The Defence of the Indefensible – Assassination and State Terrorism

On May 3, the British Prime Minister made a statement in the House of Commons in which he congratulated and praised the United States government for what has been presented as the successful assassination of Osama bin Laden. Even Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party, expressed gratitude. Although assassination and other acts of state terrorism have long been the favoured policies of the governments of Britain, the US and the other big powers, the government and all the major political parties must be condemned for their support of the policy of assassination which has no justification and is illegal under international law.

There is no doubt that US imperialism went to some lengths to present the execution of bin Laden as an act of “courage and skill”, as David Cameron referred to it, although it subsequently changed its reports of exactly what took place several times and eventually admitted that its victim was completely unarmed. The fact that the US government rapidly disposed of the evidence of its crime, the conflicting reports about bin Laden’s alleged connections with the intelligence agencies of Pakistan and the US and the cumulative effect of the policy of disinformation pursued for many years by the Anglo-American imperialists has continued to create uncertainty even about bin Laden’s death. What is clear is that the aim was to publicly justify the policy of assassination as well as seeking to justify the denial of a basic human right that permits all those who are accused to stand trial, not to mention the right to life. The effect was shamelessly to assert that US imperialism could and would pursue the politics of assassination, come what may.

The government and the major political parties were united in their praise of the state terrorism of US imperialism but although there were some attempts to claim that as a result the world is now a safer place there were even more government statements warning people that it was not. From all the major parties there were demands for even more intervention around the world to “combat terrorism” and to “support democracy” – that is, to use force as a means to settle matters and to interfere in the affairs of sovereign countries. In this connection the Prime Minister went on to champion the need for more crimes against peace and more state terrorism by Britain and its allies in Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere.

As several commentators have pointed out, it cannot be coincidental that at the same time that the US government staged the assassination of bin Laden in Pakistan, NATO again attempted to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, a crime which led to the deaths of one of his sons and other close members of his family including several young children. For this crime too, the government and the major political parties issued no statement of remorse. In fact, the Prime Minister went so far as to justify the attack, even claiming that it was in keeping with UN resolutions and was designed “to protect civilian life”! Thus one act of state terrorism is used to justify another with the aim that the big powers headed by Anglo-American imperialism, those who claim to be the greatest defenders of the rule of law, should be able to act illegally and with impunity, to carry out any crime on the premise that “might makes right”.

Underlying the crimes of the British and US governments in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere is the Eurocentric and colonialist logic that there can only be one political and economic system in the world, that this system is just and eternal, that the Anglo-Americans and their allies are its greatest defenders and are justified carrying out any heinous act in its defence. On this basis, a British parliament gives itself the right discusses the future and internal affairs of other sovereign countries, while British governments give themselves the right to intervene in these countries militarily and by other means and carry out their criminal activities. What is clear is that in North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere people are attempting to liberate themselves from the diktat of the Anglo-Americans and their allies and to demand that it is the people themselves who must become the decision makers. In Britain too there is an urgent need to end the rule of those who have carried out so many crimes at home and abroad. There is a need to reject with contempt and outrage the chauvinism, criminality and hypocrisy of this rule and these rulers, and fight for and establish an alternative.

(From Workers Weekly)