Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Issue No. 33 September 29 - October 6, 2001 Quezon City, Philippines |
Five Arguments Against War BY
MICHAEL ALBERT AND STEPHEN R. SHALOM Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index In
the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, many people find their
feelings of sadness and shock mixed with anger and calls for war. But war would
be horribly wrong for at least five reasons. 1.
Guilt hasn't yet been proven. As
the New York Times acknowledged, "Law enforcement officials ... appear to
have little solid evidence tying Mr. bin Laden's group to the attacks" (NYT,
20 Sept. 2001). If we believe in law and justice, when crimes are committed we
don't advocate that victims who have a strong hunch about culprits impose
punishment. We demand proof. We reject vigilantism. We reject guilt by
association. This is elementary and uncontestable, except when fear and the
drums of war cloud consciousness. In the case of September 11, though an Islamic
or Middle Eastern connection seems clear, there are many extremist groups that
might have been responsible. To rush to punitive judgment, much less to war,
before responsibility has been determined violates basic principles of justice.
Guilt should be proven, not suspected. 2.
War would violate International Law. International
law provides a clear recourse in situations of this sort: present the matter to
the Security Council, which is empowered under the UN Charter, the fundamental
document of contemporary international law, to take appropriate action. The
Security Council has met and unanimously denounced the terrorist attacks,
passing a strong resolution. But the Security Council resolution did not ---
despite what Washington might claim --- authorize the use of force, and
especially not a unilateral use of force. The resolution ends by saying that the
Council "remains seized of the matter," which as former UN
correspondent Phyllis Bennis notes, is "UN diplo-speak" meaning that
"decision-making remains in the hands of the Council itself, not those of
any individual nation." To be sure, the UN Charter allows countries to act
in self-defense which would permit the United States to shoot down a terrorist
plane, for example. But it has long been clear UN doctrine that self-defense
does not allow countries to themselves launch massive reprisal raids --
precisely because to allow such reprisals would lead to an endless cycle of
unrestrained violence. 3.
War would be unlikely to eliminate those responsible for the September 11
attacks. If
bin Laden is indeed the evil genius responsible for the September 11 attacks, is
it credible that he and his top aides would be so bumbling as to wait around for
the US military to exterminate them? We know they have already abandoned their
training camps (NYT, 19 Sept. 2001). They may have relocated themselves to some
unknown caves in the Afghan mountains, they may have moved into various Afghan
villages, blending in with the population, or they may even have left the
country entirely. Are US bombers and cruise-missiles really going to find bin
Laden and unknown associates? It's doubtful that Washington has good
intelligence as to their whereabouts; when the US launched cruise missiles at
bin Laden in 1998 --- with the advantage of surprise --- its information was out
of date and he was already gone. It's likely to be even harder to find him and
his lieutenants now. War is hardly the most effective way to pursue the
perpetrators and they are hardly likely to be its primary victims. 4.
Huge numbers of innocent people will die. It
was precisely the fact that the September 11 attacks killed large numbers of
civilians that made the attacks terroristic and so horrific. If it is immoral to
slaughter thousands of Americans in an effort to disrupt the US economy and
force a change in US policy, it is no less immoral to slaughter thousands of
Afghans in an effort to force the Taliban to change its policy. The United
States is moving large numbers of warplanes and missile-launching vessels into
the region, yet there are hardly any military targets in Afghanistan for them to
attack. It is inevitable that civilians will bear the brunt of any major
campaign -- civilians who, in their vast majority, probably are ignorant not
only of the recent terrorist assault on the US, but probably even of bin Laden
himself. Ground forces might be less indiscriminate, but it's hard to imagine
that Washington's military plans won't involve the massive application of force,
with horrendous human consequences. While
the image of bombers flying over Afghanistan and bombing a people whose average
lifespan is about 45 years of age and who are suffering terrible deprivation
already -- not least due to the Taliban, which the US helped create and empower
-- is horrifying enough, it is important to realize that death and deprivation
come in many forms. Even without widespread bombing, if the threat to attack the
civilian population or outright coercion of other countries leads to curtailment
of food aid to Afghanistan, the ensuing starvation could kill a million or more
Afghans by mid-winter. Is this the appropriate response to terror? 5.
War will reduce the security of US citizens. What
drives people to devote -- and even sacrifice -- their lives to anti-American
terrorism? No doubt the causes are complex, but surely deep feelings of anger
and frustration at the US role in the Middle East is a significant factor. If
the United States goes to war some terrorists may certainly be killed, but so
too will many innocent people. And each of these innocent victims will have
relatives and friends whose anger and frustration at the United States will rise
to new heights, and the ranks of the terrorists will be refilled many times
over. And the new recruits will not just come from Afghanistan. To many Muslims
throughout the Middle East, war will be seen as an attack on Islam -- and this
is one reason that many of Washington's Islamic allies are urging caution.
Significantly, the New York Times reports that the "drumbeat for war, so
loud in the rest of the country, is barely audible on the streets of New
York" (NYT, 20 Sept. 2001). Their city suffered unbearable pain, but many
New Yorkers know that the retaliatory killing of people in the Middle East will
not make them any safer; on the contrary, it is likely to lead to more, not less
terror on US soil, and in any event, would wish the same pain on still more
innocent people. The
dynamic of terror and counter-terror is a familiar one: it leads not to peace
but to more violence. Israel's response to terrorism hasn’t brought Israelis
more security. Nor has retaliatory terrorism made people more secure elsewhere.
Indeed, it is quite likely that the perpetrators of the terror attack on the
United States would like nothing more than to induce a massive US military
response which might destabilize the whole region, leading to the creation of
millions of holy warriors and the overthrow of governments throughout the
Islamic world. Whether bin Laden's al-Qaeda or some other extremist group or
groups is responsible, war might play right into their hands, reducing the
security of us all. Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index We want to know what you think of this article.
|