|
October
9, 2001
Patrick
Cockburn
Bombs
Weaken Taliban
Lenni
Brenner
Powell
the Owl
Zha
Marginalization
and Terror
Steve
Perry
It
Begins
October
8, 2001
Zbigniew
Brzezinski
How
Jimmy Carter and
I Started the Muj
Philip Agee
The
USA and Terrorism
Mahajan
and Jensen
A
War of Lies
Patrick
Cockburn
Northern
Alliance
Builds an Airport
October
7, 2001
John Pilger
Hitchens'
Slurs
Tariq
Ali
Who
Said History
Stopped Being Ironical?
October
6, 2001
Vijay
Prashad
US
War Aims
Kevin
Gray
The
Trap:
Blacks and 9/11
October
5, 2001
Ronnie
Gilbert
Déjà
Vu: The FBI's War
on Civil Liberties
Patrick
Cockburn
Taliban
Cluster Bombs
Dave
Marsh
John
Brown, Woody Guthrie
and the Secret Music of 9/11
Babak
Nahid
A
Suspect's Perspective
October
4, 2001
David
Vest
Send
in the Cons
Robin
Blackburn
Road
to Armageddon
Noam
Chomsky
Chatting
with Chomsky
Tony
Blair
The
Dossier on bin Laden
Norman
Madarasz
Canada
Kow-Tows to US
Lorenzo Ervin
No Palestinian
Ever
Called Me Nigger
October
3, 2001
Peter Bell
Hitchens
and Coulter:
Love at Last?
Patrick
Cockburn
Waiting
Is the Hardest Part
Jeff
Chang
Clear
Channel Fires
Davey D!
John Chuckman
War
on Terror:
Crusade Without a Definition
Mahajan/Jensen
Tough
Talk Won't Solve
Problems of Terrorism
Ariel
Dorfman:
America
the Wounded
Lennie
Brenner
Dr.
Watson in Afghanistan
Steve
Perry:
Ashcroft's
Scare Tactics
October
2, 2001
Patrick
Cockburn:
Inside
an Afghan Hospital
Richard
Manning:
A
Vietnam Vet on Patriotism
St. Clair/Cockburn:
Tarnished
Star,
Tom Ridge in Vietnam
October
1, 2001
Noam
Chomsky:
Memo
to Hitchens
Hizam
Bitar:
Refuting
Michael Kinsley
David Grenier:
The
Good, The Bad,
and the Ugly
Douglas
Valentine:
Homeland
Insecurity
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published Oct. 3, 2001
8-Page Special
Issue
Aftermath
Diary
Ashcroft's Onslaught
on
Civil Liberties
Ridge Long Groomed
for
Cheney's Job
Those CIA Killing
Bids
Never Stopped
The Not-So-Great
Mayor Giuliani
Crop Duster
Ban
Will Save Lives
Madeleine Albright's
Deadly Legacy
How the Bin
Laden Women
Fled Bel Air
Tom Ridge's
Vietnam
Same as Kerrey's?
A CounterPunch
Journey
to Ramallah
A Word About
God
Nostrodamus
Jam-maker
Search
CounterPunch
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James
Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas
Valentine
Al
Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
New Stories:
|
October 9,
2001
This War is Illegal
By Michael Mandel
A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K.
attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates
international law and the express words of the United Nations
Charter.
Despite repeated reference
to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply
does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel
an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure
until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international
peace and security.
The Security Council has already
passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing
a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include
measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing,
and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence,
criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism.
The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress
on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90
days to report back to it.
Neither resolution can remotely
be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in
their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right
of self-defence, but they do so "in accordance with the
Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan
would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That's
because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include
the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.
The right of self-defence in
international law is like the right of self-defence in our own
law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around,
but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.
Since the United States and
Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization
of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims
of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept.
11 attacks.
Even the Security Council is
only permitted to authorize the use of force where "necessary
to maintain and restore international peace and security."
Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on
Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This
attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the
Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism
is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence
and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.
Critics of the Bush approach
have argued that any effective fight against terrorism would
have to involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington conducts
its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has promoted
violence for short-term gain, as in Afghanistan when it supported
the Taliban a decade ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein
against Iran, and Iran before that when it supported the Shah.
The attack on Afghanistan is
about vengeance and about showing how tough the Americans are.
It is being done on the backs of people who have far less control
over their government than even the poor souls who died on Sept.
11. It will inevitably result in many deaths of civilians, both
from the bombing and from the disruption of aid in a country
where millions are already at risk. The 37,000 rations dropped
on Sunday were pure PR, and so are the claims of "surgical"
strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We've seen them
before, in Kosovo for example, followed by lame excuses for the
"accidents" that killed innocents.
For all that has been said
about how things have changed since Sept. 11, one thing that
has not changed is U.S. disregard for international law. Its
decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999 bombing
of Yugoslavia were both illegal. The U.S. does not even recognize
the jurisdiction of the World Court. It withdrew from it in 1986
when the court condemned Washington for attacking Nicaragua,
mining its harbours and funding the contras. In that case, the
court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 51
in defence of Nicaragua's neighbours.
For its part, Canada cannot
duck complicity in this lawlessness by relying on the "solidarity"
clause of the NATO treaty, because that clause is made expressly
subordinate to the UN Charter.
But, you might ask, does legality
matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law,
there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness
and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality
of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters
of our most vital interests.
We are all at risk from what
happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for
the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack
in the light of day before the real international community.
The bombing of Afghanistan
is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans
on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human
tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent,
lawless world.
Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall
Law School in Toronto, specializes in international criminal
law.
|