Opinion More on World 'War' III By Douglas Lummis	フレームで見る  英文をプリントする  脚注をプリントする
第三次世界「大戦」について もともと米国への同時多発テロ攻撃は「戦争」ではなく犯罪なので、それに戦争という行為で応じることは誤りだ。アフガニスタンは真の「敵国」ではない。そこを攻撃して負かしたとしても、戦争が終わったことにはならないのだ。

As I wrote in my last column, the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington D.C. were acts of crime, not war. And to respond to crime with the method of war is to make a disastrous mistake.

Why? First, because it is illegal. International law permits defensive war when a state is attacked by another state. But Afghanistan has not attacked the United States. Of course we can only know what we read in the newspapers, but we have seen no evidence that the Afghan government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Not even the U.S. government has made that claim.

On the contrary, the papers tell us that the Afghan government moved hastily to shore up its defenses after Sept. 11. This suggests they knew nothing about it before it happened. And it seems there were no Afghans among the hijackers.

Why, then, is Afghanistan being attacked? The reason given in news reports from the United States is "the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden." This is no justification for war: could Peru bomb Tokyo because Japan refused to extradite Fujimori?

But it is also false. The Taliban made many offers to hand over bin Laden Ealways, of course, with conditions. They also offered to try him in their own courts. For example, on Oct. 5 (two days before the air assault began), the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan said, "We are prepared to try him if America provides solid evidenceE..." Asked if bin Laden could be tried in another country, he answered, "We are willing to talk about that, butE..Ewe must be given the evidence."

That is not refusing; it is offering a basis for negotiations. Demanding to see evidence is standard diplomatic procedure. It was the United States that refused to negotiate.

Why? This brings us to a big difference between law enforcement and war. In law enforcement you can't punish a suspect without a trial. But it's doubtful that the U.S. government has sufficient evidence against bin Laden and his supporters to get a finding of guilty in a court of law. By calling it "war," the United States can kill them without such evidence.

Aside from the problem of legality, there is the problem of military strategy. No strategy exists for fighting a "war" against international crime. To win a war you occupy enemy territory, demoralize (terrorize) the enemy people, and force the enemy government to capitulate. In this case there is no territory, no people and no government. What, then, is winning?

I believe it is because of the non-existence of any military strategy that could be used against bin Laden's organization that the United States insisted on setting up the Afghan government as its enemy. Only if there is an enemy government can "war" be carried out. But since the Afghan government is not the real enemy, when (if) it is defeated the "war" will not be over. Who will the United States attack then?

Shukan ST: Nov. 16, 2001

(C) All rights reserved