War against Polio
Throughout the history of humanity, viral diseases have been with people, and for a very long time, medical scientists have sought various ways to stop and eliminate them. In the developed states, vaccines were produced to make humans immune to diseases such as rubella, mumps, measles and whooping cough. However, it was just once that any virus has been eliminated from its last defense in both the body of human and the wild and effectively treated completely. This virus was smallpox, which was totally eliminated outside high-security laboratories in 1977. From that day on, people have been free to inject vaccines against the disease, and the fear that it caused were erased as well.
Currently, humanity is persuading close to another similar impressive experience. This time, the disease is polio, which medical scientists have almost totally eliminated. Over the past 25 years, polio has been widespread to 125 countries worldwide and would kill or paralyze up to 350,000 people, mostly children every year. Presently, the disease has been dropped down to just three countries, which are Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in 2012, it hit only 215 people globally. This successful war against polio was made possible by the insistent worldwide vaccination programs led by UNICEF, Rotary International, the World Health Organization or WHO, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and, just recently, the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation.
In spite of the successful battle against polio, medical doctors and workers encountered a big challenge in preventing the spread of this disease and supplying vaccinations, specifically in those three remaining countries where it still exists. In Pakistan, some gunmen shot and killed few medical workers who were part of the anti-polio program. Polio was then used by terrorists by infecting children, whom they made instruments for viral suicide bombing. The Afghanistan and Nigeria governments both vowed to the United Nations and other organizations involved in the eradication drive, to participate in the war against polio and terrorism. Millions of dollars were donated by the Islamic Development to the vaccine program, particularly in Pakistan. This is in addition to the billions of dollars, which were already donated by the Gates and the Rotary Foundation (time.com).
Non-military War against Terrorism
Great attention is focused on implementing military force as a way of fighting terrorism anywhere in the world. However, the more governing ways for fighting terrorism worldwide depends on non-forceful means managed by different states in America. In this land, the United States and other countries are forced to follow cooperative tactics that rely significantly on international institutions and international laws.
Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States has boarded on a combative campaign to punish the responsible ones for the attacks and to prevent future terrorist movements. One of the strategies was self-governing action by the U.S. Indeed, their campaign against terrorism is quite complex in its reliance on various kinds of non-military sanction rules, criminal and civil litigation, law enforcement strategies, and undercover measures. In addition, as the United States becomes capable of progressing some of its concerns through either independent action or through forceful, even violent, diplomacy, the United States remains dependent in other countries in pursuing its battle against terrorism, agreeing that international law and institutions play a vital role in controlling, if not ceasing, U.S. action.
Imposing economic sanctions on states that sponsor or commit terrorist activities is a strategy imposed by the United States for fighting terrorism. These sanctions may be implemented by blocking or freezing the assets of those states involved in terrorism, barring financial transactions within these states, trade bans, and other economic limitations. In the U.S, several constitutional authorities consider imposition of economic sanctions of this nature. As a result, under the U.S. export control laws, the United States Secretary of State has declared specific countries as terrorist countries, which permits the U.S. government to freeze the assets of such countries located within the U.S. or under U.S. control. Under the United States criminal law, U.S. people may not connect in financial transactions with the authorities of countries declared as terrorist states, unless provided in rules imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury in deliberation with the Secretary of State.
The presidents of the United States may also use these laws to focus on governments not recognized by the U.S. one example is President Clinton issued an executive law in 1999 blocking the import of goods from Taliban-managed Afghanistan as part of the pre-September 2001 United States campaign against Saudi-based terrorist Osama Bin Laden. This law forbids U.S. companies from selling products and services to Afghanistan, and blocking all Taliban assets in the U.S. In a directive to Congress, President Clinton declared that these economic sanctions were proposed to force the Taliban to surrender bin Laden to the custody of the United States. However, U.S. policy evidently recognizes that, in general, mutual sanctions are much more effective than independent sanctions. Undoubtedly, these sanctions did not prevent Taliban from continuing to support terrorists, as was significantly demonstrated in the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Yet, these economic sanctions have obtained cooperation from targeted states (Murphy 348).
The difference between U.S. war against polio and U.S. non-military war against terrorism is that in their battle against polio, medical specialists were able to focus on the main issue, which is eradicating the disease worldwide, while in non-military war against terrorism, the U.S. government needed to establish a strategy or an alternative way to prevent terrorism without the involvement of violence. These two wars that the U.S. government has fought are also associated with each other because the U.S. government, together with the authorities and organizations from other countries need to battle terrorists, specifically in countries that support terrorists in order to completely prevent polio globally.
Between these two wars, war against terrorism was more successful than war against polio because the U.S. government’s alternative tactics became a big help in reducing terrorist activities worldwide by freezing some of the major financial transactions in countries that support terrorism. On the other hand, the government struggled to globally eradicate polio because the remaining countries, which were still infected by this disease, were difficult to reach and supply vaccines.
In the middle of 2012, two local activist leaders have both opposed to vaccination programs. They insisted the termination of U.S. proposed strikes as an arrangement for allowing immunization groups to reach afflicted populations. However, creating diplomatic contacts to negotiate with these militants has appeared very difficult because of the independent command arrangements, mostly unclear decision-making procedures and strategies the groups have used as a safety measure against western intelligence-assembly activities (Tiefengraber 6).
Works Cited
Kluger, Jeffrey. "The War Over Polio." TIME.com. N.p., 3 Jan. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/03/the-final-battle-against-polio/>.
Murphy, Sean D. "International Law, the United States, and the Non-military ‘War’ against Terrorism." 14.2 (2003): 347-364. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/14/2/419.pdf>.
Teifengraber, Daniel. "Non-State Actors & Global Health. Eradicating Polio in Pakistan." Home - ISGLOBAL. ESADEgeo, Nov. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <http://www.isglobal.org/documents/10179/25254/15.Eradicating+Polio+in+Pakistan.pdf/639c1179-2694-4e39-82ab-f978631141ea>.
