opinion There is no doubt that the United States, after being attacked by terrorists, has the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

According to that clear provision, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

And the US has exercised that right by declaring and prosecuting a war in Afghanistan whom it believes is harbouring terrorists. Before the war commenced, the security council of the United Nations in binding resolution 1267 demanded that Osama bin Laden be turned over to an appropriate country for trial, and insisted that the Taliban regime of Afghanistan cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organisations.

The Taliban regime refused to comply with the demand of the security council.

By first citing Article 51 of the UN charter on legitimate self-defence, and then demanding Osama bin Laden be turned over, the US and its allies fulfilled the requirements of basic international law on the war of self-defence.

After the Taliban regime refused to comply with the demand of the UN security council, the US and its allies openly proclaimed war. Sufficient time had also been given for innocent people to leave for safer places in Afghanistan, before armed actions commenced.

The armed action which is executed by the official and uniformed, i.e. publicly accountable armed forces of the US and its allies, targets military installations although collateral damages have also been reported, confirmed and openly regretted by the US authorities.

It is important that the US and its allied forces should account satisfactorily to the international community for the reported bombing of an International Red Cross building.

The US and its allies, in exercising their collective right to self-defence, have therefore complied with the modern international law on war. It can no way be termed as 'terrorism'. The differences are obvious and self-evident.

However, whether it is wise for the US and its allies to exercise the right to self-defence by commencing the armed actions is still disputed by some quarters, not only among Muslims but also people of other faiths and secular pacifists.

Providing security

No country and state would and could sit idly and apologetically doing nothing after its territory and population have been endangered, harmed or maimed by external aggressors.

In fact, one of the fundamental and essential functions, or genuine raison d'etre of the states is to provide security to its citizens and taxpayers against external threat and aggression.

And for this reason, all states, whatever their ideologies, cultures and religions, have to maintain armed forces for at least, self-defence. No state on earth is or ought to be pacifist as far as external threat and aggression are concerned.

For example, the governments of both Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CCP) had to mobilise its resources and armed forces to fight against the Japanese aggression and invasion beginning on July 7, 1937. Similarly, the former Soviet Union had to defend itself in the Great Patriotic War against the invasion of Nazi Germany beginning in June 1941.

Indeed, immediately after being attacked by the terrorists in a war-like fashion, the US had no other viable option but to strike back in self-defence, especially for psychological self-defence. The people and government of America could not, and still cannot, be perceived as succumbing to the threat of the terrorists and their masterminds.

The people and government of the US have to project their willpower and capacity to strike back for justice. Otherwise, the terrorists would have succeeded in their grand psychological warfare, namely the inducement of massive fear which, if not overcome, would breed timidity, helplessness, disorientation and utter despair, and then lead to the psychological collapse of the population.

However, as David Fromkin insightfully pointed out in an article titled 'The strategy of terrorism' in the Foreign Affairs quarterly in July, 1975, another equally important strategy of terrorists which should never be overlooked is the secret intention of terrorists to trap or provoke lawful enforcers of security into reactions or counter-measures that would be perceived by public opinions as "rash", "unreasonable", "cruel", "inhuman" and "repressive".

Careless and imprudent governments would later be isolated by public opinions which, given time, would forget the first and original acts of terrorists and only scrutinise the reactions and counter-measures. The legitimacy or the moral authority of the lawful enforcers of counter-terrorist measures and actions could be eroded and destroyed in the longer run.

Public opinions to that effect could also be manipulated or contrived by terrorists and propagandists, well-meaning but muddle-headed pacifists, as well as other state or sub-state interests that are not friendly or even hostile to the lawful enforcers. Thus, there is a fine line between the critical need for psychological self-defence on one hand, and the counter-productive over-reactions against terrorism on the other.

Precautions

In the present case of the US and its allies taking armed actions against Afghanistan, it is only wise to take precautions against the following perceptions and impressions that might become widespread in the coming weeks and months:

(1) that the US, UK and their western allies are "imperialistic and war-mongering";

(2) that Western Christianity is waging a 'crusade' against Islam;

(3) that the 'real and ultimate' intention of US, UK and western allies taking armed action against Afghanistan is to 'encircle' or 'contain' China on its western flank;

(4) that Afghanistan has been selected for armed action is geo-strategic or geo-political for Western powers "to gain control of the heartland of Eurasia";

(5) that the 'powerful' West is simply 'bullying' the 'weak' and 'powerless' people of Asia and Third World in some conspiratorial 'neo-colonial' and 'neo-imperialist' schemes.

These may sound irrational to the rational minds but propaganda is by nature irrational and the power of irrationality in a moment of crisis, fear, grief and anger can never be underestimated, especially if the US and West are widely perceived by the masses in the Islamic and Third World to be too close to various repressive regimes.

Thus, besides armed actions, public education, counter-propaganda and ethical diplomacy should be made important components of the world-wide anti-terrorism efforts. The war against terrorism must not only be won in the battlefields but also in the hearts and minds of the ordinary people all over the world.

JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM) which produces the subscriber-based political report, Analysis Malaysia. James is a former member of parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily. He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew, he and a team of journalists won the top awards of Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) for 1998 and 1999.