign affairs, they are presented as a warring party against which one exercises one's right to self-defence. The declaration of war is not there to grant the attackers the status of equal combatants, but is intended to completely rule out political solutions as an alternative option. The Islamic terrorist is the absolute enemy who negates what is »ours« in an existential way. President Bush: »These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. They hate our freedoms.« That is why, said a US presidential adviser, the American nation has to wage a »total war.« However, this language of total war goes against the West's declared intention of carrying out a clearly defined fight against selected groups. Instead, further targets for intervention and new enemies are continually being identified.

So far, the US administration has been right in its calculations: by linking »terrorism« and »war« it has succeeded to a very large extent in mobilizing the instruments of force. The international community has given its blessing to a military intervention, and on September 14 the US Congress passed a resolution extending the power of the President to a degree that has seldom been seen in American legal history.

[b]The prohibition of violence[/b]

Nothing could be more misleading than the notion that legal norms serve as a guideline for the way the US government manages its foreign affairs, especially when fundamental national interests are concerned. Interventions that contravene international law have a long tradition in the USA. Presidential doctrines have repeatedly sanctioned the use of military means for the benefit of the nation. As examples from the eighties alone, one only has to recall the continued interventions in Nicaragua, the invasion of Grenada and the attack on Panama.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the bi-polar world order, the one remaining super-power, the USA, has stressed its special status as regards the United Nations. In this connection, the declaration of US Senator Helm, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, before the UN Security Council in 2000 was quite clear: »No UN institution - not the Security Council, not the Yugoslav tribunal, not the future ICC - is competent to judge the foreign policy and national security decisions of the United States of America.« This attitude has become even more adamant since the September 11 attacks. For example, on July 12, 2002, the United States persuaded the Security Council to agree to give the nations that have not ratified the statute of the International Criminal Court - including the USA, Russia and China - a status of immunity before the tribunal. This means there is now a two-class system in international law. As a precaution, the Senate also passed the »Hague Invasion Act« as a part of the »American Servicemembers Protection Act« bill. This allows US citizens who have to answer to the International Criminal Court to be freed by force of arms if necessary.

For the USA, international law represents just one possible instrument among many others. For instance, following the September 11 attacks, the United States have formed a broad anti-terror coalition under the aegis of the Security Council. At the same time, however, they carry out independent military actions, occasionally calling in selected NATO partners to give assistance in one form or another. One strategic goal of the American war rhetoric is to bring about a change of paradigm in international law, where the prohibition of force would give way to the »right to wage war.« Using military means in specific cases is not an exclusive privilege of the world power USA. For example, there was the »self-mandated« bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO. German Foreign Minister Fischer stressed at the time that the UN Security Council was the »wrong institution for the power monopoly in the 21st century.« NATO Secretary-General Solana also announced that the alliance would use military force outside the allied bloc even without UN permission, if need be.

The UN Charter only mentions two exceptions allowing the use of force: on the one hand, the right to self-defence, and on the other, an authorization by the Security Council. The right to self-defence is provided for in the Charter under two conditions: an actual »armed attack on a state,« and the lack of a Security Council intervention. Self-defence must therefore be intended to fend off an attack, and has to directly follow such an attack. »Self-defence« that does not occur until several months after an attack thus comes under the category of acts of reprisal, which are not allowed in international law. »Preventive interventions« carried out before an attack that is merely anticipated are pure military aggression.

War rhetoric is helpful here, too. The idea of war implies something long-lasting, and the United States sees its self-defence as a war that began several years ago. It says that by carrying out reprisals for past attacks it is protecting itself against new aggression. The stress on the time factor is also shown in the current war scenario: the US administration itself says that it is considering military action against sixty countries. The war is to be waged until terrorism is beaten world-wide - and that could take years, or perhaps even decades. But if the condition of direct response has once been removed, the act of self-defence no longer has any time limits imposed on it. This legitimization of a permanent use of force of arms thus undermines one of the most clearly defined international prohibitions in UN law.

Moreover, in international law, self-defence is always directed at countries. But on September 11, it was not a state power that was at work: the Twin Towers were attacked by a »transnational terrorist network.« By presenting the attack as a »new sort of war,« it is possible to carry out a reinterpretation: away from self-defence against terrorists towards a self-defence against all the countries that are seen as disturbing the »Pax Americana« (i.e., the »Axis of Evil«).

American foreign policy pursues the idee that the welfare of the USA can only be guaranteed by protecting and promoting freedom, democracy and peace (as the USA sees them) abroad. Since its independence, the United States has considered itself as the »New Jerusalem, sent from Heaven.« For most Americans, it is no contradiction to place national foreign policies and security policies on a par with global politics of order. Indeed, they are convinced that the cause of their nation is the cause of humanity. It therefore seems to them completely nonsensical to distinguish between the ideals of the USA, which for them are universal, and its interests, which are particular.

Only a hegemonic power can afford to keep all options open, particularly as regards the alternative of law or politics. It is unimaginable that the big powers, and still less the imperial world power USA, would commit themselves to a codex of fixed norms and concepts that an external institution like the UN could use against them. Instead, they themselves are the ones to define, interpret and use. The »imperium of freedom« cannot be subject to moral or legal scrutiny, because it itself is morality and law.

[b]The new American military strategy[/b]

Every imperialism of course includes the right to intervene. The debate on a preventive strike on Iraq, which is being carried out without regard to the current code of international law, is symptomatic of this. The fact that there could be legal objections to an invasion plays no role in the public debate in America, and elsewhere as well. Only the advantages and disadvantages of military action are taken into account. As usual, the USA justifies a possible attack on Iraq as an act of preventive self-defence. But no one can claim that the country represents a concrete threat of war.

The threats against the Iraqi regime also constitute a new military strategy on the part of the USA. Early this year, at the National Defense University, American Defense Minister Rumsfeld outlined the changed options: »To prepare for the future, we also decided to move away from the old 'threat-based' strategy ... and adopt a new 'capabilities based' approach ... Our goal is not simply to ... win wars - it is to try to prevent them. ... to deter them (potential adversaries) not only from using existing weapons against us, but to dissuade them from building dangerous new capabilities in the first place.«

The USA is demanding no less than a global monopoly on force. Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, the then US administration began thinking about how it might be possible to prevent another power or another power bloc from becoming competition for it in the long run. September 11 happened to a government that planned to use the »war on terrorism« to bring benefit to the imperium as well. A number of problems could now be addressed that had little to do with the terrorist threat, but a lot to do with securing the USA's own supremacy. The global war declared on terrorism forced rival powers to accept an American expansion that they would have opposed under other circumstances. In this way, the USA was able to establish a military presence in regions that had previously belonged to Russia's sphere of influence.

The acts of terrorism carried out on September 11 have also revived the notion of a crusade. President Bush: »The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.« The code name »Infinite Justice« - the first official name given to the programme of war with which the US government reacted to the attacks - is no coincidence. It is taken from early Christian biblical exegesis, in which it was used as a synonym for God: »May You, who are infinite justice, never permit that we be disturbers of justice,« says a 7th-century prayer against heresy by St. Isidore. When Bush announced his campaign against terrorism, he also declared there would be an Armageddon. The word comes from the Revelation according to St. John, where the author writes about the end of the world that was soon to come, when, following the defeat of Satan and the Antichrist, the kingdom of God was to be brought to perfection. The Christian fundamentalists in the USA expect their resurrection as »the Just« after the »final battle« in Armageddon.

While the US administration knows it has God the Almighty on its side, American intellectuals have also dragged the idea of »just war« out of the ideological armoury. In an »open letter« signed by leading figures of the academic establishment - including Huntington, Fukuyama and Walzer - and published by the Institute for American Values, one finds the claim that just wars can be indispensable in protecting human dignity. Referring to the argumentation put forward by the Church Father Augustine, they even declare that the military defence of innocents is a moral duty. No nation besides the USA had founded its identity »so directly and explicitly on the basis of universal human values. . . . We fight to defend ourselves, but we also believe that we fight to defend those universal principles of human rights and human dignity that are the best hope for humankind.«

The warfare waged by the United States is presented as a mission for the freedom of humanity; the imperial intentions of the hegemonic power are denied. As Carl Schmitt says. »Anyone who says 'humanity' is out to deceive.«

[b]Humanitarian intervention[/b]

Conservative schools of thought in the USA also call on the American government to use its authority as a »New Rome« to fulfil its destiny as a »New Jerusalem.« They claim that some regions of the world are no longer in a position to be able to modernize themselves. The task of the United States and its allies is therefore to help these countries along with a sort of »well-meaning imperialism.«

Here in Germany, the ideology of benevolent supremacy can be found under the formula of »humanitarian intervention,« which was taken up by international law as a new principle after the second Gulf War. It is particularly former leftists and pacifists from the SPD or Greens who support this strategy. They base their attitude on a situational evaluation à la Hobbes: the southern hemisphere, particularly Africa, is at a stage where countries are falling apart, a process that has unleashed privatized and lawless violence. As in the Europe of the 17th century, a new »Leviathan« is needed, they say, to end this state of affairs. Because the collapsing nations no longer possess a national monopoly on force, a superior authority has to intervene. They claim that the priority of human rights necessitates more and more frequent military interventions with the help of a sort of »global police force.«

At this point, the attitude of the protest movements of '68 to the »Third World« should be brought to mind. For the New Left, a comprehensive concept of emancipation was only imaginable by taking developing nations into account. The working class at home was seen as being integrated, as it profited from the imperial system of exploitation itself. True knowledge of the »master-slave dialectic« seemed to have passed from the industrial proletariat to the »damned of this world« - the liberation movements from Vietnam to Angola. With Messianic hyperbole, Bahman Nirumand from the German Socialist Student Association said back then that the Third World would become the »first world of humanity and thus the end of the world before it.«

Despite the extravagance of such projections, the exploited and oppressed people on the peripheries were at least accorded a political status as subjects. Today, this has been completely reversed. The only place you are likely to find paternalistic, charitable attitudes is in the sphere of the church or the Greens. Marx's formula that no one can be »freed or emancipated from above« or by others has been largely forgotten. Instead, an attitude of supremacy predominates that is based on the conviction of the »unveiled dignity of the West« (»Spiegel« magazine), which it owes to its civilizational superiority. The »interventionists« are, for the most part, of the opinion that the NATO is the only possible instrument for achieving world peace. They claim that because the imposition of universal norms and legal concepts is what is at issue here, the difference between the military and the police also becomes blurred. At the same time, this »peace work« helps prevent the impending onslaught of the »have-nots« on that island of wealth, Europe.

Western human rights policies follow the selective dictates of political advantage: while migrants and refugees are denied the right to freedom of movement, interventions mostly take place where the metropolitan security or the »peace economy« of the OECD states seem threatened. In each case - whether »just war« or »humanitarian intervention« - the violence of war is banalized and elevated to the status of an ethical instrument at the same time.

[b]The enemy within[/b]

For some years now, it has been possible, in all Western nations, to observe the growing importance of »domestic security,« which is accompanied by a considerable erosion of civil rights and liberties. Under the impact of the September 11 attacks, a further series of laws and measures have been passed that annul fundamental principles of any state under the rule of law. For example, the way the United States is treating the imprisoned combatants at the Cuban military base of Guantanamo contravenes all legal norms. The US authorities look upon the captives neither as prisoners of war nor as detained criminals. They are considered »illegal combatants« who are completely at the mercy of the military authorities. Their existence in the camp has been reduced to the barest needs. The US administration is still »discussing« how to legally classify the prisoners and how to proceed with them. This indifference to the law is in complete contravention of the Geneva Convention, which provides for a number of legal guarantees even for members of irregular forces if they are taken prisoner. Representatives of the American government claim, however, that the terrorists are war criminals who cannot demand the same protection given to the accused in a criminal trial.

As far as domestic affairs are concerned, the war gives the American president the chance to proclaim the »national security state.« In setting up the »Department of Homeland Security,« the Bush administration has undertaken the biggest governmental reform in half a century. From the coastguard to the immigration authorities to the secret service: everything is to be merged into one huge authority. One of the most controversial provisions in the creation of the new department is the »Terrorism Information and Prevention System« (TIPS), for which the security services are at presently recruiting around a million Americans as informers. Postmen and postwomen, truck drivers, manual workers are to collect information about suspicious people and occurrences.

At the same time, by passing the »USA Patriot Act,« the Congress and the Senate have given up a part of their power. The principles of enlightened criminal proceedings are now subject to the constrictions of war: foreign nationals under suspicion remain in detention without being charged if the Minister of Justice sees »a danger to the security of the nation.« Anyone who is suspected of being a terrorist has forfeited nearly every claim to legal rights. Of the over 1200 people who were arrested in the USA after September 11, many are still being held in custody without knowing what charges have been made against them. Neither the detainees nor their families are allowed to inspect the records. The powerful American immigration authority is also allowed to keep foreign nationals behind bars even if a judge has ordered their release. The authority has only to maintain that it considers the suspect to constitute a security risk.

But the most extreme example is President Bush's order that terrorists are to be tried by summary military tribunals, and not civil courts. While the normal judiciary is responsible for US citizens with a terrorist background, foreign nationals will in future come before a sort of kangaroo court. These tribunals, which will be set up without any consultations with the Supreme Court, are authorized to issue warrants for the arrest of »terrorists« and »war criminals« on the basis of secret testimonies and evidence and then to try them; the executive alone decides who is to be considered a terrorist. The summary courts will meet behind closed doors and be able to pass death sentences with a simple majority decision. No appeal will be possible. The principle of separation of powers is fundamentally called into question, with the Supreme Court more or less losing its function as the highest arbitrary authority and the Congress agreeing to forfeit its own power. With this order, President Bush has given himself almost dictatorial authority. In the face of this disregard for all legal principles, it is possible to speak of a »parallel jurisdiction« that deprives particularly foreign nationals of their right to equal treatment.

Like all other European countries, Germany has also tightened its security measures following September 11, and extended the competencies of the relevant authorities. Above all, however, it has introduced a number of amendments affecting the status and activities of non-German citizens. This group of people is now more than ever exposed to the most intensive state surveillance. Among other things, the »association privilege« was abolished in the case of religious communities, and Sec. 129b was added to Sec. 129a of the German Criminal Code - a remnant from the time of the Rote-Armee-Fraktion - to allow foreign terrorist organizations to be prosecuted. The government decides who comes under these sections, and in doing so can act according to reasons of political advantage. Whether only Islamist organizations will be at the receiving end or whether supporting the Zapatistas will also be considered as worthy of prosecution remains to be seen.

Shortly after September 11 there was also a Germany-wide computer search to identify possible »sleepers.« Authorities, training institutions and places of employment were obliged to provide data on people from altogether 15 Arab countries. During this operation, the examining magistrates only had two guidelines: »presumably religious affiliations with Islam and presumably legal residency status in Germany.« The results of this massive data capture on foreign nationals will in the end probably be of interest to the [i]Verfassungsschutz[/i], but of little use as far as criminal prosecution is concerned.

As in the USA, the »Arab« is both the enemy within and the enemy without.

[b]The imperial world order[/b]

The attacks of September 11 have considerable accelerated the rate at which the new world order is being established. The current global balance of power is characterized by a three-level hierarchy: at the top is the superpower USA, which reserves for itself the right to employ force on a world-wide scale. Underneath it is a group of nation-states that, together with the United States - or sometimes in conflict with it - controls the important economic and financial institutions and tries to further its global security by means of military systems of alliance. Finally, there are the outlying districts of the imperium, which are divided up into intervention areas of various grades. Here, »peace« missions and »pacification« operations take place, depending on necessity and the political advantages to be obtained. Even if the West maintains that there is no »clash of civilizations,« the »war on terrorism« produces a further degradation of the »Third World.« It is not a war to defend universal humanitarian values, but to promote imperial security interests. ¹

 

Translated by Tim Jones

 

---