[Peace-discuss] A War Against Civilians? (fwd)

[tejal d chande]

a good follow-up to Shorish's talk:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:45:18 -0500
From: Mark Weisbrot <weisbrot at cepr.net>
To: weisbrot-columns at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [weisbrot-columns] A War Against Civilians?


This is being distributed to newspapers by Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Information Services. If anyone wants to reprint it, please let me know.
________________________

A War Against Civilians?

         President Bush has declared a "war on
terror," and political leaders such as House
minority leader Dick Gephardt insist that "this is
not a strike against the people of Afghanistan."

         But the evidence is accumulating that our
current military campaign is indeed, as most of
the world sees it, being waged against the Afghan
people.

         Consider this statement from Admiral
Michael Boyce, Chief of the British Defense
Staff. Referring to the bombing campaign, he
said, "The squeeze will carry on until the people
of the country themselves recognize that this is
going to go on until they get the leadership
changed."

         It seems clear from this statement that
Admiral Boyce sees the punishment of Afghan
civilians, including their children, as an important
part of the US/British strategy. On September 16
the New York Times reported that our government
had demanded from Pakistan "the elimination of
truck convoys that provide much of the food and
other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian
population."

         Food shipments fell drastically, although
the border has remained porous, especially to
those who pay bribes. The Taliban is even able to
make money by exporting things as big as logs.

         In recent weeks the UN World Food
Programme has increased its shipments. But these
are still far short of the amount needed to prevent
mass starvation during the winter. The increased
risk to truck drivers, the breakdown in law and
order, and other disruptions due to the war are
taking their expected toll.

         There are currently about 5.3 million
people receiving food aid, and this is expected to
increase to 7.5 million in the near future. In about
two weeks winter will begin, many roads will
become impassible, and people will have to rely
on stockpiled food. Relief groups have called for a
halt in the bombing so that food -- as well as
blankets and medicines -- can get through before
it is too late. But their appeals have so far gone
unheeded.

         And everyone acknowledges that the air
drops of food from US planes are so small that
they are little more than an exercise in public
relations.

         What is terrorism? Edward Herman,
Emeritus Professor from Pennsylvania's Wharton
School of Business, has offered a politically
neutral, straightforward definition of terrorism
that is difficult to argue with: "the use of force or
the threat of force against civilian populations to
achieve political objectives."

  A strategy to "squeeze" Afghanistan,
through bombing and starvation, "until the people
of the country themselves . . . get the leadership
changed" would certainly qualify as terrorism
under this definition.

         Most Americans would like to see Osama
Bin Laden, and anyone else that was responsible
for the atrocity of September 11, brought to
justice. But they would certainly be ashamed if
they knew that their government was pursuing a
strategy that involved starving hundreds of
thousands, and possibly even millions, of innocent
people.

         Of course this is not the first time that our
government has used collective punishment, or
terrorism, in order to achieve its political goals:
there was Nicaragua in the 1980s, Vietnam prior
to that, and many other examples. In fact, by any
objective definition of terrorism -- one that
includes the terrorism of states as well as
individuals --the United States has been its largest
single sponsor over the last half-century.

         This war is different, in that it originated
with a horrific terrorist attack on Americans. But
the collective punishment of the people of
Afghanistan is no more excusable than the crimes
of September 11. As such, it will only inspire
more hatred and terrorism against us.

         There is no military solution to the
problem of terrorism within our borders. We will
have to change our foreign policy, so that our
government does not make so many enemies
throughout the world. Those who collaborated in
the crimes of September 11 will have to be
pursued through legal and political channels,
including the United Nations.

         A good start would be to cut off the major
source of Bin Laden's funding and support, which
is not in Afghanistan but in Saudi Arabia. The
Bush Administration has done very little on this
front, due to a combination of big oil and other
"geopolitical" interests. Our government is willing
to risk American lives, at home and abroad, and
kill any number of innocent Afghanis, but it is
apparently not willing to risk disturbing its
relations with the Saudi royal family.

         Going the legal route won't boost the
President's approval ratings the way a war does,
nor will it make the world fear our military power.
But at least we won't be fighting terrorism with
more terrorism, and fueling an escalating cycle of
violence.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for
Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net),
in Washington, DC.




Name: Mark Weisbrot
E-mail: <weisbrot at cepr.net>
Co-Director
Center for Economic and Policy Research
1015 18th Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone (202) 293-5380 x228
Fax (202) 822-1199
(202) 333-6141 (home)
(202) 746-7264 (cell)
www.cepr.net