Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: War on Terror

  • US Opposes ICC Bid to Make ‘Aggression’ a Crime Under International Law

    This article was originally published by the Christian Science Monitor.

    The United States under the Obama administration has developed an increasingly close working relationship with the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But that growing engagement with a controversial institution of international law was unable to prevent the ICC from expanding the scope of its work to include the murky crime of “aggression,” a move the US had vehemently opposed.

    At the 111-nation ICC’s first review conference that wrapped up last week in Kampala, Uganda, delegates decided to expand the international court’s purview to include the crime of aggression – a crime that only the US has successfully tried, in the post-World War II tribunals in Nuremburg and Tokyo.

    State Department officials say the US, which is not a signatory to the ICC, was able to mitigate the drawbacks of such an expansion of the court’s reach, primarily by putting off any prosecution of the newest international crime until at least 2017.

    But some critics say the US failure to stop the enshrining of “aggression” as an international crime demonstrates the limits of President Obama’s multilateralist vision – and sets the US on a collision course with the ICC when the issue comes up again later in the decade.

    “The fact remains that the Obama administration’s vaunted ‘engagement’ strategy was only able to check the ICC’s move towards defining ‘aggression,’ not stop it entirely,” says Brett Schaefer, an expert in international institutions at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. “And it sets the US up for another battle in 2017 when the ICC’s advocates will make another push to activate the ICC’s jurisdiction over ‘aggression.’”

    The US confirmed its new footing with the world’s first permanent court for trying war crimes and crimes against humanity, US officials say, although they acknowledge that the US did not get everything it wanted in Kampala. The Rome Statute establishing the ICC was finalized in 1998, but the court did not begin to function until 2002, when the minimum 60 countries ratified it.

    US participation in the Kampala conference “reset US relations with the court from hostility to positive engagement,” says State Department legal adviser Harold Koh. He says the US focus at the review conference was on efforts to “strengthen justice on the ground” in countries so that eventually their judicial systems will be strong enough to take on the kinds of human-rights work the ICC addresses.

    Mr. Koh says that focus was particularly well-received in Africa, “where there is a strong desire to have these cases tried at the national level.”

    Some ICC critics have also noted that the court has only taken up two cases so far, both involving African countries – one involving the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, and the other regarding Sudan – and they dismiss the largely European-Union funded court as a colonial institution pressing Western interests.

    But the US increasingly sees the value of the ICC, especially as it has tried cases that begged for international intervention.

    “If it weren’t for the ICC [in cases like Sudan or Uganda] you would have had to set up a special tribunal,” says Stephen Rapp, the State Department’s coordinator for war crimes issues.

    One of the main US concerns in seeing “aggression” added to the ICC’s jurisdiction was the impact it could potentially have on US military operations abroad. But Koh says the US successfully negotiated the “aggression” statute’s wording so that US forces won’t be susceptible to it.

    “No US national can be prosecuted for ‘aggression’ while the US is not a signatory” to the ICC, he says.

  • Autumn

    God whispered in George Bush’s ear.

    Then came shock and awe.

    The war president strutted in triumph.

    Now two and a half years have passed.

    American troops have been dying steadily

    Like water dripping from an autumn leaf.

    Two thousand American troops are dead.

    Not many compared to the Iraqi dead

    Or to the scattered leaves of autumn.

    But it is two-thirds of those who died on 9/11.

    These deaths are used to justify the next deaths.

    And on and on, while anguished cries of grief

    Echo through this darkened land.

    While rain-soaked autumn leaves keep falling.

  • The Abandonment of International Law After 9/11

    Presentation to the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference 2005, Washington Convention Center, 801 Mt. Vernon Place, Washington D.C., September 21-24, 2005.

    The US Government has long adopted double standards when it comes to respecting international law, especially in the setting of national security issues. It promotes a generalized respect for the Rule of Law in world politics, is outraged by violations of international law by its enemies, and chooses selectively when to comply and when to violate. This pattern goes far back in American history, but it is convenient to take note of American violations of international law in the setting of the Vietnam War, as well as periodic interventions in Central and South America. I would argue that this pattern has long harmed America’s global reputation and capacity for leadership, as well as worked against its own national interest.

    It seems clear that the United States, and the American people, would have benefited over the years from a foreign policy carried out subject to the discipline of international law. If the US Government had abided by international law, the dreadful experience of the Vietnam War would not have occurred. More recently, an observation that will be discussed further below, upholding international law would have avoided the fiasco of the Iraq War. Contrary to popular belief, respecting the restraints of international law better serves the national interest than does an attitude, so prevalent since 9/11, that international law poses inconvenient obstacles on the path toward national security.

    It is important to understand that the restraints of international law have been voluntarily developed by sovereign states to protect their interests and values. Their intent is practical. It reflects the wisdom of centuries of diplomacy. International law is of particular importance in relation to uses of force in the course of foreign policy, and more generally issues relating to security, especially war and peace. The US Constitution declares in Article VI(2) that duly ratified treaties are ”the supreme law of the land.” This puts the key rules and principles of international law on a par with Congressional acts. The Supreme Court has ruled that in the event of an unavoidable clash between these two sources of legal authority, the last in time should prevail.

    Let me make the general point more strongly. In a globalizing world of great complexity it is in the interest of all states, large and small, that their relations be reliably regulated by international law. This observation underpins the daily operations of the world economy and many other aspects of international behavior, including maritime safety, environmental protection, tourism, immigration, disease control. The stability of international life depends on a closely woven fabric of law as the basis for almost all activity beyond the borders of a sovereign state.

    What is a cause for deepest current worry is that the United States has seemed to abandon this understanding of the relevance of law to the establishment of world order. This concern is not entirely new. It runs throughout the entire course of American history, but it has taken a serious turn for the worse during the Bush presidency, especially in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Even prior to the attacks, the foreign policy of the Bush administration disclosed its disdain for widely respected international treaties. The Bush White House contended that existing and pending treaties limited its military and political options. In the early months of the Bush presidency it announced its opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons testing, its unwillingness to submit the Kyoto Protocol regulating greenhouse gas emissions, defiantly withdrawing its signature from the Rome Treaty seeking the establishment of the International Criminal Court, and its intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Such a pattern of unilateralist hostility to international treaties and multilateral cooperation was unprecedented in American history. It led to a strong negative reaction at home and abroad. Normally friendly governments were clearly alarmed by this internationally disruptive behavior of the new American president. The repudiation of widely endorsed multilateral treaty arrangements that were generally viewed as important contributions to a peaceful world seemed contrary to common sense, as well as to the general wellbeing of the peoples of the world. These expressions of unilateralist approach did not involve violating existing international law, but rather expressed the ultra neoconservative attitude that multilateral cooperation in the security area was undesirable, limiting the capacity of America to take advantage of its status as the sole remaining superpower in the aftermath of the Cold War.

    Congress is also not exempt from blame on these counts. It was in Congress even before George W. Bush came to Washington that militarist pressures were brought to bear in such a way as to oppose beneficial multilateral treaty constraints on United States policy. The Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban in the Clinton years, as well as being so strongly opposed to the ICC and Kyoto Protocol that there was no prospect for such treaties to be approved by the required 2/3s vote if submitted for ratification. What mainly distinguished the Bush approach to international law from that of its predecessors were two developments: its alignment of the Executive Branch with an anti-internationalist set of policies that seemed oblivious to the benefits of international cooperation; and its avowedly ideological and emphatic repudiation of treaty instruments and the restraints of international law in order to express its own approach to foreign policy premised on military dominance and interventionary diplomacy. It was this posture by the Bush leadership that frightened world public opinion. Before 9/11 a rising crescendo of domestic and international opposition to the Bush policies led to mounting criticism, especially given Bush’s dubious electoral mandate in 2000.

    This concern and opposition has dramatically intensified outside the United States since 9/11 because the Bush White House has moved from its earlier hostility to multilateralism to its unwillingness to abide by fundamental international legal rules and standards that this country, along with other constitutional democracies, had previously accepted as a matter of course. These rules include humane treatment of prisoners taken during armed combat, unconditional prohibitions on torture and assassination of political opponents, and the duty to protect civilians in any foreign territory under occupation. The most important of all these legal restrictions on foreign policy is the rule of international law prohibiting non-defensive uses of force without a mandate from the UN Security Council. In his 2004 State of the Union Address President Bush told the Congress that the United States would never seek ‘a permission slip’ in matters bearing on its security. But it is precisely a permission slip that international law, and the UN Charter, requires. Such a requirement was written into the Charter largely at the behest of the US Government after World War II, seeking to bind the states of the world to a legal framework that forbade wars of aggression, what more fashionably has been recently called ‘wars of choice.’ German and Japanese leaders were sentenced to death at war crimes tribunals because they had recourse to aggressive wars, and acted without a permission slip.

    The Iraq War is a notorious example of a war of choice that violates this fundamental rule of international law. As such, according to the Nuremberg Principles embodied in general international law after the conviction of German leaders for their criminal conduct, constitutes a Crime Against Peace. The American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Justice Robert Jackson, famously said to the tribunal, “..let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.”

    This pattern of illegality continues to shock the conscience of humanity. American officials have strained to redefine ‘torture’ so as to permit what the rest of the world, and common sense, understand to be ‘torture.’ The abuse of prisoners detained in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere has severely damaged America’s reputation in the world, as well as undermined its struggle against those extremist enemies engaged in terrorism. Government lawyers and their supporters in society have argued in favored of assassinating suspects in foreign countries, and justified under the terminology of ‘rendition’ handing over suspects to foreign governments notorious for their reliance on torture as their preferred mode of interrogation. The detrimental impact of such American lawlessness on the protection of human rights has been documented in great detail by such respected organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.

    This record of abuse has badly tarnished America’s reputation as world leaders and limited the capacity of the government to get support for and cooperation with its anti-terrorist policies.

    It is notable to observe that the events of 9/11 produced a patriotic surge that has endowed the Bush administration with the freedom to embark on a foreign policy aimed at ‘geopolitical preeminence,’ and only incidentally concerned with the defeat of Al Qaeda and transnational terrorism. Such a priority was stated clearly before 9/11 in the report of the Project for a New American Century. And it was acknowledged subsequent to 9/11 in the important White House document entitled “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” (2002) In other words, violating international law, especially embarking on wars of aggression, has been integral to the realization of preexisting American global ambitions that were politically non-viable before 9/11. To sustain a climate of acquiescence within the United States it has been necessary to rely upon a manipulative politics of fear that has largely led to a suspension of criticism, including from the US Congress. In this crucial respect, the Congress is failing in its constitutional duties by not seeking to exert pressure on the Executive to uphold the Rule of Law by insisting on compliance with international law. Perhaps, the public outrage associated with the derelictions of governmental duty in the setting of Hurricane Katrina have finally opened a space for challenging the legitimacy of the present government, and holding the leaders to account. If the political will can be mobilized in Washington the blank check on government policy issued after 9/11 can at last be voided.

    But the neoconservatives in and around the White House seem unchastened. Despite the ongoing draining experience of the Iraq occupation, these foreign policy super-hawks are making belligerent noises that suggest the possibilities of further military adventures in the Middle East, targeting Syria first, and then menacing Iran. It is a sign of untamed and lawless militarism that the rightist columnist, Max Boot, writing in the LA Times on September 21, 2005, can argue that it is only targeting difficulties that make it impractical to strike at North Korea’s nuclear facilities from the air. Boot writes as if there are no legal or moral inhibitions on such aggressive uses of force at the whim of American leaders. If other governments were to adopt such a logic the world would quickly become an inferno of violence and extremism.

    It is and should be a requirement of a constitutional democracy in the 21st century that a government’s foreign policy, as well as its domestic behavior, be made subject to the discipline of law. In a globalized world the extension of law to international activity is in the national interest. It keeps our leaders from embarking on geopolitical ventures that are not supported by the citizenry if fully informed. American failures to abide by international law gives others a reciprocal right to violate their legal obligations, including in relation to Americans detained abroad as prisoners. What we see instead during the Bush presidency is a refusal to uphold the most fundamental obligations of international law that are binding on all sovereign states. We also believe that the willingness of American lawmakers and media to tolerate such illegality and criminality is a byproduct of the atmosphere that has followed from the 9/11 attacks. Because these attacks enabled the White House and Pentagon to pursue policies that their leadership favored before 9/11, but could not implement due to political obstacles, it becomes of immense practical importance to determine the authenticity of the official version of the 9/11 attacks and response. The readiness to plan the Iraq War as early as September 12, 2001 and the availability of the legislative draft that was to become the Patriot Act give every right for a vigilant citizenry to be suspicious. As suggested, in the aftermath of Katrina, and given the continuing ferocity of the Iraqi resistance to the American occupation, new political possibilities exist to challenge the Bush White House, and revamp American foreign and domestic policy, attending to the needs of the people, especially those who suffer in poverty while those around them wallow in obscene wealth.

    Finally, adherence to international law in matters of war and peace is in the interest of the American peoples and the peoples of the world. There may be humanitarian emergencies or dangerous threats of attack that might justify recourse to war as the UN Secretary General and the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change both conclude, but recourse to war is only legally valid if it is authorized by the Security Council. America and the world will be better off when non-defensive warfare requires in every instance ‘a permission slip.’

    Let hope that American lawmakers can learn from Iraq and Katrina to work for the security and wellbeing of the citizenry and of the world, to reassess priorities, and to reaffirm the importance of adhering to international law and of respecting the human rights of all persons, both citizens and non-citizens, whether in detention within the country or beyond its sovereign borders.

    Richard Falk, chair of the board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, is the author of Religion and Humane Global Governance (Palgrave) and, most recently, The Great Terror War (Olive Branch). He is currently visiting professor of global studies at UC Santa Barbara.

  • The Unity of Lemmings

    The Unity of Lemmings

    As a consequence of the September 11th terrorist attacks, our country appears united as never before. President Bush has had approval ratings above 90 percent and it is reported that initial support for bombing Afghanistan also was above 90 percent.

    Congress was nearly unified in giving the President the authority to use force. Only Congresswoman Barbara Lee withheld her vote from this resolution. In doing so, she recalled the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in which Congress authorized the Vietnam War, and quoted Senator Wayne Morse, one of two Senators who voted against the resolution. “I believe,” said Morse, “that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States. I believe that with the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.” Congresswoman Lee stated: “Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences.”

    Congress is also massively bailing out corporations and filling military coffers to overflowing. Civil liberties are being eroded and the United States is relentlessly bombing Afghanistan. So far, in addition to empty terrorist camps, we have accidentally bombed villages and hospitals, leaving an unknown number of Afghans injured and dead. We have bombed Red Cross warehouses three times. Aid workers in Afghanistan are warning that unless there is a bombing halt to allow food through to the Afghan people, millions of them could starve this winter.

    Perhaps it is time for an assessment of how well the President is really doing. I have suggested three criteria for judging the US response to terrorism: morality, legality and thoughtfulness.

    Morality can be evaluated on whether or not our response is resulting in widespread suffering and loss of innocent lives. It is. Although our military forces may be trying to avoid loss of innocent lives, they are not succeeding. Hundreds of innocent Afghans have already been killed. We call it “collateral damage.” If the relief workers in Afghanistan are correct, the US bombing could indirectly result in millions of innocent deaths by starvation this winter. Some half million Afghans have already fled their homes to avoid the bombing and have become refugees. On morality, the President’s military action is failing.

    Legality can be judged on whether or not our response is meeting the standards of domestic and international law. It is certainly questionable. Congress has not declared war against Afghanistan. It has simply given the President a blank check to use force. The United Nations Security Council has called on states “to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks.” It has not, however, explicitly given authorization to carry out military action in Afghanistan, and it is questionable whether the present military actions against the Taliban regime can be construed as self-defense. Certainly if US bombing results in massive starvation in Afghanistan, its actions will be illegal under the laws of war.

    The Taliban regime offered at one point to turn Osama bin Laden over to a neutral third state if the US would provide evidence of his guilt and stop its bombing. Whatever one may think of the Taliban, this was not an unreasonable offer. President Bush refused, saying that he would not negotiate. It might also be noted that President Bush has not provided evidence of bin Laden’s guilt to the American people. On legality, the President’s military action appears to be failing and on the verge of causing a major humanitarian disaster.

    Thoughtfulness can be evaluated on the basis of whether the response is likely to reduce or increase the cycle of violence. Thus far, the cycle of violence is increasing by our military response, and there seems to be no clear end in sight. Some members of the Bush administration are calling for spreading the war into Iraq and other countries in which terrorists may be operating. They are also warning that this will be a long war.

    In terms of thoughtfulness, there has also been very little reflection at the level of the government with regard to US policies that are generating such strong hatred toward us. Rather than thoughtfulness, the Bush administration has relied primarily on force. Here, too, the President’s military action is failing.

    In addition to the other failures of our military action, we appear to be no closer to apprehending Osama bin Laden or to destroying his terrorist network. It also seems unlikely that capturing or killing bin Laden will put an end to terrorism.

    Rather than being united like lemmings behind a failing military action, perhaps we should be thinking about other ways to make the American people safe from terrorism. Perhaps we should be having more public discussion of alternatives rather than being bombarded by military “analysts” on the news night after night. Perhaps we should be reflecting upon the implications of our policies in the Middle East and throughout the world, and evaluating them on the basis of their justice, equity and support for democratic practices.

    Perhaps we should be thinking more deeply about our lack of support for the United Nations and for international law. Perhaps we should be reconsidering our failure to support the treaty banning landmines, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Kyoto Accords on Global Warming, the verification protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention, and the treaty creating an International Criminal Court. Perhaps we should be reflecting on our failure to live up to our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the increased dangers that has created of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

    Terrorism poses a very serious threat to the American people and to the survival of civilization. Our only way out is to forge bonds of unprecedented global cooperation to end terrorism by getting to its roots. This will require police and intelligence cooperation globally. The military may have a role, but it should be one primarily of helping to provide intelligence and protecting our transportation systems, our nuclear plants, and other vulnerable areas of our society.

    Before we reach the edge of the cliff and go over like lemmings, it’s time to stop blindly following the path of military force. We should instead give leadership to strengthening an international system through the United Nations capable of ending terrorism and the conditions that give birth to it.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-governmental organization on the roster of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

  • A Leading Role for the Security Council

    In the past month, the world has witnessed something previously unknown: a common stand taken by America, Russia, Europe, India, China, Cuba, most of the Islamic world and numerous other regions and countries. Despite many serious differences between them, they united to save civilization.

    It is now the responsibility of the world community to transform the coalition against terrorism into a coalition for a peaceful world order. Let us not, as we did in the 1990’s, miss the chance to build such an order.

    Concepts like solidarity and helping third world countries to fight poverty and backwardness have disappeared from the political vocabulary. But if these concepts are not revived politically, the worst scenarios of a clash of civilizations could become reality.

    I believe the United Nations Security Council should take the lead in fighting terrorism and in dealing with other global problems. All the main issues considered by the United Nations affect mankind’s security. It is time to stop reviling the United Nations and get on with the work of adapting the institution to new tasks.

    Concrete steps should include accelerated nuclear and chemical disarmament and control over the remaining stocks of dangerous substances, including chemical and biological agents. No amount of money is too much for that. I hope the United States will support the verification protocol of the convention banning biological weapons and ratify the treaty to prohibit all nuclear tests ‹ though both steps would reverse the Bush administration’s current positions.

    We should also heed those who have pointed out the negative consequences of globalization for hundreds of millions of people. Globalization cannot be stopped, but it can be made more humane and more balanced for those it affects.

    If the battle against terrorism is limited to military operations, the world could be the loser. But if it becomes an integral part of common efforts to build a more just world order, everyone will win ‹ including those who now do not support American actions or the antiterrorism coalition. Those people, and they are many, should not all be branded as enemies.

    Russia has shown its solidarity with America. President Vladimir Putin immediately sent a telegram to President Bush on Sept. 11 condemning the “inhuman act” of that day. Russia has been sharing information, coordinating positions with the West and with its neighbors, opening its air space, and providing humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people and weapons to the Northern Alliance.

    This has been good policy. But we should bear in mind that both in the Russian establishment and among the people, reaction to it has been mixed. Some people are still prone to old ways of understanding the world and Russia’s place in it. Others sincerely wonder whether the world’s most powerful country should be bombing impoverished Afghanistan. Still others ask: We have supported America in its hour of need, but will it meet us halfway on issues important to us?

    I am sure Russia will be a serious partner in fighting international terrorism. But equally, it is important that its voice be heard in building a new international order. If not, Russians could conclude that they have merely been used.

    Irritants in American-Russian relations ‹ issues like missile defense and the admission of new members to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ‹ will be addressed in due course, but they will be easier to solve once we have moved toward a new global agenda and a deeper partnership between our two countries.

    Finally, it would be wrong to use the battle against terrorism to establish control over countries or regions. This would discredit the coalition and close off the prospect of transforming it into a powerful mechanism for building a peaceful world.

    Turning the coalition against terror into an alliance that works to achieve a just international order would be a lasting memorial to the thousands of victims of the Sept. 11 tragedy.

  • Bombing Unworthy of US: Senator Says Militarism is Not the Answer to Terrorism

    Is the relentless bombing of Afghanistan justified? My answer is no.

    I must immediately couple that answer with my belief that the criminals who committed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 must be apprehended and brought to justice. But that goal does not justify killing innocent people and destroying the infrastructure of a country that already has a million refugees.

    The alternative to bombing is to send in ground troops to comb the countryside and all the caves to find Osama bin Laden and his fellow-plotters. This is not done because the U.S.-led coalition fears that troops would be killed by the mines planted throughout Afghanistan.

    Thus, air attacks have been chosen as the response to terrorism. The response is unworthy of nations that pride themselves on upholding international human rights. For, as the Kosovo bombing of only two years ago showed, even “smart” bombs cannot distinguish between military targets and civilians. The human misery left in the wake of a bombing campaign is horrendous.

    The world must move beyond the tears, grief and anger of Sept. 11 and finally establish a just and stable foundation for international peace and security.

    Let it not be said that I am insensitive to the thousands of lives lost in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I went to New York a week ago, took the subway down to the financial district and saw the World Trade wreckage with my own eyes. The devastation was overpowering. Mounds of debris, six stories high, assaulted the eyes. People were stunned, just looking at such a grotesque sight.

    I then went to the United Nations and talked with Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, who said that, bad as this tragedy was, it could have been worse.

    “Consider if weapons of mass destruction had been used by these terrorists. We need urgently to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction because they could fall into the hands of terrorists.”

    The UN leadership wants rapid progress on eliminating nuclear weapons and is preparing to debate a draft convention suppressing nuclear terrorism. But unless Canada comes out four-square opposing all nuclear weapons — which will offend the U.S. — our words about keeping nuclear weapons from terrorists will be empty.

    I am concerned that the path of militarism is leading the world to even greater dangers. Nuclear terrorism is only a matter of time.

    We have been attacked. Our first response is to attack back. Public sentiment, driven by a culture that still sees war as the means to peace, seeks retaliation. In this climate, militarism expands constantly.

    But Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, sees the needs of peace and fighting terrorism differently. While the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution expressing “its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks,” that is not carte blanche to bomb at will.

    The bombing has gone beyond the intent of the resolution, but Annan cannot stop the use of such military might once unleashed. What he has done — and what Canada must insist upon — is to include in the implementation of this resolution other means to combat terrorism. This includes political, legal, diplomatic and financial means.

    Another Security Council resolution spelled out a host of actions ranging from police work to cutting off funding to new communications technologies that must be taken. Rather than assenting to a bombing campaign, it would be better to concentrate Canada’s resources on security and anti-terrorism measures. The extra $250 million announced yesterday by Foreign Minister John Manley announced should be only the beginning. These steps will be far more effective in rooting out the terrorist cells in many countries than bombing in the hope of cutting off the head of a terrorism that has tentacles spread around the world.

    It is both ironic and disingenuous to couple the bombing with dropping food and medicine. This is a chaotic and ineffectual way of meeting humanitarian needs that are mounting by the hour. Rather, the international community should be mounting — with the same vigour displayed in the bombing campaign — a massive assault on poverty. It is the inhuman conditions that so many millions of people are subjected to that breed the conditions that terrorists exploit.

    Also, as Annan has urged, there must be a “redoubling” of international efforts to implement treaties to cut off the development of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction before terrorists get them.

    Militarism is not the answer to terrorism. The building of an international legal system that promotes social justice is.

    *Douglas Roche is an Independent Senator from Alberta and the author of “Bread Not Bombs: A Political Agenda for Social Justice.” Senator Roche also serves as an advisor for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • This War is Illegal

    A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter.

    Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security.

    The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.

    Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly “affirm” the inherent right of self-defence, but they do so “in accordance with the Charter.” They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That’s because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.

    The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.

    Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where “necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security.” Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.

    Critics of the Bush approach have argued that any effective fight against terrorism would have to involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington conducts its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has promoted violence for short-term gain, as in Afghanistan when it supported the Taliban a decade ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, and Iran before that when it supported the Shah.

    The attack on Afghanistan is about vengeance and about showing how tough the Americans are. It is being done on the backs of people who have far less control over their government than even the poor souls who died on Sept. 11. It will inevitably result in many deaths of civilians, both from the bombing and from the disruption of aid in a country where millions are already at risk. The 37,000 rations dropped on Sunday were pure PR, and so are the claims of “surgical” strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We’ve seen them before, in Kosovo for example, followed by lame excuses for the “accidents” that killed innocents.

    For all that has been said about how things have changed since Sept. 11, one thing that has not changed is U.S. disregard for international law. Its decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia were both illegal. The U.S. does not even recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. It withdrew from it in 1986 when the court condemned Washington for attacking Nicaragua, mining its harbours and funding the contras. In that case, the court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 51 in defence of Nicaragua’s neighbours.

    For its part, Canada cannot duck complicity in this lawlessness by relying on the “solidarity” clause of the NATO treaty, because that clause is made expressly subordinate to the UN Charter.

    But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters of our most vital interests.

    We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.

    The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, lawless world.

    *Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, specializes in international criminal law.

  • Neglecting Moral Approach to US and World Security

    From Mr David Krieger,

    Sir, Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, in his speech to the Labour party conference of October 2, invoked “the moral power of a world acting as a community” to combat terrorism. But to take a truly moral approach to US and global security, the US must heed seven urgent moral imperatives that we are still neglecting:

    First, to take far stronger measures to prevent future attacks rather than simply to avenge the acts of September 11, beginning with redressing US intelligence’s massive failure to detect the threat, despite ample warnings.

    Second, to assign top priority to preventing terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction, focusing resources on plausible threats of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons attacks, before funding costly missile defences against the implausible ones.

    Third, to deploy military protection now for all nuclear power plants and rapidly phase them out. Nuclear reactors are dormant radiological weapons in proximity to highly populated areas. Until shutdown, protect plants and spent fuel with troops and anti-aircraft weapons.

    Fourth, to bring the world’s nuclear weapons and fissile materials under control and move quickly towards eliminating these weapons. In the short term, reduce nuclear arsenals now to reliably controllable numbers to keep them out of terrorist hands.

    Fifth, to commit to multilateral action to bring terrorists to justice, expressly under UN auspices and existing international treaties on terrorism and sabotage. Try perpetrators for transnational crimes against humanity before an international tribunal established for this purpose.

    Sixth, to use US pre-eminence to uphold security and justice, not just for ourselves and industrialised allies but for the world, recognising that true security is co-operative and that life in the US is ultimately only as secure and decent as life on the planet.

    Last, to have the moral courage to reconsider US policy in light of the question: Why are Islamic extremists willing to die to murder us? Is it, as President George W. Bush said, hatred of freedom and democracy, or our Middle East policy?

    Until the 1960s, the Islamic world generally admired the US as a non-colonialist beacon of freedom and democracy. Subsequent US policies changed that. While terrorists cannot dictate US actions, neither can we fail to amend policies detrimental to our security simply for fear of appearing soft on terrorism.

    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Search for a Political Solution in Afghanistan

    Statement by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, October, 8 2001

    Following is the text of a statement made today by Secretary-General Kofi Annan on military strikes in Afghanistan:

    Immediately after the 11 September attacks on the United States, the Security Council expressed its determination to combat, by all means, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The States concerned have set their current military action in Afghanistan in that context.

    To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy to unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by all the States of the world, working together and using many different means — including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means.

    The people of Afghanistan, who cannot be held responsible for the acts of the Taliban regime, are now in desperate need of aid. The United Nations has long played a vital role in providing humanitarian assistance to them, and it is my hope that we will be able to step up our humanitarian work as soon as possible.

    It is also vital that the international community now work harder than ever to encourage a political settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan. The United Nations is actively engaged in promoting the creation of a fully representative, multi-ethnic and broad-based Afghan Government.