Irina Malenko: A short story about “the anti-terrorist coalition’s creation and firm unity”

Already before launching the military actions against Afghanistan on October 4, the Dutch newspaper “Volkskrant” published some interesting information: “On Tuesday, during the NATO Council sitting, Netherlanders asked, without any success, for a while to think: to study proofs of bin Laden’s implication in the terrorist acts in the USA. Dutch representative to NATO Patein did not managed to achieve it. According to Brussels' diplomats, the US does not have enough evidence against bin Laden; there are just “indications” that it was bin Laden. On Tuesday, Patein asked, according to Dutch Internal Minister van Aartson’s instructions, for one hour to think after US representative to NATO Frank Tailor presented NATO’s proofs of bin Laden’s implication in the terror acts. Some other countries, including Luxemburg, asked for the same. According to informed sources, NATO chief Robertson immediately, without any considerations, refused this, while saying their NATO ally asked them for trust and this request should be satisfied. That meant Article 5 of the NATO treaty had come into effect. The “proofs” against bin Laden presented by US Ambassador Tailor to the NATO Council would never be considered by a court. The documents used by the US government to assure their allies could at least be regarded as just pointing with a finger to one side. This fact is being confirmed by diplomats and NATO functionaries and by foreign ministers who attained the "proof" at the presentation. “We have not heard anything new or surprising," a diplomat said. This difference is of great importance, because some countries in the anti-terrorist coalition that the US is trying to create want first to make sure that bin Laden was behind the terrorist acts before supporting new military actions. For example, Pakistan has said that it had not yet seen enough proof. “No more than was shown on CNN”, a Pakistani diplomat said. Diplomats have stated that most of the facts that were presented by the allies on Tuesday have been known to them before. Here, the question is about bin Laden’s past, about finance documents demonstrating Al-Qa’ida’s money flows, and facts proving bin Laden’s implication in other terrorist acts in the past. New facts came from satellite photographs and records of intercepted radio and telephone communication, though all of them were regarded by diplomats in an interview to Washington Post as “only indirect proof." On the contrary, NATO diplomats state they are not in the court now. “They should not be pieces of evidence. We have to take a political decision, while it demands political arguments. And we have more than enough!” – a has said. The US government also thinks so. “It would be unjust to keep to only legal criteria…” It would probably be better to use the energy for other purposes.” In other words, laws could be interpreted as one likes. I wonder how then the US intends to try bin Laden if it manages to “catch” him? The lawyers certainly will not demand proof. Though what is more interesting, it is cynical that the US has admitted the fact that it practically does not need any proof of one man’s guilt to have a “moral right” to bomb a whole country. We could see the same in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and other countries. Even the greatly praised Western democracy could not be opposed to the main “democrat" who makes lawyers speak what he wants to hear. Probably, in the new world order, all international troubles will be settled in the same way. “Big brother” simply could appear on TV and say “I know what I believe in. I will go on speaking what I believe, and I believe that I am right”. Then, an open passage for annihilation of whole nations could be given.

Irina Malenko PRAVDA.Ru