Gehan Gunasekara examines what constitutes a 'just war' and what could be legitimate strategies for opposing the so-called War on Terror.
If the consequences were not so serious, the amateurish tactics of al Qaeda followers with a pre-disposition for detonating devices in aircraft would almost have an element of farce.
However, the most recent attempt involving a madman with a bomb in his underpants will no doubt burden travellers with a
new set of indignities - the mind boggles at the possibilities - in the form of enhanced security measures at airports worldwide.
More importantly, however, the latest breach provides a useful context for examining the nature of the so-called War on Terror we are said to be fighting, its legitimacy and the means employed in prosecuting it.
In his recent acceptance speech when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama sought to justify the escalation in Afghanistan by referring to the notion of a "just war".
Theologians and law professors alike have questioned the application of this notion to current circumstances since the doctrine is limited by various criteria: these include the idea of proportionality (you do not invade a whole country when other means exist for pursuing an enemy, especially when the invasion ultimately fails to apprehend him) and minimising harm to civilians (American pilot-less drones frequently hit the wrong targets often killing as many as 40 innocent villagers each time). It also assumes those prosecuting the war have clean hands themselves.
Apart from the economic embargo they have had to endure, the citizens of the small nation of Cuba have had to contend with 50 years of terrorist acts planned, financed and supported by the United States. In addition, a terrorist who admitted planting a bomb that destroyed a Cuban airliner, killing all on board, was granted sanctuary in the US.
Despite this, Cuba has never retaliated in kind against the US - some might suggest it ought to - and, as Fidel Castro writes in his autobiography, this country was the first to offer help to the US after September 11.
Such actions suggest the question of who is a terrorist and who is a "freedom fighter" may not be as straightforward as official statements suggest. After all, Nelson Mandela was until quite recently branded a terrorist even by the US Government.
Intriguingly, before their incarceration, Mandela and his resistance wing of the African National Congress employed intelligent, effective means of pursuing the struggle against the apartheid regime. These included targeting infrastructure, power lines, railway lines and empty government buildings.
A few years ago, a branch from a tree caused the entire power grid on the eastern seaboard of North America to be out for a week, resulting in billions of dollars of economic loss. If a piece of wood could do so much harm, imagine what a determined al Qaeda operative with engineering know-how might accomplish.
Fortunately, al Qaeda's unhealthy obsession with high-flying aircraft has saved the US from potentially far more harmful attacks than have thus far eventuated.
While suicide attacks aimed at civilians are certainly indefensible, the citizens of an illegally occupied country, such as Iraq, have the right, if not the duty, to resist the occupiers by any legitimate means available.
President Obama has suggested the legitimacy of a just war. By the same logic a just resistance is equally acceptable. Economic counter-measures might also be employed to good effect. For example, the besieged Cubans might consider allowing third parties to make use of American-owned trademarks in Cuba: imagine McDonald's golden arches or major hotel chains, such as Holiday Inn, finding their intellectual property being expropriated by unlicensed operators.
If the affected companies wished to prevent the conduct occurring in Cuba, they would have to themselves register or contest the marks in Cuba, thereby infringing US laws and putting them somewhere between a rock and a hard place.
The War on Terror is still being waged through illegal detentions, renditions and torture. Guantanamo has yet to be closed while many more prisoners are held at the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, which President Obama does not intend to close.
For those determined to resist, alternative means certainly exist besides bombs on planes hidden in underpants.
* Gehan Gunasekara lectures in commercial law at the University of Auckland Business School.
