New Principles, New Rules
Nine new "principles" that can destroy world
peace.
By Mufti Taqi Usmani
Posted: 18 Sha'ban 1422, 4 November 2001
(Translation by M. Anis Motiwala)
As the US murder of unarmed and distressed Afghans continues and intensifies each day,
the simultaneous murder of values and universally accepted fundamental human principles is
taking place on such a wide scale that if the world leaders still choose not to remove the
blindfold of American influence from their eyes the whole world will turn into a perpetual
inferno of violence and chaos.
The fact is US has created such monstrous precedents in her war hysteria that if the
present state of affairs were to prolong, there could only be rule of arms and violence on
the surface of the earth and the notion of peace and stability will vanish from this
world.
As a sequel to the tragic incident of September 11th the brand new set of principles in
human, moral and international values that the rulers of the United States have given to
the world need to be looked into. Let us take a look at some of them.
1. Guilt has to be proven before a punishment can be meted out to an accused i.e.
innocent until proven guilty is such an established principle since antiquity that not one
civilization in the world has ever differed with it. But in the case of Osama Bin Laden
and Afghanistan the decision to take direct action against them was taken the very first
day of the incident. The new principle now states that one with might and power can accuse
any one it deems fit and can dispense punishment at will. The mighty neither needs to
prove the guilt nor has to wait for the decision from any court of law for the one it has
accused.
2. Until this day it was an accepted principle that the benefit of doubt always
went to the accused. If the evidence that exists against the accused contains an element
of ambiguity the accused could never be punished under such circumstances. Now the freshly
introduced principle states that the benefit of doubt goes to the one who unilaterally
decides to accuse another, implying that the accused can be declared a convict simply on
the basis of doubt.
3. To this day the international law and norms dictated that if an accused happens to
be in another country, he or she can be tried in a court in that country only, unless
there is an explicit treaty for extradition between these countries in which case the
accused may be handed over to the complaining country to be tried in a court of law. There
exists no Extradition treaty or agreement between US and Afghanistan. The only civilized
set of solutions presented under the circumstances was that either the accused be tried in
a court in Afghanistan or the US enters into an extradition agreement and by virtue of
that demand for the accused. Dismissing both of these options and demanding that "Our
accused be handed over to us" resembles the practice of the mediaeval times of
ignorance when warring tribes resorted to such demands.
Although Afghanistan was under no obligation to hand over Osama under the un-immutable
law of human society, it still demonstrated a conciliatory offer to consider if
Afghanistan was shown the proofs and evidence. But the US insisted that whatever evidence
it has it will show it to its "friends" but will not produce before Afghanistan.
In other words, the very country that is a party (in the demanded extradition) will not be
shown the evidence. Later on the Taliban government even offered for dialogue to consider
trial in a neutral third country but the US continued to insist that there could be no
dialogue and Osama must be handed over to them.
The demand "Hand him over to us" is providing an analogy and an excuse to
every bully on the earth. As a direct consequence Israel demanded from the Palestinian
authorities that the suspects of their murdered person be handed over to them. Back home
here even India is inching toward raising a similar demand to handover their
"terrorists" over to them. If the trend progresses, then every country that has
offered political asylum or political sanctuary to people will be subjected to the same
principle by the more mighty that either "give us our accused or get ready for aerial
bombardment".
4. Another established principle of civilized society has been that the punishment can
only be given to the one who has committed the crime not to another person instead. The
innovative new principle now allows that along with the criminal punish the whole country
and its innocent civilians. In fact in the present American move the very person who is
accused to have committed the crime and is sought to be punished is tucked in safety and
instead thousands of those people are being maimed, made homeless and destitute who had
probably never even heard the name of World Trade Center.
5. International norms dictate and US itself has on numerous occasions advised
conflicting parties to settle issues through talks and negotiations but in the case of
Afghanistan it simply announced that doors are completely closed to negotiations.
Another new fundamental that emerges is that if you have the might and power you need not
negotiate or talk, simply run over the less powerful.
6. A recognized principle has been that a sovereign state cannot be forced to
participate in a war. Now a new principle has been brazenly made acceptable that if a
mighty and powerful country wishes, it can coerce a smaller country to act against its
conscience and join the "coalition" or else be prepared to be consigned to the
Stone Age. In this way, a powerful bully can put together a large coalition of its choice
to thrust upon a pauperized and weak nation if it so desires. The small and less powerful
countries have been deprived not only of the right to act according to their conscience
but even the right to remain neutral has been made non-existent; the only option for the
weaker country is to side with the bully.
7. In whatever laws are passed in the international forums and bodies, so much so that
even in the case of individual resolutions every word used in the drafts is thoroughly
reviewed and only after long debates the selection of a word is made for the draft
resolutions (very rightly so). The purpose behind such prolonged deliberations has been to
keep the resolutions clear of ambiguity lest a member state draw advantage from the loose
ends creating conflicts and disagreements as a result. However, the
recent anti-terrorism resolution passed by the Security Council of the United Nations
in a matter of hours contains no definition of the concept of "terrorism"
opening up the doors wide open for the mighty on the earth to accuse anybody of terrorism
and for that instantly flash the Security Council's resolution to give legitimacy to its
action.
8. Taking a human life is that extreme step which attracts immense precautions in
framing of laws. And even when the law necessitates that a life be taken, a capital
punishment be meted out, the methods devised for the execution are ensured to live up to
the standards of equity and justice. Now the new edict. The US has passed a new law
empowering its intelligence agencies to employ whatever means they deem fit to execute or
kill "terrorists". So therefore, these American intelligence agencies will now
sit on judgment to declare somebody a terrorist, decide about the fate of his or her life
and even devise their own ways of bringing about the execution.
9. International laws governing the conduct of wars view as criminal acts the senseless
bombing of civilian targets, hospitals, Red Cross centers etc. But, in the past three
weeks the impunity with which the civilians are being bombed and hospitals targeted, and
the brazenness shown over and above all this - that not a word of remorse or apology is
forthcoming is further consolidating the principle that for the mighty every (criminal)
act is legitimate.
The question is, will the new set of principles that is being given to the world and
new precedents that are being drawn along these lines, will these eliminate terrorism or
lend perpetuity to it? Will the world become a more peaceful place as a result or will be
inflamed in a vicious cycle of violence? Will these new principles breed love or promote
intense hatred?
[This Article was published in Urdu by Daily Jang in Pakistan. Renowned Scholar
Mufti Taqi Usmani is a Judge at the Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of
Pakistan. He is not responsible for any errors in the translation which is provided here
as service to the non-Urdu Speaking readers.]
Current Affairs 