Views from Abroad on the Response to Terrorism

The views of others with whom we might agree or disagree are worth hearing as the United States engages the world in the struggle against terrorism. Below are brief excerpts from two statements, one by ecumenical Christians in Canada and the other by Alan Storkey, chairman of the Movement for Christian Democracy in England. Both statements were released soon after the September 11 attacks and should not be read as reflecting circumstances at the end of 2001 or early in 2002. —Ed.

Canadian Council of Churches

From a letter sent to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien by leaders of the Canadian Council of Churches, and the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies

We understand the struggle against terrorism to involve two distinct, and operationally very different, objectives: accountability and prevention. Accountability requires that the perpetrators of terrorism be brought to justice, and prevention requires a two-fold effort to enhance security measures in the interests of reliable public protection and safety, and to address the social, political and economic conditions that promote or are conducive to terrorism.

With respect to accountability, the perpetrators of these heinous crimes must be brought to justice. This imperative is unambiguous and it is not rooted in revenge but in the principle of accountability. But the obligation to bring terrorists to justice is a broad obligation to bring to justice all those who commit terror and other crimes against humanity, regardless of where the victims are.

With regard to prevention, long-term international support for a sustained effort to reduce and prevent terrorism, will require an unambiguous commitment to cooperative interdependence. Canada, with its clear commitment to multilateralism, can help the United States understand the need for it to reengage with the world in support of collective security measures such as the International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive (nuclear) Test-Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and other similar measures.

We fear that the current mobilization of a broad spectrum of U.S. military force is likely to lead to a resort to military force well beyond police or police-support actions and, sadly, well beyond the limits of international and humanitarian law. Canada cannot be a party to such actions. All police action, including any military support for such action, must be lawful.

Alan Storkey in England

This war is wrong for at least thirteen reasons. Here are three of them.

Previously, terrorism has been seen as a crime. This keeps the event within the rule of law, focuses specifically on the criminal, and does not embroil states in conflict. Criminality involves legal processes. We have waited for Slobodan Milosevic to be apprehended and tried. Why could we not wait for bin Laden and the others? Moving to war changes the focus from the wrongs actually done to a trading of evils.

The declaration of a war against terrorism on the part of the United States is hypocritical. The U.S. supported terrorists in Afghanistan to overthrow the U.S.S.R.-backed regime to the tune of $2 billion. This included supplying a million rifles to the guerrillas. The U.S. funded much of the militarization of Afghanistan, including bin Laden's earlier involvement. This has helped generate the present crisis.

A third reason is that this is not a war for or against Islam, and religious wars should be a contradiction in terms. Sadly, the name of God has often been taken in vain for nationalist ends. Yet, at a more immediate level, a number of Islamic regimes and followers have been associated with terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism (though there are problems defining these) in the following areas: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, the Philippines and Indonesia. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the PLO and now Al Qaeda have a track record. We note that in Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland and other areas there have been similar Christian atrocities. Given this, the number of these Islamic terrorist groups and regimes is too long to be an accident. Further, there is a record of persecution. The murder of, say, a million southern Sudanese is the greatest unaddressed world atrocity. These realities, sometimes justified by the idea of an imposed Sharia, indicate an Islamic problem, which needs to be addressed by Islam and the West. The West will not face it, because we are locked into a self-interested model of guaranteeing oil and selling arms requiring we ignore the problem. It is time we washed the oil out of our eyes. Further, many Muslims in Pakistan, Palestine, and even England, do not acknowledge it as a problem. Within the war, the quest for allies requires us to pretend that it does not exist. The reality which has to be addressed is that terrorism and the cultural attitudes which encourage and support it are widespread. This war exacerbates the problem in ways which have already led to other deaths, like the murders of Christians in Pakistan.