No to war
By Dr Chandra Muzaffar

By the time this article sees print, the United States may have launched an attack upon Afghanistan. But we must continue to speak out against military action.

More and more Americans are protesting against war. On 29 and 30 September, tens of thousands of Americans gathered in Washington DC and in other cities to plead with the Bush government not to use its military might to fight Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Some of the protesters in Washington went even further. They labelled the US as the primary source of global terrorism.

Protests have been held in a number of other countries around the globe. In Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, Korea, China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and even in Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia, peace activists have organised demonstrations against the US. Though these dissidents are still in a minority, President George Bush and the Washington elite would do well to listen to these sane, rational voices.

There are at least eleven compelling reasons why military action would be palpably unjust and even counter productive.

One, given the US track record in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere, it is not inconceivable that thousands of innocent lives would be lost in any military reprisal against Osama and Afghanistan. If it is the massacre of innocents in New York and Washington on 11 September which makes it such a dastardly crime, how would the world react to the killing of innocent men, women and children in impoverished, famine stricken Afghanistan?

Two, since the US establishment is in such a hurry to bombard Afghanistan, one wonders whether they have allowed vengeance to get the better of them. If this is the motive - to avenge both the merciless slaughter of innocents and the humiliation of a terrorist attack that exposed the weaknesses of the US' intelligence and security systems - it is obvious that the leadership has not thought through the far-reaching consequences of a military operation. A hasty response may prove to be the undoing of the world's sole superpower.

Three, given the vested interests driving US foreign policy at this point in time, it is quite possible that what has begun as an anti-Osama operation could well end up as a massive anti terrorist witch hunt extending to Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Algeria, Sudan and Iran. Since these are all Muslim states, the implications of such a military adventure for global stability does not need any elaboration.

Four, even if the Bush Administration focusses only on Osama, the fact remains that there is at the moment insufficient evidence to pinpoint the September 11 carnage on the man. Right from the first hour after the tragedy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and certain powerful military and political personalities had decided that Osama was the culprit. This has made a lot of people suspicious about Washington's approach to investigations into the tragedy. It would be a shame if the US went to war against an entire nation on the basis of flimsy evidence which would not withstand the scrutiny of the international community.

Five, even as it is, allegations made by the FBI against a couple of suspected hijackers in the September 11 carnage have proven to be baseless. The FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the mainstream American media are notorious for making monumental mistakes about the identities of terrorists and terrorist centres. In the 1995 Oklahoma tragedy, the media was absolutely convinced for 48 hours that Muslim terrorists had blown up the building. In August 1998, US cruise missiles destroyed a vaccine plant in Khartoum because the CIA thought it was manufacturing chemical warfare materials for Osama's terrorist activities. The truth about that CIA blunder was never known because the US blocked an UN inquiry into the incident.If this is how American institutions handle the question of terrorism, how can one believe all those allegations made about individuals responsible for the September 11 tragedy?

Six, indeed if the US goes ahead with military action against Osama in spite of the lack of solid evidence, it would be a gross violation of the rule of law. The US would be seen as acting arbitrarily, as throwing its weight around. It would lend credence to a widely held view of the US as an arrogant superpower that recognises only one rule: that might is right.

Seven, this in turn will reinforce an image of the US that has gained considerable currency in the last few months since George W. Bush became President. The US is only interested in pushing its own agenda. The missile defence system issue is an example of this. The US does not care for global public opinion. Its attitude towards the Kyoto Accord attests to this. And now, US critics will say, in spite of what sensible people have been saying about the danger of a new war, the Bush Administration is preparing feverishly to strike against Afghanistan.

Eight, it is a strike that will not achieve the overriding goal of eliminating terrorism. For military power which may succeed in wiping out terrorist bases here and there will not be able to eradicate the political, economic and social circumstances that may have given birth to terrorism in the first instance.

Nine, it follows from this that a preoccupation with the military option will divert Washington's attention from the underlying causes of the rise of the sort of terrorism that we witnessed on September 11. Unless the parlous state of affairs in Palestine and Iraq and in certain other parts of the Arab world is addressed, as we have emphasised over and over again, frustration and desperation among the masses will give rise to rage and anger which, in turn, sometimes makes terrorists out of ordinary men and women.

Ten, since cross border terrorism of the kind associated with the September 11 tragedy is enmeshed in the complex interface between the Muslim world and the West, it is quite likely that military action against Osama will further exacerbate the relations between the two civilisations. In fact, even now, in spite of all the attempts to discourage stereotyped thinking on both sides of the Islam West divide,segments of the population in Muslim countries have become very critical about the US's handling of the Osama issue, just as a section of US society has become somewhat antagonistic towards certain Muslim countries.

Eleven, this attitude is beginning to affect relations between the largely Caucasian majority and Muslim minorities in not only the United States but also in other Western countries. Since relations between these two components of society have never really been warm in the past, one can expect the September 11 tragedy and its aftermath to generate an even more adverse impact upon inter ethnic ties. If the US resorts to military action against Afghanistan, things will get much, much worse.

For all these reasons, it would be in everyone's interest if the Bush Administration desisted from pursuing the military option. There is no doubt at all that the terrorists responsible for the September 11 carnage should be brought to justice. But this should be done in a manner that conforms with the rule of law. Incontrovertible evidence of their involvement in the carnage should be presented to the international community. The International Court of Justice should be brought into the picture.

The accused should stand trial before the Court. It might have been a little easier to initiate legal proceedings against the alleged terrorists if there was a functioning International Criminal Court (ICC). Unfortunately, the US has not ratified the accord stablishing the ICC. With all its limitations, the International Court of Justice and the UN system is the best available channel for trying the terrorists responsible for the September 11 carnage. However, the UN can only play its role if the US chooses to respond to September 11 in a peaceful, non violent manner.

Will the US make such a choice?