Antiterrorism dilemma

The global antiterrorism campaign has hit a strategic standoff, with graver risks in the making. On the one hand, many countries devised antiterrorism strategies and policies. The United States adopted the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism in September 2006. Britain and France also passed new antiterrorism legislations. The European Union (EU) signed an agreement on preventing the expansion of terrorist organizations. It also adopted an anti-money laundering law to sever the financing of terrorist organizations. Russia's newly adopted Antiterrorism Law authorizes its military forces to fight terrorism worldwide.

On the other hand, international terrorist forces have outperformed antiterrorism technologies. After five years of restructuring, they have formed an intricate network that takes South Asia as the "spiritual cradle," Iraq as the training ground and Europe and the United States as the battlefront. They are even attempting to infiltrate the Muslim communities in Europe and the United States, Africa and Latin America.

Unfortunately, some Western countries such as the United States adhere to the wrong antiterrorism strategy. They put the blame for international terrorism squarely on Islamic extremists in the belief that the war against terrorism is one between democracy and dictatorship. Ideological factors are gaining relevance in the antiterrorism campaign. In 2006, this trend was powered by an anti-Islam cartoon incident, George W. Bush's use of the term "Islamic fascists" and the Pope's recitation of a condemnation of Islam's "violence." The insidious risk is growing that the antiterrorism campaign may trigger a clash between Western civilization and Islamic civilization.

New UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has said that the United Nations should pass an international convention against terrorism in 2007. However, the process of forming new rules and mechanisms is set to involve fierce power struggles.

Space rivalry

With the weaponization of space speeding up, outer space will become another area of contention. In 2006, the United States adopted a new National Space Policy with the purpose of strengthening its technological monopoly in space weaponization and seeking hegemony in space. This move has prompted other major powers to take action. Russia indicated that it would list the space industry as one of the priorities in its national security strategy. The Putin government announced the allocation of $180 billion so that it will purchase and develop a new weapons system including a space force by 2015. Japan launched the third spy satellite for its global intelligent system in 2006 and is set to launch a forth one in 2007. It is also planning to send into space a new-type satellite in 2009 so that it can monitor the entire globe. The country has begun to discuss scrapping the restrictions it has imposed on itself on developing space technologies for military purposes. While denouncing the United States for its monopoly in space weaponization, the EU has set about pursuing its own space program. It has deployed radar satellites to provide high-resolution pictures for its military forces.

The interaction of all these factors appears poised to complicate the international security situation in 2007. The international community should deepen cooperation and seek a more reasonable security mechanism before its security concerns are effectively addressed.

(The author is deputy director of the Institute of Strategic and Security Studies, the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations)