United States hazy on its definitions of war terms

The U.S. government has had serious problems with definitions during the past few months. This is nothing new, but I will concentrate here on three definitions (mis)used in the last four months: war, prisoner of war and terrorism.

When the Sept. 11 attacks took place, our government officials and the media insisted that this was the beginning of a “war.” Some people at that time questioned the application of this label.

My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “war” as “a state or period of usually open and declared armed fighting between states or nations.” It was not until there was direct fighting between U.S. armed forces and the armed forces of the Taliban government that this definition could sensibly be applied.

Still, there was a problem in that the U.S. government never recognized the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan. How could it be a war between states when one state refused to recognize the other? Furthermore, Congress not only never formally declared war as outlined in the U.S. Constitution but gave disturbingly vast powers to the president to use at his personal whim.

Not only does the military action possibly violate our own laws, it most certainly violates international law, which calls for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to endorse any breach of state sovereignty by military forces. Unfortunately, such pithy things as domestic or international laws have seldom stopped U.S. forces from invading other countries in the past (Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan).

There has been much written about the “prisoner of war” question. What you seldom hear about is what the Geneva Convention actually says. Groups that fit the definition of “prisoner of war” include everyone from regular uniformed soldiers to loosely organized militias to civilian support staff.

Article 4 (A)(4) says the definition includes “Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.” Obviously, Taliban soldiers would fit this criteria since the main parties of the conflict are the U.S. and Taliban governments. Article 4 (A)(3) even stipulates that combatants are prisoners of war even if one party does not formally recognize the other.

The main inconsistency is that the same people who have been insisting that the United States is fighting a war with the Taliban and al Qaeda now refuse to follow the laws governing war. If it is a war, then the parties involved ought to be accorded the statuses that are part of this definition. You can't use a definition only when it is convenient for you. That is simply irresponsible politics.

I have noticed no definitions of terrorism in use by our government officials in the last few months. My dictionary defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” The Sept. 11 attacks obviously fit this definition. But if this is so obvious, why have we not heard more about it? I have an answer, but before I give it I would ask if the following situations fit the definition as well: The systematic starvation and bombing of innocent people, the intentional use of military force on civilians and the use of atomic weapons on population centers. The reason I ask is that the party responsible for these things is the U.S. government in Iraq (currently), Vietnam (1960s and 1970s) and Japan (1945). There is a very practical reason our leaders don’t talk about the definition of terrorism — they’re afraid someone will apply it to them.

Also, it is much more politically useful to have a flexible definition that they can apply as best fits their goals. If John Ashcroft wants to get rid of you, he can simply call you a terrorist. The tragedy of Sept. 11 was horrifying; the fact that it is being used to justify old-fashioned murder and political power struggles sickens me further.

These scenarios may seem far-fetched, but how far away are they? The political point about definitions is that the people who control definitions control the realm of discourse attached to them, and as such, exert more control over other human beings. Our leaders have shown an alarming disinterest and even contempt for the definitions given by the United Nations and other countries.

The United States, last I checked, did not officially rule the world yet. It’s time for our leaders to stop pretending they do.

Ethan Mills is a columnist for the Ka Leo O Hawaii at the University of Hawaii.
This column was distributed by U-Wire.

credits

TCU Daily Skiff © 2002