more on Falk

[Mark Pavlick]

>
>Creating the Terrorists that
>Will Visit Terror Upon Our Children:
>A Response to Richard Falk and His Magic Bullet Fantasy
>
>By Michael Ratner and Jules Lobel
>
>
>In a recent Nation article Richard Falk, a well known professor of 
>international law and a major voice against the Vietnam war, who 
>says he has not supported a shooting war since his childhood, writes 
>that the war in Afghanistan is "the first truly just war since World 
>War II." Falk believes that a limited war ("the role of military 
>force is marginal") with limited ends can and should be fought by 
>the United States to achieve the goal of the "destruction of both 
>the Taliban regime and the Al Quaeda network." His endorsement of 
>war and eschewing of nonviolent or diplomatic means is both 
>dangerous and wrong.
>
>A war of limited means cannot be fought to remove the Taliban 
>government; that, as has already been demonstrated is a 
>contradiction. An intensive bombing campaign has continued for weeks 
>with dire consequences. Thousands of refugees are fleeing daily, the 
>U.N. is predicting the deaths of 100,000 children and the U.S. is 
>refusing even to pause the bombardment to permit food deliveries. 
>Hate for Americans is pouring into the streets of Pakistan, 
>Indonesia, and other Muslim countries; we are creating the 
>terrorists that will visit terror upon our children. Pakistan, with 
>its nuclear arsenal, is in a precarious political situation and 
>could well end up a U.S. enemy. We do not know the number of 
>innocents killed; that information we will not be given. And we may 
>not have seen the worst; a fractionalized and war faring 
>post-Talliban Afghanistan. And to carry this war out we are arming 
>our putative allies (bribing might be a better word) to the teeth. 
>Billions in U.S. arms will go into the region; eventually these 
>weapons will be turned on their own populations or on us.
>
>Nor will this war be confined to Afghanistan, a danger Falk himself 
>recognizes. World War I started when Austria-Hungary declared war on 
>Serbia in response to a terrorist act; the Bush Administration now 
>threatens war against unnamed countries who harbor terrorists. The 
>logic of this military action in inevitably expansive. Already, we 
>are hearing that Somalia may be next.
>
>There was another way. Treat the attacks on September 11 as a crime 
>against humanity (mass or systematic killing of civilians), 
>establish a U.N tribunal, extradite the suspects, or if that fails, 
>capture them with a U.N. force, and try them. The U.S. experience 
>with Libya demonstrates both the perils of a military response and 
>the possibilities for international justice. Initially, the U.S., 
>bombed Libya for its alleged role in the killing of U.S. soldiers; 
>Libya retaliated by bombing Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie. At that 
>point, U.S. officials recognized that more bombing would lead to a 
>spiraling cycle of violence and turned to the U.N. International 
>pressure was applied; and eventually the Libyans extradited the 
>suspects for trial.
>
>The numerous objections Falk makes to such a tribunal primarily 
>revolve around his belief that the U.S. would not accept such a 
>court, in part, because it might not be authorized to give the death 
>penalty. But since when should respected international legal experts 
>like Falk, who generally favor peaceful resolutions to conflicts, 
>shy away from arguing what is right simply because they believe the 
>U.S. will not listen.
>
>Falk's other objections to a tribunal are similarly fallacious. He 
>claims a trial would be a kind of legal martyrdom for Bin Laden; but 
>is not the opposite true. Deploying U.S. military force to kill him 
>without a trial will make him more of a martyr, not less of one. 
>Falk is worried that there might not be sufficient evidence to 
>convict Bin Laden. We do not know whether or not this is so, but are 
>surprised hearing from someone like Falk that there is sufficient 
>evidence to bomb an entire country, but not to convict the 
>perpetrators of the attacks on September 11th.
>
>Falk says that it is "unreasonable to expect the US government to 
>rely on the UN to fulfill its defensive needs." But Falk did not 
>think that it was unreasonable for the Kuwaitis to rely on the 
>UN-and not the US acting unilaterally-to counteract Iraqi aggression 
>in 1990. Is Falk bowing to American exceptionalism-the UN is good 
>for everybody else, but not for the only superpower.
>
>It is remarkable that Falk, while recognizing that the global role 
>of the United States has given rise to widespread resentment that 
>fuels the terrorist impulse, claims that this role "cannot be 
>addressed so long as this movement of global terrorism is at large." 
>But it is now that we must examine this resentment: our tilt in the 
>Palestinian-Israel conflict, the use of the Persian Gulf as a U.S. 
>base and support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes. We must do so 
>not to "give in to terrorists," but to promote a more just and 
>peaceful world order and to enhance our long term security. To do so 
>only when the global terrorist movement is no longer "at large" 
>ensures that such an examination will never occur.
>
>Developing a proper response to terrorism is incredibly difficult, 
>and no short term solution appears particularly attractive. One 
>suspects that the tortured quality to Falk's analysis (supporting 
>war, but yet warning of its dangers, excessiveness and 
>expansiveness), stems from the underlying global trends that have 
>progressives in such disarray. From the 1960's to 80's U.S. military 
>force was employed primarily to defeat national liberation struggles 
>e.g. the Sandinistas, viewed as threatening U.S. hegemony. These 
>movements, which had the support of many in the United States, 
>arose, in part, from opposition to U.S. domination and the 
>undemocratic regimes propped up by the United States. When the U.S. 
>engaged in war against these struggles, progressives easily 
>understood that these movements were the response to and were being 
>destroyed by U.S. imperialism.
>
>Unfortunately, the current reaction to U.S. hegemonic policies has 
>taken a terrorisitc and brutal form to which a military response 
>appears justifiable. This has made some progressives unwilling to 
>examine the root causes of the terror and blinded them to the nature 
>of the military response. Nonetheless, the problem of U.S. imperial 
>domination clearly lurks beneath the contemporary reality, both in 
>the underlying tensions which helped create the terrorists, and in 
>the overwhelming military response, which will result in a world 
>filled with more U.S. bases, more U.S. supported and armed dictators 
>and, sadly, more terrorists.
>
>Only by taking a different path; a path towards a more equal, 
>democratic and just world can we ever create conditions of security 
>from terrorism for our children. Bombing Afghanistan- whatever the 
>justness of the cause- seems the wrong way to begin that necessary 
>journey.
>
>Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Attorney 212 614-5430; 
>www.humanrightsnow.com Professor Jules Lobel, University of 
>Pittsburgh Law School 412 648 1375
>
>Michael Ratner Human Rights Attorney www.humanrightsnow.org
>
>--
>

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20011025/a3bfc4ba/attachment.htm>