A Less Secure World

The international community's responses to military conflict can define norms around international security for years to come. Unilateral actions by the US in the wake of the 9/11 attacks have made the world less secure and more prone to violent conflict.

A Less Secure World

The history of the world teaches us that wars are a transformative force for the global political order. Whenever a military conflict unfolds, a new order emerges and this new order dictates the terms of peace and the mechanism for what said order deems to be lasting peace. This mechanism gives birth to the formless and shapeless custom that determines the security of the world. The stronger the belligerent parties, the larger the impact. We witnessed the formation of a new world order as Nazi Germany succumbed to the Red Army, and the United Nations was formed, promising to never repeat the failures of the League of Nations. There, as they held unprecedented trials of individuals for war crimes, a new order was formed which sought to determine that nations couldn’t solve their issues through military means, and war crimes were not to be tolerated, at least not without earning the ire of the international community. 

Whilst the USSR challenged this notion through displays of power, its eventual collapse and the subsequent war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein tried to annex Kuwait were hailed as examples that the international community would not tolerate military expansion, which gave further hope that the security of the world was slowly but surely entering a new era.

Yet, this new era was killed in its infancy as the United States, the sole juggernaut on the world stage, decided to embark on military expeditions and operations that would devastate the slowly forming international custom with a more security-oriented international norm.

As the US military hunted al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the world watched and silently gave consent to an angry superpower that looked to inflict chaos on millions for the sole purpose of revenge.  

As mentioned before, wars have a transformative effect on the world. Post 9/11, the United Nations was repeatedly challenged regarding security as the United States justified its invasion of Afghanistan under Article 51 of the UN Charter as self-defense. As the US military hunted al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the world watched and silently gave consent to an angry superpower that looked to inflict chaos on millions for the sole purpose of revenge. This invasion devastated already war-torn Afghanistan and after becoming the longest war in the history of the US, the withdrawal of the American troops was quickly followed by the ascent to power of the same Taliban that the US had spent trillions of dollars fighting. 

The world, unable to stop a seething superpower, did not discuss the impact on world security of a sovereign nation invading another sovereign nation to hunt for a terror organization. The legality and justification for such an action began a new transformation of the world order - one where security and military might would be used once again for dispute resolution, revenge and personal political achievements. Two years later, the United States invaded another sovereign nation, Iraq. The legal fallacy of Security Council clearance based on subsequent resolutions used to justify a belligerent action reminiscent of pre-WW2 military history was shocking, yet neither the invasion was condemned, nor did the world unite to stand behind Iraq as the United States, to justify their clear implementation of the pre-emptive doctrine, undertook military action for reasons that are debated to this day. Each more unjust than the last. 

What followed was the destruction of a nation and a list of war crimes that remain unaddressed. The United States occupied both Afghanistan and Iraq under the guise of nation-building and the world, in their subsequent support, legalized this custom of invasion and occupation to create favorable governments. The same followed with the Syrian conflict as the United States launched multiple air strikes into the sovereign nation, including targeting another nation's military general. Nations once again became battlegrounds and what culminated in 2001, morphed into countries eventually invading other sovereign nations based on political, ethnic and territorial claims as we witnessed with the Russian invasion of Crimea and the subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nations are following the custom supported and agreed upon by the international community as they supported the illegal actions of the United States. The Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict of 2020 and the recent offensive of 2023 are just one of the recent examples of nations undertaking military solutions for dispute resolution. 

Similarly, on 7th October, Hamas launched a surprise offensive called Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which resulted in the death of 1400 Israelis, including combatants and non-combatants. A seething Israel declared war on Hamas a day later and in line with the established customary practice brought into existence by the silence of the world, launched massive air strikes and blockaded the Gaza Strip, such that medical aid, water, food and electricity were all shut down by Israel, and the world once again gave homage to the recently established customary practices. 

If we stay silent today and do nothing, then we will cement such military responses as international customs, and the world will become even more security-oriented, leading to more military conflicts in the longer run.

Similar to the consent given by the international community to the US operations in the Middle East or to the brutal Arab operations in Yemen, Israel has now started similar brutal operations in Gaza. Today, Israel is following the customary precedent that has formed due to the inaction of the international community and as Israel slowly begins what could be the beginning of the most brutal humanitarian crisis of the year, the international community, rather than condemning and uniting against Israel, is arguing whether condemning the bombing of civilians by Israel is anti-semitic or not. Justifications and support to Israel are being provided by the international community, and apart from a few meek words of silent condemnation, the international community has given its silent consent. 

So we must ask ourselves if wars are transformative and international precedent is the settled custom, then what custom will the aftermath of one of the most brutal wars of the decade will bring for our future? There is no doubt that after the US invasion of Afghanistan, the world has become a dangerous and insecure place. Even at this stage, the international community can take action to make sure this international practice of conflict does not become customary international law. For this, they must look beyond their interest and take action against Israel and make it known to the world that while bad precedents were set due to inaction, these precedents will no longer tolerated and justified. If we stay silent today and do nothing, then we will cement such military responses as international customs, and the world will become even more security-oriented, leading to more military conflicts in the longer run. 

When this fire engulfs the world of our children, they will wonder what madness drove their forefathers to argue whether condemnation of airstrikes on civilians is anti-semitic or not, rather than condemning the act itself. 

The writer is a jurist, historian and an animal rights activist.