Howard Zinn writes that the actions of September 11 were appalling, but the American people cannot let their emotions blind them from learning from this experience. These types of terrorist attacks have occurred in many countries, and Zinn argues that in cases like Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq, and now Afghanistan American military bombing have terrorized these respective populations. Although terrorism is certainly not justifiable by any means, there are important lessons to take from these sorts of actions. Only by broadening the definition of terrorism and creating a world where terrorism is staunchly opposed by both governments and populations alike will it stop. Zinn believes that their must be a response to terrorism, but the wrong mindset is that “you must do something- therefore, bomb.” Many believe that U.S. bombings in Afghanistan are not killing that many people and are only hitting strategic terrorist sites. These people are misinformed, and the American government and media do not give accurate reports on the destruction caused by these bombs. Violence is not the answer; it is simply the easiest and quickest action. However the American people must use their great abilities to overcome this rash mindset if they hope to prevent any further terrorist attacks.

Howard Zinn in his book reveals information that the government and the mainstream media do not report on. He elaborates on the fact that there is very little public information on Afghani civilians dying from American bombing. The American public must look past the front page of the New York Times to gain a more balanced perspective of the situation. Professor Marc Herold studied domestic and foreign press reports and found that the bombing campaign has killed more than 3700 civilians. On top of that one must understand that over one million people have been displaced because their homes have been destroyed by bombs. This has led to makeshift refugee camps and the Guardian reported that one camp near Heart called “the slaughterhouse is home to more than 3500 displaced afghans, of whom 100 die each day of exposure and starvation.” Do the attacks by an extremist group justify a full scale bombing on an entire population?

George Bush claimed that the terrorist groups responsible for the attacks have serious problems with American democracy and its personal liberties. However, Zinn says that before 1990 Osama Bin Laden was an ally with the United States and had no problem with American democracy. The turning point occurred in the early 1990s and it had to deal with American foreign policy. The United States placed troops in Saudi Arabia which received huge protests in the region because of the proximity of military presence to holy sites like Mecca and Medina. Also much of the Arab population, not just the terrorists, were vehemently opposed to the Iraq war and the debilitating sanctions imposed on the country. Finally, the U.S. arming of Israel had created a detrimental backlash on reviving the American image in the Middle East. Zinn, although a bit optimistic, simply states that by removing American troops from Saudi Arabia, lifting the sanctions on Iraq, and limiting military support for Israel would transform America’s world image and seriously reduce hostility in the region.

Terrorism and War consists of a series of interviews between Howard Zinn and his editor Anthony Arnove. Unlike his other works like A People’s History of the United States where he weaves a plethora of primary documents into his historical narrative, in the emotional period preceding 911 Zinn mainly relies on his own personal beliefs to convey his message. Due to his own personal experiences fighting in World War II Zinn became disillusioned with the concept of war. Even a so called “just war” contains an internal contradiction because modern warfare capabilities kill large amounts of civilians. Specifically from World War II onward, an emphasis emerges on air bombings of major cities. Zinn says, “War is now largely a war against people who are not combatants.” Thus he argues that the means certainly outweigh the ends. The challenge of today is how to deal with evil, tyranny, and oppression without killing huge amounts of people. Zinn’s response entails the weakest part of his argument. He mentions resistance without war and how popular mobilization can resist and end a war that a government supports. However this is precisely where Zinn needs to supplement his personal philosophy with a concrete argument to convince his readers that bringing war on Afghanistan will not succeed in ending terrorism.

Zinn does cite historical examples to show how America’s typical response to terrorism, bombing countries, does not defeat terrorism and even may be counterproductive due its own terrorization of the population The United States must forgo a serious effort to remake its image in the Middle East. Naval vessels and military bases deployed throughout the entire region do not show America’s tradition of freedom to the world but rather its hostility. After the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. Howard Zinn cites Noam Chomsky: “Clinton said that he had bombed a facility in Sudan that produced nerve gas. It turned out to be a plant that produced medicines for half the population of Sudan.” These bombings certainly did not end terrorism and might have even provoked the terrorist attacks of 911. Zinn believes the United States should forgo its superpower status and become a more modest nation. By drastically reducing the exorbitant defense budget, America can reduce, in the eyes of many citizens of the world, its military monolith, and spend that money on social issues like AIDS. Zinn cites the Financial Times: “The U.S. government spends only 0.1 percent of its national income on foreign aid.” U.S. security depends on the health and well being of people around the world and by funding humanitarian issues, instead of continuing present military expenditures, will make the United States a much safer country in the long run.

Anyone who wants to expand their vision of International Relations should read Howard Zinn’s Terrorism and War. Zinn provides an alternative approach to look at the events of 911 by pushing past the crippling emotional effects and actually trying to understand them in a historical context. Zinn took a courageous action by revealing his own thoughts because in this time of duress he ran the risk of being considered “anti- American.” Zinn advises that the public, especially in abnormal times, must not just blindly follow the government and constantly question the decisions being made. However like all extremes this book should also not be blindly followed. Rather this book should be one of many read on the current war. It would be too easy to take Zinn’s arguments and run with them all across the board; the key to remember is balance.

By the late 1980s, as the Cold War came to a close, South Africa’s external threats began to diminish. The Soviet Union scaled down its aid to countries in Southern Africa and withdrew its military support. Internally, the South African government received great pressure for democratic reform. Unlike Botha, his predecessor F.W. de Klerk understood that the Afrikaner Nationalist Party must relinquish its monopoly on power. He started to dismantle the apparatuses of apartheid by negotiating with the African National Congress and released Nelson Mandela from jail. Given the future prospect of power sharing with the ANC, de Klerk did not want the nuclear weapons program to pass into their hands. There was great fear by the white minority over the ANC controlling nuclear weapons, especially with its close ties to Libya, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and Iran. "There was a feeling that you could not leave the new black government with the bomb or much information about it, especially since the ANC had alliances with communist countries like Cuba," said Leslie Gumbi, director for disarmament and nonproliferation at South Africa's Department of Foreign Affairs.

By the late 1980s, economic sanctions placed on South Africa because of its apartheid policy and its refusal to sign the NPT began to have significant effects. These sanctions were a major hindrance to economic expansion. Due to the Soviet Union removing its military support, most of South Africa’s regional threats had diminished. A 40 percent rollback of overall South African military expenditure between 1989 and 1993 reflected this sea change in threat perception. Their possession of nuclear weapons had become a growing liability. De Klerk said in private, “It was already evident that it was in the national interest of South Africa to totally reverse its nuclear weapons policy and destroy its nuclear arsenal.” Growing suspicions over South Africa’s nuclear program were keeping the country from reemerging on the International scene. President De Klerk finalized the unprecedented decision to dismantle the six nuclear bombs in a safe and secure fashion.

All of the design information of the nuclear bomb was destroyed and the test shafts were sealed shut. A timetable was set to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; as a precursor to signing the treaty, South Africa allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to tour weapon-production sites and worked with them to create a framework for future onsite inspections. By the time de Klerk publicly admitted to South Africa’s nuclear weapons program in a speech to Parliament in 1993, “the government had already unilaterally dismantled six nuclear bombs and the components for a seventh bomb, destroyed much of the documentation associated with nuclear-weapons programs, and shut down or converted a number of research laboratories and storage and test facilities.”

After South Africa dismantled its nuclear weapons program, its relationship with the West improved drastically. The post-Apartheid government led by Nelson Mandela promoted nuclear disarmament and played a leading role in the negotiations to implement the NPT. South Africa signed the treaty of Pelindaba in 1996 which established a nuclear-free Africa. The new government strengthened democratic institutions and advocated a more transparent, efficacious approach to governance. South Africa’s unique resolution to simultaneously end apartheid and dismantle its nuclear program opened the door to new diplomatic and economic opportunities and transformed the country from a nuclear pariah to a proactive participant in international affairs.

The South African nuclear case, although unique due to the implications of apartheid, can still offer several policy lessons on understanding why countries decide to go nuclear. Although it was created to encourage the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the U.S. Swords into Plowshares program caused “longer-term unintended proliferation risks by spreading the expertise and materials need to build weapons of mass destruction.” Insight and discussion on how to handle growing proliferation problems without restricting the free flow of scientific advancements in nuclear energy are a major security challenge for policymakers today. The major international players tend to overlook that implementing harsh sanctions and isolating a supposed renegade country may actually accelerate its indigenous nuclear program. Peter Liberman, a disarmament analyst, notes, “International ostracism of South Africa because of its policy of apartheid certainly exacerbated its insecurity, and isolated states are often prime candidates for nuclear acquisition.” The sanctions imposed by the United Nations and also by the United States against Iran may actually backfire and initiate or even speed up Iran’s own nuclear weapon’s program.

The example South Africa set for Iran should reveal to the conservative regime that its security and economy would benefit by allowing IAEA inspectors into its nuclear facilities and halting any of its nuclear weapons program. The case is even more extreme because Iran is arguably one of the greatest potential threats to the United States in both the short-and the long-term future. Iran’s influence over the Middle East, specifically the Persian Gulf, is due to “its rich oil supply and its strong pro-Islamic and nationalist rhetoric.” Iran is believed to be a state sponsor of terrorism. The Iranian leadership has also issued aggressive statements against the United States and called for the destruction of Israel. Due to these extreme security concerns, the United States, NATO, and Israel will not allow a nuclear armed Iran. There could be a global initiative to provide the IAEA with a permanent source of funds and an effective information network. This general consensus would strengthen the IAEA and provide a broader array of information to monitor Iran in case of a real risk of nuclear danger. Ambassador Gregory Schulte wrote, “The IAEA is the world’s nuclear watchdog, not the world’s nuclear negotiator. Negotiators hedge; watchdogs bark.” An IAEA with more authority would be able to play an even larger role in Iran’s nuclear ambitions then it did in South Africa. There is no downside to this prospect because if Iran allows IAEA inspectors into its country, like it has in the past, the IAEA would be prepared for this decisive moment, and the agency would be able to provide greater understanding of Iranian motives while the world led by the United States pursued either a diplomatic or military solution. Although the United States imposed harsh sanctions on South Africa, President Reagan implemented a “constructive engagement” policy to insulate the region against Soviet influence. The administration became aware that after the United States isolated South Africa, this merely spurred the country to develop its own capabilities, and President Reagan attempted to ease nuclear restrictions by offering technical and maintenance aid. With another country in South Asia, in 1975, the U.S. Pressler Amendment actually accelerated Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions. Under this amendment, the United States attempted to deter Pakistan by providing aid and military equipment only under the condition that they did not possess a nuclear device; Pakistan became disillusioned with the United States by this potential loss of sovereignty and developed nuclear weapons. The Obama administration must learn from these two previous cases and handle the current Iranian situation with a carrot and stick approach. For example, a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities might actually strengthen the unpopular regime, accelerate its nuclear program, and bolster Iranian nationalism. President Obama could enforce a rollback strategy that would “reduce Iranian motivations for retaining its nuclear program along with coercive measures to inflict sufficient punishment.” A more conciliatory approach would be for the normalization of relations with the Iranian government and provide incentives like loans and civilian nuclear technology. The Washington Post “supports a triple-track strategy that involves the simultaneous pursuit of diplomacy; sanctions; and visible, credible military readiness activity.” This is an effective approach; if engagement or economic sanctions do not compel the Iranian government to forgo their nuclear activities, the United States would be prepared to initiate a focused attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

By studying the South African case, one learns that a change in government can completely modify a country’s nuclear weapons program. In 1986, P.W. Botha, known as the architect of the South African nuclear program, ratified the decision to produce six nuclear weapons to stabilize an insecure government facing domestic and external threats. When F.W. de Klerk was elected, one of his first policies was to review the bomb program. By 1990, he “issued internal orders to terminate the nuclear program and dismantle all existing weapons.” In Iran’s case, the present government has been undermined because of fraudulent elections and even Grand Ayatollah Khameni’s immaculate image has been tarnished. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s refusal to step down in the face of huge protests parallels the Afrikaner Nationalist Party’s growing paranoia and their imposition of harsher crackdowns on the population. One Iranian analyst notes, “The regime is aware it has lost its credibility in the eyes of many Iranians, and now its survival is the only important issue.” Although security has always been important to the Iranian government, the June 2009 election crisis has greatly heightened the regime’s insecurity. Due to the unrest in Iran, the population could mobilize and implement a regime change. Mir Hossein Mousavi, an opposition leader, promised “a return to détente and argued that Iran would need to gain the trust of the international community over its nuclear program.” Mohsen Rezaei, another potential presidential candidate, proposed the establishment of a multinational uranium enrichment facility. Although no one in the Iranian elite publicly declare to halt Iran’s nuclear program, the opposition is more willing to normalize relations with the international community and open facilities up to IAEA inspectors; they understand this would alleviate Iran’s vast socioeconomic problems.

South Africa held onto its nuclear weapons in the face of fierce international pressure that consisted of sanctions and a full military embargo. The government’s determination to hold onto its nuclear weapons under all costs reveals that it is extremely difficult to force a country to give up. In today’s case with Iran, the South African example teaches present diplomats that they must remain flexible and always apply pressure to the Iranian government; however, policymakers must understand that a nuclear-armed Iran plays a far larger threat due to reasons previously elaborated on. Also, it is important to focus on Iran’s perceived threats because until they are lowered the Iranian government will continue to desire nuclear weapons. Besides its ability to deter opponents, the Iranian leadership believes a nuclear weapon would give them the prestige to bargain for more favorable relations with the major international players. However, the Iranian elite must be persuaded that this approach is counterproductive toward their long-term goal to rejoin the world community and benefit from the international system. The United States needs to convince the regime that if Iran follows South Africa and becomes more transparent, allows IAEA inspectors, and gives up any clandestine nuclear operations, diplomatic and economic opportunities would open up to them. A noteworthy point for the Iranian government: South Africa’s security and stability actually increased as a result of dismantling its nuclear bombs.

The Afrikaner Nationalist Party of South Africa felt betrayed by the West; an impetus to accelerate its nuclear program. The Iranian elite criticize “Western double standards” that “permit India, Pakistan, and Israel to have nuclear programs.” Iranian leaders think in such a dangerous region Iran also needs a nuclear weapon. Their “Shi’ite history reinforces this deep sense of victimization.” Just like the leaders of South Africa, the Iranian government view the development of a nuclear weapon will force the Western countries to “recognize the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy as an independent actor and as their equal.” However, the Iranian people cannot be mislead by this nationalistic plea; they must be convinced that nuclear technology will not improve the lives of the Iranian people. Bahman Baktiari, an Iranian analyst, says that nuclear technology “cannot create jobs in a country that needs one million new jobs annually; it cannot change the chronic low efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness of the economy and management.” Thus, the Iranian leadership, and not the people, must be coerced to stop clandestine activities. Selective sanctions would be much more effective in targeting specific Iranians profiting from the nuclear program and there would be less of a public backlash against the West.

Iran is quickly becoming a pariah and blatantly taking the road toward greater insecurity and isolation, but there is still time and hope for Iran to rollback its nuclear aspirations. South Africa is the only country that destroyed its nuclear weapons, signed the NPT and allowed IAEA inspections, and then became an integral actor in promoting a non-nuclear world. Their dismantlement of the nuclear weapon’s program came at a time when their threats diminished due to the end of the Cold War and the end of its apartheid government. With the Iranian president Ahmadinejad determined to wipe Israel off the map, a nuclear Iran poses a direct threat to the balance of power in the region and even beyond. The United States, the United Nations, and soon the European Union have implemented strong sanctions against the regime, but the South African case reveals that isolating Iran may actually start or accelerate its nuclear weapons program. For example, sanctions imposed on South Africa forced the regime to develop an indigenous uranium enrichment facility. Thus, policymakers need an innovative approach like “targeted sanctions.” Overall, the key is to be flexible and constantly put pressure on the government. Iran must be convinced that its security and stability would be strengthened if it follows South Africa’s path by forgoing its quest for nuclear weapons and becoming a proactive member of the International system. Finally, the IAEA must be strengthened with permanent resources and a stronger authority to be prepared in case Iran allows inspections on their nuclear facilities and also to prevent any further nuclear proliferation

Iran calls for a non-nuclear Middle East- an obvious slight to Israel’s alleged nuclear program. However this piece of propaganda actually raises large questions about the future world order. Will the world ever be free of nuclear weapons? Should the United States take the lead in completely dismantling its own nuclear stock? The most powerful group in the United Nations, the Security Council, consists of five members that all have nuclear weapons. This sends the mixed signal to other countries on the periphery that if they want to have power in the world system then they too need a nuclear bomb. Although idealistic, if the major powers destroyed their own nuclear arsenals, would this decrease the desire for nuclear proliferation? These long-term questions must be intertwined in dealing with the present dangers of Iran to ensure world security.

However, there have been instances in the past when promises have been made and not met. An example of such false promises occurred in 2003 when the Iranian government was promised $1.1 billion because of the destructive earthquake but only received 17.5 million. Moreover, Mozambique received half of the $400 million it was promised and Honduras and Nicaragua have had a similar fate only receiving a third of the $9 billion they were promised. In analyzing the contributions of various Western governments, one reason being given for the unprecedented amounts of aid are that citizens of Western governments were directly affected by the disaster. Therefore, if the disaster would have occurred directly in Africa, one would wonder if the amount of aid given would have been the same. As seen from historical evidence, Westerners have not been as generous when their interests are not directly affected.

Furthermore, Western countries have continuously remained under the UN's development aid contribution target of 0.7 percent of national GDP. Only five countries, which are Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Luxembourg, have met the 0.7% target for development aid. The US gives just 0.10 percent, alongside the UK at 0.31%, Japan at 0.27%, Canada at 0.25%, Australia at 0.27%, and New Zealand at 0.26%.

As the living standards between the North and South have continually developed to disproportionate levels, poverty has become one of the biggest issues facing the international community. Increased public pressure by civil society on governments to meet UN contribution targets is absolutely essential. Currently, there are more than a billion people worldwide who live on less than a $1 a day. Thus, there is an increasing need to recognize that civil society has the ability to make a real difference.

The tsunami crisis has demonstrated that individuals can collectively pressure governments to increase development aid. In the weeks following the tsunami, Western governments were playing catch-up, increasing initial pledges to match the donations being made by civil society. The elimination or reduction of world poverty will positively affect global stability and peace therefore; it is in our collective interest to give to the world's poor. There can be some optimism found within the UN where 191 countries have pledged to meet certain development goals; reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day and reducing by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. Time will only tell but one early lesson from the tsunami crisis is that each individual has an ability to make a real difference.

All information for this article was taken from the United Nations website, which can be found at www.un.org.

This controversial question posed by Kofi Annan has no straightforward answers, as the international order is a complex mix of actors. However, with the increasing interdependence and inter-connectedness that has been the product of globalization; we are truly becoming a world community. There has and continues to be efforts to bring forth a cosmopolitan view of international conflict management. This essay will focus on one of those initiatives, which is the responsibility to protect(R2P).

The Problem and Rationale for the Approach

All too often, the world has experience massive atrocities, where civilian populations are effected by internal strife. The increasing trend towards internal conflicts means that the world community needs a proper approach to confront these situations. One of the dire consequences of conflict situations is that they often lead to internally displaced persons and women and children can be directly targeted. Humanitarian intervention aims at alleviating these problems, which are so deeply connected with war situations. The effects of war are never positive, therefore, we must avoid the situation that occurred in Rwanda, where international inaction left large numbers of innocent civilians dead. Humanitarian intervention is extremely controversial because the entire international system is built on state sovereignty and the norm of intervention enshrined in Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter. Therefore, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty argues that the expressions ‘humanitarian intervention’ or ‘right to intervene’ do not bring forth positive debate; thus, the expression ‘responsibility to protect’. Essentially, R2P builds on the view that we have a collective obligation to ensure that innocent civilians are not hurt by the scourges of war. In its report, the ICISS outlines its central theme that “sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.? R2P implies a moral obligation on the international community to confront genocide and gross violations of human rights.
Accordingly, R2P centers on two basic principles, consistent with the notion of sovereignty as responsibility, both internally and externally. Firstly, the report says that “state sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility of the protection of its peoples lies with the state itself.? Secondly, that “where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression, or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.? Thus, the importance of ensuring security to innocent civilians remains with the state; however, the international community has an obligation to intervene when states cannot protect their citizens.
The proposed conditions for intervention are explicit and concise. There are two situations identified by R2P as constituting serious irrevocable danger: “Either large scale loss of life due to deliberate state action, inaction or inability to act, or large scale ‘ethnic cleansing’ carried out not only by killing, but forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.? The criteria for military intervention is based right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means, and reasonable prospects. Thus, the rationale of R2P revolves around strict rules concerning intervention and the report is quick to make note that military intervention should only be a last resort. Notably, this was done to ensure concrete criteria, which avoids a situation where half the world could be claiming justifiable intervention. Furthermore, R2P entails not just a responsibility to protect and react but a responsibility to prevent, addressing both root causes and direct causes of internal crises and the responsibility to rebuild. R2P sets appropriate guidelines for responding to gross violations of human rights and genocide because it focuses on all aspects of conflict situations. It is an integrated approach, focused on creating peace in situations where the state in question lacks an ability to ameliorate the conflict. Moreover, R2P is consistent with the trend of globalization, recognizing that in an inter-dependent world; we are all responsible for each other.

Current Status

Although R2P has not been formally adopted, it is increasingly taking the form of a normative force. However, 9/11 and the recent war in Iraq have meant that this emerging international norm of real potential has been struggling for acceptance.
R2P has been endorsed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, however, he has argued that the situations that occurring in Darfur, Côte d’Ivoire, Afghanistan, Northern Caucasus, and Uganda are in need of immediate attention. Thus, these situations exemplify inaction where an appropriate response could be made by the international community, consistent with R2P principles.
There has been an increasing body of human rights law, devoted to recognizing the rights of civilian populations. The four Geneva Conventions and two additional protocols, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Genocide Convention and International Criminal Court exemplify growing bodies of international law in accordance with R2P. Indeed, “the ICC will mean there is new jurisdiction over a wide range of established crimes against humanity and war crimes.? Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.? Therefore, it is likely that the principles of R2P will grow with time and increased awareness of its initiatives will be absolutely essential. The growing body of international humanitarian law is a testament to the increasing normative strength being given to human rights.

Actual and/or Potential Application in the short-mid and long term

In terms of application, Chapter VII of the UN Charter fully “empowers the Security Council to take any coercive action at all, including military action, that it deems necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.? Thus, Chapter VII gives the Security Council discretionary powers to intervene into any states’ affairs, when there is approval. The UN is already using Chapter VII authorization to conduct robust operations, which include the protection of civilians. Therefore, in terms of actual application, the use of Chapter VII gives the Security Council a right to intervene if there is evidence of gross violations of human rights or genocide or a threat to international peace and security.
Another positive step forward in applying R2P would be for all member states to adopt the principles contained in the ICISS report. The commission recommended that the General Assembly adopt the idea of sovereignty as responsibility; the responsibility to prevent, to react, to rebuild; the definition of the threshold; and the precautionary principles of military force. Furthermore, the commission recommended that the Security Council “should consider and seek to reach agreement on a set of guidelines, embracing principles for military intervention.? These steps would be welcomed in terms of making R2P formally applicable and would continue to assist the normative development of this initiative. However, broad consensus would be needed, therefore, this brings question to whether there is enough political will to adopt such principles.
As R2P entails a responsibility to prevent, a long term goal would be to build national infrastructures, which are the first step in prevention gross violations of human rights. As Kofi Annan stated in his report entitled the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict situations, “the main role is not to build international substitutes for national structures, but to help build domestic justice capacities.? Therefore, a critical step in preventing genocide and gross violations of human rights is to continue to fund and help build national legal institutions because they are the first actor in the responsibility to protect civilians. Moreover, foreign aid by developed countries would be consistent with the responsibility to prevent, as this money could be used to assist developing countries in establishing an effective system based on the rule of law. Therefore, building indigenous capacities and peaceable interactions in states prone to conflict is vital to the long term application of the responsibility to prevent. Addressing structural inequalities is absolutely essential in the responsibility to protect because the ultimate responsibility lies first and foremost within the state before it is passed on to the broader international community. If states vulnerable to conflict have an appropriate system of law, they will be able to solve conflict situations domestically. This situation would be more preferable than international intervention because intervention should always be a last resort.

Relation to other approaches

As R2P entails a responsibility on the international community to prevent gross violations, an innovative approach has been the possibilities of a rapid deployable UN force, able to respond when there is evident of human rights abuses. As H. Peter Langille argues, “there is a broad appeal for such a multidimensional UN Emergency Service – a UN ‘911’ composed of military, police and civilian volunteers – which would correspond to the diverse operational requirement of contemporary as well as future UN peace operations.? Thus, this approach could complement R2P at the operational level when international intervention has been accepted as an appropriate response. This force would serve a rapid and robust function in responding to threats to peace, including genocide and violations of human rights. According to Langille, a UN Rapid Deployment Force would attempt to “address the time gap, the training gap, and the political will gap that so often plagues effective responses to human rights violations.? Moreover, this service will have the capability of achieving wider international support because it reflects a global response to a global problem, consisted with the premise of collective security. The UN emergency service “would be a complementary, parallel development to existing arrangements and multinational contingents.? Thus, “this service would provide a UN presence in the crisis area immediately after the Security Council has decided that it should be involved and would stem any escalation or spread of violence.?
Another approach is that of regional organizations that can also respond to gross violations of human rights or complement the UN in aspects of intervention. Regional organizations have had an important role in relation to Chapter VII enforcement operations. These organizations have the ability to react quicker because political will can be mobilized faster. Moreover, regional organization have long been involved in peace support operations and related activities and “gained in stature as the P-5 struggled to resolve the dilemmas of defining state interests in a world where the global institution was threatening to assume an ever larger operational role.? These organizations can have many advantages because they possess better knowledge of local situations and avoid the political stagnation that can be present in the Security Council where resolutions can be passed, but followed by a limited capability to implement them. One recommendation of the Brahimi Report was the strengthening of cooperation between the UN and regional organizations. Thus, regional organizations can fulfill an important role in the responsibility to react where there is sufficient political backing for such a situation.
However, a major consequence of this approach is that regional organizations tend to lack an impartial nature which is so essential to humanitarian intervention situations. The two major arguments against regionalization are that these organizations are ineffective and have been used to advance the interest of the regional superpower and that they operate contrary to the universalistic nature of the UN. Therefore, there are major constraints involved with regional organizations in humanitarian intervention situations.

Optimal application

Optimal application should entail two essential elements: Legal and legitimate. In relation to legal application, all intervention should be consistent with present International Law principles. Any force that is carrying out a mission should be absolutely certain that the missions abide by current International Humanitarian Law principles. As the ICISS report highlights, “the ROEs for a military intervention must reflect a stringent observance of international law, and international humanitarian law in particular. Moreover, all interventions should reflect an impartial nature as this implies “an even-handed application of mission mandates and international law.
Furthermore, the legitimacy of all intervention is crucial; therefore, there should be broad international support for the operation. Legitimacy would entail resolutions authorized by the Security Council because of its impartial nature and being a voice for the international community. As Gareth Evans suggests, “the effectiveness of any collective security system, as with any other legal order, depends ultimately not only on the legality of decisions, but the common perception of their legitimacy – their being made on solid evidentiary grounds, for the right reasons, morally as well as legally.? As Garth Evans notes, “legitimacy breeds legality,? therefore, at a minimum, there should be legitimacy. However, all interventions that do not possess either of these elements are not desirable because they run the risk of perpetuating the violence as opposed to stopping or preventing it.

Recent efforts to improve national and international responses

A critical effort has come from Secretary General Kofi Annan in his five point action plan to prevent genocide. The five point plan includes preventing armed conflict, protection of civilians in armed conflict, ending impunity through judicial action, information gathering and early warning through a UN Special advisor for Genocide Prevention and swift and decisive action. This is a positive response, involving the whole UN system in developing the capacities to prevent, react, and rebuild. The appointment of a new Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide would bring greater expertise to identifying possible genocides as the Advisor will serve three functions: to work closely with the High Commissioner to collect information on potential or existing situations or threats of genocide; to act as an early warning mechanism to the Security Council and other parts of the UN system; and finally, to make recommendations to the Secretary General on action to be taken to prevent or halt genocide. Annan recognized the work of the ICISS and praised R2P for its clear and concise guidelines in responding to genocide.
Furthermore, an important national response has been the continuous effort of the Canadian government to promote R2P principles. The Canadian government sponsored the ICISS commission, which did the groundbreaking work on R2P principles. Furthermore, the WFMC meeting, held in Montreal last May 2004, generated enormous discussion of how to properly implement R2P principles. Thus, the Canadian government should continue to work in promoting the normative framework of R2P.

Pertinent contributions of academics, NGOs, IGOs, and member states

The contributions of these actors are absolutely critical as they serve a fact finding mechanism and can draw attention to states not abiding by human rights principles. The ICISS report recognizes that “international NGOs have been significant advocates of cross-border human protection action, extending in some cases to military intervention, and their positive influence in stirring response – especially in the West – has been great.? Moreover, “NGOs have a crucial and ever increasing role, in turn, in contributing information, arguments and energy to influencing the decision-making process, addressing themselves both directly to policy makers and indirectly to those who in turn, influence them? Therefore, NGOs have a pertinent role to play in helping to identify conflict prone situations and in drawing support for legitimate intervention.
Moreover, civil society has a major role to play in enhancing the normative development of R2P. A major civil society conference on conflict prevention is being planned for 2005, preceded by preparatory conferences in every region. As the ICISS Report highlights, the media can make contribution as “there is no question that good reporting, well-argued opinion pieces and in particular real time transmission of images of suffering do generate both domestic and international pressure to act.?
Another important contribution has come from the UN A More Secure World Report, where it recommended that “all combatants should sign, ratify, and act on all treaties relating to the protection of civilians, such as the Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statue of the ICC and all refugee conventions.? This action could create the tipping point needed to get the responsibility to protect principles firmly established. Moreover, the Secretary General’s recent In Larger Freedom Report affirmed that “the notion of larger freedom encapsulates the idea that development, security and human rights go hand in hand.? Therefore, major contributions are being made that are embracing the idea that human rights are deeply connected with structural issues, affective our collective security.

Proposed priority changes and modernization plans

Priority changes and modernization plans concerning humanitarian intervention are important because the current international order has often fallen short in responding to gross violations of human rights. One of the critical issues concerns reforming the Security Council to make it more representative of the present international situation. Mohammed Ayoob notes that “if the Security Council must continue to be the locus of decisions for humanitarian intervention, its membership should be expanded and made geographically equitable.? A more representative Security Council would likely counter some of the influence possessed by the P-5 to dictate approval for intervention. Indeed, Ayoob suggests that the P-5’s veto power “must be made inoperative for humanitarian purposes. Another more feasible way of modernizing the veto vote would be for the P-5 to follow a code of conduct, where “in matters where its vital national interest were not claimed to be involved, they would not use a veto to obstruct the passage of what would otherwise be a majority resolution.? These suggestions are valuable initiatives that could modernize the Security Council to make it more effective in responding to gross violations of human rights.
Another priority change has come from the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change with a modernizing of the interpretation of collective security. The panel recognized a much broader scope for collective security in addressing the world’s major problems. It highlights the need to protect civilians and the major weaknesses of the international community in responding to genocide and gross violations of human rights. The panel interpretation of collective security elaborates on six clusters of threats, which include “genocide and other large scale atrocities?. Thus, the principles of R2P were affirmed as the panel recognized “the obligation of the state to protect the welfare of its own peoples and meet its obligations to the wider international community.? This priority change for the UN is an important step for implementing the responsibility to protect. It is in our collective interest to protect and prevent situations where civilians cannot protect themselves from torture, rape, or other hideous crimes.

Anticipated impediments

As Kofi Annan stated in his speech commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda disaster, “we must not be held back by legalistic arguments about whether a particular atrocity meets the definition of genocide or not.? However, this situation is likely to continue as governments often spend too much debating whether there is an actual genocide.
Mobilizing consistent political will towards implementing the R2P principles will be a likely impediment. Indeed, Lloyd Axworthy, a former Foreign Minister of Canada, has stressed that the concept would never be realized without the necessary political will. However, the realist logic of international relations remains at the forefront as states are extremely skeptical of hidden agendas in the intervention debate because most interventions have been highly selective and inconsistent. Why Kosovo but not Rwanda? Why northern Iraq but not Turkey? Why Somalia and not Sudan? The realist argument is that “attempts to promote justice beyond borders undermine interstate order and increase the likelihood of interstate war.? Furthermore, the current situation occurring in the Dafur region of the Sudan has seen endless debate about whether it fits the definition of genocide. A UN commission has reported that there are violations of humanitarian law occurring in the Sudan; therefore, consistent action is needed. Indeed, civil society has a role to play to mobilizing government to react to such situations; however, progress has been slow as often national self-interest can over-ride humanitarian principles.
Another impediment concerns state sovereignty because the enforcement of human rights largely still rests on this notion. Indeed, the existing norm of state sovereignty will limit the likely application of R2P. As David Barash argues, “the major problem with international law and enforcement is that state sovereignty continues to reign.? Moreover, the principles of state sovereignty and nonintervention are the mainstay of legal theory and diplomatic practice. The concern amongst weaker states that stronger states could take advantage of intervention and freely intervene into their affairs without proper regard remains a critical issue. Thus, sovereignty is seen as a critical element in protecting state ability to guide its own actions, which will impede some UN members from adopting R2P.
Moreover, it is not likely that the Security Council will be restructured; therefore, the right of a veto power to the P-5 will continue to constrain efforts to implement the responsibility to protect. However, the importance of having international treaties on human rights is that they assist in developing norms for state conduct. Therefore, for effective application of R2P, the development will have to continue and eventually, we could see the normative acceptance of the principle of sovereignty as responsibility.

Concluding Remarks

Thus far, positive steps are being made to develop the R2P initiative and it certainly has the potential to be an effective response to genocide and gross violations of human rights. Furthermore, R2P is an appropriate response to the prevention, the management, and/or the transformation of violent conflict. It is in our collective interest to prevent, react and rebuild as we try to build a lasting peace. Violent situations are difficult to avert or overcome. However, the principles of the responsibility to protect bring new opportunities for the global community to meet the challenge of implementing a human rights regime aimed at protecting all people against violent conflict.

For some great information of R2P, see http://www.iciss.ca/

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon; however, September 11, 2001 has marked a possible transition in the world order of things. Therefore, it would be constructive to analyze the events of 9/11 and the counter-terror measures that were pursued by the American administration thereafter. This research essay will begin with a brief definition of terrorism and then proceed to analyze Al Qaeda’s motivations on 9/11. There appears to be concrete evidence that religion was an extremely important element, because it mobilizes the organization around a single identity and makes individuals feel that violent actions are just and legitimate. Thus, it can be concluded to be more important than political or socio-economic reasons in perpetuating the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, solutions are harder to come by when religion becomes a factor, because it is so deeply embedded into the mental psyche of those involved; however, this essay will conclude by offering the current American administration some possible recommendations for effective counter-terror measures.

Terrorism Defined

American citizens were completely shocked as they witnessed televised events of Muslims from different countries, dancing in the streets, celebrating the horrific attack. Indeed, the non-state nature of terrorism has further exacerbated the complexity of the problem. Al-Qaeda is a transnational network operating within developing and developed countries. Given this complexity, it seems that the current state of media attention given to terrorism has made the problems of finding a concise definition difficult, because the negative connotations associated with the word ‘terrorism’ have lead to an objective definition of the term. Terrorism has been used by many states to refer to their perceived enemies; therefore, the term needs to be clarified. In moving towards a definition of terrorism, there is a common theme of the use of violence for a particular end. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.? Moreover, terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman defines terrorism as “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in pursuit of political change- all terrorist acts involve violence or threat of violence.?
Actors in terrorism can be governments, individuals, or groups. The aforementioned definitions indicate that terrorism is carried out for social or political reasons. However, another element that has been prevalent in modern terrorism is religion. Religious terrorism has been seen in the suicide attacks in Israel and Palestine; attacks in Tokyo, India, Algeria, Oklahoma, and Florida. This form of terrorism has been defined as the “use of violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes in an attempt to bring about sweeping changes.? Whether it is political, social, or religious, terrorism seeks to exact broad change within the existing order. Terrorism can be seen on many different levels; therefore, careful analysis is needed to determine what motivations lead to the tragic events of 9/11.

Understanding Al Qaeda

By way forward, 9/11 can be understood when looking at the three levels which represent root causes and/or influences: Socio-economic, political and religious. When attempting to arrive at an understanding of Al-Qaeda, each level demonstrates an influential contribution to the organization’s use of violence.

On the socio-economic level, relative deprivation causes grievances and anger. Therefore, economic exploitation is assumed to lead individuals to terror networks and make them more desperate to use violence. Many scholars originally pointed the finger at economic inequality as a root cause of terrorist violence. They reasoned that the widening income gap between the world's richest and poorest nations inevitably gives rise to a level of hopelessness that sees terrorism as a last resort. This belief centers on a direct correlation between a person’s standard of living and their likelihood of joining a terrorist organization. Thus, when a person’s standard of living is low and they see images of other people enjoying a better life, they are likely to use violence if they think it will improve the conditions of their current domestic state. The economic approach centers on weak states because these states are poor, and generally lack a system of law, which inevitability makes them vulnerable to housing terrorist organizations. One can easily see the truth to this argument when assessing the situation in Afghanistan, where Al-Qaeda conducted a series of training operations. Afghanistan is very much a weak state, dominated by war-lordism. In fact, the CIA has reported that “Afghanistan remains extremely poor, landlocked, and highly dependent on foreign aid, farming, and trade with neighboring countries.? From a socio-economic perspective, the events of 9/11 were carried out by poor, desperate individuals seeking to bring about a better life for themselves and their families through the use of violence.

The political level assumes that terrorism is a rational response by a rational actor. Moreover, there tends to be an element of both revenge and retaliation. Al Qaeda has political objectives; all of which are principally concerned with the United States of America. Also, the political demands can be influenced at the level of leadership. This points to the influence of Osama Bin Laden, because he is the central figure, who expresses the views of Al Qaeda. Therefore, the use of terror was used as a means to force compliance with a set of political demands that Osama Bin Laden had been publicly articulating for over a period of nearly five years, in a series of proclamations and interviews. Moreover, others have argued that Al-Qaeda’s political objectives are wrapped up in U.S. foreign policy with respect to the Middle East; particularly, the U.S.’s security presence in the Persian Gulf and U.S.’s support for Israel (Byman, 2003, p. 143). Therefore, at the political level, the 9/11 attacks were carried out to coerce the American administration to pull out of the Middle East.

At the religious level, it is assumed that the individual is completely guided by an ideology or belief. All motivations for violence are justified on this level; therefore, they are given a certain sense of legitimacy, because religion played a large role in Al-Qaeda’s selection of the World Trade center and the Pentagon as viable targets. Osama Bin Laden and his followers adhere to the principle of a brand of Islam called Wahhabism. Wahhabi history and paradigms were influential in shaping their religious faith and sense of. Moreover, anything which is perceived as un-Islamic behaviour must be countered with a jihad. The jihad concept comes from numerous passages in the Quran in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet and translates into a struggle in the context of a holy war against one’s enemies or enemies of Islam. Moreover, John Esposito argues the jihad “to be a defining concept or belief in Islam, a key element of what it means to be a believer or follower of god’s will.? Therefore, from the religious level the events of 9/11 are part of a holy war against anything considered un-Islamic.

In coming to an understanding of 9/11, the political and socio-economic levels fall short in explaining the motivations behind Al Qaeda’s use of violence. The political model loses plausibility when one considers the irrational nature of the attacks. The 9/11 attacks were indiscriminate in nature and carried out for the sole purpose of destruction, because people from a variety of nationalities were effected. The attack effected people from over 115 nationalities. There is no question that 9/11 was an attack on America, however, by attacking the World Trade center, the symbol of Western capitalism, it seems as though it was not just an attack on American but an attack on Western society. Moreover, the ensuing attacks in Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Spain seems to further undermine the political model. In each case, hotels or resorts were targeted that were home to Westerners, not just Americans. If Al Qaeda’s grievances were solely concerned with America, then the rational action would be to just attack American targets. However, the ensuing attacks suggest that the organization has a broader grievance with the entire Western world’s way of life. The socio-economic model faces problems when one considers that there are individuals living in developed countries who are members of Al Qaeda. Steven Emerson has argued that they are a number of Americans who support Al Qaeda living in almost every single state in the USA. Moreover, it has also been noted that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistanis, Egyptians, Palestinians, Sudanese, Algerians, Indonesians, Malaysians, British, French, Germans, and Spanish. Clearly, this exemplifies that there is something more involved than mere socio-economic concerns, because citizens who come from developed countries, where the standards of living are relatively high, support and assist Al Qaeda in its operations.
Therefore, it seems that the political and socio-economic models are inconsistent in explaining the purposes and goals of this transnational organization. This leads to the religious level because it seems to be the only consistent explanation which can bring further understanding to the nature of Al Qaeda. The religious motive becomes the most influential when one considers that it is a trigger for the political and socio-economic variables. This means that whereas there can be political and socio-economic reasons for joining Al Qaeda, it is the religious element which truly unites the organization. Religion can act as a trigger that brings together all Muslims who may have other grievances, such as political or socio-economic. The complete faith and belief in jihad creates an identity which all Muslims can rally around. Terrorism scholar John L. Esposito argues that “this pattern of jihad in the face of adversity, coupled with the concept of the ummah (the worldwide Islamic community), which stresses a pan-Islamic unity, has guided many Muslims throughout the ages, including Bin Laden and many terrorists today?. Moreover, Donald Snow argues that “the Bin Laden group clearly considers their actions to constitute acts of war. His religious decree that exhorts Muslims to arms calls specifically for a holy war (Jihad) against the infidels.? Therefore, when considering what drove Al Qaeda to attack the World Trade Center and other places around the world, the religious jihad perpetuates a way of life that is inconsistent with Western philosophy. The Islamic religion practiced by Osama Bin Laden and his followers dominates all aspects of life and seeks to challenge the current secular Westphalian nature of our current international system. Thus, the non-secular nature of Al Qaeda’s belief system goes against the cornerstone of liberal-democratic philosophy, which stresses secular individualism and freedom.

However, one could make that Bin Laden and his followers as violating the Islamic faith because of their use of violence. Accordingly, it could be seen that Al-Qaeda represents a radical form of Islam not consistent with the actual teachings of the religion. Indeed, Islam has been seen as a religion of peace where the word Islam(self-surrender) derives from the same root as salam(peace). From this perspective, Osama Bin Laden and his followers’ interpretations of the Quran are flawed and misplaced. Thus, one could argue that Al Qaeda is using religion to further a particular end. It is important to recognize this perspective; however, the attacks were still thought to be part of a religious war by those who carried them out. Even if their interpretation is wrong, followers of Al-Qaeda have felt a common identity and rallied around a notion that is very deeply ingrained into their way of life. The doctrine of jihad gave Al Qaeda the moral legitimacy it needed to assault the centre of global capitalism. Furthermore, scholars have argued that this non-violent doctrine was taken by Bin laden and Islamic revivalists to legitimize many terrorist attacks throughout the world. Thus, religion is a critical element in Al Qaeda’s actions because it is the force that legitimizes and justifies violence against targets around the world. The individuals who carried out the attack on 9/11 thought they were martyrs for their Islamic faith. If religion was absent, it is undeniable that Al Qaeda would have a harder time finding support for its organization.

Religion however is not solely isolated to Al Qaeda. Religion was used in the counter-terrorism responses by the American administration to mobilize support from the American public for an armed retaliation. The counter responses from America involved religion as George Bush spoke of Al-Qaeda as an ‘absolute evil’ and ‘god bless America’ became the country’s national anthem to counter terror. Furthermore, Bush used statements like “you are either with us or against us, on the side of good or on the side of evil.? Indeed, Joseph Nye has argued that “the absence of warrior ethic in modern democracies means that the use of force requires an elaborate moral justification to ensure popular support.? Accordingly, John Gray notes that “America’s peculiar religiosity is becoming ever more strikingly pronounced. In no otherwise comparable land do politicians regularly invoke the name of Jesus.? Thus, the current American administration has been vulnerable to portraying this ‘war on terrorism’ as a cultural clash between Islam and the West.

The use of violence in the name of religion is not a positive trend. The role of religion in legitimizing and justifying violence means it is going to be a difficult task to effectively bring about compromise. The tendency to see things as we/they can make solving differences an extremely complex task. Moreover, It seems that the global war being pursued by Al Qaeda and the ‘war on terrorism’ being pursued by American administration is a zero-sum game; therefore, the possibilities of the two parties negotiating is not realistic. However, realizing that religion was an important factor in 9/11 contributes to a sophisticated understanding of the challenge, enabling an opportunity to aim at this level in confronting terrorist violence. Therefore, International organizations will be the only effective means to do this task because of their impartial nature. It is hoped that they can bring about change when they have an integrated understanding of the justifications and triggers involved.

Counter-Terrorism Recommendations

The fact that the Al Qaeda network lacks of a specific political program presents a curious problem for many academics. Not knowing a specific target makes effective counter-terrorism measure negligible when the world community has no idea where the next attack will be. Moreover, the focus on the power and the military by American foreign policy makers can lead to serious consequences. Others have argued that “for the Bin Laden network and its associates, a strong military counter-reaction will be anticipated and will almost certainly be welcomed.? In this sense, the American administrations’ retaliatory responses in Afghanistan and Iraq, claimed to be part of the ‘war on terrorism,’ are likely to be counter-productive and lead to further violence from terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda. This begs the question of where counter-terrorist measures going to have to come from.

An effective response will have to synchronize both national and international levels to countering terrorism. Al-Qaeda is a transnational non-state actor which means traditional realist and strategic approaches are not able to confront this issue because their central focus is the state. The American response centered on a ‘war on terrorism’ fails to consider the root causes of such acts and is likely to make the problem worse. One thing seems clear: violence perpetuates violence and addressing religious differences will be essential for counter-terrorists measures to be effective. The United States sustained ‘war on terrorism’ furthers a cycle of violence which will never bring about effective change. The increasing support for Al Qaeda after the American operation in Iraq exemplifies a negative consequence of the violent retaliatory response. In a report published by Paul Rogers entitled the Swish Report 2, an independent consulting company analyzes the strategic position of Al Qaeda and indicates that the war in Iraq furthered support for the organization. Therefore, the unilateralist approach pursued by the current administration, where they ignored the UN Security Council, by not getting a proper resolution, has lead to a new wave of anti Americanism across the globe. Therefore, so long as the American administration continues to pursue unilateralism and be vulnerable to using religious rhetoric, Al Qaeda will continue to gain support unabated. Al Qaeda’s goals are complex because they seek to portray the world as a cultural clash between Christianity and Islam. Knowing this complexity, it seems that multinational organizations will be the only effective means to bring about change. International organizations are vital because of the multi-cultural and multi-state approach that they possess. Thus, these organizations should be the focal point for Washington to any counter-terrorism measures because they have the best ability to be impartial and fair. Moreover, if international organizations enforce anti-terror measures, those supporting terrorists’ organizations will not be able to solely blame the American administration for their ill-wills. America will be ensuring its own security by working with the international community.

Concluding Remarks

Motives for violence can come about from many levels, but the religious factor proves to be a significant factor in Al Qaeda’s actions, because of its unifying and legitimizing effect. Moreover, the use of religion by the American administration to attack Afghanistan and Iraq also warrants attention, because it has furthered the notions of a religious war between the West and Islam. The importance of international organizations cannot be over-stated. They have been effective in some situations, but they have been continually constrained by the Westphalian nature of our current international order. Recently, the UN has come under continuous questions about its effectiveness, and the recent war in Iraq displayed a complete lack of respect by the American administration. Washington’s newest appointments of Paul Wolfowitz and John Negroponte, both of whom are known for their outspoken criticism of international organizations, raises important questions about where this administration is heading. However, by cooperating with the UN, the American administration could find more viable options for pursuing its own security. No doubt, leaders in Western countries will continue to advance the notions of non-violence being a cornerstone of democratic state relations. However, Al-Qaeda and other Islamic organizations will contrast this notion with a religious way of life that dominates all aspects of society. Therefore, all countries would be better off to steer clear of using religious devices, because such an action only furthers Al Qaeda’s goal for portraying the world as divided into two factions: Islamic versus anti-Islamic establishments. Terrorism can come from anywhere so the American administration must pursue multilateralism for its own security. Arriving at solutions is difficult, but an international community pursuing effective anti-terrorist measures will be more effective than the unilateralist approach currently pursued by the American administration. Terrorism is a major challenge confronting the international community and could continue for a long time, thus, the time to work together is now.