Laman Webantu KM2: 6138 File Size: 7.1 Kb * |
IUK: Yes, there is an effective alternative to the bombing... By Tariq Ali 15/10/2001 12:58 pm Mon |
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=99442
15 October 200 Tariq Ali: Yes, there is an effective
alternative to the bombing of Afghanistan
'A lesson could have been learnt from
Israel's patient stalking, capture and trial of
Adolf Eichmann' 15 October 2001 Over the past decade or so, every war fought by the West (in the
Gulf, the Balkans and now South Asia) has been accompanied by a
well-orchestrated propaganda campaign. Politics is conducted and
presented in the style of intelligence agencies: disinformation,
exaggeration of enemy strength and capability, explanation of a
television image with a brazen lie and censorship. The aim is to
delude and disarm the citizenry. Everything is either over-simplified
or reduced to a wearisome incomprehensibility. The message is
simple. There is no alternative.
As the bombing of Afghanistan continues for the second week, the
Pentagon has admitted that some bombs went astray. Two hundred
Afghan civilians have been killed so far and more will die if the
bombs continue to fall. During the lull before the war, the US
Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, mused in public as to whether
Afghanistan had any "assets worth bombing". He knew the answer.
The fact is that the Anglo-American bombing campaign is in clear
breach of Articles 48 and 51 of the Geneva Convention as well as
the Nuremberg Charter. Article 48 insists that: "In order to ensure
respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian
objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish
between the civilian population and combatants and between
civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct
their operations only against military objectives."
Article 51 is equally clear in prohibiting indiscriminate attacks and
specifies these as attacks "which may be expected to cause
incidental loss of a civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian
objects or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".
Was there ever an alternative to the bombing? If the real intention
was not a crude war of revenge, but to seriously weaken and
eliminate terrorism and bring to trial those who ordered the crimes
committed on 11 September, then the answer is yes. The
disproportionality of what is taking place speaks for itself. If the US
judiciary was convinced by the evidence of Mr bin Laden's guilt
then a warrant should have been issued for his extradition and a
plan prepared to bring him to trial.
A lesson could have been learnt from Israel's patient stalking,
capture and trial of Adolf Eichmann who was accused of a far more
serious crime. In going to war, Bush and Blair resorted to a mixture
of cowboy discourse and Old Testament imagery to pre-empt any
judicial inquiry or action. The model so far has been that of the old
lynch-mob, egged on by a populace fed on a regular diet of scare
stories. Anthrax today and, no doubt, nuclear briefcases tomorrow.
If the real aim is simply an old-fashioned imperialist one, i.e. to
topple the Taliban regime and replace it with a protectorate
considered closer to "Western values" (as the Taliban once was),
then and only then does the bombing make sense as the Northern
Alliance, waiting to commence the battle for Kabul, realise full well.
Its leaders boast they can do it alone, but US marines and British
commandos are standing by to help them just in case the Taliban
defeat them as they did once before. Meanwhile, there is no news of the pretext for this war. Where is
Osama bin Laden? Is his capture part two of this operation? And if
he is caught will he be killed or brought to trial? And, if so, will this
entire exercise have helped to diminish the attraction for, let alone
help to defeat terrorism? I think the result will be the exact opposite
and especially in the Arab and Muslim world.
Neither George Bush nor Tony Blair appear to appreciate that, like it
or not, Mr bin Laden has become a hero in many parts of the Third
World. Young, middle-class graduates in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and
the Maghreb will make sure that his martyrdom will not be in vain.
Only last week, President Bush told journalists: "How do I respond
when I see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for
America? I'll tell you how I respond. I'm amazed. I just can't believe it
because I know how good we are." Mr Blair, his military confederate, had another solution: "One thing
becoming increasingly clear to me is the need to upgrade our media
and public opinion operations in the Arab and Muslim world." The
simplicity on display is frightening. Surely the mandarins in the State
Department and Foreign Office are aware of the realities. They must
know that the medium-term solution is political and economic, not
military. Unless the Palestinians are guaranteed a viable, sovereign state,
there will be no peace. Mr Arafat may be content with the shrivelled
little Bantustans at Israeli pleasure, but the Palestinian population is
not. The latest intifada is also a revolt against the Oslo Accords and
the corruption of the Palestinian leadership.
Then there is Iraq. Not a single one of the standard arguments for the
continuing bombardment and blockade of Iraq stands up. The notion
that Saddam's cruelties are unique is an abject fiction. The Turkish
Generals, valued members of Nato, have killed 30,000 Kurds over
the past decade and denied them the use of their own language.
Responsible modernity? Saddam never attempted a cultural
annihilation of this order. The Saudi Kingdom makes not even a
pretence of human rights, its treatment of women would not pass
muster in medieval Russia. As for nuclear weapons, the hawkish
Unscom inspector, Scott Ritter, insists they cannot be countenanced.
Israel, however, possesses nuclear weapons without any sanctions
whatsoever. Double standards of this sort and on this scale drive young people
to despair. Here is an immediate solution. The lifting of sanctions and
a permanent halt to the bombing of Iraq would have a positive impact
throughout the world of Islam, reducing the number of young men
prepared to sacrifice their own lives for what they regard as a holy
cause. It would be a small step forward if, as US and British jets are
dispatched for yet another bombing raid on a the shattered and
famished remnant of Afghanistan, a few of our political leaders spoke
up in the name of reason. The writer's novel, 'The Stone Woman', is published in paperback by
Verso this month |