- "I am not surprised because they use different scales
in measuring the value of an Afghan life and that of an American. Otherwise,
the US bombs would not have killed more than 10,000 Afghan civilians, destroyed
more than 5000 houses, dispersed more than 70,000 unexploded cluster bombs
and contaminated large areas of Afghanistan with uranium weapons. Obviously,
Afghan lives are not as precious as those were in the World Trade Center
tragedy, otherwise, the US government would not have referred to them as
'collateral damage'... "
-
-
- With the events of September the eleventh, 2001, a phenomenon,
which has been part of human history and existed for many years in the
modern era, surfaced and is upon us to explore and understand the nature
of this phenomenon. The phenomenon in question is the present global power
relationship between the weak and the strong. The current global situation
with the USA holding the rest of humanity hostage to its imperatives has
made this relationship more pronounced and conspicuous. This is true and
rather explicit in regards to the Muslim world. In fact, it is not a relationship
instead an implicit totalitarian global milieu requiring total submission
and leaves no room for compromise.
-
- I am attempting to present this global disequilibrium
as two opposing philosophical realities in terms of a dichotomy between
the weak and the strong. In this dichotomy, the strong, namely the USA
and her allies are depicted as the Haves,, and the weak, namely the Muslim
world as the Have-nots,. The 'Haves' possess modern means of offense and
defense, and control global institutions from the United Nations to global
economic institutions. The 'Have-nots' lack them, all.
-
- Although the phenomenon in question is likely acknowledged
by many under different formulations, there is a lack of understanding
in the West of the fundamental philosophical split resulting from the gap
wherein the modern industrialized West, in particular the USA imposes its
will on the Muslim world, but expects passivity. The difference between
this dichotomy of 'Haves and Have-nots' and that from similar power relationships
of the past rests on the totality of the current global control exercised
by the United States over the United Nations, nations, and their economic
and political viability. In short, nation-states and their existence as
people are held hostage by the wicked designs of the United States, sugar-coated
by words of harmony. In short, their god given existence as people is jeopardized
unless they behave like slaves pleasing their master. This is an utter
fallacy.
-
- The reactions that emerge from this gap epitomize the
actual incapability of those on the 'Have-nots' side of this dichotomy,
in carry out conventional warfare. Tragically, their inequity in conventional
capability renders them outlaws in the eyes of the monster, the USA. Conveniently,
the US government calls these acts of desperation terrorism. However, isn,t
it true that if they were on the same plain field, they would not need
asymmetrical warfare as their mode of reaction? Unfortunately, that is
where, the thought processes of those in the West become paralyzed with
their own self-partiality and arrogance and refer only to their own losses
and that of their allies as significant irrespective of how high the losses
on the opposing end are. It is not atypical but rather the modus operandi
of the twisted logic in creating self-melancholic make-believes.
-
- Meanwhile, there is a crucial detail that needs to be
clarified, namely the difference between the masses in the 'Have-nots'
nations and that of their governments or elite. Hence, one should be cognizant
of the differences between the masses in the 'Have-nots' nations and 'their
respective governments'. Most of the time, the elite controlling the governments
of Muslim states view their survival parallel to the interests of the elite
in the United States and her allies, and view the continuation of their
hold on power in their submission to the will of the United States. Therefore,
the governments of Muslim countries become irrelevant in the dynamics of
this dichotomy of power disequilibirum between the 'Haves and Have-nots'.
In fact, it becomes a struggle between the masses of the Muslim world against
their own governments, the government of the United States and her allies
including the various infrastructures that sustain the viability of the
'Haves' nations.
-
- Exception to this generalization was the situation in
Afghanistan, where the Taliban government's opposition to the imperialistic
expansion of the United States epitomized the frustrations of Muslims worldwide.
That is why, Muslims from all over the world went to Afghanistan, either
seeking sanctuary from the evil regimes in their respective countries or
decided to help the Afghans against the US's aggression.
-
- The significance of the argument in regards to the dichotomy
in question becomes apparent after one compares the gap between the two
sides and the tragic consequences therefrom. The economic capabilities
of the Haves' or the United States and her allies coupled with their modern
mechanized armies, deadly air forces and other means of war making boggles
the mind when compared to those on the 'Have-nots' end of the dichotomy.
Like Afghanistan, they are the poorest and defenseless nations of the world.
The 'Haves' are capable of pursuing a conventional war; the 'Have-nots'
are not. The 'Haves' possess power of sugarcoating their aggressive deeds
under the code of 'International Law', and justify their crimes under the
cloak of 'legitimacy' ensured by the 'International Law'. By comparison,
the 'Have-nots' do not have equal access to 'International Law' and its
application. In short, International Law does not apply to them. The 'Haves'
can violate any nation's rights and justify it through their self-righteous
rhetoric of pursuing democracy and protecting human rights, irrespective,
whether their violations resulted in civilian losses of the very people
they claim "protecting and liberating". However, when the 'Have-nots'
defend themselves through offensive asymmetrical means, they are labeled
terrorists - how convenient.
-
- With the onslaught of B52s, B1s, B2s, and the F series
--14, 15, 16 18, 117 -- the array of 'smart' bombs and uranium weapons
against the poorest nation on earth, Afghanistan, one can not ignore the
urgency of the philosophical imperatives of this global power relationship,
and the consequences thereof. It is time, to refrain from using the words
terrorist and terrorism so loosely. After all, when those on the 'Have-nots'
end of the dichotomy see no other alternative while continuously suffer
from the oppressive means of the 'Haves', namely the US, they resort to
means whereby to avenge their dignity and thwart the true evil-doers, the
governments of USA, Britain their allies.
-
- Many shortsighted elements in the United States over-magnify
the magnitude of the tragedy of September 11, the loss of 2848 civilians,
though a massive tragedy, over the crimes of the United States and her
allies in Afghanistan, and question the moral equivalence between the former
and the latter. I am not surprised because they use different scales in
measuring the value of an Afghan life and that of an American. Otherwise,
the US bombs would not have killed more than 10,000 Afghan civilians, destroyed
more than 5000 houses, dispersed more than 70,000 unexploded cluster bombs
and contaminated large areas of Afghanistan with uranium weapons. Obviously,
Afghan lives are not as precious as those were in the World Trade Center
tragedy, otherwise, the US government would not have referred to them as
collateral damage. Hence, those [Muslims???] who allegedly caused the death
of nearly 3000 people on September 11 are terrorists, but the US government,
representing Americans, and her allies are not. Even though, the thousands
of unexploded cluster bombs scattered as a result of US bombing cost Afghan
children their lives everyday. Already, we are witnessing violent deaths
of children by the unexploded cluster bombs when they are mistaken picked
up by children, believing to be the yellow bags of food ration dropped
from the US military transport planes.
-
- Moreover, the current and future horrors of uranium weapons
are not only causing dreadful diseases and congenital deformities rather
it made Afghan cities and countryside uninhabitable. The health risks to
the Afghans coupled with the devastation of their ecosystem are confirmed
by the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC). A report by the Uranium
Medical Research Center (UMRC), which has been confirmed by two scientific
teams, point out that large segments of Afghan population are likely exposed
to Depleted Uranium and non-Depleted Uranium resulting from the US and
British bombardments.
-
- The two teams were dispatched to Afghanistan in order
to investigate these matters. The first team arrived in June 2002 concentrating
on Jala-Abad, and the second team arrived four months later concentrating
on the capital city Kabul. After taken urine samples of population in Jalal-Abad,
they measured the concentration of uranium to be 400% to 2000% above what
is normal for humans.
-
- According to an article entitled, Afghanistan: The Nuclear
Nightmare Begins, by Davey Garland, addressing this tragedy, large segment
of population in Kabul who were directly exposed to US-British bombing
exhibited extreme symptoms consistent with exposure to Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD). These symptoms include "pains in joints, back/kidney
pain, muscle weakness, memory problems and confusion and disorientation."
Others complain from flu-type illness, bleeding, runny noses and bloodstained
mucous.
-
- Meanwhile, in Kabul, only after a year 25 % of children
born may be suffering from congenital problems stemming from the usage
of uranium-based weapons. Now, let me see if I could make sense out of
this: if anyone of these victims or their families target Western interests,
in particular American and British, they are immediately labeled terrorists.
However, the Americans and British whose governments have turned Afghanistan
into a nuclear wasteland are the 'heroes' or better the 'liberators'.
Hooray for the 'liberators'!
-
- We will see more horrendous congenital malformations
and deformities in the near future in Afghanistan. I do not think anyone
would raise any concern. After all, has anyone been brought to justice
for the horrendous congenital malformation and deformities resulted from
depleted uranium in Iraq where hundreds of babies are born each year without
limbs, heads and eyes? There, infants are born which hardly resemble infants.
-
- Dr. Asaf Durakovic, who is a professor of nuclear medicine
and radiology and a former advisor to US military set up the Uranium Medical
Research Center (UMRC) and has been monitoring victims of these weapons
in Iraq and the Balkans. He found that subjects exposed to these uranium
weapons 9 years ago has still significant amounts of uranium poisons in
their urine samples. Dr. Durakovic sought to explore if there were alternative
explanation for the presence of uranium contamination in Afghanistan, there
were none, in fact, Dr. Durakovic ruled out all other potential sources
of contamination. Incidentally, the uranium found in Afghanistan by the
researcher was neither from geological sources nor had similarity to the
Depleted uranium and enriched uranium used in Iraq and Kosovo. The report
concluded that:
-
- "The only conclusion is that the allied forces are
now possibly using milled uranium ore in their warheads to maximise [sic]
the effectiveness and strength of their weapons, as well as to mask the
uranium, hoping that it may be discounted as part of any local natural
deposits.
-
- However, marked differences between natural uranium and
the uranium used in the metal fragments found in Afghanistan was uncovered
with the use of an electron microscope, which revealed the presence of
small ceramic particles produced by the high temperatures created on impact.
This method of disguising uranium would benefit governments that are under
pressure from the growing anti-DU lobby." (Article by Davey Garland,
who is a coordinator of the Pandora DU Research Project, based in Britain)
-
- Therefore, the only sources of the uranium uncovered
are American and British arsenals used indiscriminately against the poorest
nation on earth, Afghanistan.
-
- Weapons enriched with uranium have been used heavily
in the east, southeast, and southwest of Afghanistan and have contaminated
these areas beyond repair. The water and vegetation in these areas can
not be consumed for decades, even centuries. In fact, it is a certainty
that various types of cancers would take thousands of lives in Afghanistan
in the near future as they have in Iraq, where in some parts Leukemia among
children has risen more than 600 percent. I suppose this is not Weapon
of Mass Destruction (WMD), off course not, it is used by 'champions' of
democracy and human rights, the United States and Britain! It becomes WMD
if the 'crazy terrorist Muslims' use it. Moreover, the effects of uranium
weapons used would be worse in Afghanistan than are in Iraq because the
US military used two to three times more depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan
than they did in Iraq.
-
- Meanwhile, there are no means, whereby the perpetrators
of these crimes could be held accountable and tried for their crimes. What
other alternative is there for the victims of the US aggression. Think
about it, is it not logical for the 'Have-nots', considering the disequilibrium
of capabilities, to resort to asymmetrical warfare? Perhaps, revenge by
ways they know how and capable of, namely asymmetrically, the methods of
the weak. After all, the US controls the United Nations, nation-states
worldwide through the threat of economic sanctions and political isolation
as well as global information sources and corporate media outlets.
-
- The civilian casualty issue and relevant statistics has
received some publicity in Chicago last year (2002) when an interfaith
group returned from Afghanistan to Chicago and presented its findings at
the Lake Street Church in Evanston, Illinois. Their findings further strengthen
the claims of various sources in regards to the losses of Afghan civilians
caused by the US and British bombing raids. This interfaith group confirmed
that the US and her allies bombing in Afghanistan have destroyed more than
5,000 houses. Now based on the socioeconomic conditions as well as social
cultural norms, on average, each household in Afghanistan has more than
8 individuals including extended family members. Especially, in light of
the decades of war the number of individuals per household, by reliance
on extended family, have risen significantly since there are fewer houses
to day than there were before the Russian invasion of 1979. Furthermore,
most of the US bombing was at night. This further increases the probability
of civilian losses since at night people are asleep and are more prone
to become victims of bombing than would have been the case during daytime.
Hence, the report on losses of 10,000 Afghan civilians is hardly an exaggeration.
-
- The disastrous poverty brought on by the US induced instability
in Afghanistan, whether through funded infighting in Kabul in 1990s or
through indirect support for Taliban, forced Afghans to forget about their
family losses. Instead, proud Afghan families, approach the US Embassy
in Kabul to be compensated for the destruction of their homes caused by
the US bombing, only to be ignored and pushed away from the gates of the
Embassy.
-
- The US invasion of Afghanistan was not brought on as
the consequence of the events of 911. Had it been so, why did the US ambassador
to Pakistan reject a deal brokered by two Pakistani religious parties,
signed by Mullah Omar and agreed by Bin Laden? The agreement was as follows:
Bin Laden would be brought to Peshawar, Pakistan, where he would remain
under house arrest until an international tribunal had summoned to try
him. This proposal was put forth at the end of September, to general Musharaf
and US Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain; instead Ambassador Chamberlain rejected
it. Why?
-
- Taliban and the people of the region wanted to avoid
war; however, it could not be avoided since the war against Afghanistan
was planned in July of 2001 in Berlin, Germany, which was to be implemented
in October of 2001. Rather conveniently, the September 11 tragedy occurred
to serve as a pretext. The Taliban served as convenient scapegoats.
-
- Human 'rights' is another issue that the Bush administration
is strongly advocating. In reality, it violates the human rights of POWs
through torture and indignity. The US government is refusing to grant POW
status to the prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay claiming to be illegal combatants.
The US government claims that these individuals were not uniformed combatants
and were not employed by a government. Tragically, it ignores the fact
that the government of Taliban employed those prisoners imprisoned in Guantanamo
Bay. Whether the US recognized the government of Taliban or not is a matter
of dispute because until the summer of 2001, the Bush administration was
negotiating with Taliban the terms of the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan
to Pakistan. The negotiations with Taliban broke down after Taliban,s representative
rejected the US offer of transit fee, calling it too low. Meanwhile, the
US government fails to recognize that their proxy-army of the Northern
Alliance was not an uniformed fighting force either, in fact, the Northern
Alliance was made up of groups of criminals, rapist and drug smugglers.
However, this should not matter because the United States can grant legitimacy
to any criminal because it has the military and economic might. Perhaps,
human rights are illustrated clearly by the recent television images of
the Guantanamo Bay prisoners tallied right after surgery to be interrogated.
-
- Similarly, the US Special Forces and their allies of
Northern Alliance slaughtered more than 3000 unarmed Taliban, either through
summary execution or were forced into containers to be suffocated. Jamie
Doran an Irish filmmaker produced a documentary in which he points to the
methods of murder practiced by the US forces in the killings of the unarmed
Prisoners of War. In particular, he establishes various facts through interviews
with soldiers of Northern Alliance who testified that the US Special Forces
killed these unarmed prisoners either by snapping their necks or by putting
acid on their faces. Recently, the ARD Television Network in Germany aired
the documentary only to outrage the viewers. Incidentally, the most damning
evidence against US war crimes became apparent from an interview conducted
by the Ithaca Journal with Army Private Matt Guckenheimer, a gunner with
10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum, New York. Guckenheimer is quoted
saying: "We were told there were no friendly forces." Guckenheimer
continued: "If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were
told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them."
(Ithaca Journal: 06,01, 2002)
-
- In conclusion, let me see if I could make sense out of
this tragedy. When the weak has no means of defense except themselves and
whatever they could improvise and muster as weapons to impose losses on
their enemy, they are labeled terrorist. Don't we all understand if the
so-called terrorists were on the same plain field, they would not need
to resort to asymmetrical warfare? After all, the weak does not have any
say in the Security Council of the UN, does not have access to global corporate
media, does not have B52, B1, B2, the F series and other arsenals, except
himself/herself. Since the weak lacks the military, political might, the
influence and the means necessary to raise their voices of discontent about
the injustice done to them, they have to accommodate themselves by whatever
they could muster in order to be heard. They are ignored and stepped on
because they are on the 'Have-nots' side of the dichotomy of 'Haves and
Have-nots' and are subject to the will of those that are on 'Haves' side
of this dichotomy.
-
- The US government might be partially successful but it
made a serious mistake. This is evident by the US losses in Afghanistan
exceeding 900 killed. Obviously, the US media has made no reports on this,
and it does not surprise me.
-
- If indeed, the poor people of Afghanistan and other Muslims
become 'collateral damage' in the eyes of the United States, the people
of this country should not blame the 'terrorists' that target them. After
all, the terrorist might say, "An eye for an eye is fair and biblical,
don't you think so?"
-
- Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD
- Freelance Academic
- mdmiraki@ameritech.net
-
-
|
