Unjustified US Aggression;
An Open Violation of International Law
and the UN Charter

by Prof. Khurshid Ahmad

If Sept. 11, 2001 is a black day in the history of the 21^st century because of the terrorist acts of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then Oct. 7, 2001 is even darker because of the American and British aggression against a poor and already ruined Afghanistan.

After the incidents of Sept. 11, world sympathy was with America and the innocent victims of the tragedy. Muslims throughout the world, including the Taliban government of Afghanistan, shared the American grief and unequivocally condemned the terrorist acts. In the moments of grief and anguish, all peoples – in east and west, rich or poor, developed or developing – who had suffered at the hands of the US leadership and because of its military and financial maneuverings ignored their own afflictions and miseries. Still, the US leadership remained overwhelmed by arrogance, revenge, and special interests. Instead of identifying the perpetrators of attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon through an unprejudiced, just, and legal system and probing into the causes and reasons of terrorism, it adopted a strategy that was under its consideration for quite long. Subjecting Afghan people to its aggression, the US embarked upon a grim and brutal plan for maintaining its domination through sheer use of force and for strengthening its grip on the resource-rich Central Asia.

For this end, the US staged a drama of world coalition by enticing, cajoling, influencing, and threatening. Britain was in its beside from the very first day. This was a country that remained a world power for centuries, but now it has become a vassal to the US. Bush and Blair are the heads of the current vandalism. NATO’s 18 member countries had to join in this operation, willingly or unwillingly. Article 5 of NATO, that says that war on a member would be considered as war on all member states, was also revived without any regard to what ‘war’ and attack mean in the light of international law and the UN Charter. The events of Sept. 11 were considered enough for themselves serving as a ‘declaration of war’ from the alleged perpetrators, and the ‘war against terrorism’ was launched with unseemly hurry. All tactics of political pressure and blackmail were employed to get the rest of the world on board.

The fascist view that the world is divided into two camps of civilized and terrorist nations was presented with shameless audacity. This meant that the nations of the world had to either side with America or be in its opposition, either counted as US allies or as supporters of terrorists; they had no other option. The way the world was divided into the Red and the White during the cold war era, it has now been divided into the Black and the White this time around. The weak were asked at gunpoint which camp they sided with. There is no consensus on the definition of terrorism (as is evident from the lack of agreement in the discussion during the UN General Assembly session that was convened after Sept. 11). This is because of the differences on legitimacy or otherwise of the use of force, causes and factors behind certain acts, and their being admissible or condemnable. Yet, all agree on this part that a resort to violence or a threat of use of force for political objectives constitutes the essence of terrorism.

Terrorism is the practice of using violent and intimidating methods, especially to achieve political ends. (Oxford Reference Dictionary)

The way America cajoled and elbowed the weak countries into the coalition, in the light of the above mentioned definition there remains not even an iota of doubt that this itself presents a detestable case of terrorism. Many countries, including Pakistan, have become victims of American threatening posture; and many self-declared gallants surrendered with Bush’s sounding threatening.

America and Musharraf’s Stand:

American aggression against Afghanistan is part of a well-thought-out plan and has nothing to do with the events of Sept. 11. This is an open violation of all political ethics, international law, and the UN Charter. This is an abominable example of ‘might is right’. What is more dangerous is that this is a prelude to a new colonial era, though the ostensible avowals are:

1. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda are responsible for the Sept. 11 incidents.
2. As the Taliban government of Afghanistan is providing shelter to him, it should hand him over to America without any delay or America would destroy them with its full might.
3. Having eliminated these breeding grounds of terrorism, a long war against terrorism would be waged at the global level.
4. These are the objectives not only of America but of the entire ‘civilized world’, enjoying the support of the UN Security Council and General Assembly.
5. This is a war against terrorism and the countries that support terrorism; it is not against Islam or Muslims, or even the people of Afghanistan.

The gist of the logic that Musharraf gave in his address to the nation on Sept. 19, and also in his statements and interviews afterwards, in defense of the decision of siding with America, was that the decision was taken for:

• Upholding the truth
• Safeguarding the national interest (i.e. security, economic growth, and prestige of the country)
• Ensuring that Pakistan is not isolated in the world, but stands along with the international community
• Ensuring that the decision should be in line with Islamic teachings.

This he said in his address on Sept. 19, but the decision of taking sides with America was already taken on Sept. 15. The US President Bush’s declaration of the ‘first war of the 21^st century’ came on Sept. 13 and on Sept. 14 US Senate gave full authority to President Bush for taking any action against terrorism. And then, Musharraf took the ‘bold’ and ‘prudent’ decision of cooperating and siding with America during the very first telephonic conversation with Mr. Bush. This was essentially a decision of one single person, which was subsequently upheld by his own appointed cabinet, security council, and corps commanders (here we are not delving into the reshuffling that the President had to undertake in the army, details of which are pouring in not only in the national but also the international media). Then, as he says, the President conferred with leaders of cross-section of society, which gave majority’s support to his decision.

The need is to analyze these assertions, as well as American designs, and to determine the national and Islamically right stand in the light of logic and facts. We agree with the President that decisions on national issues should not be taken by being carried away by emotions but with wisdom and coolness of mind, keeping in view Islamic teachings and national interests. We, however, add that external pressure and our own past experience should be instrumental in arriving at a decision, for the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has said that the wisdom of Muslim prevents him from being bitten twice from the same whole.

Evading the Investigation

While the events of Sept. 11 might have badly bruised the ego of America, the killing of over 6,000 people of some 80 countries of the world is not only extraordinary but also a crime against humanity. It is a crime in the Islamic law as it is in the American Constitution, international law and covenants. This is why all Muslim governments, Islamic movements and ulema condemned it without any reservation. The Taliban government too condemned it, and Osama announced his dissociation with it. In spite of all this, within half an hour of the happenings CNN tried to drag Osama in this episode, and after just one hour former Israeli Prime Minister Yehud Barak read from a written speech during a BBC program and held Osama and Arabs responsible for the acts. Then, all from top to bottom started repeating the mantra that Osama and his al-Qaeda were behind these acts and that Afghan government should hand him over to America immediately and unconditionally, without any research, scientific investigation, inquiry, judicial commission and subsequent court proceedings.

It is now more than six weeks since the horrible events took place, yet no step, save this allegation, has come to fore. Kennedy’s assassination, Oklahoma incident, and killings of school children were all probed into, many commissions were set up, court proceedings were held, Senate and Congressional Committees carried out their own investigations and presented their results, but the facts, causes and factors and implications of such a big, cataclysmic incident that has gravely impacted on global economy and politics are being covered up. And the entire wrath is on Osama, who has expressed his dissociation from it.

Two cases against Osama and his associates have been pending before the courts. Intelligence agencies with an annual budget of $50 billion are after him for five years. It is being said that the planning of what happened on Sept. 11 had been on for two years and that there must have been 50 persons involved in it in addition to the hijackers (who are no more alive). They have not yet been traced, however. No significant information has come out of the 700 that have been detained so far. The skill, coordination, and simultaneous action in different cities rules out the role of an outside body – especially for a person or an organization that is as far as 10,000 miles away, whose activities and movements are under constant surveillance, and who has no influence in the sensitive institutions of the country where the incident took place.

Anthrax: Who is Responsible?

Recently in the case of anthrax too, Osama was hastily accused of spreading anthrax in America. But now the 160-page report of the British government’s Cabinet Office "Deliberate Release of Chemical and Biological Agents", establishes that this could have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. (The Independent on Sunday, Oct. 21, 2001)

President Bush’s new director of internal security, Thomas Ridge himself says:

FBI has been able to identify the site where the letters were mailed. At first, given the proximity of the anthrax mailshots to 11 September, the authorities thought they had to be linked to extreme Muslim fundamentalists, probably Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. But in the last few days the view has changed. Investigations are increasingly convinced that a loan individual or a group of people living in the U.S. are behind the white powers which has claimed the life of a British-ban picture editor and brought parts of the U.S. media, political and economic life infrastructure to standstill. (The Independent on Sunday, Oct. 21. 2001, p.3)

The question is why the events of Sept. 11 are not being thoroughly investigated? Why all the possibilities are not being looked into? All the accusing fingers and wrath are directed against a single person. This is further complicating and mystifying the event. Osama and his associates neither had the skills and technology nor any such influence and friends and supporters in America that could have accomplished such a task. While the linkages in America are not established, linkages in Europe too are becoming disputed in the light of latest reports. With regards to Britain, a report in the Guardian of Oct. 23 says that there is no circle or group of al-Qaeda present in the country. Then, the questions that have come to fore about the hijackers and the way official circles of Saudi Arabia have challenged their identity, along with the way of life of wining and dining, this all does not link them with al-Qaeda. Moreover, not only one or two but a host of experts, who are all Americans, have asserted that amateur pilots being trained on small civilian airplanes cannot fly 757 jetliners and keep them under control after killing or removing their own pilots, nor can they hit a specific building surrounded by so many other skyscrapers in a city like New York. In their statements on the Internet, the engineers who took part in the constructions of the World Trade Center have said that crashing of airplanes into the buildings and the fire of their petrol cannot cause such a huge destruction as befell on Sept. 11.

There is something seriously wrong that is not being uncovered. The monitoring of airplanes from the watch-towers of the concerned airports and conversations with pilots are also a mystery. Most of the information is unavailable. Out of the four, only one black box has been found. While more than 6,000 are feared dead, only 60 corpses have been taken out. It is also strange that the building came down and did not fall right or left. These are causing a great chaos and anxiety in the country and though the world peace is being disturbed, no serious effort is being made to probe into these issues. Merely on the basis of suspicion, Osama is being accused for the misdeed. President Bush haughtily declares that there is no need of investigation, judicial process, evidence or case; Osama is the criminal, his being guilty is established and he should be handed over to America.

Reality of Evidence against Osama

The ‘evidence’ that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has presented in the Parliament is ludicrous since the 23-page report itself confesses in the very first paragraph that "the document does not purport to provide a presentable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law."

Robert Fisk writes:

The Americans are finding it a hard sell in the Middle East, and the British Government’s document ‘proving’ Osama bin Laden’s responsibility for the 11 September activities is unlikely to rally the Arab World to the West’s ‘War on Terrorism’. Only nine of the 70 points, in the document, relate to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and these rely on conjectures rather than evidence. (The Independent, Oct. 5, 2001)

Deliberating on the ‘evidence’, The Guardian writes:

In the improbable event that Osama bin Laden even faces a formal prosecution for the September 11 terrorist atrocities, the case against him that was published by the British Government yesterday would be almost worthless from a legal point of view – More than three weeks after that Bush administration said it would produce the evidence against Bin Laden. The reality is that Mr. Blair’s case comes down to two words "trust me". (The Guardian, Oct. 5, 2001)

And now, taking a somersault, the Bush administration has turned back from its ‘promise’ saying that there is no need on any ‘evidence’; though Powell had himself assured that evidence would be made public.

The International Herald Tribune has published the editorial of the New York Times. Though captioned as "A Believable Case", the facts it admits are:

The report does not contain a smoking gun – there are no transcripts of telephone conversation in which Mr. Bin Laden orders the hijacking of American planes... Mr. Blair was insisting the world to accept his word that the intelligence information was credible... British report was compiled from evidence provided by American and British intelligence agencies, public declarations by Mr. Bin Laden and post court proceedings against al-Qaeda members. It was not intended to meet legal intended for prosecution. (International Herald Tribune, Oct. 8, 2001)

An analysis in the American Time magazine under the title "The Case Against Evidence", admits between the lines that there is in fact no evidence:

The editors of Britain’s Independent "await conclusive evidence that Osama bin Laden was the architect of the appalling attacks in New York and Washington." The Observer says, "We must accept that a credible finger of suspicion points to Osama bin Laden" before adding that "suspicion and burden of proof are very different issues." Writing in Le Monde, Edward Said contends that "even to this day, no proof exists." Germany’s Ambassador to Washington, Wolfgang Ischinger last week called on the U.S. to present a case against Bin Laden to allies. "Presenting some evidence would be enormously useful", he said. (Time, Oct 8, 01)

George Monbiot of the Guardian and Robert Fisk of the Independent have exposed the facts and evidence Blair has presented after a four-week investigation by the American CIA and the British MI5. George Monbiot has gone so far as to say:

I can’t help suspecting that intelligence against him assembled a theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it... I think we have some cause to regard new evidence against Bin Laden with a measure of suspicion. (The Guardian, "Collateral Repair", Sept. 25, 2001)

Monbiot thus exposes the aims of President Bush:

President Bush has assembled the gigantic death squad, dispatched to enact extra-judicial executions.

While this is the situation on the one side, see what is the state of affairs on the other side. General Musharraf not only became part of brutal killing of not a person or a party but a whole nation, he also gave the certificate that the evidence (that all bipartisan lawyers and political thinkers of the entire world are rejecting as mere suspicions instead of being evidences) is sufficient not only to establish the guilt of Osama but also of the Taliban. The International Herald Tribune could not help conceal its amusement on this approach of General Musharraf, which is a matter of shame for us. It wrote:

The issue is particularly sensitive in the Muslim World, which makes Pakistan’s emphatic public endorsement important. On Thursday its government went even further than Britain’s, declaring that the evidence it has been shown by Washington would be sufficient to justify charges against Mr. Bin Laden in a court of law. (International Herald Tribune, Oct. 8, 2001, p.12)

It is unfortunate that while Qatar’s Amir Sheikh Muhammad al-Sani said with humility and mildly during the Foreign Ministers’ meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) on Oct. 10 that more concrete evidence was needed to establish the link of Osama with the Sept. 11 events, our President says that the evidence that has come so far is sufficient to penalize a whole nation! The Economist’s following comment is not less than a slap on the face of the ruling junta of Pakistan:

So far the twisting trails from 19 dead highjackers have led to 540 investigative interviews, 383 raids and some 4,407 summons being issued and the detention of more than 500 people. And that is just inside the United States. Another 150 people have been arrested in 25 other countries. A firm link between Osama bin Laden and the hijackers has yet to be shown in public." (The Economist, Oct. 6, 2001, p. 52)

The result of all the evidences and witnesses that have come so far, according to the Economist, is:

None of this makes Mr. Bin Laden beyond doubt the master-villain. Nobody has yet actually confessed to anything.

India is in the forefront in the opposition to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, but its media are compelled to say that in spite of some 40,000 investigations and round-the-clock efforts of 4,000 workers, the American FBI ‘still does not reveal much’. A weekly writes:

Charges about the complicity of Osama are profuse but evidence on it is unmentionably scarce." (Economic and Political Weekly, Oct. 6, 2001, p.3803)

India’s prestigious journal Frontline expresses the same dilemma, rather Swami has quoted from Le Monde a French expert on Afghan issues and author of many books:

Osama bin Laden does not appear as the mastermind behind radical Islamic movements throughout the world. He should rather be seen as a trainer of militants who subsequently chose their own fields of action. (Frontline, Oct. 12, 2001, p.18)

And same is the analysis of famous Egyptian political commentator and former minister Muhammad Heikal, which Stephen Moss has published in the Guardian as his interview:

He also questioned whether Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network were solely responsible for the September 11 attacks, arguing that the limited evidence so far presented is far more convincing. "Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as it was Nazi Germany or Communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years, every telephone was monitored and al-Qaeda has been penetrated by American intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, and Egyptian intelligence. The card not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organization and sophistication...

Heikal gives battle evidence to suggestions that a more central planning role may have been played by Bin Laden’s nominal deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri the leader of Egyptian Islamic jehad. "He played a peripheral role in the assassination which itself was marked by superficial planning and only succeeded because of luck. As their interviews with Al-Jazira should Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri rely on nothing but their instincts. They may, Heikal believes, be some as yet undiscovered explanation element in the atrocity of September 11. Whatever the truth, he says, that the explanation so far have been hasty, inconclusive and remarkably convenient. "I understand that the American administration wanted an easy right away to hit, to absorb the anger of the American people.", he says, "but I wish they had produced some real evidence. I read what Mr. Blair said in the House of Commons, carefully. They had prepared the atmosphere for that statement by saying he is going to reveal some proof, but there is no proof, nothing; it is all deduction. Colin Powell was more honest than anybody. He said if not this, it doesn’t matter, he has committed so many other crimes that necessitate taking action against him. But that is like the Chinese proverb: Hit your wife every day; if you do not know the reason, she does! You can’t do it this way. (The Guardian, Oct. 10, 2001, p.6)

American Obduracy

The reality is that America has no factual evidence and whatever is being presented as evidence is nothing but a pack of suspicions. Its image is of a distorted, raw, half-baked, based on misgivings, full of contradictions, devoid of truth and unreliable evidence. It is held that all information cannot be made public, but this runs against the principles of justice, basic rights and judicial norms. Nobody is entitled to declare a person not only an accused but a criminal on the basis of unreliable and disputable information without giving the accused the right to defend himself, and then to pass judgment and to carry out the sentence. Being unchecked, he goes on to warn that along with the person whom he declares criminal, those who shelter him would also be liable to punishment and would be made subject to mass destruction.

It seems that there are no tenable information or evidence other than what has already been presented and that the recourse to bloodletting is to satisfy the ego and the sense of revenge, to cover up the failure of the intelligence and security system, to exploit the emotions of the people for the objectives for which the ground is being leveled. Otherwise, there was only one reasonable way out: if there were really any solid information and evidence against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda, then a parliamentary or judicial commission should have been formed without delay, which would have looked into the case by investigating independently and holding open hearings. And, in case of any solid evidence, the accused could have either been extradited to America through legal process according to the internationally established laws of extradition or the case would have been referred to an international court or some neutral judicial commission with the help of the governments concerned. The Taliban repeatedly asked for evidence and went as far as to say that they were ready to present Osama before a court or a judicial commission of non-partisan Muslim countries. But, Bush’s obstinacy, arrogance, and colonial designs did not let him take the reasonable course. His trite reply was:

When I said: no negotiations, I meant no negotiations. We know he is guilty. Turn him over. There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt." (The Independent, Oct. 15, 2001, p.1)

Senior British parliamentarians (such as Mr. Tam Dalyall, who is the most elderly and is known as father of the House of Commons) are saying:

British reaction to the terrorist attacks in New York on Sept. 11 was exactly what bin Laden had wanted. The Anglo-American offensive against terrorism could lead to reprisals against British and American ex-partite access to the world. It is absolutely essential that the United Nations is brought in as soon as possible and not sidelined. Even now there ought to be an effort to offer to the Taliban for bin Laden to face a trial in a court under the auspices of the UN with both Islamic and non-Islamic judges." (The News International, London, Oct. 9, 2001, p. 9)

In the editorial notes, India’s Frontline too calls it ‘America’s Unjust War’ and writes:

The just response to this monstrous crime would have been to go all out to bring the authors to stern justice – justice under the rule of law and through the law courts, by marshalling and laying out evidence to convince the world, through the collective agency of the United Nations, and through pro-active diplomacy... such a just response is ruled out by virtue of what the United States is, what it is accustomed to doing, the arrogance of being the 'sole supervisor’ and the charter of its international policy. (Frontline, 12 Oct. 01, p.10)

While newspapers and journals of international repute are expressing these views, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are bent upon imposing deadly war on Afghanistan and letting hell of fire and destruction loose on them. Afghanistan is a country with no roads and railways, where even the facilities of electricity, water and food are not available. It has no air force, yet the attackers are exuberant to have achieved ‘air superiority’. Towns and villages, and even mosques, schools, dispensaries, UN and Red Cross depots are being bombarded in the name of ‘targeted bombing’. While more than one and a half thousand innocent people have been killed in the ruthless two and a half weeks bombing, the perpetrator is so overwhelmed by revenge that it does not let him sit and withdraw from aggression. Pakistan’s ‘General President’ is equally responsible for this bloodshed, because the campaign he was asserting to be short and targeted and for which he was giving guarantees has turned out to be a prolonged war. The hollowness of his assertions was exposed on the very first day when American President Bush retorted by saying that he did not know what made Musharraf say so and that they (the US and its allies) would continue the war as long as they wished, which might continue till next winter, or the following summer or even in years thereafter. Consequent upon this imperial diktat, our ‘General President’ started playing second fiddle to Bush’s avowals every now and then.

Afghanistan’s Rightful Stand

Every sovereign country of the world has the right to refuse to hand over its own citizen or whom it has given shelter / asylum to any other country without proper judicial process. If a person is required by some country, then there is only one way of doing this: his extradition is sought through proper judicial process in line with ethics and norms of international law. Even then, the court of the country whose citizen’s extradition is sought has the power to decide on handing or not handing him over only after it has satisfied itself on the basis of evidences submitted to it. Britain, which is on the US side in this campaign, is violating its own law and tradition. Chile’s former ruler General Pinochet was in Britain for medical treatment when Spain sought his extradition for crimes against humanity. The case came to the House of Lords after being twice reviewed by the higher courts. The Lords at last decided to return him back to Chile, and not to hand him over to Spain. Irony is that while Britain has dispatched its troops along with the US’ and has been participating in air strikes since the very first day, it is not handing over to America a man who is required in connection with the very events of Sept. 11 because of the requirements of the European convention on human rights as the sentence for the crime he is required for is death in America. The European legislation says that an accused cannot be extradited to a country where death is the penalty of his crime. America and Britain are battling over the issue. A European delegate says:

We are fully and deeply on the American side on the fight... But we have a position of principle against the death penalty and there can be no exception on it. (The Sunday Telegraph, 7 Oct. 01)

Since the European countries are ‘civilized’, they have the right to hold their law supreme; Afghanistan, Pakistan and other eastern countries are ‘uncivilized’, their national law, religion, and tradition have no sanctity! America has the right to get the people it requires expelled from any country, be it Pakistan or the Philippines, to kidnap Panama’s President after sending in some 25,000 troops and then to initiate legal proceedings in America; whereas other countries cannot proceed against an American required in connection with some crime in their own territories. When respect of all decisions of the court that has been established under the UN Charter is pressed upon the member countries, America has the grit to say that it does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction. It did so in 1996 as well when it refused to accept the court’s decision regarding American military intervention in Nicaragua. It is a manifest global vandalism, it cannot be resorted to by a civilized country.

Afghanistan is fighting for its sovereign right that the person it has given shelter to cannot be handed over to America on its demand with any clear evidence and judicial process.

America’s war against Afghanistan is an aggression. Running amuck with power, it is trampling upon the UN Charter, Geneva Convention, and all international norms. With detailed analysis, we have shown that America has failed to come up with any credible evidence against Osama and his al-Qaeda and is trying to get him through coercion and pressure. This is totally unacceptable.

Open Violation of International Law

America’s aggression against Afghanistan under this pretext (of getting Osama) is manifest state terrorism and an open violation of the UN Charter and international law.

This is an established principle of law that a country or a person cannot be punished for someone else’s crime, even if the incidence of the crime is established. Abetting in the crime and giving shelter to someone are two different issues, especially when the crime is not established and decisive evidence is missing. Mere presence of a person in some country does not entitle any other country to attack the asylum-giver simply because he is wanted by it. International Law Commission has distinct laws in this regard, which have been accepted by all countries of the world including America and Britain. Article 11 of the law says:

The conduct of a person or group of persons not acting on behalf of the state shall not be considered an act of the state under international law.

Similarly, article 14 says:

The conduct of an organ of an insurrectional movement that is established in the territory of a state, or in any other territory under its administration, shall not be considered an act of that state under international law.

In the case of the Nicaragua government against America we have mentioned earlier, America was indicted in some matters but was absolved in others because of this principle. The judgment reads:

The court finds that the USA, by producing a manual…and disseminating it to the Contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to the general principles of humanitarian law but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which might have been committed are imputable to the USA as acts of the USA.

In the light of these principles it is clear that if a person in Afghanistan has taken some step or if some step that is a crime against humanity is being attributed to him, even then its responsibility cannot be put at the door of Afghan government. It should be clearly borne in mind that these laws are to prevent governments, especially those who wield great power, from arbitrary use of force against others under the excuse of some provocative acts. These laws are to block this way but America is deliberately ignoring them all.

Requirements of the UN Charter

The UN Charter’s very purpose is to prevent states’ one-sided and arbitrary use of force. Article 51 of the Charter is about self-defense, but this cannot be changed to military aggression against other state. The UN Charter is based on:

• to save the succeeding general from the scourge of war
• equal rights of man and woman, and of nations large or small
• respect of the obligation arising from treaties and other sources of international law (Preamble)

The sub-clauses 1, 2 and 3 of article 20 of the Charter are very clear:

• The principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. (2.1)
• All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means, in such a manner that international peace and security and relations are not endangered. (2.3)
• All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Then, article 33 clearly says:

The parties of any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

Moreover, article 36 makes it a responsibility of the Security Council to take necessary steps for the solution of a problem under article 33. According to article 37, if member states fail to resolve an issue through talks and peaceful means, it would be incumbent upon them to refer the matter to the Security Council, which would take necessary steps under article 36.

No country can take action against another country on its own. Even in the steps under articles 33, 36 and 37 fail to resolve a conflict, then Security Council may decide on economic sanctions under article 41 and military action under article 42. But a country can neither take such an action on its own, nor through a coalition in neglect of the United Nations. These steps can only be taken through the military forces of the UN member states under articles 46 and 47 and under the UN Military Staff Committee, which can take an appropriate step with the consultation and approval of the Security Council.

This is the framework the UN Charter gives. America and Britain have violated each and every article of this in pursuance of their whims. Though America has sought justification under article 51, but justification can come only in case of armed attack i.e. when forces of some other particular country attack a country. Even in such a case, it is incumbent upon the country that has been attacked to inform the Security Council; and it would accept whatever the Council would decide for restoring peace without any interfering or tempering with the decisions of the Council. Under article 94 of the Charter, it is the duty of the UN Secretary General to take suo-moto notice of any violation of the Charter by any country and refer the matter to the Security Council.

In the light of the UN Charter and international law, American and British stand is not based on justice but is an open aggression, cruel and one-sided approach that is harmful for world peace. By providing land and air routes to this international high-handedness, the government of Pakistan has committed the wrong of abetting in crime and cooperating in the spread of evil and chaos. Determinedly, America’s crimes are:

• Without any convincing evidence and proof and beyond any acceptable judicial process, it declared a person and a country as criminal, and formed a coalition against them.
• In contradiction to international law and clear decisions of international courts, it declared war against a country, a party and groups which had no hand in any crime under the law. If there were any people in the country whose crime could have been established, then their extradition could have been demanded. But there can be no justification of military action, nobody has the right even to demand extradition of those whose crime has not been established.
• If there were really a dispute and a country was blocking the way of meeting a rightful demand, then a recourse to negotiations is what is desirable and necessary under article 33 of the UN Charter. American President rules out negotiations and did not deem fit the peaceful way of resolving the dispute. This is how he violated the Charter and disturbed world peace.
• In military action too, the course the Charter prescribes has not been followed. The Security Council did not make any decision that declared Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan as criminals, or prescribed an action against them. The Security Council resolution of Sept. 28, 2001 does not define terrorism in the first place, nor is it directed against a particular country. It asks all member countries to observe a 7-point demand that includes preventing financial support to terrorist activities, freezing of assets of terrorist organizations, checking individuals and groups from providing financial support to terrorists, recruitment of new blood or providing arms to these organizations, ban on cooperation to those who shelter terrorists and terror organizations, preventing terrorists’ movement by effective border controls, and assistance in connection with criminal investigations. It has neither has a mention of any country, nor does it talk about any military action and cooperation to such effort.

It is clear that the military action has no direct or indirect UN consent, and every such step is an open violation of the UN Charter. Not to inform the Security Council even after the lapse of two weeks and Secretary General’s himself being inactive are also in violation of the Charter. This clearly means that whatever is going on in the name of international community, has neither the support of the international community nor is it according to the UN Charter. It is state terrorism of a superpower, and whoever is cooperating in this terrorism is abetting in the crime and committing aggression against an oppressed country, in proportion to its support. Out of the 198 countries of the world, hardly 40 are participating in this under American ‘pressure’ or because of ‘friendship’, and differences, concerns, reservations, and signs of anxiety are evident even in their ranks. It is unfortunate that some Muslim countries, of which Pakistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan are significant, have lent their shoulder to this aggression and are not only suppressing the cause of truth and justice but are guilty of killing their fellow Muslims. This is a crime that neither Allah would forgive, nor would the Ummah. Whoever has committed the crime, in whatever degree, would have to account for it.

                          Index Isharat               Top

Translation and adaptation of the editorial of Tarjuman Ul Quran November 2001.