Covert Ops
Transnational Vigilantism and the Politics of Revenge
By Trevor Paglen
After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1996 there were immediate cries for an American retaliatory bombing of the Middle East. Only a few days later, when it came out that the bombing was perpetrated by an American, did these widespread cries for further bloodshed decrease. Although a small minority of the population did, in fact, support the bombing of Michigan, Idaho, and Montana for harboring the domestic terrorists, calls for the bombing of Boise were never given serious consideration in either the government or mainstream press. The United States government (as far as we know) acted for the most part in accordance with the law, arresting and trying those responsible for the bombing without killing any civilians.
Of course, bombing the state of Idaho in retaliation for harboring domestic terrorists is an absurd proposal. The civilian deaths that would occur as the result of such attacks would be completely immoral and unconscionable. The question I have, then, is why we are so willing to kill millions of innocent people overseas. Is it because they don't look like us or talk like us? Indeed, who is the 'us' that is being hailed with a sea of American flags and bellicose rhetoric? Why do many recent-immigrant communities feel afraid to criticize American foreign policy right now?
The Pentagon has been trying over the last few weeks to convince us that it's not targeting civilians, that 'surgical' bombing is being carried out in order to 'flush out' suspected terrorists. Despite this, the civilian death toll as a direct result of U.S. bombing is currently estimated at 400 people. This is bad enough, but humanitarian groups estimate that between 6 and 7 million Afghan civilians are in danger of starving in the months approaching winter, as U.S. bombing and sanctions have cut off humanitarian supply lines. Although much has been made of the U.S. food drops to starving Afghans, when we step back from government propagandizing we can easily see that the much ballyhooed food drops are little more than a cynical public relations maneuver. The 38,000 food packets dropped from airplanes are not even a drop in the bucket towards alleviating imminent starvation and death for millions of innocents. Many nongovernmental organizations including Nobel Peace Prize -winning Doctors Without Borders have come out strongly against the U.S.'s disingenuous foray into humanitarian aid.
Despite the loose coalition of military dictatorships (including Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan) the U.S. has marshaled around its cause, the United States' 'war on terrorism' is taking place without the consent or approval of the United Nations Security Council. This means that the United States' actions are in clear violation of international law, and the United States is essentially acting as a transnational vigilante. Although the U.N. Security Council has passed two resolutions and a number of measures to fight terrorism in the wake of the September 11 attacks, it has certainly not authorized the United States to attack the country of Afghanistan. Because the United States is attacking Afghanistan outside the rubric of international law, civilian deaths resulting from this attack could be construed as crimes against humanity.
Proponents of the attack on Afghanistan reconcile the illegality of the undeclared 'war' by invoking a notion of self-defense as outlined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The idea is that the United States is acting in self-defense by attacking Afghanistan because the United States was attacked first. Article 51 stipulates that a nation can repel an attack while it is in danger, but bombing a country across the globe as a response to an attack does not quite fit the bill. Michael Mandel, international criminal law professor at Osgoodee Hall Law School in Toronto, pointed out in the October 9 issue of the Toronto Globe & Mail, that self-defense in international law "works the same way as domestic law: it lets you defend yourself when the law isn't around but doesn't let you take the law into your own hands."
Should the U.S. comply with international law? Despite the fact that the U.S. has refused to recognize the World Court since 1986 (when the court condemned the U.S. for attacks on Nicaragua and for funding the Contras), the fact of the matter is that if the U.S. is going to be a member (as opposed to the dominator) of a global community it has to accept the idea of democracy; it has to work within a cooperative framework with other nations around the world. Most of us would agree that Nicaragua has no moral or legal authority to attack the citizens of the United States for harboring Ollie (Oliver) North. Why do we assume that we have the moral and legal right to attack the citizens of Afghanistan? The evidence against bin Laden, by the way, has not been shown to the U.N. or the Taliban, and Mr. bin Laden has neither stood trial nor been convicted of any crimes as of yet.
All of us have an emotional reaction to the events of September 11. All of us feel angry, sad, and confused. However, we should step away from our emotional reactions in order to ensure that we act fairly and justly. In the popular discussions in the wake of September 11, many pundits have categorized the conflict in terms of good vs. evil and civilization vs. the uncivilized. If the ideal of civilization is worth preserving, it must be so because civilization can provide a framework for cooperation between peoples who do not necessarily have the same points-of-view. If we are going to call ourselves civilized, we must work as a member of a global community, not as a rogue vigilante nation. By violating international law in our attacks on Afghanistan and by perpetrating crimes against humanity, we find ourselves in the moral and legal company of the terrorists responsible for September 11.
Trevor Paglen can be reached at www.paglen.com.
|
