Stop the War on Afghanistan

Stop the Bombing of Afghanistan

The attacks on Afghanistan have been going on for several weeks. It seems clear to me that the longer they go on, the more of a disaster they become for the people of Afghanistan, and the less likely they become to defeat or protect us from terrorism.

Despite the rhetoric of being at war with the Taliban not the Afghan people, and doing all that is "humanly possible" to avoid civilian casualties, it is clear from media reports that people living in Kabul, say, believe us to be at war with them. The bombing campaign is killing civilian, it is injuring civilian, it is terrorising civilian, and it is causing people to flee and add to the massive humanitarian crisis which was already building. The token food drop campaign has been denounced by most NGOs and George Monbiot estimated that, even if all the food drop packages reach starving people, they will only feed 27% of those people for one day; there are estimated to be over 7m people in danger of starvation in the next few months [UN World Food Programme figures]. Meanwhile the war has prevented all but a trickle of food aid being delivered on the ground.

So will this inhumane war defeat terrorism? You only have to watch the news for the pro-bin Laden demonstrations in various countries around the world to see the increasing support for him and his methods. Indeed, some commentators have speculated that bin Laden cannot lose this war - whatever happens, he will end up a hero or a martyr and therefore an inspiration for others. The bombing must stop - it is increasing support for terrorism and actually making us less rather than more safe. Surely Northern Ireland and other places have taught us that you don't defeat terrorism by a military campaign - rather, you address the grievances which lead people to consider terrorism their only option, and then there will be less and less support for the terrorists.

So what should we do?

First we have to stop the war. It is wrong, it is counter-productive, and it is unlikely to achieve the results we desire.

Secondly, we have to start addressing the grievances that many in the Arab world feel about the West, such as its treatment of Muslim peoples and its double standards. There are three places we could start straight away:
1. Instead of spending our money on $1m dollar missiles to bomb a ravaged country, we should use it to mount a massive relief effort to save from starvation as many people inside and outside Afghanistan as possible.
2. Do our utmost to bring a just settlement to the Israel-Palestine problem, so that both peoples can feel safe in their own states.
3. End the sanctions on Iraq. They have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and whether or not Saddam Hussein is also guilty, we are complicit in this crime.

Thirdly, we should bring bin Laden to justice through the international legal institutions.

The US didn't try to negotiate with the Taliban about handing over bin Laden - they simply made a demand and began bombing when that demand wasn't agreed to. The indications were that the Taliban was prepared to hand over bin Laden under certain conditions, and that negotiations by countries like Pakistan were close to completing this before the bombing began. The U.N Charter requires that all avenues of negotiation and other peaceful means of settling a dispute are exhausted before resorting to military action.

Maybe going through legal institutions will take longer - but what is the rush? It has taken several years to bring Milosovic before a court of law. By beginning a war to capture bin Laden we have made him a focus of grievances against the West and are exacerbating the kind of social and political problems out of which terrorist activities are born. Better to let the situation settle and bring him to justice when passions are less inflamed.

Mark Ramsey, 30 October 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A letter written when the bombing began:

Dear MP

I am dismayed that US and UK forces have begun bombing Afghanistan. As you know, I am strongly opposed to any military retaliation in the quest to bring the perpetrators of the Sept 11 attack to justice. However, I would like to concentrate on some specific points:

1. Even if the evidence condemning bin Laden is "incontrovertible" as alleged, I don't see how that then provides a justification to attack Taliban targets as well as targets of the Al-Qaida network. Perhaps the Taliban is a barbaric regime which should not be in power, but that is surely a separate question.

2. Tony Blair insists that the Taliban have "refused" to hand over bin Laden. That simply isn't true. They have continued to ask for evidence of his complicity - which is usual under normal extradition procedures - while its the US which has refused to talk or negotiate. Furthermore, reports in the Telegraph say that an agreement had been reached for bin Laden to be extradited to Pakistan: 'The proposal, which had bin Laden's approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be placed before an international tribunal. The court would decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America.' (Telegraph, 4 Oct.).
Clearly there was room for more diplomatic effort to find a solution to this problem.

3. The evidence, which George Robertson hailed as "incontrovertible" has been dismissed by commentators such as Bronwen Maddox, Foreign Editor of the Times, and Robert Fisk in the Independent. Anthony Scrivener QC notes, 'it is a sobering thought that better evidence is required to prosecute a shoplifter than is needed to commence a world war'. (Times, 5 Oct.)

4. Surely its obvious that the US and its allies will be seen as having double standards. In its efforts to defeat terrorism and protect "democracy", Tony Blair and others have been unstinting in their praise for Putin, the Russian leader, despite his responsibility for the terrible actions of the Russian forces in their war in Chechnya. Meanwhile, Pakistan is welcomed into the coalition despite the fact that it currently has a military government which deposed a democratic one a few years ago - and the sanctions imposed for that earlier action have now been dropped. It is clear that these kind of double standards are one reason for the terrorists hatred of America yet, apparently, we seem bent on repeating them.

5. George Bush is reported as saying "More than two weeks ago I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands ... None of these were met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price". Frankly, this sounds like terrorism. 'If you don't do what I say I will attack you' is no justification for attack if bin Laden says it and it is no justification for attack if Bush says it either.

6. Bin Laden is reported as saying, in his recent tv broadcast "... those who live in America will never taste security and safety unless we feel security in our lands and in Palestine". Is it really so unreasonable for people in Palestine to want and expect the same safety and security as we in the West feel ?

7. Meanwhile, most aid agencies warn that the attacks will worsen the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, and warn that planned air drops of aid will be virtually useless (Guardian, Oct 8). the threat of attack, and the closing of borders with Afghanistan requested by the US, has made this situation very much worse. The least that the 'coalition' should be doing is to provide aid and relief to mitigate the vast majority of the humanitarian crisis that it is causing, but its not clear that it is doing so, particularly with regard to providing relief inside Afghanistan itself.

I urge you to do all you can to stop the military attacks on Afghanistan.

Mark Ramsey, 8 October 2001.