[corp-focus] Three Arguments Against the War

[Robert Weissman]

Three Arguments Against the War
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

Unspeakable acts of violence were committed on September 11. The 
perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11 must be brought to 
justice, using the instruments of domestic and international law. The 
unconscionable slaughter demands prosecution.

But bombing a desperately poor country under the yoke of a repressive 
regime is a wrongheaded response. The U.S. bombing of Afghanistan should 
cease immediately. 

It is a policy that will diminish U.S. security, ignores overriding 
humanitarian concerns, and precludes more sensible approaches to achieving 
justice and promoting security in the United States and around the world. 

1. The policy of bombing increases the risk of further terrorism against 
the United States.

This is an uncontested claim. 

The Bush administration along with virtually every commentator 
acknowledges that the U.S. bombing and military response is likely to 
worsen the possibility of additional terrorism on U.S. soil. 

The recent Congressional leak that so outraged the White House involved a 
Washington Post report that an intelligence official, responding to a 
senator's question, "said there is a '100 percent' chance of an attack 
should the United States strike Afghanistan, according to sources familiar 
with the briefing."

The horror of September 11 allows for no satisfactory response. But surely 
the United States must not act to increase the risk of terrorism. 

No matter how great one's outrage at September 11, no matter how intense 
one's desire to "do something" -- it doesn't make sense to pursue a course 
of action that intensifies the very problem the Bush administration says 
it is trying to solve. 

And the increased risk of terrorism will not be short-lived. Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld says the war against terrorism will take years to 
win. Former CIA chief James Woolsey and others have talked about a two- or 
three-decade war. That's coming from proponents of the U.S. military 
action, people who view terrorism as something that can be defeated, 
rather than as a tactic assumed by weak and disgruntled parties.

2. The bombing is intensifying a humanitarian nightmare in Afghanistan.

"The terrorist attacks of 11 September, in terms of security and access 
within Afghanistan, have created the potential for a humanitarian crisis 
of massive proportions," according to the UN's World Food Program (WFP). 
The WFP estimates 7.5 million people are in danger of starvation in 
Afghanistan. 

The U.S. threat of military response to September 11, and now its bombing, 
has made a horrible situation worse. The WFP has predicted nearly two 
million additional people will need food assistance due to the disruptions 
caused by the expectation, and now the reality, of a U.S. military 
response. 

"It is now evident that we cannot, in reasonable safety, get food to 
hungry Afghan people," says Oxfam America President Raymond C. 
Offenheiser, "We've reached the point where it is simply unrealistic for 
us to do our job in Afghanistan. We've run out of food, the borders are 
closed, we can't reach our staff and time is running out." 

After September 11, relief agencies pulled their staff out of Afghanistan, 
though the WFP has managed to continue to deliver some food supplies via 
Afghani staff.

But aid agencies warn that time is running out to deliver food supplies. 
By mid-November, heavy snows block key roads, making it impossible to move 
trucks into many areas of the country. 

"If WFP is to meet its target of delivering 52,000 tons of food aid each 
month to millions of hungry people inside Afghanistan, it urgently needs 
to fill-up its warehouses before the region's harsh winter sets in," said 
Mohamed Zejjari, WFP assistant executive director and director of 
operations.

Oxfam has called for a pause in the bombing on humanitarian grounds. "We 
just don't know how many people may die if the bombing is not suspended 
and the aid effort assured," Offenheiser says.

Here the humanitarian imperative is aligned with the most narrowly defined 
U.S. national interest. No action can better serve to reduce the risk of 
future terrorism than providing sufficient food aid to the suffering 
Afghanis.

3. There are better ways to seek justice.

If law is to have meaning, it must constrain and guide our actions in the 
times of greatest stress and challenge, not just when it is convenient.

Reviewing the principles of international law, Michael Ratner of the 
Center for Constitutional Rights, urges the United States to: 

* Convene a meeting of the UN Security Council.
               
* Request the establishment of an international tribunal with authority to 
seek out, extradite or arrest and try those responsible for the September 
11 attack and those who commit or are conspiring to commit future attacks
               
* Establish an international military or police force under the control of 
UN and which can effectuate the arrests of those responsible for the 
September 11 attacks and those who commit or are conspiring to commit 
future attacks. It is crucial that such force should be under control of 
the UN and not a mere fig leaf for the United States as was the case in 
the war against Iraq.

A fair trial of bin Laden -- one perceived as fair not just in the United 
States but around the world -- is essential to avoid turning him into a 
martyr and worsening the spiral of violence.

Opponents of the war should not be content to be a dissenting minority. 
While there are many compelling arguments against the war, it is critical 
to emphasize those with the best prospect of moving the U.S. public and 
policymakers.

The widespread U.S. public support for military action against Afghanistan 
is based in part on a desire for a modicum of justice and for action to 
reduce the risk of future terrorist action. 

These are both vital goals, but both -- especially reducing the risk of 
future terrorism -- can be better achieved through peace than war. 



Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime
Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The
Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common
Courage Press, 1999; http://www.corporatepredators.org)

(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman