> In the sprit of Doug's call for some practical thinking about a left
> position on this war, I'll say some things about David McReynolds'
comments.
>
> 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.
==========
Much as I'd like to sympathize with the above -particularly the last
sentence- we have no way of knowing just what justice would consist of
under the current circumstances.
Suppose the US state was able to present evidence "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that ObL and his networks "masterminded" the deed. With minimal loss of life we capture them and bring them before an international criminal court, whose mandate is sufficiently impartial that it can be used against a Kissinger and Pinochet etc. ObL is tried, found guilty and then what? Who has the authority to determine whether he lives or dies? Who? And would we be able to say justice was achieved?
Ian
>
> 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.
> > >
> >
>