BOOK REVIEW: Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First CenturyBy Philip Bobbitt; Allen Lane; €32
Bobbitt, Philip. Remember the name. He's a possible national security adviser in an Obama administration, a nephew of president Lyndon Johnson, and has served in Republican and Democratic administrations.
He is a professor of federal jurisprudence and has served as a senior adviser at the White House, the Senate, and the state department. Bobbitt is one of the scariest/most interesting thinkers in the US.
His book focuses on the nexus between international law, national security and political strategy. His objective - to rethink the constitutional state of the world in the 21st century.
"The 20th century, industrial regulatory nation-state is unable to cope with a number of challenges to its claim to legitimate power, challenges that include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), trans-national threats like 21st century terrorism, AIDS, SARS, climate change, immigration, a global system of human rights that supersedes national law, a global system of financial markets that removes the power of states to control the value of their own currency, an international system of communications and a global culture irresistibly spread by those communications. These challenges are de-legitimating the constitutional order . . . They are both driving globalisation (in both its vicious and virtuous circles), which depend upon global communications and markets, and are being intensified by globalisation. And too, these developments are responsible for the emergence of a global terror network, which, in turn, is undermining the clumsy national efforts of states to eradicate it."
Bobbitt says this will lead to a new form of state, of which the EU and the US are prime examples - the "market-state". This market-state arises from both the negative side-effects of the success of the parliamentary democracies against totalitarianism in the 20th century and their evolving weaknesses in the 21st, particularly their inability (because of demographic and other changes) to provide fully for the wellbeing of their citizens - the prime objective of the nation-state. The "market-state" will focus on maximising the opportunities it offers its citizens while the market-state of consent will also focus on protecting core human and civil rights.
Market-states divide between states of consent and states of terror. The terror state controls its citizens through fear - they do not have the right to say "no". The consent state operates on the basis that citizens can say "no"; thus its actions and are legitimised by the consent of citizens. In war such states have two main aims: the protection of civilian lives (as a core human right) and the preservation of the rule of law (which at its core has the preservation of human rights).
Terrorism arises from our success, not our failures. "Like new antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis, market-state terrorism is a function of what we have done to eradicate old threats. That is, its principal causes are the liberalisation of the global economy, the internationalisation of the electronic media, and the military-technological revolution - all ardently sought innovations that won the Long War [ the various wars of the 20th century] . . . In the process we have created a chronic problem . . . the destabilising, delegitimating, demoralizing terror that arises from the intersection of market-state terrorism, the market-states' commodification of WMD, and the increasing vulnerability of market-states to catastrophic events."
The problem is the collision between the inevitable rise of market-state terrorism (al-Qaeda is only the precursor), the commodification of WMD and the inevitability of their availability to non-state actors, and the increasing vulnerability of market-states to catastrophic events, terrorism, earthquakes, global epidemics, or massive human rights abuses. We will need to change our view on sovereignty significantly if we are to maintain the rule of law and preserve human rights, as a catastrophic event could destabilise even a mature democracy and lead to martial law if not planned for in advance.
To deal with these developments Bobbitt defines terrorism as "the pursuit of political goals through the use of violence against non-combatants in order to dissuade them from doing what they have the lawful right to do". This definition, which he believes is capable of worldwide agreement and of being enshrined in international law, then drives how the wars of the 21st century should be fought and the related legal and constitutional arrangements that will be needed.
This struggle will require a policy of what he calls preclusion to stop mass casualty terrorism before such attacks, and to stop the proliferation of WMD which would make a massive loss of human life more likely. So intervention is not to establish democracy, nor to make us feel better etc, but to legitimise the rule of law and maintain its operation.
In 21st century wars, the concept of victory changes fundamentally. Surviving, enduring and not suffering massive loss of life or eroding our human rights is victory in itself. "By this means - wars on terror - the states of consent can preserve their civil institutions and the environment of consent on which these institutions depend."
There is much to disagree with here. And much to worry about, if these ideas take root in Washington. But the book should be read in its entirety. The insistence that torture of detainees is wrong, unless it is to extract information which would allow a terrorist "ticking bomb" to be defused, appears impractical and wrong-headed, but it is worth confronting his thinking. Above all this is a book of the mind. However, the gut can be equally if not more important in dealing with the vulnerability of our societies, the relationship between states and their citizens, and in confronting terrorism.
• Richard Whelan is the author of Al-Qaedaism: The Threat to Islam, The Threat to the World. His website is: www.richardwhelan.com
