Only Americans can guarantee their own safety

By Sujatmiko

TOKYO (JP): A bomb blast rocked a Planet Hollywood restaurant in Cape Town, South Africa, last week. Although there are some clues as to who was responsible for the attack, many argue that it may be closely linked to the U.S. missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, themselves in retaliation for bomb attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Now the scene is set for a war of attrition between terrorists and the U.S., with round after round of attack and counter-attack.

Although the U.S. has indicated that it has strong evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the fact remains that there are other groups of terrorists fighting against U.S. interests and nationals.

The world is now unsafe for all foreigners, particularly for American citizens. Attacks and counter-attacks will undoubtedly continue. New targets will certainly be sought out by both the U.S. and terrorist groups. Can anyone stop this situation from worsening further?

The two opposing parties must be blamed for destabilizing peace on earth. Terrorism, whatever its form or motive, must be condemned in the strongest terms. All should join together to fight it hand in hand in an agreed and wise manner. For a country such as Indonesia, where Islam is followed by the majority of the population, the use of Islam as a veil for these vile attacks must be opposed because the actions of a small number of fanatical bombers in no way reflects Islamic teachings. These people have destroyed the image of Islam, particularly in the eyes of non-Moslems.

But to blame them alone is unfair and does not go far enough. The U.S. must, to some extent, be blamed for not responding to the attacks in a wise manner which adhered to international law and moral norms. The suspected terrorist Bin Laden is safe and well while many innocent civilians are now dead as a result of the attacks.

Material damage inflicted during the attack on Sudan has had dire consequences on many ordinary people who formerly worked at the chemical plant in Khartoum.

The U.S. actions will undoubtedly provoke the terrorists to commit further atrocities and perhaps even widen their list of acceptable targets. The bomb which recently exploded in Cape Town may have been planted as a result of this.

To prevent any more of these outrageous attacks from taking place the U.S. should take the following measures: * Present complete evidence to the public that Bin Laden was behind the bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. * Show further evidence that Afghanistan and Sudan are closely linked to, or have in the past protected Bin Laden. * Prove that the suspected sites in Sudan and Afghanistan were indeed viable targets and that the attacks were justifiable not only to the U.S. but also to the international community as a whole.

These actions would help to soften anti-U.S. sentiment, in particular among the world's Moslem community, who feel the attacks struck out at their faith.

The U.S. was compelled to respond quickly because the targets of its cruise missiles lay in foreign territories, even though the U.S. argues that it did not target Sudan and Afghanistan as sovereign states.

For this reason, the U.S. cannot argue that it had water-tight evidence linking the sites attacked to Bin Laden. It should have presented substantiated evidence to the public before the attacks were launched.

Peaceful options should have first been pursued and if these failed, early warnings should have been issued to avoid casualties, especially among innocent civilians. Attacking foreign territories is certainly regarded as an act of aggression.

The U.S. also argues that its actions were conducted in self- defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

However, this claim is debatable. The article in question stipulates that self-defense can be exercised when "an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN". Was U.S. territory attacked by a foreign power? The answer is no, although it is true to say that embassy premises are "inviolable", but the article does not recognize an embassy as being an extension of a country's territory.

So the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania cannot be considered to be armed attacks on the U.S. territory. Therefore the use of force by the U.S. violated the territorial integrity of Afghanistan and Sudan, as prescribed under Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter.

The Sudanese government has demanded an apology and compensation from the U.S. and has invited a UN team to put together an international team to investigate whether or not the factory did have the capacity to produce VX nerve gas.

The U.S. claims that it has strong evidence in the form of soil samples collected near the sites and believes this was proof enough to justify the strike.

Actually, the evidence is inadequate. Why is the U.S. afraid to meet this demand? If it believes that its findings are reliable, why doesn't it permit examination by an international team.

The UN reaction to the attacks was too slow, even after the Sudanese government demanded quick action. The UN has to date neither condemned nor demanded justification from the U.S. Once again the world community is bearing witness to the fact that the UN does not wish to bear its teeth at the U.S..

Reactions from non-governmental international organizations which advocate peace, democracy and human rights were also very slow. Where are they? Do they think there have been no acts of aggression or violation of human rights? It is this section of humanity that should open their eyes and ears. More than 70 tomahawk cruise missiles were launched by the U.S. at the two sovereign states and innocent people in Sudan and Afghanistan were killed and injured because of this outrageous action.

It is very sad to note that such organizations seem restrained, possibly because the U.S. is a big country. On the contrary, they speak very loudly, even in the absence of solid evidence, when similar or less serious actions are initiated by smaller and weaker developing countries.

We have not yet discussed the way in which the U.S. has sought to take the moral high ground after the attacks. As long as the attacks are questioned legally, then it certainly can have no moral justification. U.S. President Bill Clinton's instruction to fire missiles resulted directly in the deaths of innocent people. Killing is always killing. It is criminal and sinful, similar to the shame and headache he has suffered through revelations of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

As a normal human being and as a follower of Christianity, it is certainly difficult to understand how a president of the world's last remaining superpower could admit publicly on TV that he had a "sexual relationship" with another woman. It is for this reason that many inside and outside the U.S. suspect Clinton ordered these attacks to divert public attention from the scandal surrounding his sex life.

Unless the U.S. is able to justify its actions it will not regain the respect of the international community. It will stand accused as an aggressor and more importantly, the war against terrorism will continue to be an endless and futile effort.

Only the U.S. government itself can guarantee the safety of American nationals inside and outside the U.S., but to do this it must first reflect on its own behavior.

Being the world's only superpower does not entitle it to behave as it likes. It must look at its surroundings. As a member of the UN and an advocate of "democracy" and "human rights", the U.S. should provide a good example to others. More importantly, the title of superpower does not open the door for America to act as the world's policeman and bark out orders and commands at every nation. International law must be respected at all times.

Terrorists should be made aware that their actions are neither good for themselves nor others. Similarly, the U.S. government should try to solve future problems without resorting to violence of the sort just witnessed.

The writer is an observer of international affairs who resides in Tokyo, Japan.