Editorial: US must abide by international law

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11 elevated terrorism to a horrific new level. In response, the United States has demonstrated a moderation that is both commendable and sensible. President George W. Bush's "war on terrorism" would lose much of its integrity if it transgressed normal, civilised values as comprehensively as those who planned and piloted the assault on the US. More practically, it could reinvigorate Muslim support for the aims and ambitions of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

Therein lies the danger of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's scotching of negotiations to secure the departure of the Taleban and its al Qaeda allies from Kunduz and Kandahar, their last remaining strongholds in Afghanistan. "The US is not inclined to negotiate surrenders, nor are we in a position, with relatively small numbers of forces on the ground, to accept prisoners," he said. "My hope is that they [the al Qaeda and Taleban troops] will either be killed or taken prisoner." Then, said Mr Rumsfeld, they would not be free "to make their mischief" elsewhere.

The implications were clear. Given the hard-headed American attitude, there is every possibility of a massacre when Northern Alliance forces take Kunduz, the more so because the United Nations says it does not have the means to handle a prospective surrender. It has merely urged the Northern Alliance to "treat this situation with as much humanity as possible".

That seems unlikely, given the brutality of the warring Afghan factions over the years. Indeed, it stretches the imagination to believe Northern Alliance soldiers will, of their own volition, suddenly adhere to the Geneva Convention.

The US must accept some responsibility, no matter how much Mr Rumsfeld might object. As a signatory of the Geneva Convention, it acknowledges that it is illegal to give no quarter to the enemy. Indeed, human rights groups have warned that the US would be in breach of its obligations under international law if it allowed the Northern Alliance to refuse to accept the surrender of Taleban and al Qaeda soldiers. The US, so the argument goes, could even be held responsible for genocide if troops were massacred despite offering to surrender. That is because it effectively controls the war in Afghanistan.

All of which may surprise those trying to orchestrate the war from the White House. If the US was in control, the Northern Alliance would not have ignored President Bush's request and entered Kabul. It would, therefore, be drawing an extremely long bow to implicate the US in genocide. The Americans, nonetheless, must take their responsibilities under international law seriously. Yet already Mr Rumsfeld's remarks have undermined the efforts of those seeking to negotiate a surrender in Kunduz. Now, they threaten to transform the defenders of the northern enclave into martyrs and, potentially, weaken Muslim support for the war on terrorism.

It may be tempting to think that those responsible for the horrors of September 11, and those who support bin Laden, have placed themselves outside the bounds of international law. Mr Rumsfeld seems to believe so. He is right that there must be no safe passage out of Afghanistan for the al Qaeda fighters. But the US must insist that they be given the chance to surrender, and to be tried under the principles of international justice.

To do otherwise is to align the war on terrorism with the barbarous attack on civilisation which incited it.

Story archives:

War against terrorism

Bioterrorism

Terror in America - the Sept 11 attacks

Links: War against terrorism

Timeline: Major events since the Sept 11 attacks