Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group - Blackest September:
the 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the United States
14 September 2001 (updated 28 September)
Contents
Introduction
It is not yet possible to fully assess the mechanics, let alone the significance,
of the terror attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. This
brief is simply an attempt to provide clients with some minimal commentary
and access to useful Web-based resources on terrorism.
What happened
Four US commercial domestic flights were hijacked. Two of these targeted
and struck the World Trade Centre in New York, with about fifteen minutes
between the strikes; another struck the Pentagon in Washington. The other
aircraft crashed, possibly on its way to the US Capitol or White House.
It appears that aboard this last aircraft the terrorists were somehow
thwarted because some passengers, informed by mobile telephone of the
likely intent of the hijackers, struggled with the terrorists in order
to prevent further and more devastating carnage, even in the realisation
that this struggle would be likely to bring down the aircraft.
A chronology of the day's events can be found here
A chronology
of global terrorist activity can be found here; for each listed year go
to Appendix A.
Reactions
United Nations
George
W. Bush
John Howard
Kim Beazley
Tony
Blair (UK)
Yasser
Arafat (Palestinian authority)
Taliban
(de facto Afghan Government)
For specific information on the Australian Government's responses visit
the Attorney-General of Australia
National Security Internet Site. Information regarding security activities
will be posted on this site.
The US Government has set up a Web page which provides
access to many aspects of the American reaction - including casualty lists,
benefits and assistance and warnings of frauds and scams.
Rogue state or extremist
organisation?
Following perhaps the worst terrorist act in history, the world and especially
the American people will search for answers. Much of what happens in the
next few days and weeks will depend on the identity of the perpetrators.
Organisations or states which have some history of anti-western terrorism
were obviously high on suspect lists, though internal American dissidents
could not automatically be excluded either.
In his speech
of 20 September, President Bush identified the Al-Qaeda group of bin Laden
as the culprits. Rumours continue of the involvement of others, specifically
individuals connected to Iraqi security agencies. Faced by the need to
manage popular opinion in Islamic states supporting the US, President
Bush has promised to provide the evidence indicating bin Laden's culpability.
As yet (28 September), however, no specific evidence is publicly available
to support claims against any group or state, but circumstantial evidence
mounts regarding Osama bin Laden's involvement.
Osama bin Laden's
Al-Qaeda group
Osama
bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda group have been identified by US officials
as the most likely suspect in the attacks. Since fighting the Soviets
in the 1980s, bin Laden has
become the United States' most violent enemy, his group responsible for
a car bomb attack on American military barracks in Saudi Arabia. In 1998,
suicide car bombers from his group blew up the US Embassies in Nairobi
(Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania). Although denied by the Taliban,
intelligence reports strongly suggest Osama bin Laden is resident in Afghanistan.
Despite UN Security Council sanctions passed on Afghanistan for harbouring
Osama bin Laden following the 1998 bombings, the Taliban has refused to
hand over the Islamic leader to the international community. US Embassies
were placed on alert in May when 4 members of bin Laden’s group were
found guilty of the bombings, two of them likely to face the death penalty.
More recently, bin Laden has also been blamed for the attack on the USS
Cole docked in Aden, in which 17 American servicemen were killed.
As well as all these attacks there have also been a number that have been
attempted but foiled.
Bin Laden is considered capable of the attack due to his supposed $A500
million fortune, and his large international network and following. He
is reported to have followers in every big city around the world with
a Muslim population. On August 11, the US Trade Representative, Robert
Zoellick discussed the presence of bin Laden's group in Indonesia with
Megawati Soekarnoputri. In 1998 bin Laden declared a fatwa (a religious
order) calling for attacks on Americans, and recently publicly advised
of an attack on the US of an unprecedented scale. The similarities in
coordination with the 1998 embassy bombings also point to bin Laden. US
officials have since the attacks stated that the Government has evidence
that at least one of the hijackers had links to bin Laden, and mounting
evidence pointed to the Arabic identity of the groups. However, the Taliban
has denied bin Laden was involved in the attacks, its envoy in Pakistan,
Abdul Salam Zaeef, saying he lacked the facilities for such an operation.
Iran
It is highly unlikely that the central Government of The Islamic Republic
of Iran would undertake an attack on the United States, due both to the
liberalisation of the regime under President Khatami, and to the massive
response that would come should a state government be found to be involved.
Much has been made recently of Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
and ballistic missile capability, but there has been no suggestion Iran
would seek to attack the US. While Iran and Iranian backed groups do have
a history of terrorism, it seems that under the reformist regime of President
Khatami Iran would be very unlikely to attack the US. President Khatami
has joined with other world leaders and expressed his deep sympathy for
the American nation.
Iraq
For the same reason as for Iran, it is unlikely the Iraqi regime under
Saddam Hussein would perpetrate such an attack, the consequences would
be inordinately severe. Intelligence reports suggest Iraq has recently
rebuilt its Chemical and Biological Weapons capabilities, and has seemingly
shot down two US Predator surveillance planes patrolling the no-fly zones
in the north of the country. While the regime obviously has a number of
grievances against the US, there is little to suggest that Iraq has planned
or even considered an attack on US soil such as this. Iraq has never mounted
a successful operation outside of its region.
Palestinian groups
The timing of the attacks following the carnage of the Palestinian Intifada
and what have been perceived as pro-Israeli responses by the US Government,
have prompted speculation the attacks were carried out by Palestinian
groups. The Democratic Front for a Liberated Palestine claimed responsibility
but later retracted this. Palestinians have carried out terrorist attacks
before, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), destroying
Western aircraft, and the Black September group assassinating the Jordanian
Prime Minister, and killing 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic
Games in 1972. Since the attack, Palestinians have been reported celebrating
across the Middle East. However, Yasser Arafat has condemned the recent
attacks. Hamas has denied responsibility, the PFLP and Islamic Jihad have
distanced themselves from the attacks. Probably the only related group
with the logistical capability to undertake these attacks would be Hezbollah,
but that group would not act without permission from Iran or Syria, who
would be unlikely to give it for fear of retaliation.
Libya and Syria
These states are unlikely to have been involved due to fears of retaliation
and due to a recent normalisation of relations with the West in the case
of the former, and domestic instability in the latter. Libyan leader Gaddafi
condemned the attack, and a Syrian spokesperson sent messages of condemnation
and sympathy.
Domestic American groups
Expatriate Arabs
The World Trade Centre was bombed in 1993 by a group led by US-based
Arab figures, such as Ramzi Yousef, with links to Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman,
a New Jersey based cleric wanted in Egypt. With US identity papers it
would be easier for such individuals to board domestic aircraft. It is
feasible of course that US based individuals carried out the attacks under
the command of external figures such as Osama bin Laden.
Extremist US anti-Federal Government groups
In considering the likelihood that the attacks were carried out by groups
with links to the Middle East, it must be remembered that following the
Oklahoma City bombing, the same conclusions were initially drawn. In that
case it eventuated that right wing anti-government groups carried out
the bombing, specifically Timothy McVeigh who was found guilty of the
attack and subsequently executed. McVeigh stated he carried out the attack
in retaliation for the attack on the Waco compound by Federal (Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI)) agents. It was earlier thought that the recent attack could have
been carried out by a similar group(s), though suicide attacks have not
been part of their modus operandi.
The accused aid workers
in Afghanistan
If it is indeed established that Osama bin Laden is responsible for the
outrages in New York and Washington, and that he is still living in Afghanistan,
thought needs to be given to the plight of the eight foreign aid workers
(including two Australians) currently on trial in Kabul for the crimes
of allegedly preaching Christianity and attempting to convert Muslims.
These people already faced an uncertain future at the mercy of an alien
and uncertainly objective legal system, but the risk now is that they
could become pawns, or de facto hostages, in a wider problem. Clearly,
US pressure for the handover of bin Laden will become intense if a case
can be made against him for the September attacks. In such conditions
the Taliban regime may well see their possession of the eight accused
aid workers as an asset, or even potentially as a shield from US attack.
It is significant that foreign diplomats, including Australia's, who have
been in Kabul proving such assistance to the accused as the Taliban would
allow, are now being withdrawn.
Terrorism
According the definition used by the Australian Defence Force (ADF),
terrorism is:
The recent attacks certainly meet this definition.
It might be tempting to classify terrorists by what they do, rather than
why it is done. This, however, neglects the fundamental distinction between
the common criminal and the terrorist. The former perpetrates atrocities
for profit, or personal vengeance, whereas the latter does the same thing
for what he or she believes to be a higher cause - for example, liberation
from perceived oppression, reform of an allegedly unfair political or
economic system, and so on. The distinction is important because it affects
behaviour. Criminals - unless mentally unsound - are rarely prepared to
sacrifice their lives: they are fundamentally self-interested cowards.
As such, when cornered by authority they are more likely to give up than
is a terrorist, who may be only too happy to take a few of the 'enemy'
along in a final exchange of fire, or to die in order to achieve an important
objective. The spate of suicide bombings in Israel has recently demonstrated
the truth of this assessment.
The powerful are vulnerable
The attacks on New York and Washington have shown that even the world’s
unchallenged top military power is in some ways still very vulnerable
(Richard Falkenrath, 'Problems
of Preparedness: US readiness for a domestic terrorist attack', International
Security, vol. 2, no. 4, 2001). Its enemies – whose identity
is unknown at the time of writing – have been able to strike with
devastating effect at the heart of its greatest city and at the very headquarters
of the United States Armed Forces, the Pentagon near Washington. In the
event, all the trillions of dollars that the United States spends on defence
and security availed nothing. President George W. Bush’s missile
defence system, were it in place, would likewise have been powerless against
this attack.
This attack in one sense merely reconfirms what has long been understood
about terrorism, that it is an effective strategy where there is a massive
disparity of conventional military or economic power. States, or even
non-state groups, which have no hope of successfully engaging the US in
open combat – considering for example the disaster which befell Saddam
Hussein's Iraq in 1991 – can nevertheless strike effective blows
by resorting to unconventional, irregular or terrorist tactics, so-called
'asymmetric threats'(Joseph Nusbaum and Kevin O'Brien, 'Intelligence
Gathering in Asymmetric Threats: part one', Jane's Intelligence
Review, vol. 12, no. 10, 2000) and part
two: vol. 12, no. 11, 2000.
An article written last year now
available on the Jane's website discusses the risks of suicide terrorist
attacks.
Responses to the attack
There has been almost universal condemnation of the attack. Interest
has shifted to what the United States might do in response.
From the President down, US officials have been emphasing the need to
establish clearly who is responsible for the attack, and to pursue justice
rather than revenge. Having identified the Al-Qaeda group of bin Laden
as the culprits, President Bush delivered an ultimatum
to Afghanistan's Taliban regime to hand him over together with other members
of the group, and to close Al-Qaeda training camps. The President also
confirmed his determination to destroy all terrorists possessing a global
reach. Pakistan, despite its long support of the Taliban regime has been
persuaded to promise assistance to the US: two Pakistani envoys went (friutlessly)
to Kabul to warn the Taliban to surender bin Laden, and Pakistan has indicated
that its airspace will open to the US if military action is needed.
The Soviet experience warns against attempts to invade, conquer and occupy
Afghanistan. The US has not indicated what action it might take if the
Taliban refuse to surrender bin Laden, but air attacks and special forces
insertions, perhaps with cooperation from the Northern Alliance fighters
who have been resisting the Taliban with arms ever since it took Kabul,
appear probable.
Nonetheless, it is increasingly apparent that most of the work of destroying
terrorist networks will be done by police, other law enforcement agencies
and civilian intelligence organisations. Given the nature of the problem,
such police activity will be internationally coordinated. Securing effective
cooperation with law enforcement agencies in Islamic countries will ensure
that diplomacy will be equally important. As yet, neither the US nor Australian
governments have publicly detailled the policy issues involved. A brief
discussion of the policy considerations which will need to be addressed
can be found . here
There has been no indication as yet as to how the US might proceed if
it captures bin Laden. Noted international lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC
proposed on the ABC's Lateline program on 17 September that the
attacks on the US be declared crimes against humanity and that bin Laden
be handed over to the same Hague tribunal presently trying Slobodan Milosevic.
Robertson questions whether bin Laden could get a fair trial in an American,
especially a New York, court in the astmosphere now prevailing. He also
advocates UN Security Council authorisation for actions against Afghanistan
designed to secure bin Laden's handover. The audio of this interview can
be heard here
(Real Player needed).
Conventions
against Terrorism
Counter Terrorism Links
ERRI Counter-Terrorism
Archive - a summary of Worldwide terrorism events, groups, and terrorist
strategies and tactics
Measures
to eliminate international terrorism - Report of the UN Secretary-General,
3rd July 2001 (A/56/160)
Attorney-General of Australia
National Security Internet Site - Australia's response to the US World
Trade Centre Incident, Attorney General of Australia
US State Department
Report on Terrorism for Year 2000
US State Department
Counterterrorism Co-ordinator
This e-brief was prepared by Gary Brown, Chris Wilson, Andrew Chin, Laura Rayner and Adrienne Blunt in the Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade Group.
28 September 2001
E-Briefs are written for Members of Parliament, being located on the
Internet they can be read by members of the public, however some linked
items are available to Members of Parliament only, due to copyright reasons.
|
