A year after 9/11, it is time to take stock of the changes effected in global politics by this incident. Apparently, the world has united to combat and root out terrorism. The US with its on-going military campaign in Afghanistan and proposed campaign against Iraq, is in the forefront of the endeavour to ‘make the world a safer place and safeguard freedom and democracy’. However, a closer examination of the war against terrorism reveals significant differences between nations, in their definitions of terrorism and their use of the war against terror within their own territories. However, common to all countries is an increase in the powers of the state.

   For the US, the war against terror has meant securing the homeland and overseas American installations against terrorist attacks. In the US, the formation of the Homeland Defence Department and the provision of sweeping powers to law enforcement agencies for increased surveillance has met with resistance from civil liberties groups. The scope of this war against terror has broadened over the last year to include US strategic interest abroad; an attack on Iraq can qualify as part of the war on terror. The Bush administration seems determined to carry the fight to this finish, on the conviction that it has the military wherewithal to enforce its plans.  However, it risks alienating its traditional allies and has invited censure from other powerful countries. 

   At the current UN General Assembly session, China has appealed that the campaign against Iraq be carried out under the auspices of the UN.  For China, the war against terrorism had provided an opportunity to legitimize its use of force against the Muslim insurgents in Xinjiang. With the East Turkestan Islamic Militants (ETIM) group being included in the UN list of terrorist organizations, the Chinese have successfully renegotiated the US definition of terrorism to include movements for self-determination. This had been expressed earlier in a resolution passed by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). While it is undeniable that the ETIM uses violence to achieve its political objectives, the blurring of distinctions between terrorism and self-determination will enable the Chinese to brand any opposition to reunification with Taiwan as a potential terrorist threat. The impact of this re-definition on the Tibetan movement for self-rule will also be detrimental. 

   In South Asia, nations have jumped onto the anti-terrorism bandwagon with narrow political concerns dictating their agenda. India has not got a firm commitment from the US on its concerns in Kashmir, where it is fighting cross-border terrorism. Meanwhile, it has passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) which has been used by the Centre to selectively target organizations within the country that are contrary to its interests. The Act has also been used by the AIADMK to crack down on the Opposition in Tamil Nadu; exemplifying the potential for misusing an Act, passed ostensibly to combat terrorism. 

   In Pakistan, the war against terrorism has created the paradoxical situation by presenting it as a frontline state while supporting terrorism in Kashmir. Within Pakistan, the definition of terrorists includes those opposing the US or the Musharraf administration or the remnant of the Al Qaeda, who enjoy support in tribal areas. Recently, the culprits of an ‘honor crime’ were sentenced to death in an anti-terrorism court. While the punishment meted out to the rapists is befitting, the use of an anti-terrorism court to expedite justice does not set a proper legal precedent. With Pakistan’s legal and constitutional institutions being eroded by Musharraf’s constitutional amendments, the checks on the power of the state are being steadily eroded.

   In Nepal, the government has declared the Maoist insurgents as terrorists and sought international help to combat the insurgent threat. The Maoists enjoy the popular support of people in the interior, who have been deprived of economic and infrastructural development. While their use of force cannot be condoned, it needs to be distinguished from terrorism. 

   The foregoing establishes that the war against terror has been used by governments to increase the intrusive power of the state. The US is the prime example; it has used the war against terror to bulldoze its way into new areas; Central Asia is one such example. In many cases, the war against terrorism has been used to strengthen the hold of the power elite, as in China and Pakistan. In India, the gains of the war against terror have been dubious, with violence persisting  in Kashmir. Terrorism is a phenomenon that cannot be rooted out with the US allies in the war serving their short term and divergent political interests.