|
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green
Party of the United States adopted a statement this week calling for the
U.S. to adhere to international law in dealing with terrorism and acts
of international violence and aggression. The text of the statement is
appended below. The party's Coordinating Committee, representing Green
Parties in a majority of states, endorsed a statement that balances the
party's dedication to nonviolence with recognition of the need to bring
international criminals to justice, and of the need for accountability
and international cooperation from our own government.
"We're gravely concerned over plans by the Bush Administration to
extend the 'War on Terrorism' into other nations, especially Iraq and
Somalia," said Tom Sevigny, a Connecticut Green and member of the
party's national Steering Committee. "These are moves which will
result in more civilian deaths, acts of reprisal against American
civilians, and breakdown of the U.S.'s fragile alliances with other
Middle Eastern and central Asian nations in the aftermath of September
11."
"The actions the Bush Administration chose, in the wake of the
attacks, reveal purposes other than international justice," said
Holly Hart, co-chair of the national Platform Committee and co-chair of
the Iowa Green Party.
"Instead, President Bush is using the 'War on Terrorism' to impose
and extend U.S. economic and political dominance over the world,
including policies of globalization that weaken democracy and the health
of the environment, an oil pipeline through central Asia for the benefit
of U.S.-based corporations, withdrawal from the Anti-ballistic Missile
Treaty and implementation of space-based national missile defense (which
Greens call a boondoggle for defense contractors), and the unprecedented
expansion of executive powers. New executive powers include Fast Track
trade authority (now awaiting a Senate vote), increased surveillance and
suppression of legitimate political dissent, secret military tribunals,
and license for the Attorney General to override the Constitution at his
own whim."
"Under the guise of fighting terrorism, President Bush is melding
an alliance between state and corporate power that threatens the
foundations of our democracy," added Tom Sevigny. "He's doing
so with the help of both Republicans and Democrats, whose votes in
Congress helped pass the USA PATRIOT Act and may soon enact Fast
Track."
"All terrorism must be stopped," added Annie Goeke of the
party's International Committee and a member of the peace organization
Women In Black. "We must end all violence visited on civilians,
especially war, and we must fight terrorism in accordance with
international law, with international cooperation, and with respect for
human rights, liberties, and democracy and the goal of peace. Otherwise,
terrorism is merely compounded."
MORE INFORMATION
The Green Party of the United States http://gpus.org
& http://www.gp.org
Statement on the September 11 attacks, from the Green Party of the
United States:
http://www.gpus.org/articles/9_11_01.html
Seeking Justice for Acts of Terrorism
December 19, 2001 -- A Policy Statement of the Coordinating Committee,
Green Party of the United States
Non-violence is one of the ten key values of the Green Party of the
United States. To sustain non-violence in the face of terrorist acts,
justice must be ensured by following and enforcing international law. By
contrast, abandoning international law in favor of war leads to more
violence and terrorism. Terrorism is best prevented by policies which
further social and economic justice, disarmament, human rights, and
humanitarian aid. Non-violent international relations are best achieved
and sustained by a consistent commitment to the UN Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and international law.
The First Step: Indictment
The first step in responding to terrorist acts through international law
is the collection of evidence to indict suspected terrorists and those
who aided them. The heinous September 11 attacks were crimes against
humanity which victimized the citizens of over eighty nations. Our
October 10 statement thus recommended that indictments be made through
international courts. Specifically, we recommended that the United
States petition the United Nations to form an ad hoc international
tribunal to prosecute indicted individuals for crimes against
humanity.
To the extent that nations such as Afghanistan could be reasonably
indicted for supporting the September 11 terrorists acts, we recommended
that these claims be referred to the International Court of Justice
under the 1971 Montreal Sabotage Convention, which specifically
addresses aviation terrorism. The United States and Afghanistan are both
signatories to this Convention, as are 173 other states, including all
the coalition partners of the US-sponsored "war on terrorism."
As such, all these signatories are obligated by the Convention to
resolve their disputes and claims in a peaceful manner, such as referral
to the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, as UN member states,
the US and its coalition partners are obligated to resolve any dispute
with Afghanistan peacefully as required by UN Charter Article 2(3) and
Article 33.
Thus, indictments under international law, not declarations of war, are
the appropriate first step in responding to acts of terrorism. In
contrast to the American-led military response, an international
law-based prosecution would have diminished the perception that the US
is against Islam, seeking revenge or geopolitical gain. In addition, it
would have affirmed justice over revenge, law over power,
internationalism over nationalism, and most importantly, non-violence
over violence.
The declaration of war made by President Bush in response to the
September 11 events was counter-productive, inappropriate and illegal,
placing our citizens at greater jeopardy. President Bush's statements
about a "crusade" against "evil" and the
"uncivilized world" were counter-productive because they can
be readily perceived as a declaration of war against Islam, thereby
inciting further violence. His declaration of war was inappropriate and
illegal because it overrode international law which we, as a democratic
society and member of the United Nations, are bound to uphold. As far as
international legal scholars have determined, there was no legal
justification for a declaration of war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban
government under international law. In opposition to American claims,
neither United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368 (September 12)
nor Resolution 1373 (September 28) authorizes the use of military force.
In fact, Resolution 1373 affirms the use of international law and other
non-violent means to control terrorism, and pledges UN states to
"bring to justice". "any person who participates in the
financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist
acts." Furthermore, the US right to self-defense under UN Charter,
Chapter 7, Article 51, provides the US with the right to defend itself
only during attack, not in retaliation for attack, and only until such
time as the Security Council has taken measures to maintain peace and
security. Thus, Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373, by affirming
international law rather than military force as the appropriate measures
to maintain peace and security, prohibit self-defense as a justification
for the US "war on terrorism." In any case, even if a legal
justification for an act of war existed, the United States would be
bound by the United Nations Charter to present it to the United Nations
Security Council for consideration. In sum, American disregard of
international law is an important factor in engendering terrorism.
The Second Step: Extradition
The second step we recommended in our statement on the September 11
events was the extradition of those indicted for crimes against humanity
through international law. By not following this recommendation, the
United States failed to avail itself of the moral and legal authority of
the international community to affirm indictment and extradition as the
appropriate response to acts of terrorism under international law.
Furthermore, by shunning the Taliban offer to extradite Osama bin
Laden to another country for trial, President Bush compounded his
disregard for the rule of law and the international accords to which we
are a signatory. That such actions should be taken in the name of
"civilization" defiles the centrality of the rule of law
inherent in its definition. Disregard for the law is what defines
a rogue state, not a civilized nation.
The United States' pursuit of war has contributed to the perception of a
war of revenge on Islam for geopolitical gain. It has engendered
hostility toward the United States as a result of killing and
traumatizing innocent civilians, disrupting humanitarian relief efforts,
and extensively damaging the environment and infrastructure of
Afghanistan. In all these ways the American "war on terrorism"
has led to violence rather than peace, and to further insecurity in the
US and the world.
The Third Step: Apprehension
Critics who characterize following the rule of law as idealistic or
unrealistic miss the point. Following the rule of law is what
legitimizes its enforcement in the pursuit of justice. That is, it is
following the rule of law, and the failure of the indicted to comply
with it, that justifies the use of force to apprehend them. Failing to
follow the rule of law leads to international misunderstanding, visits
suffering upon the innocent, and perpetuates the cycle of violence to
which history clearly attests. If individuals or groups indicted
for acts of terrorism resist extradition, the United Nations should
authorize an international police action to apprehend them for trial.
Apprehension is the third step in following the rule of law. By
following the first two steps, an international police action to
apprehend those indicted is legitimized. Creating an international
police force to apprehend suspected terrorists is not appropriate unless
attempts to extradite indicted terrorists have failed.
International conventions to regulate and review such international
police actions would need development. Any international police action
must be carried out under the scrutiny and control of the United
Nations. It must never be undertaken by a nation or group of nations
without international approval, regulation, and review. Such an
international police action should be non-violent. However, if it were
met with violent resistance then the limited, proportionate use of force
to ensure surrender would be justified. Such a response must be
conducted in a manner that seeks to preclude civilian injury. Any and
all use of force must be reviewed by the international community to
ensure compliance with international law.
In our view, the need for such enforcement of international law would
represent a tragic failure of international relations, and all efforts
must be made to avoid it. Some Green Party members are categorically
opposed to the use of force to ensure the apprehension of those
indicted, while others would support such an action only if it were the
last step of a concerted effort to seek justice through non-violent
means as described above. However, we are united in believing that if
American foreign policy were characterized by international humanitarian
and social justice efforts in the strict observance of human rights and
the consistent application of international law, the need to enforce
surrender for acts of terrorism would become moot. In this way, we are
committed to creating a world free of terrorism by upholding human
rights in international affairs and sustaining non-violence in the
pursuit of justice under the law.
Conclusion
The Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of the United States does
not support the US "war on terrorism" because it fails to
uphold the rule of law and the intention to seek justice through
non-violent means. The solution to ending terrorism is not a "war
on terrorism," but rather a clear, consistent, and step-wise
adherence to the rule of law which is inextricably linked to a profound
shift in our foreign policy away from one of militarism and unchecked
self-interest and toward one of humanitarian aid and social justice that
supports the observance of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and international law.
search:
trr, s11
|
