Bin Laden and the Pope, NATO and the Rights of Nations

The one stands there as world enemy number one and the chief of terrorist bands of murderers, the other as a weak old man and peaceful custodian of morals. It seems as though the two are worlds apart. And yet, the two are more closely linked that they would like to be. Each is the product of a world religion. One is even the leader of a religion, the other an extremist offshoot of his religious community. The one who looks back at the history of Catholicism and of Islam could easily feel bin Laden is the dark shadow of the representatives of the Roman-Catholic Empire. It is not for nothing that he directs his terrorist campaign against “Jews and Crusaders,” whereby he tries to strike at America because of the Jews. And with the key word “Crusaders,” he sets his sights on the cultural circle which as the Christian western world presumed to take over world rulership, invaded Jerusalem and waded in the blood of the Moslems, colonized Arabian countries and finally produced the superpower America, which stationed its troops in the land of the prophet Mohammed.

It seems even more remarkable that there are Catholic bishops like the Austrian Kurt Krenn, who use the present world conflict to reproach Islam of general fanaticism and of having goals that violate human rights. It seems all the more shameful when the Bavarian Bishop’s Conference holds military actions to be “morally called for,” even speaking of a military act of punishment. Considering the bloody history of the church this seems in really bad taste. And considering the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, it seems like an execrable betrayal of the true Christian teaching, the Sermon on the Mount of the Nazarene and the commandment “You shall not kill.” But, the Churches have never held to this. The Sermon on the Mount was always considered to be utopian and murdering and killing was for centuries a solid component of ecclesiastic power-politics – in the Crusades, in the Inquisition, in the violent conversion of the Indians, to name just a few examples.

There is no doubt that Islam is not a pacifist religion. But the Islamic warriors for God, who as suicidal assassins are causing the Christian western world and its American issue real fear and dismay, are ultimately the monstrous products of 2000 years of the bloody history of a violent church empire, which sowed the seeds of animosity not only in Europe, but also in Africa and Asia, which are now sprouting as a terrible harvest. By modifying a sentence used by the Indian author Arundhati Roy referring to President Bush, one could say: “Osama bin Laden is the church family secret, the dark double of the Pope.”

In the face of the collapse of New York’s twin towers, many reckoned with an immediate military reaction by the United States. But against whom? An attack against the civilized world was rightly referred to, but one did not know who the attacker was. One spoke of a war that the Islamic terrorists had declared against America, but it was and is in reality not a war waged by one state against another, in which countries and regions are conquered or lost. It is terrorism of a non-governmental kind, but presumably supported by one or more states. One does not know either when the next strike will come, but hopes it can be at all avoided.

In this situation it was not such a matter of course to immediately announce the so-called alliance of the North Atlantic Pact. As important as the political solidarity with the victims of New York and Washington and hard-hit USA is, so should one carefully work within the legal framework of conditions for possible military action. NATO is an alliance according to the basic premise of “one for all and all for one.” When a member state is attacked, this is held as an attack against all the others. For this reason, in Art. 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty it was agreed that in the case of an armed attack by a member nation in carrying out the right of self-defense in the charter of the United Nations, then support is given to the NATO member first attacked, including by armed force, insofar as it is necessary to reestablish the security of the North Atlantic region, as is literally stated.

The one who reads the NATO treaty carefully, paying attention to the reference to the right for self-defense listed in the United Nations Charter, soon realizes that reprisals in the form of punishing actions are not foreseen, because they violate the rights of nations. And there is yet more: The right to self-defense normally assumes a continuous attack. Isolated incidents of terrorist strikes followed by deathly silence were not yet taken in account 1949 when the North Atlantic Treaty was made. Is the attack that legitimizes / justifies self-defense still continuing or is it is over for now, so that the case on which Art. 5 of the NATO Treaty rests, this means so that a case of defense, which is solely referred to in the NATO Treaty, does not even come into question anymore? This question must be raised at least once. Considering the death threats, which Islamic warriors for God have been uttering for years against Americans, much speaks for the fact that the terrorism in New York and Washington must be viewed as not the end, but rather as the beginning of a chain of projected acts of violence. The question still remains as to how the NATO Treaty and the UN Charter react to the fact that these acts of violence did not come from a state, but from a private terrorist organization, which continues to threaten more of the same.

At the latest, on this point it becomes clear that the military actions of the United States and its allies must take place not within the framework of war, but on the basis of an international police action. The culprit must be arrested and brought before a court.

And so, for these reasons one should stop talking about war, about reprisals or even punishing actions. The armed forces of the United States and Great Britain, which are presently active in Asia, can legally see themselves as an especially powerful police troop. And it is only as such that they may act.