It
is quite clear that insufficient efforts were made by the US to pursue
peaceful solutions or further dialogues and negotiations, as President
Bush had give an ultimatum of two weeks for the Taliban to hand over
suspected terrorists. When this time frame is compared to that of other
international conflicts, for example the Israel-Palestine conflict, in
which it had taken a tremendous amount of time to broker deals.
Conversely, the Afghanistan government was given hardly any reasonable
time to comply or discuss its problems, issues or reservations.
The
law that was used by the US to justify the need for the invasion was
Article 51 of the UN Charter, which deals with the issue of
self-defence.
President George W Bush announced, in a speech
delivered after the first strike on Afghanistan, "We have called up
reserves to reinforce our military capability and strengthen the
protection of our homeland." It can be seen through this quote, and many
others by President George W. Bush, that the US believed its actions
were justified on the grounds of self-defence. This justification was
used because it was alleged that if Afghanistan was not contained, more
terrorist attacks would occur in the US and elsewhere around the world.
However,
the issue of self-defence could be raised by the Afghan people
themselves too, as resistance against NATO and US forces and their
perceived aggression could in itself equate to individual self-defence,
countering the collective, national self-defence that the US claimed.
Furthermore,
it should be noted that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were not carried
out by one state acting aggressively against the US. They were the
actions of a terrorist organisation that had no direct links to the
government of any state. This logic could also be used by Afghanistan to
argue that the response of Afghans who subsequently joined resistance
movements did so in retaliation to a pre-emptive strike by the US, as
the 9/11 attacks cannot directly be traced back to Afghanistan.
In
relation to a state fighting a non-state actor, if it was necessary for
the US to invade a country in order to eliminate Al Qaeda, then it can
be argued that Saudi Arabia would have been a more logical choice than
Afghanistan. This is because many reports over the years have suggested
that Al Qaeda was formed, funded and trained by Saudi Arabia. This is
affirmed by Wikileaks cables which mention this fact.
Legal
scholar Olivier Corten states that there was ‘nearly unanimous political
opposition to the Taliban regime’. Nonetheless even though there was
strong opposition to the Taliban by various international organisations
and states, regime change is not itself a substantial enough reason to
allow for an invasion of one country by another. Thus, this
justification for intervention by the occupying forces would not be seen
as credible or permissible under international law. Furthermore, the
Taliban were initially welcomed by the majority of the Afghan population
when they came to power as they worked to eradicate ‘warlords and
banditry’.
That is why an alternative narrative came into
existence after the invasion had been going on for a while, namely that
the invasion of Afghanistan by US and NATO forces was a humanitarian
mission. And that the mission’s aim was to liberate the Afghan people
and bring them democracy by eradicating the Taliban hold on the country.
Another
important part of the Charter which needs to be mentioned is Article
2(3), which states that all disputes should be solved in a peaceful
manner in order to ensure global peace and security. With this Article
in mind, it seems that not enough effort was made to determine whether
the objectives that the US wanted fulfilled by Afghanistan could be
reached in such a manner. The threatening tone used by the former US
President George W. Bush when addressing the issue, including the fact
that he only gave the Taliban two weeks to hand over the suspected
terrorists, suggests that this Article 2(3) was ignored entirely.
The
issue of a state using force against a non-state actor is a contentious
and compelling area that also needs to be analysed. Even though the
Taliban was the only form of government in Afghanistan at the time of
the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda
was not. Thus, the war in Afghanistan with the aim to eradicate a
non-state actor could be seen as beyond the scope of necessity and
proportionality. This is because Al Qaeda did not have the kind of
influence and control that the Taliban did in Afghanistan, so invading
the country in order to eradicate them could be seen in a legal context
as disproportionate and therefore illegitimate.
One more key
issue to consider here is the principle of State Sovereignty.
Afghanistan was primarily invaded due to the fact that people who the US
considered to be terrorists linked to the 9/11 attacks and living in
Afghanistan at the time were not handed over to the US. But it seems
dialogue and diplomacy could have been pursued in order to reach an
agreement, rather than rushing to the conclusion that an invasion was
the only means for the US to achieve its objectives. This is because
International Law states that other means to resolve disputes should be
looked into before considering the act of war. This is affirmed by
Article 2(4) of the UN charter which states that:
"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 any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations."
But due to the fact that the US government
believed that it was acting to prevent further loss of civilian life by
the perceived future threat of Al Qaeda, such objectives could be viewed
as being humanitarian and not territorial or political, as was done in
Kosovo, thus leading people to believe that such an operation was more
legitimate than any other form of conflict.
However, George W
Bush only gave the Taliban two weeks to hand over terrorist operatives
and it seems that no other forms of negotiations were engaged in, so not
all that could be done to prevent war was undertaken by the US and the
NATO states that subsequently invaded Afghanistan.
Washington
had failed to recognise the opposition to Al Qaeda, which was vast in
the Muslim world. If the US had looked to work with such groups, the
spread of Al Qaeda might have been better contained than it is at
present.
Furthermore, it could be argued that the Taliban was
reluctant to give up these alleged terrorists for numerous reasons, one
of the main ones being that it could have caused unrest in Afghanistan
if it was not a move that the majority of the Afghan population
supported. And given that Afghanistan had already suffered a bloody and
devastating civil war, this was a serious issue that needed to be
considered.
Another issue to consider was the fact that
declaring war on the basis of one terrorist attack could be seen as
going against the principles of necessity and proportionality when
looking to engage in war, even if a state is relying on self-defence as a
justification for war.
SSO - 31 July 2021.
Credit is hereby declared:
This
article is an adaptation and modification of an essay written by Rabia
Khan for a Master's program at the University of London. It was written
in January 2013 and published on 6 November 2013.
Wah lao. Read until can koon. I give up.
ReplyDeleteLegal matters are usually not interesting and long-winded because they have to be expressed in a certain way and have to cover as many aspects as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe kegal jargon is also another factor that puts off many lay people. That's why the legal profession is not for everyone. Only a very small group of people can reach the pinnacle of the legal profession.
The illegal invasions carried out by the US military around the world must be exposed for the good of all mankind.
ReplyDeleteHow The Evil Whitemen Control The World
ReplyDeleteThe Evil Whitemen control the world through body, speech, mind and spirit. All their activities are aimed at controlling your body, speech, mind and spirit in one way or another. That's why they are so powerful and successful.
That's the introduction of my next piece.
ReplyDeleteCOVID-19: Money-making Big Pharmas Going In For The Kill
ReplyDeleteAs expected and predicted, the profit-oriented, huge money-making, big pharmaceutical companies are going in for the kill once again.
It has been confirmed that big pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Moderna will increase the price of their respective vaccines, using the excuse of adapting their vaccines to new variants of the Covid-19 virus.
What will the new prices be?
The price of Pfizer's vaccine will rise from 15.50 euros (S$24.90) to 19.50 euros (S$31.30).
The price of the Moderna's vaccines will rise from 19 euros (S$30.50) to 21.50 euros (S$34.50).
Officially, this will be in effect not only for the European Union, but also for all buyers.
It was estimated in December 2020 that Pfizer and Moderna would be able to earn about $32 billion from their mRNA COVID-19 vaccines this year.
Pfizer alone would be able to generate $19 billion profits without the price increase added.
And Modena would easily scoop more than $13 billion, without adding the price increase.
It is not surprising that the two big Fishers-of-Men keep telling us that the benefits of their vaccines outweigh the risks.
They make huge profits and we take great risks, as their experimental guinea pigs! And so many imbeciles are still singing their song:
"Benefits outweigh the risks" - my toes are laughing.
SSO - 3 August 2021.