US Military Target Unspecific
Posted 28/10/2001
No matter who you are, if you're in Afghanistan you're a target
for the
`anti-terrorist' US military. Kabul Red Cross has been bombed
again by
American jets. Alliance Party NZ split by US bombing.
I. War on terrorism: Air strikes, By James Palmer
American warplanes accidentally destroyed Red Cross warehouses
in Kabul for
the second time in ten days, provoking new concerns about the
accuracy of
US intelligence and weaponry. Mario Musa, the spokesman of the
International Committee of the Red Cross in Islamabad, said:
"It has
happened again. At 11.30am huge xplosions took place and three
of our
warehouses are on fire now."
The Geneva headquarters of the Red Cross said it deplored the
attack. "The
International Committee of the Red Cross deplores the fact that
bombs have,
once again, been dropped on its warehouses in Kabul," it said
in a
statement. "The ICRC reiterates that attacking ... facilities
marked with
the red cross emblem constitutes a violation of international
humanitarian
law," it added. Staff had seen a "large, slow-flying aircraft
drop two
bombs on the compound from low altitude", it added.
The warehouse is a distribution centre for food, tents and blankets
for up
to 8,000 families and had been specifically identified to the
American
government by the Red Cross as an aid centre which should be
avoided by the
daily US bombing raids on the Afghan capital. Large red crosses
were
painted on the roofs of the buildings. Since the bombing was
on Friday, the
Muslim holy day, the warehouses were closed and it was unlikely
that Afghan
aid workers were present when the planes struck. Mr Musa said
there was no
immediate report of casualties. "At least I hope there are very
few, we
have very sketchy information," he said. But he said that, at
a time when
Afghanistan faces famine and a refugee crisis, large quantities
of
emergency aid had been destroyed. Red Cross staff in both Pakistan
and
Afghanistan were "demoralised".
A Red Cross spokesman, Kim Gordon-Bates, said the warehouses
were a
distribution centre for a programme to feed up to 8,000 families
of
disabled people. "We did warn the Americans of this operation
and that they
could expect movements of lorries and a gathering of people,"
he said.
"Today there was no movement but the previous day there had
been." All
foreign aid workers have been expelled from Afghanistan but
one Afghan Red
Cross worker was injured in the first mistaken attack on other
aid
warehouses on 16 October. On that occasion, the Pentagon admitted
that a US
Navy F/A-18 Hornet jet had dropped 1,000lb (450kg) bombs which
struck the
wrong target. There have been at least five other admitted or
well-documented mistaken attacks on civilian targets in Afghanistan
since
the bombing raids began three weeks ago.
Last Monday, the Taliban claimed that US planes had bombed a
hospital in
Herat, in western Afghanistan, killing more than 100 people.
The United
Nations said that a military hospital had been destroyed but
it had no
information on casualties. US defence officials said they had
accidentally
struck a home for the elderly.
On 13 October, a US Navy F/A-18 attack aircraft missed a Taliban
military
target at Kabul airport and the 2,000lb (900kg) "smart" bomb
struck
civilian houses a mile from the Afghan capital, the Pentagon
admitted.
American sources said that the satellite-guided bomb supposedly
accurate
to within a few inches missed its target due to human error.
Incorrect
coordinates had been entered into a targeting system. The Pentagon
cited
reports of as many as four dead and eight injured.
Two days earlier, the Taliban said that American bombs flattened
Khorum
village, near the eastern city of Jalalabad. Villagers said
that at least
160 people were killed in the pre-dawn bombing. International
journalists
invited to visit the village saw evidence of widespread devastation
and
more than a dozen fresh graves but it was impossible to confirm
the death
toll or what had caused the damage. The United Nations High
Commissioner
for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, arrived in Pakistan yesterday to
review
operations ahead of a possible large-scale influx of Afghans.
The visit,
his second in six months to the region, comes amid reports from
Afghan
refugees that both the Taliban and opposition Northern Alliance
forces are
trying to force men into fighting for them, his spokesman, Kris
Janowski,
told a news briefing. "Many of the refugees crossing at Chaman
have told
UNHCR that they fear being forced to fight, either for the Taliban
or their
opponents," he Mr Janowski said.
Chaman is a south-western Pakistani border town some 60 miles
south-east of
the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.
II. NZ Alliance Party Split Over Afghan War. Edited from article
by Len
Richards*
On October 3, the New Zealand parliament voted to support a
motion
committing SAS troops to the US-led military action against
'terrorism',
against Afghanistan; a motion that gave "total support to the
United
States' approach to the crisis"(in the words of the NZ Herald
of the
following day). Despite the headline of that article which said
"Alliance
breaks ranks on Afghan vote", the only party to oppose the motion
to commit
troops to this war, this US war, was the Green Party. The vote
was 112 for
to seven against. The Alliance 'rank-breaking' was confined
to support for
a Green amendment. This called for military action to be carried
out only
under the authority of the United Nations, in line with international
law.
The amendment failed, as did the Alliance caucus in its attempt
to straddle
the barbed wire fence of war.
Many members and supporters of the Alliance were and are shocked
and
dismayed at the vote in support of this new US military adventure.
The West
Auckland region passed a resolution opposing the US actions
and as Bob van
Ruyssevelt points out in his article Looking for an Endpoint
(on the
Alliance website), the Alliance as a party has a proud history
of opposing
similar US inspired and led military attacks. It opposed the
bombing of
Iraq in 1991 and the bombing of Serbia in 1999. He asks (far
too politely
to my mind) why the Alliance has not taken the same principled
stand in the
case of the attack on Afghanistan.
But the insult added to the injury, as far as the Alliance members
are
concerned, was yet to come. In face of the rising opposition
to the caucus
support for the deployment of troops and the US-led attack on
Afghanistan,
the leadership of the Alliance went into damage control mode.
A letter from
Jim Anderton, along with his relevant speeches and media statements,
was
mailed to every member. This letter seeks to justify the [OE]military
option[base '] that he and his caucus supported.
....New Zealand is in, boots and all. You would expect this
to happen under
a National government. You would not be surprised if it happened
under
Labour. But if one party was going to stand firm against going
to war at
the behest of Washington, you would think it would be the Alliance.
The
threat of a World War III should in itself be enough reason
for us to
oppose this war. The whole of the Middle East and Southern Asia
is being
destabilised in a way that could lead to fearful consequences.
The US
ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in a letter to the Security
Council,
stated that the US formally reserved the right to pursue a wider
war. "We
may find that our self-defence requires further actions with
respect to
other organisations and other states." This was taken by The
Guardian
Weekly which reported this (Oct. 11-Oct. 17 edition) to mean
that Iraq is
the next likely target. And the Alliance, like the parties of
the Second
International at the commencement of WWI, cannot wait to jump
in and do its
patriotic duty.
Except, of course that the Alliance is more than just its MPs,
or its
Leader. The Alliance as a Party must oppose this war. MPs who
are not
willing to abide by the Party's position on this life-and-death
question
should seriously re-evaluate their relationship with the Alliance.
* Full article at http://www.indymedia.org.nz/
|