| December 1, 2001 | Saturday | Ramazan 15, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Iran’s positive move
THE world must be surprised by the silence the US and Britain have maintained over the recent massacres in Afghanistan. In at least one of the crimes, American and British forces are suspected to be involved. Not only these two: all key western governments, including France and Germany, have chosen to keep mum over what is a blatant violation of the laws of war. Both at Qala-i-Jangi and at Takhta-Pul, what happened seemed like a replay of atrocities committed by the Nazis during the Second World War.
While it is true that the Geneva conventions do not apply to foreign volunteers, they, nevertheless, retain the privilege of being human beings and, thus, are entitled to life and humane treatment. Any violation of this code of conduct by victors deserves condemnation and calls for legal action under the laws of war against the offending individual or individuals. However, it would be an understatement to call the events at Qala-i-Jangi and Takhta-Pul as mere violations of the laws of war; what actually happened was a cold-blooded and well-planned massacre of PoWs. Most shocking is the involvement of the US and UK in the crime at Qala-i-Jangi. The purported revolt was jointly put down by the US-led allies. Of them, the Northern Alliance can be called a regular army only by courtesy — until recently they did not even have uniforms. No wonder, they are not aware of the rules of war, because it is only the professional armies which teach the laws of war to their soldiers. Nevertheless, this does not under any circumstances exonerate the Northern soldiers and warlords from culpability. What is shocking, however, is that officers and men belonging to such professional armies and air forces as those of the US and Britain were found involved in this criminal act.
Whether the prisoners actually revolted or whether the revolt was engineered is an important but secondary question. The real issue is the use of excessive force by the US-led allies, including the use of air power by the Americans. Maybe, the revolt was not engineered; maybe, the PoWs had smuggled their arms in and revolted. But putting down a revolt in a mud fort, which was, in any case, surrounded on all sides by the Northern soldiers and British commandos, should not have been such a difficult task. They could have been tired out and made to surrender. But to call in American gunships and fire into men holding rifles and Kalashnikovs gives a clear impression that the aim of the allied high command was the wholesale slaughter of the PoWs. As remarked by Robert Fisk, the celebrated British war correspondent, the hands of the “British troops are now stained with war crimes.” That goes for the Americans, too. My Lai seems to have been repeated in Afghanistan.
All that we so far have on this horrible crime is a “we will look into it” kind of reaction from the Pentagon; and that, too, concerns not the Qala-i-Jangi atrocities but the massacre at Takhta-Pul, where the criminals were local (southern) chieftains. No word has come from the State Department, nor has Whitehall reacted. This is strange, because governments normally are quick to defend themselves. Nobel Peace Prize winner Kofi Annan, too, has not stirred himself. As Amnesty International has said, the US and British governments ”cannot hide from saying simply ‘that is war’.” Clearly, all sane minds would agree with AI that there is a need for an inquiry into the massacre. One hopes the UN will start an inquiry into what AI calls the “proportionality of the response” by the US-led forces so as to determine who in the allies’ military or civilian set-up ordered the prisoners’ massacre. This war crime, like the one at Sabra-Chattila, should not go unpunished.
IN WHAT should be regarded as a positive move, the Iranian foreign minister is in Pakistan to consult Islamabad on the Afghan political process in the regional context. It hardly needs any mentioning that the outcome of the Bonn conference hinges as much on the positions adopted by Afghanistan’s neighbours on the UN plan under discussion as on the consensus the four Afghan groups meeting in Germany manage to forge among themselves. Since Islamabad and Tehran have of late narrowed their differences on Afghanistan, which had regrettably at one time caused serious strains in their relations, one hopes that they will agree on the plan under consideration. As Kamal Kharrazi has observed, it is important that all the parties in Afghanistan should have friendly relations with all the neighbours. This is possible only if the neighbours refrain from working at cross purposes.
All the neighbouring states as well as the Afghan factions are agreed on the need to set up a broadbased government in Afghanistan. However, the structure, modalities and scope of the government have yet to be worked out. Although the four groups represented in Bonn have broadly agreed in principle on the establishment of an interim administration, it cannot be taken for granted that consensus on the composition of these bodies will be easy to come by. If the neighbouring states, specially Iran and Pakistan which wield the greatest influence in Afghanistan, follow a hands-off policy in government formation, the Afghans might be constrained to be more conciliatory and accommodative in their approach. Iran has paved the way for this by facilitating the opening of communications channels between Islamabad and the Northern Alliance.
The key factor in the peace process will be the demilitarization and pacification of the country, which is awash with arm and has been embroiled in internecine conflict for over two decades. It is logical that an international force — the UN representative prefers to call it a stabilization force — should be deployed in Afghanistan to keep the peace. With the Afghans having proved themselves incapable of refraining from war and arriving at a political compromise, the rationale has become stronger for an outside force stationed in the country to pre-empt further bloodshed. Besides, the United Nations has taken the stand that it will not start the reconstruction work unless an international force is in position. That means that the country might not be able to pull itself out of its present crisis if the Bonn conference is deadlocked on the peacekeeping issue.
In this context Kharrazi’s concerns on the issue need to be addressed urgently. The Iranian foreign minister has said that Iran does not support the deployment of an international force in Afghanistan. This could emerge as the main stumbling block to a peace settlement and it is important that the matter be sorted out. It appears that the reservations about the international force stem from the general impression that is going around that it would comprise western forces. It would be politically unwise for any government in the region to support a western military presence in Afghanistan. Hence there is need to work for a UN force which is drawn from neutral countries preferably from the Muslim world. Thus alone would it prove to be viable and acceptable to all sides.