"The Aftermath of Sept. 11" was the subject of a rapid-fire Reunion Weekend panel discussion that presented a range of views. Panelists included a government professor, a historian, a Near Eastern studies expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict and an authority on international law.
The panel, which was followed by a heated question-and-answer session with alumni attendees, took place in G-08 Uris Hall on June 6. Panelists, who each spoke for 10 minutes, included these Cornell faculty members: Jonathan Kirshner, professor of government; Barry Strauss, professor of history and classics and director of Cornell's Peace Studies Program; Samer Alatout, a visiting assistant professor of Near Eastern studies in 2001-02 who is now at Dartmouth, and David Wippman, professor of law. The event, which drew a large crowd, was sponsored by the Einaudi Center for International Studies and the Peace Studies Program.
Kirshner began, warning against harboring a false sense of optimism because of early U.S. success in the war in Afghanistan. A more difficult phase in the war is beginning, he said, "with political goals becoming less clear, more-sluggish military progress and support for the U.S. tending to erode as the war broadens." He called Pakistan a danger point at risk of becoming "East Talibistan." Predicting that more terror attacks by extremist groups against U.S. targets would lead to more calls for curbs on U.S. civil liberties, he reminded the group that "civil liberties is what we're fighting for." He also cautioned against appearing "too powerful" to allies and enemies.
Strauss disagreed. "I believe, by and large, that American power is a good thing for the U.S. and the world at large," he said. "The war is going well; the United States and its allies are winning and likely to do better as the war goes on," and the events of Sept. 11 have "taken the world on a better path, rather than a worse one." While he also predicted that there would be more terrorist acts, "if we had not acted [after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001], it would have been worse."
Alatout, whose family is Palestinian, said that the events of Sept. 11 had moved some Israelis to call for an end to the occupation of the West Bank, but others, unfortunately, among them Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, he said, were using the attacks to paint the Palestinians with the same brush as Al Qaeda terrorists. "That [claim] should be rejected by all of us," said Alatout. He asserted that most Palestinians, unlike Al Qaeda members, were not extremists from the Moslem religious right engaged in an armed struggle against the West, but a people involved in a liberation movement characterized by genuine resistance activities against an occupying army -- Israel's -- a point of view later concurred with by Strauss.
Wippman, who served on the U.S. National Security Council in 1998-99, offered an international lawyer's point of view on the war in Afghanistan. "What international lawyers care about is whether the United States had a legal basis, under the United Nations charter and related, customary international law, for the use of force and whether the war is being fought consistently within the rules of humanitarian law" under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, he said.
Although experts worried that U.S. actions flaunted international laws, "NATO, the OAS and individual countries accepted the U.S. position that its actions were in self defense, and the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly acquiesced. This shows a relaxation in the constraints on the use of force made possible by the end of the Cold War," said Wippman
However, U.S. plans to try detainees at military tribunals, and bypass Geneva Conventions rules, were moderated in the face of strong international criticism and worries by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the questionable decision "would come back to haunt us," Wippman observed.
During the question-and-answer session, one audience member asked what Al Qaeda's goal was. Strauss responded: "To get American power out of the Middle East, replace the current Saudi regime with [one that adheres to] a fanatical version of Islam."
Another questioned Alatout on why Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat had rejected former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak's offer of land for peace, and the two sides allowed peace negotiations to fall apart after years of efforts. Alatout acknowledged errors on the part of both leaders, but added that Barak's decision to allow Sharon to visit the Temple Mount, home to a revered Moslem holy site in Jerusalem's Old City, accompanied by hundreds of armed guards, "didn't help." Although Israel retains formal sovereignty over the site, it is governed by an Islamic trust that allows non-Muslims to visit during limited hours. A second Palestinian "intifada," or uprising, began in fall 2000 shortly after that visit, which also precipitated Barak's fall and Sharon's rise to power.
Responding to a question about the success of the surprise terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Strauss commented: "Some people think that 9/11 was not a success for Al Qaeda but the worst thing they did." The American public had been divided on how to respond to earlier attacks such as the one on the U.S.S. Cole in Aden's harbor in Yemen in October 2000, he noted. "But this [attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon] was such a dramatic symbol that it drew a major response [of condemnation]."
But Wippman said he was worried that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks might be used to justify further U.S. military strikes that violate international law. "We do not have a legal reason to attack Iraq," he stressed.
| Cornell Chronicle Front Page | | Table of Contents | | Cornell News Service Home Page |