Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Responding to "ROGUE STATES"

Today, I'd like to tell you about my neighbor Roger. Ok, I'll admit it, this
is a thought experiment (a short and very simple one) based on our
interesting discussion of world events  with friends today, but just
suppose:

Suppose you had a neighbor, call him Roger (Roger, "Rogue State", get
it?) and suppose that there was evidence that Roger was harboring
some dangerous elements in his house, dangerous, violent time. Not
proof, but hey, definitely evidence.

And suppose, furthermore, that from your prior experiences with Roger,
you KNEW for sure he was the kind of person who just IGNORED the
law. I mean you can talk to him, to you can write him letters, you can
even have an official town request that he stop this thing,, or stop
letting those people use his house, or whatever, and you KNEW he would
ignore those letters and calls.


What would we, in America, do in a case like this?

Indeed, what DO we do?

Do we arrange for a gang of vigilantes armed with guns to storm
Roger's house? No, of course not!

What do we do? We use the Law, we stay within the Law, and we use the
long arm and the power of the Law.

We do we do? We bring evidence to Courts. We get Warrants
for holding an investigation or even a Search in Roger's house.
We stay within the Law;


In fact, even if it comes to using FORCE, even if it comes to that,
we still  do not become a lawless  gang of vigilantes
armed with guns, storming Roger's house -- rather, if and when the
Courts and legally constituted officials and institutions issue an
order (after Roger ignores and violates all the previous legal steps
e.g. an official order etc), then only through the Courts, if and when
THEY, under the Law, issue an ok for the police to storm Roger's
house, THEN we do that, and only under those LEGAL avenues, and that
is how we proceed. That is what separates us from LAWLESS people like
ROGER.


* * * *

So where does this thought experiment come from?

It is about the question of how to address the PRESENT terrorism.

On the issue of preventing FUTURE terrorism, many of us have
pointed at history. Not in order to "blame" Americans (though
maybe in part to blame our past "leaders" and their deeds..)
but primarily for the very pragmatic and practical question of how to
prevent future terrorism: "Primum, non Nocere" is the medical oath,
"First, do no harm". If our policies have done harm (by using our
tax-dollars, the CIA funded Saddam, Noriega, the Taliban, and indeed
the CIA *trained* them in terrorism). Given that, "doing nothing"
is an improvement. That is, if we were doing harm (to ourselves, as
well as to others) by these policies, then it's an extremely easy and
extremely powerful step that we can take (and no one can stop us) to
just CEASE from doing that.

But what about the present case of terrorism? Should we just do
nothing? Actually, there are plenty of things we can do. There is only
ONE LAW, from a moral point of view. You can't let yourself drive 85
miles per hour and insist others stay under 55.


Well, how would we want, say, China to respond if something like the
World Trade Center bombing happened to it? And suppose the suspect was
living in France.  Would we say it's ok for China to demand France
hand over the suspect or be bombed? (or would we want China sending
"Special Operations" Navy Seals all over the world??) Of course not!

Even if we were 100% sure that China was right (which we can't be, as
we don't have all the facts) about the suspects, we would expect China
to provide Evidence. And to use formal extradition. And to use the
United Nations, World Court, and/or similar institutions of
International Law in which to present evidence, get international
warrants, etc.

China would be behaving like a rogue state outside and above the Law,
if it said to France: "Just do as WE tell you, or else we bomb you!"

However we hear that France is a Law-Abiding country, while
Afghanistan is not. There are several problems with this. One of them
is FACTUAL. In fact, I softened our examples a bit: we could have
imagined that the suspected terrorist was being given safe harbor in
the U.S., not in France. We would then hear that the U.S. is a
Law-Abiding country while Afghanistan is not, but this is simply not
true. The World Court for example ruled against the Reagan/Bush
illegal (and murderous) mining of Nicaragua's harbors, "we" (read: our
"leaders" no you and I) ignored this ruling. So the US is a Lawless
nation; there are plenty of other examples where UN resolutions were
ignored, violated, and effectively, Washington's  thumbed its nose at
International Law.

When Albright said that "we will work with other nations when [they
agree with us], and we will act unilaterally otherwise" she was
expressing a sentiment that Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden would be
happy to agree with: Anyone, even any tyrant will gladly say: "I'll be
happy to work within the law when the police/Law/courts agree with
what I want to do, and I'll only act 'unilaterally' when the
police/Law/courts don't agree with me".

So there is a FACTUAL problem with the claim that  the reason it's ok
to threaten to bomb Afghanistan but not one of us "good guy" countries
has to do with some countries being law-abiding and others
being lawless.

But there is a second, LOGICAL problem with the argument, which is
where our hypothetical neighbor Roger comes in. You deal with Lawless
Roger (even if you are 100% he will thumb his nose at the law) through
the legally constituted authorities and agencies. Whether these
institutions are able to resolve the matter without the use of
violence or whether they resort to force (and if so, what type/extent
of force) is another question. It is not in question however that none
of us would call for being lawless ourselves and using armed
vigilantes to attack Roger's house; we would use the courts, warrants,
and any legally/Court-sanctioned steps, whether legal, economics, or
using force.

The analogy should now be vividly obvious. Our "leaders" (not "we",
though I regretfully use the term "we" myself, sometimes) are once
again acting outside the law (another reason for the FACTUAL problem;
we ARE a country which is regularly lawless and ignores international
law).

Bush et al want us to do the equivalent of getting a gang of
vigilantes outside the law, something that is just as outrageous as if
China told the world "Tough Sh*t! We're not gonna go by international
law, we're taking things into OUR OWN hands! We're not providing you
any evidence against this suspect; hand 'em over of face bombing!"
against the other country, be it France, the U.S. or another country.

* * * *

As I noted previously, it's not a question of whether we take strong
military actions that will reduce terrorism, but kill foreigners, or
act more morally, not killing foreigners, but do little about
terrorism. That's the lie our "leaders" perpetuate that each and every
historical example above disproves.


The Real Choices are between taking military actions that INCREASE
anti-US terrorism AND ALSO kill civilians in foreign nations and ALSO
break international law instead of working through the UN (does this
"lose-lose-lose scenario have any appeal to anyone outside of
Washington??)

OR

We use prevention which does a LOT to reduce present AND future
anti-US terrorism AND avoid killing civilians AND work within the rule
of law -- by stopping support for dictators and for unsavory elements
for once and for all with a "zero tolerance" policy against the CIA or
anyone else doing this with our tax dollars, plus working to support
those who are starving in Afghanistan and who have suffered under the
Taliban, instead of us bombing them and adding punishment to
punishment to people 85% of whom are subsistence farmers (2) who
haven't even a TV or phone to even know what the World Trade Center
was, let alone supporting anti-US terror. IF we support them, when
they aren't working to just get enough food to feed themselves day to
day, you can believe they will be more than motivated to get rid of
the Taliban themselves, if only we did that and helped them , the
Afghani people, directly, instead of having spend the 1980s and beyond
sending our tax-dollars to the Taliban.

SO THE CHOICE IS NOT between killing civilians and stopping terrorism
(with what amounts to our own terrorism since we act to kill people
while outside the law) or doing neither. It's a choice between
militarism that kills civilians, creates more dictators and not only
doesn't' stop, but increases long-term terrorism, or doing the right
thing for ourselves and for others by supporting PEOPLE in other
countries instead of supporting the dictators and "unsavory elements"
in other countries...in one stroke, we help these people twice (first,
not supporting their dictators, second, helping them not starve, so
they have the strength to kick out their own dictators), in one
stroke, they will learn to LOVE and THANK the US, in one stroke, they
will fight against anti-US terrorism FOR US by getting rid of their
own dictators and "unsavory elements" THAT'S the real choice.

"Which side are YOU on?  And will you join with other Americans to
force our "leaders" to be on the right side?" I asked.

HOWEVER THERE ARE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES, in addition to the above, for
taking vigorous steps to look for anyone who is still alive, who
helped plan or support the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, and there are
exactly two choices: one does this
through legal means, or one acts as a rogue nation which thumbs its
nose at international law whenever its convenient to do so.

The case of South Africa is a dramatic one: a "rogue" country
was forced to comply with the international community. Nelson Mandela
went from prison to become President.


It's a particularly dramatic example because those were relatively
WEAK sanctions in that Washington (remember Reagan?) and the UK
(Thatcher) did as much as they could to water-down the sanctions and
find loopholes, whenever possible.

Yet the sanctions worked.

Imagine how much MORE POWERFUL and effective sanctions MIGHT be if,
instead of the world's Superpower opposing them and trying to weaken
them, the full vigorous force were applied. Pretty dramatic to think
about, huh? We don't know how much more powerful that would be because
we haven't tried, and Bush et al hope we never do.

They want conflicts settled in the arena of force, where Washington
holds a monopoly, rather then in the arenas of Law, where it does not.
They do this to protect their interests, which are not the same as the
interests of the American people, who have long suffered (exactly
as non-American civilians have elsewhere) due to the effects of
Washington's insistence to act outside and above the law as a rogue
vigilante nation. If indeed the Taliban are linked to the Sept 11
suicide attacks by 19 suicidal and homicidal hijackers, then it is yet
another example; some of our RAGE needs to be directed at those who
used OUR tax-dollars to have the CIA train the Taliban in terrorism..

(..and if you still have a hard time pronouncing the word "terrorist" when
it applies to Washington's actions, I ask, doesn't one have to "know
what one is doing" for the CIA to act as the party to "train" someone
else, in terrorism? Or look at the torture manual exposed in the 1980s
that our tax-dollars funded that our "leaders" sent to Central
American thugs in the 1980s..)

But no, we don't need to "sit on our hands"; there is a
huge array of options available to us which are legal;
even more powerful than if it were China, since as the world's
Superpower we get much faster cooperation from other
countries -- as one moves through the channels not of
vigilante style but of Law, towards finding those responsible.

On the other hand, the long-term solution again means
looking at history and noticing how easy it is for us
to take HUGE steps against terrorism by simply refraining
from doing what we have done in the past; refraining not
just from bombing civilians (creating the next generation of anti-US
suicide bombers)..

..but much more directly, by simply REFRAINING from supporting a world
of military solutions, a world of working with "unsavory elements"
(supporting Saddam, Noriega, the Taliban, etc), or a world of more
secret and "covert" operations, and actions outside of international
law. The stakes are higher since each time a country (either China in
our hypothetical, or Washington today, or anyone else) acts outside
the law, they further erode international law and leave in the wake of
their action a world in which it is much more easy for everyone
(including those who would support suicide bombers) to act outside the
law.

Violence begets violence. Revenge begets revenge. And lawlessness
begets lawlessness.

At the same time, acting within the law, acting as part of a Community
Of Nations, acting based on Enlightened Self Interest and separating
innocent civilians from responsible individuals, and ending our OWN
funding (once and for all!) of unsavory elements, and ending all CIA
and other "cover" operations (which usually end up being secret only
from the American taxpayers, not the "enemies"), leads a a saner, more
peaceful world, one which, with luck, might just still be in one piece
when today's toddlers are grown up..

Peace,

Harel


PS As before I urge you to either forward this to those you know,
or in your own words, write, or openly speak with others. We may
feel powerless individually, but together we are not. That is how
every steps towards justice, equality, and peace and progress has ever
been made in history. A poor Central American Farmer was quoted in the
1980s as telling Americans doing Good Work(!) of solidarity as
volunteers:

"When you ask me, 'what can _I_ do? Nothing!' I agree with you.
But when you ask me, 'what can _we_ do?' I say, everything!"

* Peace Rally:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1558000/1558164.stm

* Former Pakistani diplomat reveals: Washington was planning
in mid-July, long before the terrorist attacks to invade Afghanistan
(this fall, before winter):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

* Good source of information: www.zmag.org

* See also www.indymedia.org