'Beyond Truisms'

There has been an immense movement of troops and extremeuse of military rhetoric, up to comments about terminating governments, etc.Yet, to many people there appears to be considerable restraint...what happened?

From the first days after the attack, the Bushadministration has been warned by NATO leaders, specialists on the region, andpresumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak of many people like youand me) that if they react with a massive assault that kills many innocentpeople, that will be answering bin Laden's most fervent prayers. They will befalling into a "diabolical trap," as the French foreign minister putit. That would be true -- perhaps even more so -- if they happen to kill binLaden, still without having provided credible evidence of his involvement in thecrimes of Sept. 11. He would then be perceived as a martyr even among theenormous majority of Muslims who deplore those crimes, as bin Laden himself hasdone, for what it is worth, denying any involvement in the crimes or evenknowledge of them, and condemning "the killing of innocent women, children,and other humans" as an act that "Islam strictly forbids...even in thecourse of a battle" (BBC, Sept. 29). His voice will continue to resound ontens of thousands of cassettes already circulating throughout the Muslim world,and in many interviews, including the last few days. An assault that killsinnocent Afghans -- not Taliban, but their terrorized victims -- would bevirtually a call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of the bin Ladennetwork and other graduates of the terrorist networks set up by the CIA and itsassociates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War against the Russians, meanwhilefollowing their own agenda, from the time they assassinated President Sadat ofEgypt in 1981, murdering one of the most enthusiastic of the creators of the"Afghanis" -- mostly recruits from extremist radical Islamist elementsaround the world who were recruited to fight in Afghanistan.

 After a little while, the message apparently gotthrough to the Bush administration, which has -- wisely from their point of view-- chosen to follow a different course.

 However, "restraint" seems to me aquestionable word. On Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that"Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuelsupplies,...and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the foodand other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population." Astonishingly,that report elicited no detectable reaction in the West, a grim reminder of thenature of the Western civilization that leaders and elite commentators claim touphold, yet another lesson that is not lost among those who have been at thewrong end of the guns and whips for centuries. In the following days, thosedemands were implemented. On Sept. 27, the same NYT correspondent reported thatofficials in Pakistan "said today that they would not relent in theirdecision to seal off the country's 1,400- mile border with Afghanistan, a moverequested by the Bush administration because, the officials said, they wanted tobe sure that none of Mr. bin Laden's men were hiding among the huge tide ofrefugees" (John Burns, Islamabad). According to the world's leadingnewspaper, then, Washington demanded that Pakistan slaughter massive numbers ofAfghans, millions of them already on the brink of starvation, by cutting off thelimited sustenance that was keeping them alive. Almost all aid missions withdrewor were expelled under the threat of bombing. Huge numbers of miserable peoplehave been fleeing to the borders in terror, after Washington's threat to bombthe shreds of existence remaining in Afghanistan, and to convert the NorthernAlliance into a heavily armed military force that will, perhaps, be unleashed torenew the atrocities that tore the country apart and led much of the populationto welcome the Taliban when they drove out the murderous warring factions thatWashington and Moscow now hope to exploit for their own purposes. When theyreach the sealed borders, refugees are trapped to die in silence. Only a tricklecan escape through remote mountain passes. How many have already succumbed wecannot guess, and few seem to care. Apart from the relief agencies, I have seenno attempt even to guess. Within a few weeks the harsh winter will arrive. Thereare some reporters and aid workers in the refugee camps across the borders. Whatthey describe is horrifying enough, but they know, and we know, that they areseeing the lucky ones, the few who were able to escape -- and who express theirhopes that ''even the cruel Americans must feel some pity for our ruinedcountry,'' and relent in this savage silent genocide (Boston Globe, Sept.27, p. 1).

Perhaps the most apt description was given by the wonderfuland courageous Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy , referring to OperationInfinite Justice proclaimed by the Bush Administration: "Witness theinfinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they'rewaiting to be killed"

The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation inAfghanistan is enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and nowthe U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward off hunger.Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in appearance? What is theirmotivation? What will be the scale and impact of their efforts?

The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk ofimminent starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item (Sept. 25) thatnearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well as 3.5million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just before the borders weresealed. The item reported that some food is being sent, to the camps across theborder. If people in Washington and the editorial offices have even a singlegray cell functioning, they realize that they must present themselves ashumanitarians seeking to avert the awesome tragedy that followed at once fromthe threat of bombing and military attack and the sealing of the borders theydemanded. "Experts also urge the United States to improve its image byincreasing aid to Afghan refugees, as well as by helping to rebuild theeconomy" (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 28). Even without PRspecialists to instruct them, administration officials must comprehend that theyshould send some food to the refugees who made it across the border, and atleast talk about air drop of food to starving people within: in order "tosave lives" but also to "help the effort to find terror groups insideAfghanistan" (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, quoting a Pentagon official,who describes this as "winning the hearts and minds of the people").The New York Times editors picked up the same theme the following day, 12days after the journal reported that the murderous operation is being put intoeffect.

On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is enormous,or the human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But we should also bear inmind that there has been nothing to stop massive food drops from the beginning,and we cannot even guess how many have already died, or soon will. If thegovernment is sensible, there will be at least a show of the "massive airdrops" that officials mention.

International legal institutions would likely ratifyefforts to arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing guilt could be shown,including the use of force. Why does the U.S. avoid this recourse? Is it only amatter of not wishing to legitimate an approach that could be used, as well,against our acts of terrorism, or are other factors at play?

Much of the world has been asking the US to provide someevidence to link bin Laden to the crime, and if such evidence could be provided,it would not be difficult to rally enormous support for an international effort,under the rubric of the UN, to apprehend and try him and his collaborators.However, that is no simple matter. Even if bin Laden and his network areinvolved in the crimes of Sept. 11, it may be quite hard to produce credibleevidence. As the CIA surely knows very well, having nurtured these organizationsand monitored them very closely for 20 years, they are diffuse, decentralized,non-hierarchic structures, probably with little communication or directguidance. And for all we know, most of the perpetrators may have killedthemselves in their awful missions.

There are further problems in the background. To quote Royagain, "The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of BinLaden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'llhand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand isnon-negotiable'." She also adds one of the many reasons why this frameworkis unacceptable to Washington: "While talks are on for the extradition ofCEOs can India put in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson ofthe US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gasleak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the necessary evidence.It's all in the files. Could we have him, please?"

Such comparisons elicit frenzied tantrums at the extremistfringes of Western opinion, some of them called "the left." But forWesterners who have retained their sanity and moral integrity, and for greatnumbers among the usual victims, they are quite meaningful. Government leaderspresumably understand that.

And the single example that Roy mentions is only thebeginning, of course, and one of the lesser examples, not only because of thescale of the atrocity, but because it was not explicitly a crime of state.Suppose Iran were to request the extradition of high officials of the Carter andReagan administrations, refusing to present the ample evidence of the crimesthey were implementing -- and it surely exists. Or suppose Nicaragua were todemand the extradition of the US ambassador to the UN, newly appointed to leadthe "war against terror," a man whose record includes his service as"proconsul" (as he was often called) in the virtual fiefdom ofHonduras, where he surely was aware of the atrocities of the state terrorists hewas supporting, and was also overseeing the terrorist war for which the US wascondemned by the World Court and the Security Council (in a resolution the USvetoed). Or many others. Would the US even dream of responding to such demandspresented without evidence, or even if the ample evidence were presented?

Those doors are better left closed, just as it is best tomaintain the silence on the appointment of a leading figure in managing theoperations condemned as terrorism by the highest existing international bodies-- to lead a "war on terrorism." Jonathan Swift would also bespeechless.

That may be the reason why administration publicity expertspreferred the usefully ambiguous term "war" to the more explicit term"crime" -- "crime against humanity as Robert Fisk, Mary Robinson,and others have accurately depicted it. There are established procedures fordealing with crimes, however horrendous. They require evidence, and adherence tothe principle that "those who are guilty of these acts" be heldaccountable once evidence is produced, but not others (Pope John Paul II, NYTSept. 24). Not, for example, the unknown numbers of miserable people starving todeath in terror at the sealed borders, though in this case too we are speakingof crimes against humanity.

The war on terror was first undertaken by Reagan, as asubstitute for the cold war -- that is, as a vehicle for scaring the public andthus marshalling support for programs contrary to the public's interest --foreign campaigns, war spending in general, surveillance, and so on. Now we areseeing a larger and more aggressive attempt to move in the same direction. Doesthe problem that we are the world's foremost source of attacks on civiliansauger complications for carrying through this effort? Can the effort besustained without, in fact, a shooting war?

The Reagan administration came into office 20 years agodeclaring that its leading concern would be to eradicate the plague ofinternational terrorism, a cancer that is destroying civilization. They curedthe plague by establishing an international terrorist network of extraordinaryscale, with consequences that are -- or should be -- well-known in CentralAmerica, the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere -- while usingthe pretexts, as you say, to carry out programs that were of considerable harmto the domestic population, and that even threaten human survival. Did theycarry out a "shooting war"? The number of corpses they left in theirwake around the world is impressive, but technically, they did not usually firethe guns, apart from transparent PR exercises like the bombing of Libya, thefirst crime of war in history that was timed precisely for prime time TV, nosmall trick considering the complexity of the operation and the refusal ofcontinental European countries to collaborate. The torture, mutilation, rape,and massacre were carried out through intermediaries.

Even if we exclude the huge but unmentionable component ofterrorism that traces back to terrorist states, our own surely included, theterrorist plague is very real, very dangerous, and truly terrifying. There areways to react that are likely to escalate the threats to ourselves and others;there are ample precedents for more sane and honorable methods, which we'vediscussed before, and are not in the least obscure, but are scarcely discussed.Those are the basic choices.

If the Taliban falls and bin Laden or someone they claimis responsible is captured or killed, what next? What happens to Afghanistan?What happens more broadly in other regions?

The sensible administration plan would be to pursue theongoing program of silent genocide, combined with humanitarian gestures toarouse the applause of the usual chorus who are called upon to sing the praisesof the noble leaders committed to "principles and values" and leadingthe world to a "new era" of "ending inhumanity. " Theadministration might also try to convert the Northern Alliance into a viableforce, perhaps to bring in other warlords hostile to it, like Gulbudin Hekmatyar,now in Iran. Presumably they will use British and US commandoes for missionswithin Afghanistan, and perhaps resort to selective bombing, but scaled down soas not to answer bin Laden's prayers. A US assault should not be compared to thefailed Russian invasion of the 80s. The Russians were facing a major army ofperhaps 100,000 men or more, organized, trained and heavily armed by the CIA andits associates. The US is facing a ragtag force in a country that has alreadybeen virtually destroyed by 20 years of horror, for which we bear no slightshare of responsibility. The Taliban forces, such as they are, might quicklycollapse except for a small hard core. And one would expect that the survivingpopulation would welcome an invading force if it is not too visibly associatedwith the murderous gangs that tore the country to shreds before the Talibantakeover. At this point, most people would be likely to welcome Genghis Khan.

What next? Expatriate Afghans and, apparently, someinternal elements who are not part of the Taliban inner circle have been callingfor a UN effort to establish some kind of transition government, a process thatmight succeed in reconstructing something viable from the wreckage, if providedwith very substantial reconstruction aid, channeled through independent sourceslike the UN or credible NGOs. That much should be the minimal responsibility ofthose who have turned this impoverished country into a land of terror,desperation, corpses, and mutilated victims. That could happen, but not withoutvery substantial popular efforts in the rich and powerful societies. For thepresent, any such course has been ruled out by the Bush administration, whichhas announced that it will not be engaged in "nation building" -- or,it seems, an effort that would be more honorable and humane: substantialsupport, without interference, for "nation building" by others whomight actually achieve some success in the enterprise. But current refusal toconsider this decent course is not graven in stone.

What happens in other regions depends on internal factors,on the policies of foreign actors (the US dominant among them, for obviousreasons), and the way matters proceed in Afghanistan. One can hardly beconfident, but for many of the possible courses reasonable assessments can bemade about the outcome -- and there are a great many possibilities, too many totry to review in brief comments.

What do you believe should be the role and priority ofsocial activists concerned about justice at this time? Should we curb ourcriticisms, as some have claimed, or is this, instead, a time for renewed andenlarged efforts, not only because it is a crisis regarding which we can attemptto have a very important positive impact, but also because large sectors of thepublic are actually far more receptive than usual to discussion and exploration,even it other sectors are intransigently hostile?

It depends on what these social activists are trying toachieve. If their goal is to escalate the cycle of violence and to increase thelikelihood of further atrocities like that of Sept. 11 -- and, regrettably, evenworse ones with which much of the world is all too familiar -- then they shouldcertainly curb their analysis and criticisms, refuse to think, and cut backtheir involvement in the very serious issues in which they have been engaged.The same advice is warranted if they want to help the most reactionary andregressive elements of the political-economic power system to implement plansthat will be of great harm to the general population here and in much of theworld, and may even threaten human survival.