Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Issue No. 35 October 14 - 20, 2001 Quezon City, Philippines |
Say What You Want, But This War is Illegal BY
MICHAEL MANDEL
Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index 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-defense 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-defense, but they do so
"in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action
against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defense Nor could they.
That's because the right of unilateral self-defense does not include the right
to retaliate once an attack has stopped. The right of self-defense in
international law is like the right of self-defense 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 harbors and funding the contras. In that case, the court
rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 51 in defense of
Nicaragua's neighbors. 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.
Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index We want to know what you think of this article.
|