[MAPC-discuss] a World Federalist view

[MAPC-discuss] a World Federalist view

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-04

Dear WFA Colleagues,

I agree with X that the bombing is not illegal, but I gather that on
every other point I would agree with Heather.

The bombing is legal under article 51 of the UN Charter. It is a fact
that the United States was attacked and continues to be threatened, and
consequently has the right to act in self defense.

However from a practical and moral perspective the legality of bombing
is not very important because it is viewed as illegitimate by many of
the people who matter most in the countries where future terrorists are
dedicating their lives to destroy America. Also it is essentially
irrelevant to the objective of bringing bin Laden to justice or to the
goal of combating terrorism; it is probably counterproductive with
regard to both those aims. For every military target and Taliban soldier
destroyed by the bombing, there are hundreds crossing into Afghanistan
to help the Taliban because of the bombing.

There could have been a better way to bring suspects to justice and to
begin a campaign against terrorism. The Security Council could have
acted under Chapter VII to set up its own multi-stage procedure. Ideally
this would have started with representatives of the Secretary-General
and the Organization of the Islamic Conference going to seek Afghan
compliance with a demand to hand over bin Laden to a new ad hoc
international tribunal in the Hague. If there were not compliance, then
military action could have been taken by a UN Rapid Deployment Force,
using US and UK air cover, but only in a very carefully targeted manner.
This process might not have led to the capture of bin Laden, as the
present process may not, but much less harm would have been done. People
in Muslin countries can not be expected to see justice in an ultimatum
by the United States to hand over bin Laden to a U.S. court. The
government of Afghanistan did offer to hand him over to a third country
if they could have been shown the evidence that he had caused the 9/11
attacks.

If the whole procedure had been done through the UN, by the UN, it might
or might not have worked, but certainly the legitimacy of international
law would have been strengthened. The way it was done in the Security
Council, in effect allowing the U.S. to take all necessary steps, was
understandable in the wake of the horror of the assaults on the United
States, but such carte blanche resolutions do not contribute to the
credibility of the Security Council or to any form of solidarity between
the major powers that prevail in the Council and the people and nations
that view themselves as oppressed by Western hegemony.  I fear that we
have added to a process that will deepen the divide between the rich and
the poor, bringing new recruits to Al Queda to strengthen terrorism
worldwide. I also fear that hatred of our actions and our power and our
use of military power will weaken the stability of a number of
countries; and while I have very little respect for the government of
Saudi Arabia now, I would have even less for a Taliban-type government
there.

A true campaign against terrorism would address its causes and include
many of the programs for strengthening global institutions and
supporting sustainable development that world federalists have long
favored. It would also focus on apprehending individuals, not states, in
efforts to stop criminal actions. It would move beyond a state-centric
interpretation of the rules of the Charter where collective security
tends to mean war and collective retribution; world federalists insist
on individual responsibility under international law.

Because the views I have expressed outline a process for strengthening
international institutions in a way that puts justice, equity and human
rights before the state-centric legalities of the present UN system, I
think such views should be seen as
representing the main stream of world federalist thinking. However,
clearly there can be different views and different streams of thought
within our movement. Also, it is valuable for the process of bringing
more people to our views that we have a positive attitude toward the
fact that the GW Bush Administration is coming to see the limits of
unilateralism and the importance of friends in diverse nations.

X
Director, Economists Against the Arms Race
New York City


_______________________________________________
discuss@madpeace.org mailing list
http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-discuss

Sunday, November 04, 2001 9:11 AM

[MAPC-discuss] a World Federalist view