From: pnmideast@igc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Date: 09 Apr 92 20:13 PDT
Subject: War Resisters League on Terrorism
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483500203:000:8644
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!pnmideast    Apr  9 20:13:00 1992


From: <pnmideast>
Subject: War Resisters League on Terrorism

/* Written  6:26 pm  Apr  9, 1992 by cscheiner in cdp:mideast.genera */
/* ---------- "War Resisters League on Terrorism" ---------- */
WRL STATEMENT ON TERRORISM, THE UNITED NATIONS, AND U.S. POLICY

April 9, 1992 from War Resisters League
                   339 Lafayette Street
                   New York, NY 10012
                   (212)228-0450
                   PeaceNet: wrl

During the past several months the United States government has
sought United Nations action, or considered action on its own,
against countries which it has argued are a threat to world peace.
Four countries are particular U.S. targets: Cuba, where new pressures
have been exerted to oust the current Cuban government; North Korea
with talk of its moves to gain nuclear weapons; consistent threats to
take further military action against Iraq over possible remaining
weapons sites; and most recently the furor over the allegations that
Libya is sheltering two men charged with blowing up of Pan Am Flight
103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

In each case there are grounds for concern. Cuba does not have the
kind of plural society in which pacifists believe (though their
educational and health care systems are an example not only for Latin
America but also the U.S.). North Korea may well be thinking about
nuclear weapons; the U.S. has had such weapons based in South Korea
for many years. Iraq has a profoundly repressive government which
suffered a terrible defeat and whose children even now are dying from
the blockade; it would be surprising if its leaders were not thinking
of revenge.  (Remember how long the U.S. government supplied weapons
to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia as a way of bleeding Vietnam and
punishing it for defeating the U.S.)

Of all these, the most immediate problem involves Libya which faces a
U.N. deadline of April 15 for compliance with U.N./U.S.  demands. The
Pan Am bombing is such a profound tragedy that it is normal to want
to take any steps to end such terrorism. Libya's record in the
past--in terms of groups it has funded, the rhetoric of its
leadership--makes it an easy target for Western suspicion. The 1985
U.S. air strike against Libya killed many civilians and was intended
to kill Qaddafi. The U.S.  excuse at the time was that it was
"punishing Libya" for being involved in the terrorist bombing of a
West Berlin disco used by U.S. serviceman. Later information showed
Libya innocent. Current evidence against Libya cannot be verified,
and it shifts with the political winds. Months ago Bush was certain
that Syria and Iran were guilty or the Pan Am bombing. The Gulf War
made Syria an ally of the U.S., necessitating transfer of blame for
the Lockerbie bombing.

For all the ferocity of Qaddafi's rhetoric, Libya hardly poses a
major threat to the Middle East. It is a large country with a small
population. Its history has been bloody and hard, primarily as a
result of the Italian occupation and conquest earlier in the century.
Libya is a country that the West does not understand, and it becomes
an easy target.

The War Resisters League questions the action by the United Nations
in regard to Libya and the good faith of George Bush in his selective
response to terrorism. We put forth the following points:

     1. We need a United Nations which commands the respect of the
world, a U.N. in which the smaller nations can have confidence. This
is not served by the present situation whereby basic U.N. policy is
set by the United States. Any nation daring to oppose the U.S. (Yemen
and Cuba in the case of the Gulf War) faces harsh economic reprisals,
and even the danger of organized covert action against them carried
out by the CIA. The U.N. vote on Libya damages the UN, just as the
U.N. vote to authorize war against Iraq left the U.N. badly wounded.
At the present time the U.N. is a framework dominated by the
industrialized and militarized Western societies, and it has, for the
present, lost much of its moral authority. We do not believe blind
support for the United Nations will help sort out existing problems,
or help the U.N. itself.

     2. U.S. policy should be aimed at creating a nuclear-free Middle
East. At the same time, the United States must take the lead in
ending trade in so-called "conventional weapons" by immediately
ending their sale and/or shipment to any nation and then to call on
other nations to join in that position.

Nuclear "deterrence" is a dead end policy for everyone involved.  The
moment Israel introduced nuclear weapons into the Middle East it
became certain the Arab states would try to redress the balance. U.S.
policy must not be aimed at one country or another in that region,
but at the region as a whole, to move it toward being nuclear free.
This applies also to North Korea and Asia. The United States itself
has consistently blocked every effort to end all nuclear tests,
seeking instead to maintain total military supremacy through nuclear
superiority. This is not a "new world order," but a very old pattern
in which strong nations seek to impose their will on smaller or
weaker ones.

The very first step in ending the nuclear arms race in the Middle
East and in Asia is a declaration by Bush that all further testing,
development, and production of nuclear weapons is ending immediately.
Based on that high moral and political ground it would then be
possible to rally world opinion against the spread of nuclear weapons
elsewhere.

The U.S. is one of the world's busiest arms traders. Sales to Iraq
helped build the Iraqi military which the U.S. then destroyed during
the Gulf War, at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and the
lives of hundreds of allied military soldiers.

     3. We oppose and condemn terrorism. We call on Libya to end what
has clearly been a policy of giving at least a friendly haven to
those who espouse terrorism. And if Libya is involved in terrorism it
must expect whatever nonmilitary sanctions a true United Nations
would find appropriate--but not out of the context of sanctions that
would also be aimed at any other country which has used terrorism.

On terrorism, the U.S., and Bush in particular, is hypocritical.  CIA
operatives were involved in blowing up a Cuban civilian airliner with
the loss of all lives on board. Israel, an ally of the U.S., recently
launched an air strike in Lebanon which killed a Moslem cleric and
his family, and still holds as a hostage a Moslem cleric who was
kidnaped by the Mossad. The attacks on civilians, on religious
leaders, or the taking of hostages must be condemned whether it is
done by countries in opposition to U.S. policy or by countries allied
to the U.S. The "shifting standard" used by Bush and the State
Department confirm that the U.S. government has no true standard, no
consistent policy.

The U.S. air strike against Libya during the Reagan administration
cost the lives of hundreds of civilians. Great Britain permitted the
air strike to originate at U.S. bases there. But Ronald Reagan and
Margaret Thatcher received no censure from the U.N. Why have we so
easily accepted the logic that the powerful are exempt from
responsibility for crimes while those nations that are weaker can or
should be punished? The selective enforcement of law degrades law
itself.

We suggest that if the present Administration is serious about
terrorism, it should abolish the CIA and end all further overt and
covert terrorism operations by any branch of government. And given
his own record and his personal involvement, the President give
serious consideration to resigning his post.

The world as a whole must be cautious about Bush using Cuba or Libya
or Iraq or North Korea as a scapegoat in an election year, knowing
that a military strike against any of these countries would cost few
votes, and might gain many. Meanwhile, with every passing day the
passive U.S. acceptance of the military dictatorship in Haiti, and
the U.S. policy of refusing haven to refugees, reminds us of how
little in American foreign policy gives us reason for encouragement.

Finally, the U.S. public cannot make informed judgements on U.S.
foreign policy when it understands so little about other countries in
the world. The media does little to inform people of history which
bears on U.S. relations with Libya, Iraq, Cuba, or North Korea. In
the case of Libya, U.S. policy is based on a long standing hostility
over the fact that a small country kicked the U.S. out and took
charge of its own resources. The media must help bring such
information forward in any serious discussion of U.S. foreign policy.