War plans must refer to UN<\/p>\n
By Meidyatama Suryodiningrat<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): With the U.S. strike force ready to launch and
\nthe American public hungry for revenge, Washington looks set to
\nescalate their war on terrorism into a war on Afghanistan.<\/p>\n
Supported by global grief from the attack on the World Trade
\nCenter and backed by UN Security Council Resolutions 1267 (1999)
\nand 1368 (2001), Washington may contend to have the moral right
\nto launch such a massive attack.<\/p>\n
While it has yet to publicly expose the evidence linking Osama
\nbin Laden to the latest attacks, the connection between the
\nTaliban in Afghanistan and the alleged terrorist is widely known.<\/p>\n
The UNSC in 1999 had already condemned the use of Taliban
\nterritory "for the sheltering and training of terrorists."<\/p>\n
It specifically deplored Taliban providing a safe haven for
\nBin Laden and his associates to operate a network of terrorist
\ncamps.<\/p>\n
The 1999 Resolution called on states to freeze financial
\nresources owned or bound for the Taliban. A ban on Taliban
\naircraft was also imposed.<\/p>\n
While these stringent measures presume Taliban's guilt, no
\nwhere does it endorse military attacks.<\/p>\n
Keep in mind that the 1999 Resolution also specifically noted
\nthe United States' indictment of bin Laden in the 1998 bombings
\nof U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.<\/p>\n
It is thus not surprising that some may consider whether an
\nattack would constitute a violation of international law, which
\nonly condones military force for self-defense, not retaliation.<\/p>\n
The wisdom of a possible wide-scale offensive needs to be
\nquestioned.<\/p>\n
Terrorist networks such as bin Laden's do not depend on
\nestablished state infrastructure.<\/p>\n
What could the U.S. tangibly strike to cripple the terrorist's
\ncapability? There are few, if any, clear fixed targets such as
\nlandmark terrorist headquarters.<\/p>\n
Albeit seeking refuge in Afghanistan's hills, past
\nintelligence reports indicate that Bin Laden is a sovereign
\noperator due to his huge inheritance and not dependent on direct
\ngovernment financial or logistical support found in common state-
\nbacked terrorism models.<\/p>\n
Thus massive air strikes, so popular since the Gulf War, will
\nonly victimize the people of Afghanistan, whose regime seems
\nwilling to put innocent lives in peril.<\/p>\n
The United States has already tried bombing Bin Laden before,
\nwith little success.<\/p>\n
A land invasion would be catastrophic, would fail to learn the
\nlessons of history. Napoleon, the British and the Soviet Union
\ninclude the illustrious list of failures.<\/p>\n
An invasion would lead to a drawn-out counterinsurgent war.<\/p>\n
In this age of instant news and fickle public opinion the tide
\nof public opinion can easily change when images of hungry
\nchildren are contrasted to multi-million dollar war machines.<\/p>\n
Even moderate Muslim nations like Indonesia cannot tolerate
\nfutile civilian deaths.<\/p>\n
By overreacting Washington will only turn public opinion,
\nparticularly those in Muslim states, against them.<\/p>\n
President George W. Bush charging that you're either "with us
\nor against us" does not help. The world is not black or white,
\nthere are too many gray areas.<\/p>\n
Washington's reticence of Israel's aggression toward the
\nPalestine population is a case in point.<\/p>\n
What then are the options?<\/p>\n
Whatever steps are taken must be in accordance with
\ninternational law and the support of the United Nations.<\/p>\n
The first step of establishing an international front against
\nterrorism is commendable, but such a coalition must be under the
\naegis of the UN even if the U.S. is the predominant component of
\nsuch an alliance.<\/p>\n
Washington must avoid the impression of acting unilaterally if
\nit wants a true coalition to be more than rhetoric.<\/p>\n
Tightly applied UN imposed economic and political sanctions,
\nif necessary isolation, should be considered first. The U.S.
\ncould use its military might to make sure that nothing gets in or
\nout by tightly monitoring Afghanistan's borders.<\/p>\n
If such measures were still considered wanting, limited
\nmilitary action should take the form of surgical strikes.<\/p>\n
Ground operations could be launched involving special forces
\nto capture internationally indicted individuals such as the
\nexperience in Serbia and Bosnia.<\/p>\n
These actions could also engage in pare-emotive strikes at
\nterrorists to disable identifiable terrorist cells.<\/p>\n
Everyone sympathizes and feels sorrow for the victims of the
\nhorrific attacks that occurred on Sept. 11.<\/p>\n
But such a tragedy does not license states to disregard
\ninternational norms in vengeance, or even allow them to create
\nnew parameters, which could excuse wanton reprisal.<\/p>\n
The state use of indiscriminate force on civilians is still
\nterrorism by other means.<\/p>\n
The author is a staff writer of The Jakarta Post.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/war-plans-must-refer-to-un-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }