MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
About dividing the world into two camps
a new Vietnam looming ahead
By M. Ali Ibrahim
Most American officials and ordinary citizens are currently haunted by thoughts of revenge and retaliation against those who easily breached their security, bringing the most powerful state in the world to its knees. The antagonistic feelings are randomly directed to Afghanistan, which is said to be hosting the USA's archenemy, Osama bin Laden. Actually, Kabul, which is about to be hit by the most brutal military strike in history, has nothing to lose. The United States firmly believes that Osama bin Laden and his worldwide 'Base' organisation are responsible for every terrorist attack act against American facilities all over the globe. Bin Laden was previously accused of blowing up a US military barracks in Al Kober, eastern Saudi Arabia. He was also accused of planning the bombing of the two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Investigators have also proved that the Saudi defector was totally responsible for the attack on the US destroyer Kohl off the port of Aden, Yemen. US investigators may well have concrete evidence about his involvement in the above-mentioned terrorist attacks against US targets. Nevertheless, the FBI and CIA have no proof as yet that bin Laden was behind the acts of terrorism in the States nearly a fortnight ago. All the evidence, including the black boxes of some of the planes, is buried under the debris, leaving the door wide open for the guessers, the fortunetellers and even the astrologers. Certainly, the USA may put bin Laden on trial for all the previous terrorist attacks for which they claim they have evidence against him. But the Black Tuesday attacks were something else. Undoubtedly, there is a legal principle, internationally acknowledged, which says that you cannot punish someone for committing similar crimes to the crime which you are currently investigating. Though we sympathise with the US civilians killed in such a brutal and malicious way, we cannot blindly support Washington in what it intends to do. Unfortunately, America has divided the world into two groups: pro-terrorism and anti-terrorism. Those countries which hesitate to spport the USA in military operations against what it terms "countries hatching terrorism" would be considered as "outlawed nations." It is a clear-cut threat. Of course this is unfair. The USA wants to lobby the whole world to fight its enemies under its chairmanship. This alliance would turn the whole world into countries having to subordinate themselves to the USA, even if their interests contradict with Washington's, when it comes to military targets. This division would offer a new phrase to the political dictionary. First we had the 'Rich North' and the 'Poor South' and then the 'Capitalist and Communist face-off', but now we'd have 'Pro-Washington or Anti-Washington'. The 'Pros' would get all the benefits from the US, while the 'Antis' would suffer from economic blockades and even sanctions from the States.
What is there to lose?

The other side of the coin, however, tells a different story. What has Afghanistan got to lose if it is hit or even heavily bombed in unjust attacks? Nothing. Kabul does not enjoy an infrastructure, factories, suburban cities, skyscrapers, or major business establishments or development. In short, no life. The cost of a Cruise or Tomahawk missile far exceeds the value of potential targets in Afghanistan.
Besides, what is there to guarantee that devastating US strikes against Kabul would wipe out bin Laden and his organisation?
Some reports suggest that bin Laden has left his mountain hideout and moved to an unknown destination. I am afraid that the US might decide to launch a land operation against this very mountainous country to hunt down the terrorists. If this happened, Washington would be more bogged down than it was even in Vietnam. The Soviets were badly defeated in Afghanistan and had to withdraw their forces in 1988. The USA was jubilant at the time that its military aid helped the Mujahideen conduct a successful campaign against atheist Russia.
But now it's Washington's turn to drink from the same bitter cup. Ironically, the defeated Russians would help the Americans in their so-called 'sacred' war against terrorism.
We recall Mr. Bush's slip of the tongue, when he described his expected campaign against terrorism as a "crusade." Admittedly, he did apologise for using this word, explaining that the religious, Medieval overtones of 'crusade' never even entered his head. But what is happening now only reinforces the fear of a 'crusader war'.
The coming war would be launched against a unanimous enemy. If it were restricted to those who only use Islam as a pretext to assassinate innocent people worldwide and destabilise other countries, many Arabs and Muslims would support the war. If its purpose were to kill bin Laden, no-one would regret his death, as he has helped tarnish Islam's image everywhere by killing innocent people and issuing bogus fatwas.
But the problem lies in the random strikes that would leave thousands dead. And who can guarantee that bin Laden is in Afghanistan anyway? Don't tell me it's CIA information.
The United States is definitely chasing an unknown enemy. It might be terrorists, but what is the definition of terrorism in the US understanding of the word? Does it mean resisting the forces of occupation as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon put it? The USA itself has previously admitted the legitimacy of the Lebanese Hizbullah to liberate its lands. Washington has also agreed to establish a five-member surveillance committee to make sure that Hizbullah operations are only directed against military targets.
Whatever happened to America's concept of legitimate resistance? Why have they mixed it up with terrorism in such a blind, generalised manner?
If the United States wants to have the ultimate support of the Arabs for its campaign, it must relinquish its double-standards policy in the Middle East. It must also stop showing favouritism to Israel and supporting it in its expansionist policy with its settlements, and the inhuman oppression of the Palestinians.
The United States must also understand that linking terrorism to Islam is totally unfair.
The safety of the free world is not only threatened by terrorism. It is also threatened by the absence of justice, double-standards policies, the Palestinian people being ignored, and the major powers relinquishing their vital role in sustaining world peace and security.
The free world is also threatened by the constant sanctions imposed on destitute and helpless peoples.
These are some of the reasons behind the hatred of the USA. Washington should abandon such policies, if it really wants to contemplate eradicating terrorism.
BACKHOMETOP