|
|
Courtesy
of James Rynasiewicz, Anna Belkina, Stephanie Bowser, Anish Shukla, Chris Kelley
Table of Contents:
Description of the Committee: Brief procedural overview of the International Court of JusticeThe facts of the case: An unbiased recounting of events leading up to the trial
Viewpoints and Policy: A formal statement of the Conflict. The Republic of the Sudan: The case Sudan is presenting to the court
Viewpoint from the Respondent: The United States' defense
The viewpoint of the Taliban: Afghanistan's ruling body's support for Sudan's claims
Relevant history of Sudan: Summary of Sudan's history (European colonization to present)
History of Afghanistan: Events in Afghanistan during the 20th century
Appendices
III. Policies of the Taliban
Description of the Committee
As some of you may already know, the International Court of Justice is very different from a Security Council or any other committee in the UN. It is often considered a bit more prestigious than other committees, and its members more distinguished. At the same time, the proceedings tend to be less formal than a Security Council.
The ICJ is comprised of 15 judges from UN member states (ours will have 28). No two judges from the same member state may serve on the court at the same time. One important point to remember is that, as a judge, you are not representing your home nations. You are acting as individuals. While your opinions may be influenced by the country you represent, decisions in the court are not to be made based on a nation’s policies, and you should not feel pressured to rule in favor of a nation you are allied with. In fact, in 1982, regarding a case brought by Tunisia against Libya, a Tunisian judge ruled in favor of Libya. It is rare, but it does happen.
The ICJ is not a court in which an individual can sue another individual, or one nation can accuse a person or group of wrongdoing. It is a body designed to deal with conflicts between two nations. It serves as an arbitrator for international disputes. In cases involving two nations asking the court to settle a dispute over, for example, a shared border, the court’s ruling is binding to both parties. In a case in which one nation accuses another of breaking international law, the court’s decision is only considered an advisory. Rather than calling participating nations the "plaintiff" and the "defendant", the ICJ involves an "applicant" and a "respondent". The applicant is the nation that brings a problem before the court, and asks that the nation causing the problem, the respondent, be put on trial.
The procedure for the SKMUN Court of Justice will follow closely to the UN’s. At the outset of the trial, the president of the ICJ will review the rules of procedure for the judges, and discuss any points that need clarification. At this time the judges will hold a preliminary discussion of the case at hand, simply to make sure that the basic facts are in the open and understood by all. Judges may state, at this point, what they think are the important issues, what important questions must be asked of the advocate, and what principles are key to the case. Once everyone is ready to proceed, the applicant will enter, and make an opening statement discussing the applicant country’s viewpoint and opinions. At the end of the statement, each judge will be allowed to question the applicant. In our ICJ, we will have an additional agent speaking on the side of the applicant, who will also be subject to questioning. After both agents have said their pieces, they will leave the court, and there will be a brief caucus to bring up points about the preceding testimony. No decisions or definite opinions should be formed as of this time. After this, the respondent is given the opportunity to respond to the charges, and the judges will each have the opportunity to ask questions. Again, after the respondent is no longer needed, there will be an additional speaker on the side of the respondent who will give a statement and answer questions. After this speaker is finished, there will be another caucus. This is perhaps the most important part of the process. This is when the final decision is made. If at any time during this caucus the judges require clarification on a fact of the case or new questions arise, the applicant or respondent can be called back before the court for a second round of questioning.
Once it is established that all of the judges are prepared to make a judgment on the case, a vote is taken. Judges can vote either in favor of the applicant, in favor of the respondent, or they can abstain. A simple majority is needed for the decision. It is important to remember that it is the job of the ICJ to interpret international laws, not to make new ones. The decision should be objective, and be based on the facts of the case.
Once a decision has been reached, the judges who voted for each party will prepare a brief statement citing the reasons for their respective decisions. A copy of both statements will be given to the Security Councils, and the statement regarding the court’s final decision will be presented to the participants of the SKMUN at the conference’s closing ceremonies.
It must be understood that the ruling of this court will only be in regards to the bombing of Sudan. There is information in this packet concerning Afghanistan and Afghani representatives will be speaking only because of the bombing of Afghanistan that took place at the same time, and for similar reasons, as the Sudan bombing.
The Facts of the Case Before Us
Applicant: The Republic of the Sudan
Respondent: The United States of America
On August 7, 1998, American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania were attacked. According to Tanzanian officials, a bomb was attached to the underside of a tanker truck which entered the Dar es Salaam US Embassy compound at approximately 10:30 AM. An outer guardpost was completely destroyed, but the embassy sustained minor damages. At the same in Kenya, a pickup truck full of explosives was stopped at a guardpost outside the parking garage to the Nairobi US Embassy. The garage lies underneath the Ufundi Cooperative House, a building set between the embassy and the 21-story Cooperative Bank. When the explosives were detonated, the Ufundi House was destroyed, the embassy and the bank sustained major damages, and more than 4300 people were injured. The total death toll resulting from the two attacks is 257, 12 of them American. After investigation, the US tracked down and arrested three suspects in the bombing case, who were soon indicted on the more than 200 counts of murder. The US linked these men to Osama bin Laden, a man accused by the US government of supporting terrorist acts against Americans.
On August 20, 1998, the United States launched two simultaneous Tomahawk missile attacks on targets believed to be linked to Osama bin Laden. One was the El Shifa Pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, and the other the Zhawar Kili al-Badr support camp in Afghanistan. More than 70 missiles struck the camp. Reports indicated that several of the Tomahawks carried cluster munitions, designed to disperse shrapnel-like bomblets over a large area, suggesting that the intent was to kill as many terrorists as possible. Six Tomahawk missiles obliterated the pharmaceutical plant, which, while a suspected producer of deadly VX gas, also provided the vast majority of Sudan’s pharmaceutical products. Approximately 22 deaths total resulted.
The government of Sudan has brought this situation to the attention of the International Court of Justice because it believes that the US attacks were in violation of international law. The recognized government of Afghanistan, on the other hand, did not object to the US strike on what both governments considered terrorist bases operating illegally on Afghani Soil. The Taliban, Afghanistan’s ruling body, supports Sudan’s claims, but is not recognized by the United Nations, and therefore cannot bring its case to the attention of the ICJ.
Another event that should be taken into consideration is the bombing of Iraq by the US and the UK in December. The attack took place without the consent of the Security Council. After the attack, France, China, and Russia voiced their extreme displeasure in the actions of the US and UK, so it should be noted that had the situation been brought before the Security Council, a resolution calling for military action would have been vetoed.
The question before the court: Is the United States guilty of breaking international law?
Some questions to consider:
-Is an attack on an embassy considered an attack on the embassy’s nation?
-Was the national security of the United States threatened by the embassy attacks?
-Was the bombing in Sudan justified?
-Did the US have the right to attack Sudan (or Afghanistan or Iraq) without Security Council Approval?
-Did the bombing set a dangerous precedent?
Viewpoints and Policy : A Formal Statement of the Conflict.
The Republic of the Sudan
During the week of August 15, 1998, the United States of America for no foreseeable reason blatantly attacked and destroyed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. The Al Shifa plant was completely destroyed. Along with this was the loss of some 200 employee’s jobs, and over 3000 families were devastated. With the destabilized economy that currently exists in Sudan, the Al Shifa plant was a major asset to the medical needs of the peoples of Sudan. The US missile attack that destroyed the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory in Khartoum was a brutal act of war. The claims by Clinton and the US administration that the factory was making a chemical component of nerve gas have largely been discredited. The factory was Sudan's largest commercial manufacturer of prescription drugs for both medical and veterinary purposes, producing 50 percent of the country's supply. The consequences of its destruction, on the lives and health of the Sudanese people, will be immense. Dr. Mustafa Idris, a member of the Al Shifa board, said Sudan lacked the foreign currency to import the antibiotics and tuberculosis medicine that Al-Shifa had produced.
Sudan has asked the United Nations to stop the United States and other countries from "obstructing" justice in such issues as the bombing of Al Shifa. Along with Sudan, 22 Arab states at the United Nations have again asked the Security Council to approve a U.N. investigation of the U.S. attack on a factory in Sudan. The Arab League sent a revised draft resolution to the president of the Security Council requesting Secretary-General Kofi Annan dispatch a mission "to verify all facts concerning the Al-Shifa factory, including its production and ownership" (CNN News, 1998). The resolution asks Annan to submit a report on the mission's findings within one month of the resolution's adoption. Along with the question of United States policy, Sudan has also demanded compensation from the United States for the cost of the plant, which it said was used to produce more than 50 percent of the country's medicines.
According to the British news station BBC, exclusive interviews with both Sudanese and other international employees that were fortunate enough to survive the attack stated that the factory was simply not a "chemical weapons haven." The Al-Shifa factory was not making chemical weapons or their so-called "precursors". It produced basic medicines for human consumption and for veterinary use. Probably the most important was an anti-diarrhea remedy. They also made drugs against TB and they bought in the basic stock for antibiotics. Companies like the American based Glaxo Welcome produce basic antibiotics in tons. It is then cut and blended and put into medicines and capsules. That's what was occurring at Al Shifa, with substantial documentation for verification. There was no prime chemical manufacture. "They didn't have reactors or anything like that. It was a mixing and blending facility, like a big chemist's shop." (Tom Carnaffin, BBC 1998).
In more recent events, roughly a week after the US bombing of
Al Shifa, Sudan filed a criminal lawsuit against the United
States for its missile strikes. Though much of the information
regarding the lawsuit is classified, Sudanese Attorney General
Ali al-Zaki did state that President William J. Clinton, as
leader of the United States, will be tried — "The
normal procedure is that if a person or an entity fails to show
up in court, he will be tried in absentia." President of the
Sudan Omar el-Bashir accused Clinton of being a war criminal for
ordering the missile strike.
According to the international laws which are the basis of the UN
charter, the American president has violated all the clauses that
state the criminal characteristics in full detail of any plot by
one government to destroy a civilian establishment and to kill
innocent people, of another government. Official reports of the
United Nations declared 10 people were injured in the missile
attack. Plant officials said the factory sustained $100 million
in damages.
To further the Sudanese argument, it was in fact American scientists, led by Dr. Henry Jobe, who designed the facility and sold it to the Sudan. From the beginning, the factory was designed to help people of the world by providing vital medications. American reports have stated that roughly one mile from the plant, a vital component of the VX nerve gas was found in soil samples. This is entirely inaccurate and at the same time inconsistent with UN findings, whose reports state no evidence of any such findings. The question remains then how exactly could the United States get an effluent outfall, one mile from a factory that doesn't have an effluent discharge of any kind, by fume emission or water emission or anything like that? According to one English employee from the Al Shifa plant, "The only emission from the factory is from the toilets. How can you get a radical chemical from that?" (www.wsws.org).
Conditions in Sudan in the present are very difficult to say the least. Bluntly, there is no money. The country is slowly trying to get itself together, to earn foreign currency. Nobody will loan Sudan money or medications, two of the most vital necessities of this vast republic. Thanks to the United States effort in ending a supposed war on terrorists, an entire country is having huge health problems. It is amazing, now that the Al Shifa plant has been leveled, the amount of malaria present in the entire country. Wherever there is water the malaria is unbelievable. According to one Sudanese plant technician, "If you walked out of the house across the road, about 10 or 15 meters, and back again, by the time you got back you'd be covered head to toe in mosquitoes. I nearly died from malaria whilst I was there." (ABC Website, 1998).
Many neighboring African countries are starting to regard Sudan as a "fourth world country." The severe lack of medicinal aids for people has lead to the creation of the most expensive and widely accessed black market in the entire southern hemisphere. With the civil war continuing and tribal peoples entirely divided, the need for medicines and provisions is greater than ever. Disease is on the rampage. The Al Shifa plant was the only pharmaceutical institution that dealt with the deadly Bilhuxia bug. Caused by a parasite from a snail that lives in the canals, Bilhuxia gets into the human body and destroys the liver. It's not easily cured, but was treatable to a great extent prior to the Al Shifa destruction.
Now, in a country distraught over American oppression and unprovoked international attacks that have taken the form of state sponsored terrorism on a peace loving people, Sudan is in a crisis. No amount of aid can undo what the US did in a matter of minutes. Sudan is sure that, with the violation of international law and inhumane acts committed by the US, the UN ICJ will find the right course of action and take it. To facilitate a mutilated economy, the dying people of Sudan are host to out-of-date drugs from Egypt. However, a rising black market for drugs has hindered the majority of the population from attaining these medications. Since the World Health Organization refuses to send aid to Sudan, these people were totally dependent on the Al-Shifa factory. Who will they depend on know? Now what will happen to the children who get diarrhoea, or malaria? They will just die — thousands of children will die. The World Health Organization will report the exact numbers. They are excellent with reporting the most vital statistics before any other organization.
"I've seen them die myself. There are no serums or anything like that. There are no facilities to keep serums for snake bites and scorpion bites. So people die."
- Tom Carnaffin, Al Shifa plant technician.
On August 21, 1998 the armed forces of the United States were ordered to strike at terrorist related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security. The main purpose of the strike was not retaliation; it was to prevent further terrorist attacks against American targets which we had reason to believe would take place.
Two weeks prior to these strikes, over 5,000 people lost their lives when the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania were bombed. The risks from inaction to America and the world were far greater than the risks of action. For that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact. In this case, we knew before our attack that these groups already had planned further actions against ourselves and others.
The two sites of the United States' strikes showed very clear links to international terrorist Osama Bin Laden. The United States does not take the strikes lightly. Afghanistan and Sudan have been warned for years to stop harboring and supporting these terrorist groups.
Evidence That Osama Bin Laden Was Responsible For the Embassy Bombings
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh is the man currently charged with involvement in a conspiracy to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya on August 7, 1998. Odeh is a member of "Al Qaeda", a worldwide terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden. Al Qaeda's mission includes killing members of the American military stationed in Saui AE3
In or about August 1996, Al Qaeda, through its leader Bin Laden, issued a pronouncement, or "fatwah", to the effect that efforts should be pooled worldwide to kill Americans. More recently, in February of 1998, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations acting under the banner, the "World Islamic Front", issued a declaration that Muslims should kill Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world.
On August 1, 1998 Odeh was advised that all Al Qaeda members had to leave Kenya by Thursday, August 6, the day before the embassies were bombed. The following day he traveled to Nairobi for a meeting with other members of Al Qaeda, including an individual known to Odeh as an explosives expert and the leader of Al Qaeda's Kenyan cell. On August 5, the defendant allegedly met with Osama Bin Laden, and on August 7, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
Reasons for Striking the Chemical Plant in Sudan
The United States has been aware for at least two years that there was a serious potential problem at the plant that was struck. Diplomatic talks between the governments of the United States and Sudan have failed to produce any change. Since the present government of Sudan came to power in 1989 the US State Department has shown that they have been supporting terrorism. There is well documented evidence that they were involved in the attempt to assassinate President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
Additionally, the US has reliable intelligence that the Bin Laden network has been actively seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction - including weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons - for use against the United States. Bin Laden has extensive ties to the Sudanese Government and its industrial sector. The U.S. is confident that this Sudanese Government-controlled facility was involved in the production of chemical weapons agents.
In recent months, a soil sample was acquired from Khartoum's Shifa pharmaceutical plant. The soil sample indicated the presence of a chemical known as EMPTA, a known precursor of the nerve agent VX and an indicator of a potential to produce VX gas. The substance is not used in commercial application, it does not occur naturally in the environment, and it is not a by-product of another chemical process.
The U.S. government has been aware of illegal activity at the Shifa plant and has submitted reports to the ICJ saying we have concrete evidence that the plant was a chemical warfare plant. However, visual inspections of facilities like the El Shifa chemical plant are often not sufficient to reveal a connection with the production of chemical weapons. For example, the Iraqis denied that the plant known as the Al Hakam factory was in connection with the production of chemical weapons, and there were many infrequent UNSCOM inspections of the plant. It was only when Iraq itself admitted the true nature of the facility several years later once overwhelming evidence was available, that it was revealed that the plant was actually so engaged.
At the present time, we are unable to divulge all of our information because it would undermine our sources. The importance of our intelligence network is paramount, and if we compromise our sources we undercut our ability to stay one step ahead of international threats such as Bin Laden. The United States believes its evidence to be clear and concrete and we believe our decision to carry out this strike on this particular target, was the correct and proper decision under the circumstances.
Reasons for Striking the Camp in Afghanistan
The United States would like to make it clear that the attack on Afghanistan was not an attack on Afghans, the government of Afghanistan, or the people in authority; it was an attack on Osama Bin Laden and his organization that was supporting terrorist activities in particular camps that were identified there.
The three terrorist training bases at Khost, Afghanistan were used by a number of groups associated with the Bin Laden network. The bases provided refuge for terrorists and house the infrastructure for their funding and international travel. They were where terrorists were trained in tactics and in the assembly and use of a wide variety of weapons. Several of these groups housed in these bases are known foreign terrorist organizations and have conducted a variety of terrorist operations around the world. These terrorist organizations look to the Bin Laden network bases at Khost to obtain inspiration, training, and financing for their acts of terror around the world.
United States Policy on Terrorism
The United States has fought the threat of terrorism for many years and in many ways, both multilaterally and unilaterally. This includes promoting the rule of law, working with others to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and serious action such as the military strike that took place in August. However, the strike is not the only way by which the United States is battling the terrorist groups of Osama Bin Laden. The Clinton Administration is combining a freeze on Bin Laden's money with military, diplomatic, and intelligence tools to stop the man who has vowed to attack Americans around the world. In some cases, law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough. The strikes against terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan represent an intensification of our battle against terror. They reflect our determination to use whatever means we have to protect our citizens against terrorist threats, especially immediate threats.
The Issue of Legality
In deciding this case there is only one issue at hand: Did the United States break an international law? The answer to this is simple and clear. No, the U.S. in no way broke any law. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter specifically states that a country has the right to take military action in order to protect its citizens from imminent threats. An attack on a United States embassy is an attack on part of the United States of America and is a violation of international law. It is an act of war and, by international law, the U.S. has the right to act in self-defense. In this case, as we have made clear, the United States not only had convincing evidence of the linkage to the recent bombings, it had convincing evidence that there were to be other attacks against the United States planned by this terrorist organization.
Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with our actions, the United Nations Charter states that the United States of America did not commit a crime. Therefore, there is only one choice for any fair judge, and that is to vote in favor of the respondent, the United States of America.
The Viewpoint of the Taliban-Currently Ruling the Vast Majority of Afghanistan.
One of the major events in the world in 1998 was the United States decision to bomb a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan and a suspected terrorist camp of Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. These bombings were supposedly in retaliation for the bombings of United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The US's decision was met by the world with mixed reactions. The main point of contention for some countries was whether or not the United States took all the legal steps needed in order to lawfully execute such a serious action. The Taliban, the ruling party of Afghanistan strongly believes that it did not. The United States showed little regard for Article 51 of the UN Charter which states all attacks made in self-defense on other countries should go through the Security Council. The Taliban also believes that the United States did not have the proper evidence in order to commit the bombings. Since 1996, when the Taliban took over the Afghan capital city of Kabul the Taliban has been the main political power in Afghanistan. Now the Taliban governs over 80% of Afghanistan, and has been formally recognized as the true Afghan government by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. However the Taliban has not been officially recognized as the government in Afghanistan by the UN, and due to support of the bombings by Afghanistan's current seat in the UN, the former Afghan government, cannot formally bring a case against the United States. The Taliban feels that it must stick up for the rights of its citizens by testifying against the United States. The Taliban's main purpose in testifying against the United States is to help ensure that the International Court of Justice recognizes the US's wrong doings so no similar incidents occur in the future.
The United States' way of retaliating was not proper. There was a period of 13 days between the original bombings and the retaliation by the U.S. and yet there was no action taken by the U.S. in the Security Council. International law requires that such an issue must be taken up with the Security Council to "maintain international peace and security." The U.S. did not inform any of their closest allies about the actions that were to take place because they knew they would not be well received. It does not come as a surprise that UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan's was "concerned over these actions" (www.world.bbc.com), when he was first informed of them.
The thirteen days before retaliation was used to gather evidence against bin Ladin. Even with all this time the Taliban feels that evidence found by the US was not conclusive. The United States' connection between bin Ladin and the bombings lies in the testimony of Mohammed Siddeh Odeh. Odeh was arrested in Pakistan on charges of presenting a false passport at a Karachi airport. Odeh was then extradited to Kenya where he allegedly confessed "his involvement in the embassy bombings and that he and his group were linked to Osama" (www.muslimedia.com/archieves.html). This clearly contradicts a report from a Pakistani newspaper in which Odeh denied any link to the bombings. At no time was Odeh interrogated by international agents.
This evidence does not mean that bin Ladin did not commit the crimes. There is no doubt that Osama bin Ladin has been involved to many terrorists activities in the past and the possibility remains that he was the mastermind behind the bombings of the U.S. embassies, although this is not the feeling of The Taliban. However, bin Ladin is not an agent of the Afghan government, nor will he ever be. The country of The Taliban does not support terrorists. Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, first comments after bin Ladin reacted to the bombings by the U.S. was one of disapproval with bin Ladin. The Mullah was "angry because Osama [was] making anti-American statements from our soil" (www.cgi.pathfinder/time/daily/special/asbombings/index.html).
We have a difficult time accepting the lack of diplomatic actions taken by the United States in their attempt to seek justice for the bombings. Before the U.S. carried out the bombings, a Taliban spokesperson told the New York Times that "if the U.S. provided credible bombings of bin Ladin's involvement in terrorist activities, the Afghan leaders could work out a deal with Washington" (www.cgi.pathfinder/time/daily/special/asbombings/index.html). No talks ever took place and therefore no evidence was presented to the Afghani government that would enable them to extradite bin Ladin.
At the time of the bombing there were troubles in Washington that made the government unstable. U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton was receiving requests for resignation because of his sex scandal with former White House intern Monica Lewinski. Right before the bombings Lewinski was giving grand jury testimony about her affair with Clinton. After the bombings the Lewinski matter disappeared from the headlines and Clinton was being praised for his decisive actions. We find it coincidental that Clinton, a notoriously weak president in military matters, made his action at that time. Due to this information, the motives of the United States need to be questioned.
When the U.S. took their actions
against Afghanistan and The Sudan, they did not take the proper
steps to make sure peace and security would be achieved. There
were opportunities for diplomacy which the U.S. chose not to
take. In the US's quest for justice they forgot to uphold
international law. The International Court of Justice needs to
recognize the US's violations to set an example. If the United
States can attack a country without having to follow the proper
international laws, what will prevent other countries from doing
them same?
HISTORY of AFGHANISTAN - the XX century
Republic of Afghanistan
The independence of Afghanistan from Britain was recognized in 1919, when Great Britain and Khan Amanollah signed the Treaty of Ravalpindi.
In 1964 a constitution was put through and parliamentary democracy established by Mohammed Zahir. In 1973 his cousin Mohammed Daoud led a military coup and declared Afghanistan a republic.
In April 1978 President Daoud was overthrown in a further coup which installed a pro-Soviet government led by the People's Democratic Party. The new president was Noor Mohammad Taraki who signed a new treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. In September 1979 Taraki was overthrown, so the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of the same year, deposed his successor and placed Babrak Karmal at the head of the government.
In December 1986 Sayid Mohammed Najibullah became the president in spite of the continuing civil war between the government and rebel Moslem forces. Whereas in the 1960's both the USSR and the USA had financed government projects, in 1987 the USSR provided considerable military support and development aid to the pro-Soviet administration while the USA extended more limited support to the rebels. In the mid-1980's the UN began negotiations on the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the establishment of a government of the national unity. Soviet troops began withdrawing from Afghanistan in early 1988.
After talks in November 1991 with Afghan opposition movements ("mujahideen") the Soviet government agreed to transfer its support from the Najibullah regime to "Islamic Interim Government". As mujahideen insurgents closed in on Kabul (the capital), President Najibullah stepped down on 16 April 1992. On April 28, an interim council received power from the outgoing government. Fractional fighting continued until the signing of the peace agreement on May 21, 1992, providing for the withdrawal of armed forces from Kabul and establishment of neutral zone. On August 11, 1992, fighting between government forces and rebels broke out again.
On September 26, 1996, a militant Islamic movement called Taliban captured Kabul and set up an interim government under Mohamed Rabbani. Former President Najibullah and his brother were hanged and Afghanistan was declared a complete Islamic state under Sharia Law. Sharia is a strict religious law, imposed particularly on women, prohibiting them from working outside home and requiring them to be covered from head to toe in traditional Islamic Afghan dress.
The Taliban receives enormous support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. However Western Afghanistan is not Pushto-speaking (dominant language in Afghanistan) and Taliban maintains uneasy control there through a barrel of the gun. With Iran's logistical support, this could be reversed and a base for the anti-Taliban alliance could be established there. The Taliban has the most control in Southern Afghanistan and the northern part is under the influence of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. It is also the northern part where an opposition alliance headed by former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, whose government is still recognized by the UN, has retreated.
Peace talks held under the UN auspices in Islamabad on January 13-15, 1997, between the Taliban and their opponents broke down on the issue of demilitarizing Kabul. Only three countries, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, recognized the Taliban as the legal government. The same thing occurred in May 1998 when the UN-sponsored peace talks among the warring factions broke down and fighting in the mountainous North of the country resumed.
On August 20, 1998, five US warships -- four surface vessels and a submarine -- fired a barrage of 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles at an alleged terrorism complex in Afghanistan, believed to be financed by Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Islamic radical sheltered by the Taliban. The US asked for the deportation of bin Laden, whom they believed was the mastermind of the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. The Taliban refused.
In September 1998 Iran dispatched 250,000 troops on its border with Afghanistan after the Taliban admitted killing eight Iranian diplomats and journalists.
Additional Information on Afghanistan
Capital: Kabul
Territory: 251,773 sq. miles (652,090 sq. kilometers)
Population: 20.5 million
Main ethnic groups: Pashtuns, 35-38%, Tajiks, 25-30%, Hazars, 10-15%,
Uzbeks, 10%.
Religion: The predominant religion is Islam. 84% of population are Sunni
Moslems and 15% are Shi'ites.
Government: Power is exercised by The Grand Council and the President.
Right now 90% of the territory is controlled by the Taliban.
President: Burhanuddin Rabbani: Was re-elected in December 1992,
his mandate expired in June 1994 but he remained in office.
Opposition: Taliban. Leader: Mullah Mohammad Omar. The rebel group.
Justice: Supreme Court established in June 1978. The court follows
the Hanafi jurisprudence of Islamic Law.
Afghanistan's Political History Timeline
1879 -- British gain control over Afghanistan's foreign policy
1919 -- Treaty of Rwalpindi. Afghanistan gains independence
1964 -- The Constitution, parliamentary democracy established
1973 -- Afghanistan becomes a republic
1979 -- Soviet troops invade Afghanistan
1988 -- Soviet troops began withdrawing from Afghanistan
1994 -- The Taliban is being formed
1997 -- Peace talks between the Taliban and Afghani government
1998 -- The US bomb an
alleged terrorist training camps in Afghanistan
The Profile of Osama bin Laden
Osama bin Laden was born in 1956 in Saudi Arabia, the son of an immigrant from Yemen. He grew up in Saudi Arabia. At the age of 23 he volunteered to fight the Soviet troops that invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Later in his life circumstantial evidence linked him to a long string of terrorist attacks, including bombings that targeted the World Trade Center in 1993 and the US troops in S.Afghanistan in 1995 and 1996, and an attempted bombing of the US troops in 1992 in Yemen. Osama bin Laden denied any relation to these actions, but said he had "great respect for the people who did that. They are heroes."
Sudan, under pressure, evicted Osama bin Laden in 1996. SAfghanistan had seized his passport and frozen some of his bank accounts in 1994, so he established a new base in Afghanistan where the TAfghanistan declared Osama bin Laden their guest.
Osama bin Laden detests the US government. He declared a Jihad - a holy war -- against the US government because it's "unjust, criminal and tyrannical." As one of the US' criminal acts he names the support of the "...Israeli occupation of Palestine. Due to its subordination to the Jews, the arrogance of the US regime has reached the point that they occupied Arabia, the holiest place of the Muslims." To support his holy war, sources estimate Osama bin Laden has up to a half billion dollars. In May's interview for ABC, he threatened Washington to "leave SAfghanistan or die."
Osama bin Laden allegedly has a network of several thousands allies and sympathizers, mostly Afghan Arabs" -- Arabs, who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan from 1976 to 1989. In February 1998 Osama bin Laden and a coalition of groups calling itself the Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Americans issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, urging Muslims to kill American civilians. Signers include:
GamAfghanistan Islamiya (Egypt): The "Islamic Group" has fought Egypt's secular government for more than two decades. It carried out the bloodiest terrorist attack in Egypt's history, the November 17, 1997, slaughter of 58 tourists at the Valley of the Kings, near Luxor. In 1995 the GamAfghanistan tried to assasinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he was on a visit to Ethiopia.
Islamic Jihad (Egypt): The "holy war" also campaigns against the Egyptian government.
Harakat ul-Ansar (Pakistan): The "Movement of Friends" regularly attacks India and Pakistan. The State Department has linked the Harakat to a group that abducted five Western tourists in Kashmir in 1995, all of whom are presumed dead.
Other movements: Several smaller extremist groups associated with Osama bin Laden opeate in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Yemen. Sheik Mir Hanza, who signed LbL's fatwa, heads the Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, the Muslim Clerical Organization of Pakistan.
Having inherited his father's
multibillion-dollar fortune and having the support of many Saudi
royal family's members, Osama bin Laden financially supports
these groups as well as his pharmaceutical plants in Sudan and
training, support and base camps in Afghanistan. Now Osama bin
Laden is being held responsible for directing the USEmbassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998.
History of Terrorism outside of the Middle East
While the Security Councils are mainly focused on debating terrorism in the Middle East, this region is no means the extent of the problem. Every region of the world has been affected by terrorism in some form over the last few centuries, and more often than not these regions share the same deep rooted problems which have ignited in the Middle East. Even considering the problem would be a significant waste of time if we did not consider the past and present history of other forms of international terrorism. In order to review world terrorism, first we will discuss events before the 20th century.
Early History - 1900
Although the word Terrorism itself was not coined until the French revolution, during the Reign of Terror (1792 - 1794), terrorism has occurred since early history in various forms. Incidences of terrorism can be found rooted in as far back as Greek and Roman history, such as Julius Casesar's political assassination in 44 B.C. In the early Middle Ages, primitive terrorist groups evolved as guilds of assassins. Controlled by a political/spiritual leader who waged war against rival religious adversaries, these guilds offered both promises of religious reward and also unlimited access to narcotics to followers. References to these guild's assassinations can be found in both the works of Marco Polo and in Crusader's logs. Such brotherhoods have been known to exist as late as the mid-twentieth century.
Assassinations were common forms of terrorism continuing well throughout the Renaissance (in Italy) and the Age of Absolutism (in Spain and France). It was not until the divine right of kings lost it's luster amongst the people of Europe that assassinations became illegitimate (people whose governments sought to reform themselves and better their people rarely advocated use of political assassination). During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, another form of terrorism developed: Piracy. A century later pirates contracted by governments, privateers, began to carry out acts of terrorism against opposing armadas. Queen Elizabeth I of England had her noted ' Elizabethan Sea Dogs,' sent to ravage fleets of Spanish ships and wage acts of terrorism and violence. Privateering marked the start of state terrorism. Another significant form of state terrorism was during the French revolution. The Committee of Public Safety led by Robespierre, spokesman for the ruling Jacobin party, initiated a Reign of Terror in which an estimated 20,000 persons were killed. One such was the assassination of Marie Antoinette in 1793. After the French revolution, guerrilla warfare began to develop and become used. Guerrilla warfare, "an inurrectionary armed protest, implemented by means of selective violence", has since become used so frequently that it and terrorism "have become increasingly difficult to separate clearly." (Combs 25)
Anarchists in Russia around the late eighteenth century marked a significant development in ideologies conveyed through modern terrorism. Such anarchists as Mikhail Bakunin and Sergi Nechaev preached beliefs that terrorist violence was the only way to change. The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) was the first major terrorist group to evolve which characterized the modern terrorist unit. Created in 1893 this group supported a mix of guerrilla warfare and terrorism in their fight, and left 200 Macedonian villages in ashes after an escalated conflict with their Turkish rulers (Combs).
1900 - Present
As times have changed, so has the face of international terrorism. As new ideologies and technologies have presented themselves, terrorist organizations have changed their methods of attack and the weapons of destruction used, to include both more available and more devastating weapons. As new national and international conflicts have emerged, so have new waves of terrorism to counter them. As acts of terrorism have evolved, so have their percieved definitions and characteristics. Along with all these changes have come the majority of significant terrorist acts. While the bulk of modern international terrorism became spurred around the 1950s, a number of significant groups evolved previous to these years (Combs). For example, some have deemed the purges conducted by the Soviet communist regime, both immediately following their rise to power in 1917 and later during the reigns of Lenin and Stalin, acts of terrorism. Similarly, the activities by the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and the 1960s are seen as acts of terrorism from one of America's oldest terrorist organizations. However, as events in the world such as the cold war developed, a number of new global hotspots of terrorism flared up. Many of these especially heated spots remain as sources of conflict to this day (Parry).
The following is a brief overview of major terrorist groups operating after 1950. This list is but only a glance at the most signifcant groups, and as many define acts of terrorism differently and argue the importance of certain groups on a region, it may include or exclude disputed groups. We encourage further research through the National Terrorism Research Center at www.terrorism.com into modern terrorist organizations for a more region-specific look at terrorist activities and other significant groups. This part is divided into global subsections by region, containing the groups located in that region.
The Americas
The National Liberation Army (ELN) is a Marxist gurrilla group formed in 1963 and operating in Colombia and the border regions of Venezuela. It is believed to contain at least 3,000 members. The ELN has kidnapped employees of large corporations in exchange for ransom monies, has conducted numerous attacks on the petrolieum industry's businesses and pipelines, and has forced local coca and opium farmers to pay for protection against Colombian efforts against illegal narcotics (elncol.htm).
Orden was formed as a counter to revolutionary activities in El Salvador. Started as a secret right-wing society, it was absorbed into the government in the 1960s. It was later disbanded in 1979 from pressure by the US to do so. Typically, Orden arrests people suspected of being revolutionaries, and either kills or delivers them to National Guard Posts. Orden has reportedly been responsible for a number of deaths, including the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero, as well as rape and murder of four American churchwomen. Orden continues to exist today, though it is a illegal party separate from the government (White).
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is by far the "largest, best trained, and best equipped guerilla orginization in Colombia." with 7000 or more suspected members, and unknown number of supporters. It was started in 1966 as the militant wing of the Colombian Communist Party, and maintains it's goal to overthrow the government. Operating in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama, the FARC conducts both political attacks and attacks in conjuction with it's drug trafficking ties (farc.htm).
M-19 is a left-wing terrorist group in Colombia dealing in narcoterrorism. In the late 1970s, M-19 was formed by a group of urban radicals. Later the group allied with drug traffickers, and began to provide protection to them. M-19 is responsible for transporting illegal narcotics outside of Colombia. M-19 is noted for an attack on a Supreme Court Building in Bogota to prevent extradition of a drug trafficker to the US.
M-19 also assassinated the attorney general of Colombia in 1988. His death was in retaliation for a number of arrests he warranted. A reported 20,000 people were involved in M-19 by the mid 1980s.
The People's Revolutionary Army of El Salvador was one of many remaining revolutionary organizations that fought under the title of the Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation (FMLN). Formed in 1971, this left-wing revolutionary group conducted several assassinations of Salvadorian officials and killed a U.S. Navy SEAL and six US marines.
Europe
The Red Brigades of Italy began operating in 1970, formed from the remnance of an old political party, the Metropolitan Political Collective. After changing their views to accept violence as the only solution, they began limited attacks. Eventually these led to an outbreak of terrorism after 1975, including the kidnap and murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. In the early 1980s the highly structured group began a number of greatly coordinated attacks. In 1982 the Italian government destroyed a number of Red Brigade cells, and the remainder joined the French Direct Action in 1985. Police believe that the Red Brigade is trying to rebuild itself.
The Basque Nation and Liberty (ETA) is waged from the Basque region of Spain, it's members trying to separate from the country. After a violent terrorist campaign in the 1960s, Spain declared a state of emergency in the Basque region. The ETA assassinated the Spanish Prime Minister Luis Blanco in 1973. The Basque nationalist movement continued into the 1980s and still exists in Spain.
The Red Army Faction (RAF) began in Germany at the University of Berlin in 1968. It soon turned violent under Andreas Baader's direction and became an extremely proficient terrorist organization. Baader's suicide in 1977 led to a new wave of terrorism in 1981, in an organized anti-NATO war. One such attack in this campaign was an attempted assassination of two NATO commanders.
The Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) separated from the Original Official Irish Republican Army in the 1960s because of the OIRAs emphasis on socialsm, but maintains it is the true descendant of Irish republicanism. Since it's separation it has waged an inconsistent war against the OIRA. While the OIRA signed a peace treaty with the UK in 1972, the PIRA continued to fight. They have been responsible for hundreds of murders, and tried to sabotage the Anglo-Irish Peace Accord since 1985. Allied with the Republican armies, as well as the Irish National Liberation Army, the PIRA supports a widespread terrorist network(White).
Asia
The Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, overthrew the government of Cambodia in 1975. The Khmer Rouge then undertook a campaign of terror perhaps second only in severity to the Holocaust. The Khmer Rouge terrorized teachers, doctors and most other professionals who the Communist leaders felt had no place in their new society in the country now called Kampuchea. In excess of 2 million people are believed to have been slaughtered during Pol Pot's reign of terror.
The Viet Cong, formerly known as the Vietminh, led terrorist activities in what was then South Vietnam from 1957 to 1975. These rebels killed village and hamlet chiefs and intimidated the people living in rural Vietnam. The Viet Cong were in league with the North Vietnam government in its goal to unify Vietnam under a Communist regime (Parry).
Sikh Terrorist Groups have conducted assasinations, bombings and kidnappings over the years against officials and facilities of India. Such groups include Dal Khalsa, Babbar Khalsa, the Bhinderanwala Tiger Force, the recent Saheed Khalsa Force (claimed responsibility for bombings in New Delhi in 1997) and the International Sikh Youth Foundation. The Sikh terrorists want to create a new independent state of Khalistan (Land of the Pure) from Northern India. Recent activities have decreased since 1992, as Indian police killed or captured a number of Sikh millitary leaders. The Sikh organizations have a peaceful international organization, the World Sikh Organization, to advertize the Sikh cause (sikh.htm).
In 1963 a Communist terrorist organization called the Pathet Lao initiated activities to overthrow a coalition government that they had participated in with non-Communist officials. The Pathet Lao received financial and military assistance from China, Russia and North Vietnam. The Pathet Lao initially used terrorist measures similar to those of the Viet Cong. They concentrated on terrorizing the poor uneducated rural residents. Upon taking control of the government they turned their attention to the urban community and, similar to the Khmer Rouge, started a campaign of terror and persecution against the intellectual, professional and business community (White).
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), founded in 1976, runs a guerrilla campaign started in 1983 against the Sri Lankan government in order to establish the sovereign state of Tamil. The LTTE is a highly organized, very powerful group carrying out suicide bombings and structured attacks against political and military targets during early morning, night and on holidays. Their most notable attacks were assasinations against President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1993 and Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. Their ranks are known to include 10,000 armed combattants controlling the northern and eastern coasts of Sri Lanka, led by Velupillai Prabhakaran. The LTTE entertains contacts to the United Nations, and gathers political support and funding from it's North American and European connections (ltte.htm).
The Japanese Red Army (JRA) was conceived around 1970, when it separated from the Communist Leauge-Red Army Faction fighting in Japan. The JRA wants to overthrow the Japanese government and supports world revolution. Little about the groups's actual organization and location is presently unknown, but it is believed the JRA is led by Fusako Shigenobu and has a membership of about 7 main members. It now carries out attacks across the world, and has ties to multiple terrorist groups, such as Palestinian resistance. The JRA has coordinated two airliner hijackings, and attack on Lod airport in Israel during 1972 (jra.htm).
Africa
The National Liberation Front (FLN) launched an attack on the French Algerian government on Nov. 1, 1954. The group planned bombing raids, and assassinated French settlers and military forces. Their revolution came to a climax in 1961, when strong opposition met French troops. On July 3, 1962 France granted Algeria independence and the FLN subsided (Parry).
Revolutionaries in the Belgian Congo under Patrice Lumumba gained independence from Belgium through guerrilla warfare and terrorist tactics. Eventually the revolutionaries subsided and the nation of Zaire was formed (Parry).
The Security
Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace,
breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in
accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
In order to prevent
an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before
making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided
for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with
such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.
Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the
rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The
Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply
with such provisional measures.
The Security
Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed
force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it
may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such
measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of
economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic,
radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of
diplomatic relations.
Should the Security
Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would
be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such
action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action
may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by
air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.