Self-defence Or Pre-emptive Terrorism?

Snippet From:

"Pre-emptive" Terrorism
by Ghali Hassan
July 5, 2005

[link to globalresearch.ca]

"...In order to accept the use of "pre-emptive" attack in the name of self-defence, it is essential to first accept the existence of such a right under the UN Charter. According to Michael Bothe, Professor of Law and an expert on international law at W. J. Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany; "lawful self-defence requires the actual existence of an armed attack or of a situation to be considered as equivalent to an armed attack".

The UN Charter is very clear about the prohibition of the use of force. Article 2(4) stated: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". Iraq was a defenceless nation and Iraq posed no threat to the US, Britain and their allies. Further, there was no evidence of Iraq’s intention to attack any other state. The attack on Iraq was a premeditated act of terrorism.

The official definition of terrorism, according to a US Army manual: "is the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear" [1]. The British government definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 is: "terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". In 2005, a UN panel defined terrorism: "as any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organisation to do, or abstain from, any act".

While these definitions are important, they are only used when Western states and Western interests are attacked by so-called "retail" terrorists. They are deliberately avoided and ignored when Western forces attacked other states. For example, these definitions are not considered appropriate when discussing the daily acts of terrorism practised by Israel against the Palestinian people or the 1981 Israeli "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor plant in Baghdad, killing two French technicians in the attack. These definitions were also not considered appropriate when the US "pre-emptively" attacked a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 killing many civilians and destroyed the country’s vital source of medicinal supplies. The use of the term terrorism is deliberately ignored in the current indiscriminate attacks by US-British forces on population centres in Fallujah, Najaf, Ramadi, Al-Qaim, Hillah, Haditha, Karabila and many other Iraqi towns and cities using prohibited Napalm and chemical weapons. The current premeditated US terror, termed "collective punishments", to destroy Iraqi towns and cities is in complete violation of the Geneva Protocol and The Hague Convention. Sadly, it is encouraged by the deafening silence of the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Anan, who is only interested in serving his imperial master than serves the principles of the UN Charter.

The US and its allies use terrorism as an "ideological instrument of propaganda and control". "It is the West and Western interests that have pushed terrorism to the forefront, not the ‘terrorists’", wrote Edward Herman. Terrorism is the driving force behind Western imperialism and the ongoing illegal conquest of people’s resources and livelihoods..."