The best thing about his statement is that he rejects simplistic answers. Just saying "no" doesn't work and it's not right. This war is not the same as Vietnam and it's not the same as the Gulf War. We were attacked and we're entitled to some measure of justice.
There are problems with DM's call for the arrest of those responsible. He talks about the need for an "international tribunal." Why? The crime was committed in the United States. The US is legally entitled to try the suspects in its own courts. We already did that in the 1993 WTC case, after all. The World Court in the Hague can try only states, not individuals. As for creating a special UN tribunal, why do that when there's already a national justice system here at home?
Also, DM seems to dodge the central problem of a trial - the suspects are in a country whose government refuses to hand them over. The Taliban have been contradicting themselves on what exactly they are willing to do with Bin Laden and his associates. But they have never said they would extradite him to the US.
Talk of having a trial in Afghanistan is pointless. The crime wasn't committed there; the government is not recognized by the UN or virtually any country in the world; and even if ObL were convicted and jailed in Kabul, the US would have no assurance that he and his friends would stay in jail or be prevented from continuing their work.
So this goes to the heart of the matter. Most people on the left are not pacifists; they recognize that there are some situations where force is justified. Look at the UN Charter; it lays out specifically when force can be used - when there's a genuine threat to international peace and security; and when the five nuclear powers and most other states agree that force is needed.
The threat to international peace here is not just the Sept. 11 attacks. The Taliban and their Arab Afghans allies have been hemmoraghing instability in every direction. They are fuelling Islamic wars in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, not to mention the nuclear-tipped conflict in Kashmir - and now Bin Laden and his men have apparently hit the United States. This is aside from their own hideous government within Afghanistan.
There's a reason why Russia, China, France and even Iran have consented to the U.S. action. (Every member of the UN Security Council spoke approvingly of the strikes in a closed session yesterday.) There's a reason why almost no country in the world recognizes the Taliban as the legitimate government. They are pariahs.
Is it possible to say that the U.S. is right to seek to eliminate the Taliban while still criticizing things the U.S. is doing? Hundreds of thousands of people are on the verge of starvation and meanwhile the U.S. has closed the borders to UN food convoys while cynically carrying out meaningless and possibly dangerous food drops.
So far the bombing has been hitting mostly military targets, but if the U.S. keeps going with no results to show, we are likely to see some vindictive and reckless attacks on civilians. In the end, if the U.S. wants to replace the government of Aghanistan, it has to risk its own soldiers. If it's unwilling to do that, it has no right to risk the lives of the Afghan population. But as for the goal of toppling the Taliban, can we really be against it?
Seth
> ----------
> From: Doug Henwood[SMTP:dhenwood at panix.com]
> Reply To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 4:01 PM
> To: lbo-talk
> Subject: Fwd: Is there a nonviolent response to September 11?
>
> David McReynolds writes...
>
> >From: DavidMcR at aol.com
> >Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:11:00 EDT
> >
> > These are preliminary notes and I certainly welcome responses. It is a
> >draft of an article for the Nonviolent Activist of WRL. David
> >
> > Is there a Nonviolent Solution to the World Trade Center Bombing?
> >
> > That is, of course, a shorthand title for "and the Pentagon, and a
> dozen
> >other acts of terrorism directed against the US". This is my thinking - I
> do
> >not expect it will be shared by all readers of NVA.
> >
> > There are times when I believe nonviolence is not politically
> relevant -
> >which doesn't mean I think one should abandon it for violence, but
> recognize
> >that there are moments in history when the pacifist position is a
> "witness"
> >within history. It is prophetic, it should not be abandoned. Human
> progress
> >owes a great deal to people who acted in the present on the basis of a
> utopia
> >they believed in but which was not immediately possible.
> >
> > World War I, the "Great War", was a case where the radical position
> of
> >the pacifists, socialists, and anarchists was politically important but
> >crushed by the forces of nationalism (an ideology which in the 19th and
> 20th
> >century had acquired more power than the Church). Looking back, there are
> few
> >historians who would argue it was a war worth fighting, since it so
> directly
> >led to the rise of totalitarian ideologies and World War II. Better the
> >Kaiser had won. The fact that the radicals failed to persuade the working
> >class of all of Europe to call a General Strike against the war didn't
> mean
> >they were not politically on target. Eugene V. Debs and the Socialist
> Party,
> >Norman Thomas, Evan Thomas, Roger Baldwin, A.J. Muste, are among those
> >politically active at that time and fervent in their opposition to the
> war.
> >
> > World War II was a case where the pacifist position was not
> relevant.
> >Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and the Germans joined in
> declaring
> >war on the United States, the war was a fact.
> > Pacifists could go to prison. They could wait out the war. But
> protesting
> >the war was difficult, trying to disrupt it impossible, because given a
> >choice between the Axis and the Allies the choice was clear. When all the
> >evils of the US were added up - capitalism, racism, imperialism (at that
> time
> >even more true of Great Britain) - the civil society of the West at least
> >gave a chance to continue the struggle. It was never the "Light versus
> >Darkness" struggle it was portrayed at the time, but it was a light grey
> >against a very much darker one. (The one point where I think pacifists
> had an
> >insight of crucial political importance was the danger of the
> "unconditional
> >surrender" ultimatum - this meant war to the bitter end and prevented any
> >cracks from appearing within the ruling elites in Germany and Japan.
> >Unfortunately, this practical insight was not heeded - wars, once under
> way,
> >have an illogic all their own).
> >
> > The Korean War is always "skipped" when we discuss wars. The lack
> of
> >opposition to that war flowed from the profoundly totalitarian
> >"anti-Communist" miasma that held this country in its grip (and, because
> it
> >was so widely accepted, was not even seen as repressive except by handful
> of
> >radicals who tried to resist the war). The full history of the
> devastating
> >violence of that war, and the degree such violence helped create the odd
> >regime in North Korea, needs to be more fully explored.
> >
> > The Vietnam War was categorically wrong. This was not Pearl Harbor
> where
> >the nation had been attacked, rather it was from the beginning a war of
> >aggression carried out by the ruling class of the United States against
> the
> >people of Vietnam. No one attacked us - we attacked them. Within two or
> three
> >years after that war began, opposition to it became significant. Not
> merely
> >academic opposition, but calls for troops to desert, efforts to block
> >munitions shipments, etc. There was, it is true, a bitter debate within
> the
> >pacifist movement over whether to call for a cease fire or to call for
> >unconditional withdrawal - in the end the clear majority of the pacifist
> >movement came down for unconditional withdrawal, a position the War
> Resisters
> >League had laid out in a position paper in 1964 or 1965. (?)
> >
> > This current "war" is different from all the others. We have not
> been
> >attacked by a State but by terrorists without a State. Bush has ordered
> the
> >bombing of Afghanistan, but we were not attacked by Afghanistan. In view
> of
> >the large number of Saudi Arabians who make up the followers of Osama Bin
> >Laden (assuming for the moment he is guilty) it might make more sense to
> >attack Saudi Arabia. The events of September 11th have less the character
> of
> >war than of mass murder. Pacifists need to accept that fact. It doesn't
> >matter that the US has killed far more people, it doesn't matter that the
> >Taliban is "blow back" from our support for the Islamic guerillas in
> >Afghanistan, it doesn't matter that what set Bin Laden off was the US
> >stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War - all those
> things,
> >and many others as well, are true. But none of them excuse the criminal
> act
> >of murdering of over 5,000 people in a virtual instant on September
> 11th.
> >
> > What, then, is a possible response? Unlike the Vietnam War, we have
> been
> >attacked. Most troubling, no one has stepped forward and claimed credit.
> Nor
> >were any demands advanced. It was a sudden inexplicable act of terror
> that
> >shocked the nation. But what can be done? The answer the American
> government
> >has chosen is, I believe, less "politically sensible" than anything
> pacifists
> >might put forth. Already as of this writing the US attacks have killed UN
> >workers who were in Afghanistan to help clear it of mines - God knows how
> >many Afghan civilians have died. It is criminal nonsense for our leaders
> to
> >tell us all our bombs are precise in their targeting.
> >
> > Already there have been deadly riots on the West Bank, where
> Palestinian
> >police have shot dead a number of protesters. The government of Pakistan
> is
> >being rocked by demonstrations. The soil for new terrorism is being
> watered
> >and fertilized with each bomb dropped. There is now talk of extending the
> >war, not only in duration, but to other countries. While the
> Administration
> >has backed off the Orwellian terms of "Operation Infinite Justice" and
> talk
> >of a "crusade", there are key people around Bush who want to use t his
> >occasion to "take out" Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc.
> >
> > We must, of course, protest this course of action. War Resisters
> League
> >has already played an important role in calling peace groups together,
> and in
> >joining other groups - AFSC, FOR, etc. - in initiating demonstrations
> across
> >the country. But we must do much more than say "Not in Our Name" or "Our
> >Grief Is Not A Cry For Revenge". People ask us "what is the answer", and
> it
> >is not an answer to say "no war". They want to know what we will do about
> >those who planned the murders of September 11 - to say those directly
> >involved died in the attacks does not wash as an answer. Nor is it an
> answer
> >to say we must pursue a foreign policy of peace and justice. The
> terrorists
> >are real, they hate us - it doesn't matter how justified their hatred, I
> >state a fact. And they hate not just the Pentagon or the Corporate Elite
> -
> >they hate you, they hate me, their cause is that of a reactionary, deeply
> >religious, nearly fascist hatred of all things Western.
> >
> > The answer which I believe has political merit - which is more than
> >simply a witness against endless terror, whether by our State or the
> >individuals involved in the terrorist networks - is to call for the
> arrest of
> >whoever is responsible and their trial by international legal
> authorities.
> >
> > Yes, those who criticize the UN, or any existing international court
> >structure as being stacked in the favor of the US are right. Yes, those
> who
> >say our own criminal justice system is profoundly flawed are correct. But
> for
> >all the errors of our justice system, it is a far better alternative to
> war.
> > The system of international law is extremely weak and ill-defined.
> We are
> >still a world of nation states, nowhere more than where our own country
> is
> >concerned, with the eagerness of the ruling elite to brush aside
> >international treaties we have signed.
> >
> > Yet, while the Nuernberg Tribunals were "the justice of the
> victors",
> >pacifists have accepted those Tribunals as the basis for many of our own
> >actions. Yes, the court at the Hague is flawed in having placed Milosevic
> >under arrest and not also indicted Clinton and Blair for their
> authorization
> >of the deliberate, targeted attacks on civilian during the Balkan
> conflict.
> >But no troops were sent in to arrest Milosevic - he was turned over by
> >authorities in Serbia. Under pressure, yes. But I suspect there are few
> who
> >don't feel he should be brought to trial.
> >
> > So our political answer is that we need to call for international
> justice
> >for whoever was responsible for organizing the September 11th events. We
> >categorically reject the effort by Bush to say there is "clear evidence"
> >Osama Bin Laden is guilty - we want to see that evidence. We want
> Congress to
> >see it. We want it published. It is not enough that the British Prime
> >Minister Tony Blair vouch for it - his record of accuracy on such matters
> is
> >very weak.
> >
> > We cannot dodge this issue of working toward some system of
> international
> >law and justice and still hope to have any political role in this
> situation.
> >The law, so often used against us, is our weapon against Bush, an
> >illegitimate President waging an illegal war. Let us demand that Congress
> >debate the issue of peace and war rather than once more giving to the
> >Executive the right to launch an endless "crusade". Let us demand that
> our
> >nation ask for international legal actions against the guilty. In a
> sense, we
> >are saying "send in the lawyers, not the troops". Is this imperfect? Yes.
> The
> >current sanctions against Iraq and the persistent bombing of Iraq by
> Britain
> >and the US were originally based on decisions that had, at one time, some
> >tentative approval by the UN. But opponents of the UN overlook the fact
> that
> >the UN support has long since vanished, and both the sanctions and the
> >bombing have been in clear violation of international law.
> >
> > Yes, it is true, as Marx wrote, that the State is the "Executive
> >Committee of the ruling class" - but sometimes it can surprise us, as
> when it
> >sent most of the Nixon cabinet to prison. Would I call the cops if
> someone
> >was setting fire to my building? Yes. For all the flaws of police and
> courts,
> >it is better to call in the police than to resort to organizing a lynch
> mob.
> >And that - a lynch mob - is what Bush is offering us, and the world at
> this
> >moment.
> >
>