Post-9/11

On September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked after taking off from airports in New York and Boston. They were seized by men linked to the radical Islamist group, Al-Qaeda. Two planes were flown into the World Trade Center in New York City. One plane was flown into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. Another crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, following a fight between the passengers and hijackers. Over 3,000 people died.

For analysts of politics, numerous questions arise from these events. Two are of particular significance. First, did 9/11 (as the events soon became known) instantiate or symbolize a radical break in the dynamics of global politics? Many journalists, public commentators, and politicians argue that the world has changed irrevocably, that we live in a new era. The West, so it is claimed, has finally awoken to the fact that it is under attack from assorted terrorist organizations (usually grouped together under the heading of Islamic fundamentalism) and it is consequently essential to defeat this enemy through a new global war: the war on terror. Accordingly, the old rules and norms of the international system—based on respect for state sovereignty as the basis of international law and generally excluding policies such as preventive war—no longer hold.

The second main question relates to the appropriate balance between liberty and security within states. The war on terror has entailed a significant clampdown on civil liberties throughout the world. Not only have [Page 726]various rights been curtailed (most obviously by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001), but also heightened levels of anxiety have meant that public debate over such policies is often perfunctory or nonexistent. Moreover, a number of states (including Israel, Russia, and Indonesia) have employed the rhetoric of the global war to legitimate their actions in long-standing conflicts. Critics have accused governments of either overreacting to the threat posed by terrorism or of deliberately utilizing the new climate of anxiety to instigate otherwise-controversial measures and legislation.

For politicians, civil society activists, and scholars of politics, the analysis of and response to the events of 9/11 will continue to present a pressing challenge for years to come. However, it would be premature to draw concrete conclusions about the “meaning” of 9/11. While it is possible to discern significant shifts in political language, in the levels of anxiety felt in many parts of the world, and in the actions and attitudes of a number of political administrations, it remains to be seen whether there has been a fundamental change, rather than a transient shift, in priorities and perceptions.