BOMBS ARE NOT THE ANSWER-

Dr. Neil Arya

THE RECORD

NOVEMBER 3, 2001 p A19

As the bombing campaign on Afghanistan approaches its second month we must ask ourselves what we are accomplishing. The original rationale for the bombing was to get Bin Laden, dismantle the Al Qaida network and reduce the support for International Terrorism. Whether or not we believe that any bombing was justifiable or possibly contributing to any of these goals, it is becoming increasingly clear that bombing beyond the first couple of days has only led to more civilian casualties.

As this 'collateral damage' to residential neighbourhoods, villages and hospitals mounts, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld of the US blames the Taliban for having their hospitals too close to military targets. International groups including UN landmine clearance who were bombed accidentally condemn the use of cluster bombs. The Red Cross which had its food distribution depot hit twice in a week in more 'accidents' is no more laudatory of the war effort.

Mass displacement of literally millions of people continues. Half the Afghani population is under 18 and most of the population malnourished. Neighbouring borders are closed and twenty years of war has destroyed any semblance of infrastructure in the country, even before the bombing.

With winter fast approaching there will be no refuge for any of those at risk, numbering 1.5 million to 6 million according to UNICEF. Food relief programmes by Christian Aid, the World Food Programme and Oxfam have been critically hampered and have led all groups to condemn the bombing. In Canada major Christian church groups and leaders have called for a halt to the campaign. Many throughout North America see neither Infinite Justice (the original name for the campaign) or Enduring Freedom, but only vengeance.

Bin Laden and the Taliban are villains of the highest order. Over the years the Taliban has been responsible for the destruction of Buddhist sculptures, making Hindus wear identifying clothing much as Jews did in Nazi Germany, denial of education and basic medical care to women, and public executions, all which are abhorrent to civilized society. Though no clear evidence of Bin Laden's guilt has been presented publicly in this tragedy, terrorist strikes such as the earlier bombing of the World Trade Centre and those of the USS Cole and US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania have had links to Bin Laden and other Muslim extremists. Bin Laden has claimed in the past to be retaliating on behalf of defenceless Palestinians, Iraqi and defilement of Saudi holy soil.

The real question in terms of bombing is not 'who is right, but what is right? Killing innocents in pursuit of the guilty propagates the horror and could possibly trigger an unpredictable cascade of violence, more terrorist action and global insecurity. International law requires that any response to attack must be proportionate. If we cause the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, will this be legal? Will this be consistent with our values as Canadians? The Gandhian adage 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.' has been aptly resurrected at this time.

We are doing exactly what Bin Laden and other violent extremists wanted in a massive retaliation. Bin Laden had no misgivings about American military might, he knows enough of the world to know that America accounts for almost 40% of the world's military spending. In triggering this retaliation he hopes to launch a wider holy war and allied leaders throughout the Muslim world are now getting more nervous with each day of bombing.

And to what end? Has the Al Qaida network been dismantled or weakened? Has ten years of bombing and sanctions made Saddam Hussein is any weaker? His weapons of mass destruction have likely been dismantled according to most analysts, but has this made us more secure? Bombing a few caves in mountains, air defences, supply depots, and radar stations will do nothing more to fight international terrorism than bombing Sicily will eliminate the Mafia.

Do Americans and Canadians feel more secure now? I certainly do not see that with my patients. Even if Bin Laden were to be arrested or killed, would we feel more secure? I am sure that a Bin Laden who chooses to live in caves in rural Afghanistan rather than the millionaire playboy existence of many of his confreres, has no fear of a dark jail cell or death. If he truly wanted to disrupt the Western alliance's war effort, he might choose to give himself up in Pakistan or even a Scandinavian country.

Will the added use of money $20 billion on top of the $300 billion spent by the US defend us from the wielders of pen-knives and box-cutters? Canada is putting $40 million extra into this effort. I am left wondering if even a fraction of this money was put into peacebuilding activities, how much more secure we might be.

What is next? Are we now prepared to overthrow the Taliban? Who will take over? Will Americans send in ground troops? Military people will ask, 'Do they have an exit strategy?' As physicians the first thing that we are taught before any treatment is Primum non nocere-First of all, do no harm. Even if we disregard the suffering of the innocent, can we say that this action will not harm us?

Americans who know little about the Middle East, know much less about Afghanistan. This operation was planned in less than four weeks compared to six month in the operation against the far better-known Iraq. Afghans have repelled foreign invaders from Alexander the Great to Arabs, to Genghis Khan to Timor Lan to Napoleon to the British and Russians. They are highly suspicious of foreigners and will set aside differences to oppose them. The terrain is hostile, landmines abound, winter is harsh and the Afghani code of honour may prevent the country from cooperating with people considered infidels. The Soviet Union attempting to occupy the country from 1979-89 sent in 600,000 troops in 50,000 batches. They returned, beleaguered and defeated with 15,000 dead (and a million Afghani dead) and 100,000 mentally and physically severely damaged.

How much control will the West have on the Northern Alliance, a disparate coalition of at least three major forces? Iran, Russia, India and the ex-Soviet republics, who have supported them far longer than we have will each stake their claim. Which elements of the Alliance are strongest? Some may be more democratic and western-oriented but others are as extreme as the Taliban with regard to women and minorities, others are involved in the heroin trade and many are very anti-Western.

Even if we were to succeed in the short term, what would be the effects on our allies in the Arab world? Will Pakistan's military government, in possession of the nuclear bomb, be destabilized as its shadowy ISI officers who helped the Taliban obtain power unleash their wrath on the government which has turned its back on its Islamic allies. Would the Saudi Arabian regime be able to withstand people's anger at the overthrow of a fellow Muslim regime?

How do ordinary Afghans opposed to the Taliban feel about our military action? Refugees who fled the Taliban years ago and even the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), who have operated secretly in Taliban-controlled territory exposing the plight of women for the last few years worry that bombing may strengthen the Taliban.

The US is known to have created, funded, trained and armed the forefathers of the Taliban, the Mujahaddin to fight the Soviets. As they had with Saddam Hussein, they may have even directly aided Bin Laden. Will the current policy have similar 'blowback'? The Tajiks and Uzbeki regimes, with whom we are allying ourselves are not the greatest defenders of human rights in the world. If they are overthrown or change their minds about us, will our weapons boomerang against us? Some in the US administration are talking about a wider war on terrorism. The dangers of such a policy are infinitely greater than even the present operation.

Not all is despair in this story. The many human stories of love on September 11^th give us hope: last minute calls from aircraft, ministers, firefighters and police who lost their lives entering the burning buildings and administering to others oblivious of their own security, those passengers who brought down plane in Pennsylvania to protect others. Both Canadian and US governments have also taken strong positive action, condemnations the destruction of mosques, developing a coalition and denying that this was a clash of civilizations. They resisted the temptation to make a strike immediately after the tragedy; they have indeed attempted to avoid direct civilian casualties and in their own clumsy way attempted to drop food aid. Yet in this military action they are tragically wrong.

Some will ask, 'What right do we have to protest against such actions in wartime?' I think of Amber Amundson, the widow of 28 year old Craig Amundson, a US Officer who lost life in Pentagon crash. Though she is now looking after their two children alone, she took time to write to the Chicago Tribune to say that military action is not what her husband would have wanted in response to his death. Similarly the grandfather read a letter at a peace vigil from the parents of Greg Rodriguez, who lost his life on the 103^rd storey of one of the World Trade Centre buildings explaining their and their son's opposition to military action in his name. The Public Health Association of New York City in the epicentre of the bombing came out strongly against military action only a week after September 11th.

Why doctors? Our technological and economic superiority has been shown to be vulnerable to penknives and boxcutters. The military may be best to fight war, but may be limited in their experience to see every problem as benefiting from a military approach. If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer everything looks like a nail. The problem of terrorism requires a more holistic human security approach that neither the military nor politicians seem capable of providing. Ideally speaking doctors look at human health more broadly and with prevention in mind, in a biopsychosocial context. Our group has a particular expertise in the relationship of war, peace and health. To us this is a public health emergency of the highest order and not just in terms of victims who will die in Afghanistan.

My first professional duty is to the welfare of my patients. Often I must tell them things that they'd rather not hear: that smoking is bad for their health, that drinking and driving is dangerous and that seatbelts and bicycle helmets should be worn. In this case we have to point out that these actions have not made my patients feel one bit more secure and in real terms probably made them more insecure.

What alternatives might we propose? In the short term-end the bombing. Treat this as a police action, where human lives are protected. To regain the respect of Afghanis we must move back from our role as a combatant to our traditional role as honest brokers: peacekeepers and peacebuilders, putting our own financial resources in such an effort.

The recent conviction in New York of the Bin Laden-linked perpetrators of the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the effectiveness of strengthened law enforcement in dealing with terrorism. Internationally recognized structures such as the International Criminal Court, the UN and its Security Council must be supported. After time of isolation reusing to participate in Kyoto, the Biological Weapons Convention, efforts to limit small arms or its obligations under the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the US now sees some benefit to international collective action. Perhaps encouraging the US Congress to ratify accession to the ICC whose provisions might have allowed the US a mechanism to deal with terrorists in a framework of law.

Increased international control of money supply networks and border controls may be necessary but must be balanced with effects on civil liberties.

While many in the US administration are talking about a flexible response including the option to use small nuclear weapons, what might be more helpful are concrete steps towards nuclear abolition. Reducing stockpiles will reduce the threat that terrorists can acquire fissile materials for suitcase or backpack bombs, and the threat of horizontal proliferation to unstable or even hostile powers.

We should also move immediately to more monetary and logistic support for peace processes not only in the Middle East but in Afghanistan. A meeting of the Loya Jirga-the Grand Assembly of Afghanis would cost less than $1 million a fraction of the $40 million that Canada is directly committing to the war effort. Support also for peace processes in Rome around the King of Afghanistan, in Cyprus and Peshawar around the Mujahaddin, which have been going on for years are essential to ultimate success.

A public health model denies the quick fix that military and political leaders want. While many patients want to deal with problems like obesity with fad diets or surgery such as stomach stapling, I must tell them that it is lifestyle changes, decreased food intake in a balanced way and exercise are the only proven ways to work in the long term.

Similarly dealing with root causes political, social, and economic would be in accordance with enlightened self-interest. Respect for human rights, democracy and good governance, more equitable distribution of resources, investment in education especially female literacy and health care give people alternatives and investment in the stability of their governments. Perhaps a Marshall Plan like investment in Afghanistan after this conflict will safeguard us more than any further military build-up. True security is founded upon cooperative, just and equitable relationships with others. Canada should move in the above direction and encourage our US allies to do the same in self-interest.

In February the President-elect of Physicians for Global Survival, child psychiatrist Joanna Santa Barbara spent two weeks in Afghani refugee camps in Peshawar, Pakistan on a peace education project. They have developed primary school primers to deal with alienation and prejudice that war brings. Dialogue also began with leadership in Peshawar, Kabul and Northern Alliance controlled territories. These are meant to focus attention of leadership on supraordinate goals, the long-term interests of their people, including their own financial and leadership state which might better be achieved through non-armed means. Canadians can also help with dealing with refugees issues and aid and relief to those in camps.

Indeed there were and are a number of more productive alternatives to bombing. What is needed in sober second thought and thinking rather than reacting and looking at our own long-term interests; not just what might make us feel that something is being done in the short-term.

(Physicians for Global Survival is the Canadian affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. IPPNW has led international delegations into zones of conflict and post-conflict in Iraq, Kosovo, and the Middle East. PGS has 800 physician members and about 5,000 supporters. Neil Arya is the President of PGS and Co-Vice President of IPPNW)