9/11: a breach of the peace, not an act of war

Many Americans believe they are at war, and most Europeans do not. The 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda should not be seen as an act of war, but an egregious breach of the peace.

These two simple propositions are at the heart of the latest summary of world security by the historian - and leading strategic thinker - Prof Sir Michael Howard. He gave his farewell lecture last week at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which he helped found in 1958, on the theme, 'Are we at war?'

Emphatically he said we are not - in the old sense of the great wars of the past four centuries. But we are in deep trouble. The decision by President Bush to declare America and its allies to be at war with terrorists after 9/11 has been little short of disastrous, Sir Michael said.

It has allowed America under President

Bush to declare a no-holds-barred approach - with the ends justifying illegal and criminal means. This has led to the steady erosion of American power in the world and, coupled with the financial crisis in the US, it means that America no longer dominates the globalised economy.

Similarly, America can have little effect on one of the greatest security concerns of today, the crisis of reform within Islam.

Sir Michael suggests that 9/11 truly marks the end of the pattern of settling international affairs laid down at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which declared that only nation-states make wars and laws; the state's interests transcend those of any individual.

The grim legacy of 9/11 is that the affairs of the world will largely be settled not by great powers of states, but by the dark powers of non-state players like al-Qaeda, and the huge criminal syndicates now beyond the arm of the law and the reach of the state.