'war' shorts
compiled by Giles Grierson

"War Against Terrorism" is Illegal

A little-reported aspect of the United States-led war in Afghanistan is that it is illegal, violating both international law and the NATO charter.

Proponents of the war generally cite both article 51 of the United Nations (UN) charter, and section five of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) charter.

Article 51 of the UN charter details the right of a nation to self-defence. However, this right is limited to repelling an attack that is either ongoing or imminent only as a temporary measure, until the UN Security Council is able to take steps to ensure peace and security. The Security Council has in fact passed two separate resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks, and has announced a number of measures to fight terrorism. These include the legal suppression of terrorism and the financing of terrorists, as well as increased co-operation between countries in security, intelligence, and criminal investigations regarding terrorism. This means that the war currently being led by the United States and United Kingdom is illegal, as it is being carried out without Security Council approval.

NATO countries, including Canada, have been pointing to section five of the NATO charter, the "solidarity" clause. However, the entire NATO treaty is subservient to the UN charter. It defines itself as such.

Who's Next?

The U.S. has made it clear that Afghanistan is only the first stop in the "war against terrorism." This raises the question of who is next. International sources give a couple of immediate options.

An Oct. 11 article from the Ha'aretz news agency suggests two upcoming targets. The article, "Israel prepares for expected United States attack on Iraq," written by Amos Harel, says that senior U.S. defence officials will not escalate the war at this time for fear of angering the broader Arab world. However, it goes on to say that Imad Mugniyah, Hezbollah's top strategic planner, is on a list of 22 wanted international terrorists released by U.S. President George W. Bush on Oct. 10. This makes Hezbollah a clear target, bringing Lebanon into range on Washington's anti-"terrorist" radar.

The article goes on to say that the Israeli army is running on the assumption that Iraq will also be a target, and is only asking Washington to give them notice so that Israel can plan for the fallout.

Meanwhile, an Oct. 15 article from Agence France Press quotes Francis Taylor, anti-terrorism co-ordinator of the U.S. State Department, as saying that "terrorist" organisations in Colombia are targets of the campaign. Actions against Colombia-based organisations could include "the use of military force," Taylor told journalists in the headquarters of the Organisation of American States.

The Colombian targets included the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC). Despite the fact that many armed groups in Colombia emerged out of a dictatorship that outlawed opposition parties in the 1960s, Taylor said that the Colombian groups "will receive the same treatment as any other terrorist group." Taylor declined to comment on whether the campaign would include military assistance to the Colombian government, whose military is accused of numerous human rights offences in its civil war.

The Rising Tide of "Collateral Damage"

A growing story in the U.S. bomb attacks on Afghanistan has been "collateral damage," or attacks on civilian targets (presumed accidental). This has included the bombing of a Red Cross warehouse, a hospital, the death of a Taliban leader's 10-year-old son, four humanitarian aid workers, and the entire population of one village; as well as numerous residents of Kabul and other Afghan towns and cities.

The concept of "collateral damage," a term popularised during the 1990/91 Gulf War, is actually quite new. World War I saw a civilian casualty rate of about 15 per cent (of total casualties). By World War II, this had risen to 65 per cent. In the "low intensity conflicts" scattered around the world, mostly in developing countries that have received more than $80 billion of armaments from Western countries over the last 10 years (primarily the U.S. and U.K., but including Canada), the civilian causality rate has topped 95 per cent.

[ Back to issue 10 ] [ Send The Peak a comment on this story ]

The contents of The Peak are protected by copyright. For information on rights regarding specific articles (including reprinting, where applicable), please contact epeak@mail.peak.sfu.ca with the full URL of the content in question.