The Irish Times

Wednesday, October 10, 2001

Bombs no substitute for justice

--------------------------------------------------------

OPINION/Vincent Browne

Of course America has a right to self-defence. It has

a right to protect itself against a recurrence of the

horror that took place on September 11th. And

yes, it has a right to insist that those suspected of

involvement in that atrocity be brought to justice and

that any state harbouring them be required to hand

them over. (And yes, there is a "but" on the way.)

But their rights are constrained by other rights and

obligations: notably the rights of innocents not to be

terrorised and murdered and the obligation to use

every other means available before resorting to

violence. That right and that obligation have been

flagrantly disregarded by America in its attack on

Afghanistan and no complicity by the lapdogs on the

Security Council and no cowed silence on the part of

the rest of humanity can make it just.

On Sunday and Monday nights America rained down

hundreds if not thousands of tons of explosives on

Afghanistan, one of the poorest nations on earth. It

did so because the Taliban authorities in Afghanistan

refused to comply with the diktat announced by George

Bush in his much-applauded address to Congress on

September 20th: "Deliver to the United States

authorities all the leaders of al-Qaeda who hide in

your land. Close immediately and permanently every

terrorist training camp".

No resolution of the Security Council and no part of

the Charter of the United Nations gave authority to

the President of the United States to demand the

extradition of anybody, no matter for what crimes they

were indicted.

It is relevant to note that had members of al-Qaeda

been identified and arrested in any state of the

European Union they could not have been extradited to

the United States because of Article 3 of the European

Convention on Human Rights bars signatories from

extraditing persons when capital punishment may be

inflicted.

It could have been reasonable to demand of the Taliban

to hand over bin Laden and other suspected al-Qaeda

personnel to the new International Criminal Court, but

then the United States has boycotted it and it would

have been in no position to make such a demand. The

insistence that the Taliban close down terrorist camps

was reasonable and in accordance with UN Security

Council resolutions.

But aside from the legitimacy of US demands, was

there not an obligation to pursue peaceful means of

resolving the issues before going to war? The Taliban

indicated it was willing to discuss what should be

done with bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.

Should that not have been explored before resort

to the terrible violence inflicted on the country on

Sunday night? It might well be the case that the

Taliban were merely playing for time but it might not be.

Perhaps they would have handed him and the others

to some third country. Should that not have been

explored? And should they not have been presented with

whatever evidence there was against bin Laden before

being required to do anything about him? Yes, we know

the Taliban had been asked to do that after the 1998

bombings of the east African embassies and they had

failed to comply.

But in pursuit of every means of resolving the

conflict before resorting to violence, should there

not have been negotiations with them, should the

evidence not have been presented, should they

not have been invited to extradite him to an agreed

third country?

One might well be impatient with pleas for justice for

the Taliban and members of al-Qaeda but how about the

people of Afghanistan, upon whose homes, property and,

inevitably, persons, these terrifying bombs are being

and will be dropped?

Did justice not require that all avenues be explored

before they were inflicted with such horrors? All the

more so since America was instrumental in the Taliban

coming to power in Afghanistan and in bringing such

repression to the Afghan people.

And now we hear that people of other countries may be

visited with such abominations and again protestations

for their safety are likely to be met with hysterical

charges of ideological sympathy with terrorism.

Is Iraq to be assaulted again? Or is it to be Sudan or

Libya of Gaza or maybe Iran? Why not Iran? It was

identified a year ago as the state that was the major

sponsor of international terrorism.

Some tortuous construction of the UN Charter

acknowledgement of a right to self-defence can surely

be devised, along with a few resolutions cynically

nodded through by the Russians and Chinese as well as

the others, to "legitimise" more widespread barbarity.



And at the end of it all the world will be more

securely an American fiefdom and we will all know our

place and those who do not give wholehearted assent

will be "part of the problem".

And just one other matter: why is it that the world is

propelled into such crisis because of the murder of

6,000 people in America and not a single little thing

done when 800,000 people were massacred in

Rwanda in 1994?

Yes, I know the Americans were not responsible for

that and I know the stuff about two wrongs and the

dangers of "whataboutery" but answer the question.

Why is it that millions of African lives can be lost

(well over a million in Rwanda and Burundi and,

apparently, 21/2 million in eastern Congo since 1998)

with hardly a cheep from the rest of the world and

then there is such outrage voiced over what happened

on September 11th?

vbrowne@irish-times.ie