Al Jazeera - 9/11: HOW WILL THE SECURITY COUNCIL TACKLE THE AFTERMATH?

With the world still in shock after the events on September 11th 2001, the security council came together to debate about how to tackle the attack’s aftermath. As the SC finished its first day, many questions arise on how exactly the members will form a solution with the tensions rising and opinions greatly differing. With more time passing it becomes clear that reaching a consensus will be hard.

The first session of the day seemed to start with mutual agreement as all states strongly condemned the attacks and wanted to find a suitable solution. However as the states’ delegations tried to do their best to find common ground, the USA’s persistence to retaliate against Al Qaeda  rendered it difficult to come to a clear agreement on tactics, policies and strategy. Many states insisted on forming mechanisms to stop the spread of terrorism and prevent any further attacks. This being a very peaceful solution to the problem, the USA was not going to agree to it.

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”

The USA’s constant persistence on retaliation as the only solution was seen as overly aggressive and impulsive. But this is far from unnatural for the US, as it has a history of impulsive attacks on nations for lesser reasons. Their arguments aren’t new either, using the people’s will to justify any attacks on their “enemies”.

As they kept reiterating the importance of “getting back” at the enemy, many wondered if they had a long term plan in mind. Its history would yet again suggest it does not and so many delegates wondered what retaliation would mean for the local Afghan population. However Afghanistan agreed with their US allies stating: “we would be in support of any UN intervention. We are therefore also support of the US troops’ help, as we hope our joint efforts will overthrow the Taliban.”

Taliban focused on blind belief

The session’s most interesting and tense moments happened when a Taliban delegate came in as an observing state to answer questions. Their key argument against any criticism was belief. Claiming that any action they take is justified by the holy book of Quran. This sparked outrage in other Muslim countries, their greatest concern being the spread of islamophobia.

Further the Taliban called the US non-democratic, stating that any criticism it has against the Taliban should also be directed towards itself. Their answer to the French delegation’s question held the same sentiment as the Taliban claimed that France’s support of the US is as questionable as the human rights violation they claim Taliban has committed.

The US found the Taliban's statements to be outrageous but it was not the only state who did. Norway even went so far to call the Taliban’s involvement in the council “one of the darkest days of UNSC history. Giving murderers an international platform for their horrible believes is shameful.” The room suddenly being in more agreement than ever before as the western world rejected to comment on their own human rights violations but persisted the Taliban acknowledge their own faults.

Reported by Timea Tia Ilič