The shocking Sept 11 terrorist attack has given humanity many important lessons, from almost all disciplines of human knowledge, that will last for a long time to come.

However, any attempt to glean the lessons from the myriad information and opinions available will undoubtedly cause an information overload.

To help laypersons sieve through the information, editors Uwe Johannen, Alan Smith and James Gomez have produced September 11 & political freedom Asian perspectives (Singapore, Select Book, 2002), a book offering in a balanced manner, important and critical perspectives by 12 experts in different disciplines.

The Sept 11 attack can be clearly classified as terrorism because the act of violence was rationally planned and organised, and intentionally targeted at innocent and unarmed civilians and their properties for political or ideological purposes.

True, both terrorism and war entail rationally planned and organised violence to achieve political or ideological objectives, but war differs fundamentally in targeting intentions. For warriors and soldiers, the intentional targets are always their armed opponents and military related facilities.

Terrorists, however, choose to avoid combats with their armed opponents and only intentionally target unarmed civilians and non-combatants.

Laws of wars

This distinction between war and terrorism is fundamental and essential to the doctrines of just and legitimate war as articulated in many forms in the Western, Islamic and Chinese philosophies of war. Despite the cultural, religious and linguistic differences, all doctrines of just and legitimate war prohibit the intentional targeting of armed and lethal forces against unarmed and innocent civilians, particularly children, elderly human beings and unarmed women.

The modern list of prohibition also extends to cover progressively medical personnel, diplomats, messengers, arbitrators and journalists. In the Islamic conception of just and legitimate war, warriors and soldiers are also prohibited to kill or maim clergies of all religions and faiths, or destroy places of worships.

This is usually referred to as the law of war on discrimination (of targets).

Yes, there have always been civilian casualties in wars. Civilians are either killed or maimed by stray bullets, or by warriors and soldiers who intentionally do so. In the latter case, the warriors and soldiers would have committed war crimes and would be either punished by military or criminal justice, or condemned.

Besides the just conduct of war or jus in bello , or simply the civilised rule of armed engagement, there is also the just cause of war or jus ad bellum to be considered. Self-defence against identifiable and specific threats to lives and properties has always been recognised as a just cause of war in human societies. This principle has also been incorporated in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Even so, it is also always advisable or preferable to first try to neutralise the threats by peaceful ways, such as third-party arbitration, or multilateral diplomacy.

Also, there is the law of proportionality which stipulates that the armed forces used for self-defence must be proportional to the magnitude of the threat. For example, it is wrong for any country to use nuclear bombs against even another highly hostile and aggressive country whose armed forces only possess machine guns, tanks and other conventional weapons.

Although the laws of 'last resort' and 'proportionality' are not always upheld by belligerent countries, there are also many quiet instances when these laws are obeyed for self-enlightened interests, and the fear of reciprocity.

New warring entity

However, what if a threat to a country is not another country with definable territory and definite population, or groups that do not aim to seize territories and rule over others such as national liberation fronts/separatist movements and their armed units who still somehow attempt to follow certain civilised rules of engagement in warfare in order to legitimise their status, image and claims?

Specifically, what if the threat is a well-financed, amorphous, globally dispersed and highly mobile group of intelligent terrorists who possess modern technologies of information, communication and destruction, and who do not abide by the laws of war, or minimum conduct of warfare?

Worse still, what if these groups are, directly or indirectly, protected, covered and 'morally' legitimised by some rogue states or agents of states as their unofficial or deniable 'special operations' squads?

Firstly, it would then be very difficult to respond to their threats with conventional military operations which are designed only to counter threats of conventional invasions, occupations, rebellions and insurgencies;

Secondly, although responding to their threats by policing actions seems to be the obvious solution, two questions arise:

    • Are policing forces well-indoctrinated, well- trained and well-equipped enough, especially in intelligence collection, collation, analyses and sharing?

    • How do we balance the special and emergency powers given to anti-terrorism policing with democracy, civil liberties and human rights?

    • Reforming the police

    I am sure in this period of heightened alert against terrorism, police and armed forces of all countries, including Malaysia and Singapore, have no problem in obtaining larger budgetary allocation for training and acquisition of sophisticated equipments and weaponry.

    The problems are intangible and psychological. First and foremost is how to convince or indoctrinate police to see that terrorism is not to be secretly tolerated or sympathised at all even if the terrorists share the same religion, culture and language with the majority in the police force, or if the terrorists claim to fight for causes with which the majority in the police forces identify.

    There is also the question of the incorruptibility (or otherwise) of police forces. Failure in intelligence collection, collation, analyses and sharing, planning and actual operations could be caused by corruption or corruptibility. If terrorists have no scruples in finding innocent and unarmed civilians as legitimate targets of their lethal forces, surely we must expect them to be willing and prepared to bribe and corrupt the police, as most of the organised criminals usually do all over the world.

    Unlike the armed forces or military who are usually kept in the barracks and isolated from the larger population and societies, the lifestyles, value-systems and mentality of the police are often no different from others in the population and societies. Corruptibility of the police is usually higher than that of the rank and file of the armed forces and military.

    And what is true of the police is also true of other law enforcement personnel, such as immigration and national registration.

    Even assuming a police force is not corrupt and not inefficient, there is still the problem of politicisation of the police. Paid for by taxpayers who support the ruling as well as opposition parties, the police are supposed to be politically neutral and non-partisan in decision-making, enforcement as well as emotion.

    A politically neutral, non-partisan and professional police force is certainly crucial in the long struggle against terrorism because terrorism is essentially born out of a sense of injustice and the perception that the 'system' is unfair. Police arbitrariness, arrogance and insolence, as well as brutalities do contribute to the development of terrorist psychology, individual and social.

    The reality or perception that the police are abusing their powers to play politics, like the ancient Roman Praetorian Guards or the Indonesian Armed Forces (Abri) under Suharto, to make or unmake top political leaders to serve their own interests certainly exacerbates the psychological dynamics.

    Thus, for the long struggle against terrorism to succeed, genuinely reforming the police should be made an important agenda and top priority. The police must be re-indoctrinated to manage a modern parliamentary democracy where peaceful and non-violent dissidents must not be seen as 'subversives' or 'criminals', to respect universal human rights and above all, to conceptually and operationally separate the state (or country) from the ruling parties and their leaders.

    JAMES WONG WING ON, a former member of Parliament, is the chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM). This article was adapted from his speech at the launching of the book September 11 & political freedom Asian perspectives (Singapore, Select Book, 2002), in Kuala Lumpur on Oct 16.