Mazar-i-Sharif

In the long term (when the "hot" conflict is over), I actually think we're going to see some of the blowback of the spread of international courts: Pinochet escaped them by a whisker, and on technical details not on the absurdity of "our man" being in the wrong; Hitchens, pro this war, has at the same time stripped some of the respectability from Kissinger; the twists and turns of U military avoiding account in re the 13 dead at Bloody Sunday (yes, 30 years ago) is now a visible embarrassment for the course the govt is pursuing. The quiet dynamic of a legal system is that — in future times — those who judge will in turn be judged. Blair has an awful lot of faults, but lack of sincerity concerning the establishment of a fair world ain't one of them (OK yes the way he's going about it is a difft kettle of shit): this sincerity will drive him till a. He achieves something of it, or (rather more likely, sadly) b. it buries him.

Blair’s emphasis on International Justice is to his credit, but I agree it could backfire on him. The NA seem an unstable, opportunistic coalition of opium dealing warlords, as likely to turn on each other as accept a UN backed regime. If reports of further atrocities emerge the moral rhetoric (+ I agree he’s sincere) will be left looking shabby and self-serving. And what next, a ‘March on Baghdad’? Schröder and Jospin have publicly poured cold water on the idea but could a triumphant Dubya resist?

Actually some ‘blowback through the spread of international courts’ would be welcome. The butchers of Rwanda and Yugoslavia may make easier targets than US military personnel but the rise of ‘International Justice’ is a very positive development . Louise Arbour, the former International War Crimes Tribunal's chief prosecutor became my personal heroine when she indicted Milosevic. As Human Rights Watch correctly observe, “Until recently, it seemed that if you killed one person, you went to jail, but if you slaughtered thousands, you usually got away it. Times change”. I love the fact Belgium/Israeli relations are complicated by Arial Sharon being a wanted man in Belgium for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres.

Also, frankly, I have to put on my Realpolitik/extreme cynicism hat here -- exactly who the hell is surprised/shocked by any of what happened there? I mean, come *on*. I have no problem with idiotic decisions being called idiotic decisions, but trying to slather on specific moral outrage on top of this whole thing when the whole goddamn past three months has been one moral outrage on top of another committed by extremely suspect leaders here in the States, there in Afghanistan, everywhere, is not so much icing-on-cake as a sudden grasping at something by a slew of different sides. If it weren't for mass media access to the whole thing, there wouldn't have been any debate at all; certainly certain specifically anti-US-in-anything folks are regarding this as manna from heaven in that dire predictions re: Ramadan bombing and the supposed ineffectiveness of initial US strategy didn't come true. Therefore, leap on this. There's a bunch of grotesquely dead bodies in that city now being pimped for a purpose in a parallel to how the WTC dead have been even more disgustingly used and abused by the US government/media/mass culture -- bloody flags and bloody rags are being used to argue the case first and foremost, and how sick is *that*?

I saw a picture in the paper yesterday of some of the dead and could see one person's face in particular. All I could think of was who his family was, did he have a happy childhood, brothers, sisters, friends. At the start of this year, hell, as recently as the start of September, was he looking forward to the end of Ramadan, what was his plan for Eid if anything? Now thanks to a bunch of stupid motherfuckers, US, Afghani, Arab, all of them, he's dead and that's that.

There damn well should be complaints. On *everyone's* head. A pox on all the houses.

And since I realize in rereading how this can appear, a further note -- I'm quite glad that there was access there, it should be known, it should be reported. I cannot and will not shake the feeling, however, that a lot of the reaction is pure seizing of opportunity rather than honest caring for the victims, either when living or when dead.

If a conflict is fought in the name of International Justice, and not as exercise in revenge, then it isn’t self-righteous ‘moral outrage’ to ask critical questions when reports emerge of summary executions of POWs, and prison uprisings being bombed to pieces. It isn’t an act of fake compassion, but of principle.

I’ve never condemned the US-backed campaign against the Taliban, and their thuggish International Brigade of neo-fascist fundamentalists. Instead I was disgusted by the callous, knee-jerk ‘the US had it coming’ attitude displayed by many on the left to 9/11.

I don’t doubt the difficulties the NA and US/UK forces will have had faced by an armed Taliban POW uprising. They may have been left with no choice in their actions. Then let the facts emerge.

If, as is being suggested, the NA, were actually engaged in atrocities, and with US/UK support, we’re entitled to ask questions, get answers, and expect those responsible are held to account. This isn’t about naïve idealism but about the very International Justice in whose name this conflict is being fought.

The idea that this is being seized upon as a symbol of perceived atrocities, though, is repellent, and any investigation into the Mazar prison uprising should of course reflect the face that there were at least a couple hundred armed combatants trying to blast their way out of the fortress. If the Taliban prisoners were in fact combatants, they were 'legitimate' military targets (obviously, to a pacifist, there aren't legitimate military targets, but I'm assuming any authoritative investigation wouldn't be conducted by pacifists).

I'm not sure the US government, or the NA-controlled Afghan "government," would ever allow such an investigation, and certainly not one by Amnesty. But what would an on-site enquiry yield? The spectacle of a Taliban prisoner killed by the US planes and by mortar fire, with his hands still bound, isn't enough to justify a war crimes charge, if he was in essence being used as a shield by armed combatants. The only way to get to the bottom of this really is to determine what the NA commanders and US observers knew, and to determine intent from that. Unfortunately, the fact that the US has rejected treaties binding the US to international human rights investigations rules that out, but to use that legal fact to leapfrog to throwing around the word "atrocity" as has been done (not here, mind!) is a bit much.

So how's that for a weaselly position. There should be an inquiry but there won't be one, but that's no reason to assume a cover-up of atrocities.

In any case, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this is a solid reason to reject false choices like Gore v Bush last year. Millions of dollars will buy a total uniformity of opinion among the political leadership of this country, but that's nothing new either.

By the way, I see very little in the way of images of the Mazar slaughter in the US media, at least in comparison to international press (BBC world news, ITV, foreign papers). Is this an issue of peceived taste, or pressure from Karl Rove and the White House propaganda office?

The fall of Srebrenica is another shameful example of a lack of openness, and inability to face up to uncomfortable truths. What should be a weeping sore on the conscious of the UN, the ‘International Community’, and especially my own adopted homeland, is now largely forgotten. Close to 8,000 slaughtered and there is still a shameful reluctance to reveal the whole truth concerning what happened. Srebrenica Justice Campaign

Evidently he couldn't.