THE OPEN SOCIETY IMPLICATIONS OF A WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
A EurasiaNet Commentary

The September 11 attacks on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington presents as grave a threat to the concept of Open Society as those posed by Nazi Germany and Soviet Communism.

The scope and the nature of the terrorist strikes against American targets are certainly sufficient to justify a comprehensive military response by the United States. But in considering retaliation, the United States must think twice about how its actions will impact individual liberties at home, as well as the potential for civil society development in regions that stand to be affected by armed action, in particular Central Asia and the Caucasus.

There is a significant risk that the United States, in moving to avenge the assault against democratic values, could unintentionally fuel totalitarian trends in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The decisions of US planners should not provide repressive-minded regimes with carte blanche to impose a total clampdown on society – all under the guise of waging war against terrorism. Complicating matters for Central Asia is the fact that terrorism has widely been conflated with Islam.

The Islamic threat in Central Asia is embodied by radical groups, especially the Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which is waging an insurgent campaign to oust Uzbek President Islam Karimov. The IMU, in turn, reportedly has close ties to the Taliban, who control 90 percent of Afghanistan’s territory. Central Asian authorities, especially those in Uzbekistan, have utilized Islamic radicalism to justify an increasingly brutal crackdown on freedom of expression and worship. It has reached the point in Uzbekistan that any expression of Islamic beliefs not explicitly sanctioned by the state is regarded as a potential security threat by officials.

Many international observers, however, lay much of the blame for unrest on governmental malfeasance. Specifically, the failure of officials to address pressing economic development challenges is fueling discontent. The inability to express dissatisfaction in the political realm is likewise causing people to turn to radical Islam to vent their frustrations. Thus the action, or inaction, of local authorities is the prime factor in the region’s downward spiral towards instability.

As it goes about forging an anti-terrorism alliance, the United States will doubtless court the support of Central Asian states, given their strategic proximity to Afghanistan. In dealing with Central Asia, the United States should not lose sight of these root causes of existing discontent in the region.

If the sources of unrest in Central Asia continue to go unaddressed, a whole new set of security threats could arise. To avoid undesired consequences, the United States should take care to articulate that its goal of winning a war against terrorism does not imply support for authoritarian practices.

The United States has framed the fight against terrorism in moral terms -- as a struggle between good and evil. The country certainly has experience in waging such moral crusades, and Americans have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to persevere when the cause is considered just.

During the past 150 years, American democratic ideals have prevailed over those who advocated slavery, fascism and communism. However, the looming war against terrorism promises to be different from any previous moral war. Unlike the American Civil War, World War II and the Cold War, the enemy may not be so easy to identify. The enemy can’t be found on a well-defined territory. Indeed, the enemy can also be a neighbor.

In such a struggle, where the battle lines are vague, there is immense pressure to restrict individual rights. Remember, Abraham Lincoln authorized the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, allowing the Union government to imprison citizens indefinitely without due process.

Some measures may be necessary to enable the US government to enhance its domestic intelligence gathering capabilities. Officials may need to curtail some individual liberties for the sake of enhanced public security. But in considering such measures, the US government must proceed judiciously. Decisions should not be rooted in a spasm of knee-jerk reaction.

In the fight against terrorism, the principles of an Open Society should be viewed as a strength and not as a weakness. An Open Society helps foster the flexibility and initiative needed to overcome the challenges that will doubtless arise in the prosecution of anti-terrorism efforts.

For more than two centuries, the United States has often been looked up to by other nations hoping to emulate the democratic ideals enshrined in the US Constitution. This fact imposes an enormous burden on the US government. To achieve the twin objectives of defending democratic values and crushing the terrorist scourge, the United States must be concerned not just with the ends, but also with the means of waging a war against terrorists.

Email his article
Posted September 14, 2001 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, politcal and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.