|
1 October 2001
Media Lies Fuel
War
The Taliban Have Agreed To Extradite Bin Laden
(Note: this should be read in conjunction
with briefing 2, which it
updates.)
A critical issue in the war debate is whether
or not it is possible to secure the extradition of Osama bin Laden
from Afghanistan without the use of military force. The position
of the Government is that it is impossible to negotiate with the
Taliban regime, and that the use of force is inevitable.
The media has colluded with the Government
in effectively suppressing the real position of the Taliban, which
is much more accommodating and flexible than the image portrayed
in the British mass media.
The Taliban have not refused point-blank
to hand over bin Laden. They have in fact negotiated the extradition
of bin Laden to Pakistan: 'The proposal, which had bin Laden's
approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law
evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington
attacks would be placed before an international tribunal. The
court would decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him
over to America.' The deal was apparently agreed by Mullah Omar,
Taliban supreme leader, but vetoed by Pakistan's President Musharraf.
(Daily Telegraph, 4 Oct., p. 9)
This article refutes the rationale for war offered by the Prime
Minister.
On Sun. 30 Sept, the Taliban made another
offer which was completely distorted and misrepresented by the
Government and the media. The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan said
- in a quotation that appeared only in one newspaper, the Independent,
and incompletely even there - 'We say if they change and talk
to us, and if they present evidence, we will respect their negotiations
and that might change things.' ('Bin Laden "hidden by Taleban",
BBC News Online, 30 Sept.) The
possibilities were indicated even then.
Independent Contradiction
In the case of the Independent, the front-page
opening statement that the Taliban 'gave no indication they were
prepared to hand him over,' (Independent, 1 Oct., p. 1) was flatly
contradicted by the quotation eight paragraphs later of an offer
by Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, Taliban ambassador to Pakistan: 'We
are thinking of negotiation. [If direct evidence of bin Laden's
involvement were produced] it might change things.' (Independent,
1 Oct., p.1)
Twisting The Offer Into A Refusal
The latest statement from the Taliban has
been twisted to serve as war propaganda. The headlines (1 Oct.)
read 'Afghan regime admits it is protecting bin Laden', 'Taliban
admit sheltering Bin Laden', 'We have bin Laden in safe haven,
say Taliban', 'US ready for war as Taleban admits sheltering bin
Laden'.
The mass media are twisting what is actually
a serious negotiating step by the Taliban into a casus belli.
'Conflict in Afghanistan moved a step closer yesterday after the
Taliban said Osama bin Laden was under their control but gave
no indication they were prepared to hand him over.' (Independent,
1 Oct., p. 1) The second half of this opening sentence is flatly
contradicted by the quotation eight paragraphs later of an offer
from the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef:
'We are thinking of negotiation. [If direct evidence of bin Laden's
involvement were produced] it might change things.' (Independent,
1 Oct., p.1)
It is true that Mullah Zaeef said that Osama bin Laden, suspected
of involvement in the 11 September atrocities, was 'under our
control'. (Telegraph, 1 Oct.,
p. 1) However, the point of this statement by the ambassador was
clearly to reinforce the Taliban's long-standing offer to negotiate
the extradition of bin Laden. If the Taliban had held to their
previous position that bin Laden's whereabouts were unknown, they
would have had no basis for offering to extradite him.
In this latest statement, Mullah Zaeef 'repeated
a Taliban offer of negotiations with the US, while also demanding
evidence of Mr bin Laden's involvement in last month's terrorist
attacks'. (FT, 1 Oct., p. 1) 'Mullah
Zaeef insisted the Taliban were still prepared to negotiate with
the US, but only if proof was provided that the prime suspect
was guilty of the September 11 attacks.' (Guardian,
1 Oct., p. 1) Mullah Zaeef said, 'We are thinking of negotiation.
[If direct evidence of bin Laden's involvement were produced]
it might change things.' (Independent,
1 Oct., p.1)
The only full quotation of Mullah Zaeef's
second sentence in the British media that I have seen was in a
BBC News Online report: 'We say
if they change and talk to us, and if they present evidence, we
will respect their negotiations and that might change things.'
('Bin Laden "hidden by Taleban", BBC
News Online, 30 Sept, 16:54 GMT).
Daniel Lak of the BBC commented that it was
'unlikely' that Mullah Zaeef was simply saying that bin Laden
was under Taliban protection and 'the Americans can do their worst'.
'The ambassador did ask the Americans, and it almost seems in
a pleading tone, to start talks with the Taleban "because
this might produce a good result"... His words would then
represent an incremental movement towards Washington's demand
that Bin Laden be handed over to them immediately.' ('Analysis:
Decoding Taleban's message', BBC News
Online, 30 Sept., 15:52 GMT)
The New York Times reported Mullah Zaeef
as saying, 'As long as they are not taking the way of negotiations
and talks, we are not going to discuss any surrenders'. ('Bin
Laden Still in Afghanistan Under Taliban's Control, It Says',
NYT website, 30 Sept., 03:04 EDT)
The opening of negotiations and the provision of evidence are
the two key pre-conditions to the extradition of bin Laden, it
is clear. What is also clear is that the Taliban are not refusing
point-blank to extradite bin Laden. They are not ruling extradition
out entirely. They may even be 'pleading' with the United States.
Previous Offers
These statements are consistent with previous
Taliban offers (details in full in ARROW Anti-War Briefing
2). The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said,
'Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not, we will
not side with him. We told [the Pakistan delegation] to give us
proof that he did it, because without that how can we give him
up?' (Independent, 19 Sept., p.
1)
On 21 Sept., Ambassador Zaeef said, 'We are
not ready to hand over Osama bin Laden without
evidence' (emphasis added, Times,
22 Sept., p. 1). When US Secretary of State Colin Powell promised
to publish the dossier of evidence against bin Laden (an offer
subsequently withdrawn), Ambassador Zaeef responded positively.
'The ambassador said it was "good news" that the US
intended to produce its evidence against Mr bin Laden. This could
help to solve the issue "otherwise than fighting".'
(Independent, 25 Sept., p. 3)
Ruling Out Alternatives To War
President Bush has 'peremptorily dismissed
a request from the Taliban for proof that Mr bin Laden was behind
the outrages on 11 September.' (Independent,
22 Sept., p. 1) Is it because the evidence accumulated so far
is so weak? Or is it because the US is determined to destroy the
Taliban, whether or not they hand over bin Laden? Or do both reasons
hold true?
In response to the latest Taliban statement,
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 'said he had no reason to
believe the claim by the Taliban that Bin Laden was under their
control'. (Guardian, 1 Oct., p.
1) Why should Rumsfeld emphasise his disbelief on this score?
If the priority truly is to secure bin Laden's capture, then Washington
ought to be enthusiastically engaging with anyone who says they
have bin Laden under their control, and therefore is in a position
to deliver him up. Rumsfeld's position ensures that there is no
alternative to war.
Taliban spokesperson Abdul Har Mutamen 'told
the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press… "We have tried
to solve the matter through negotiations but America is stubborn
in its power."' (Independent,
24 Sept., p. 9) Why should the British government follow the US
in this intransigence?
Media Propoganda
The media are playing a crucial role in shaping
public opinion, which in turn is a major factor in the ability
of the US and UK to go to war. Public support or acquiescence
in this war would drop away massively if there were honest reporting
of the Taliban's position, and of this latest offer in particular.
Public pressure can help to force the media into more honest reporting,
and therefore help to stave off, or bring to an end, military
action by the US and Britain.
Everyone who is concerned to stop military
retaliation should be putting on all the pressure they can bring
to bear on the mass media to report the Taliban's offers fairly
and to refuse to parrot the government line that the Taliban are
refusing point-blank to extradite Osama bin Laden.
Action
Please write to or phone up newspapers, especially
the Independent, radio stations
and television broadcasters, pointing out that:
1) The Taliban has consistently offered to
negotiate bin Laden's extradition;
2) Their latest (30 Sept.) offer to negotiate has been misrepresented
(FT, Guardian, Independent) or
not reported at all (Times, Telegraph);
and
3) The point of admitting bin Laden is under their control was
surely to emphasise their willingness to extradite him - after
compelling evidence of his guilt has been produced. ARROW
^ back to
the top
|
