Operation 'Enduring Freedom'

In naming the American campaign against terrorists in Afghanistan “Operation ‘Enduring Freedom,’” the U.S. portrayed the current conflict in universal terms, terms that spoke of the basic values of free societies worldwide. But fighting against “terrorism of global reach,” not just here but also abroad, is a task of unprecedented difficulty and scope. In a world of failed states and separatist movements, it is not always clear who the terrorists are. Our efforts to maintain an international coalition and to eliminate the constituency for terrorism depend heavily on our retaining the moral high ground; the U.S. government must therefore define its mission carefully, so as to mount the most effective and most appropriate campaign against those who threaten our citizens.

Left undefined, the rhetoric of antiterrorism can easily be appropriated for other ends. The People’s Republic of China, for example, has used the current antiterrorism fervor to further repress the Uighur population of its western Xinjiang autonomous region. The Uighurs are predominantly Muslim, do not speak Chinese and have little cultural affiliation with China. A Uighur separatist movement has used bombings and assassinations to pursue its ends, and some of the separatists were trained in Afghanistan. However, China’s current crackdown has led to harsh punishments for peaceful expressions of dissent, including preaching Islam or teaching others its tenets outside of government control. Amnesty International reports that a new effort to suppress “terrorist and separatist” movements in the Xinjiang region has in fact taken its greatest toll—in widespread detention, imprisonment and torture—on individuals not involved in the violence.

The situation is little better in Russia, where the low-grade war against civilians in Chechnya has continued for several years despite international opposition. Although it is indisputable that some Chechen separatists have resorted to attacks on civilians, the “cleansing” efforts of the Russian military and its refusal to cooperate with United Nations human rights observers have little to do with preventing terrorism. Now even mild condemnations of Russia’s human rights violations may be withheld in exchange for Russia’s partnership in the coalition against Osama bin Laden.

The U.S. must balance its interests in structuring a coalition against its need to stay true to its basic principles. Of course, maintaining this balance will not be easy; America has been attacked, and its citizens find themselves under greater threat than any time in recent history. Despicable though Russia and China’s actions may be, the U.S. needs partners for its coalition against bin Laden and cannot afford to go it alone. In some ways, the U.S. has chosen to pursue a new Concert of Europe, supporting corrupt regimes against the potentially more dangerous forces that might destabilize them; in doing so, however, we must be careful not to turn a blind eye to the very violence against civilians that we are combating.

President George W. Bush has made it very clear that America’s war is not against Islam, and the administration has called on Americans to treat respectfully their fellow-countrymen who have a different religion or skin color. America should take pride in its protection of minorities at home; our tolerance is what separates us from those whom we fight against. But we must also take care to ensure that the antiterrorism campaign does not become, in the hands of undemocratic states, a blank check to repress Muslim minorities abroad.