Amerikan concern for civilians exposed as 
hypocrisy

October 16 -- How does Uncle Sam show his concern 
for Afghan civilians? By bombing a Red Cross 
warehouse containing "humanitarian assistance --
wheat, oil, blankets and so on."

"It is definitely a civilian target," said an 
official with the International Committee of the 
Red Cross while condemning the u.$. strike this 
morning. "It is marked on the top with a red 
cross. People should take all necessary measures 
to avoid such things." One Red Cross worker was 
injured in the attack, and "at least 35 percent" 
of the stored food and equipment was destroyed.(1)

This is just the latest action contradicting 
President Bush's words that "the United States of 
America is a friend to the Afghan people."

In his speech announcing the start of the Amerikan 
bombing campaign, Bush promised that the united 
$tates "will drop food, medicine and supplies to 
the starving and suffering people of 
Afghanistan."(2)  Indeed, in the first ten days of 
bombing, the u.$. planes dropped 350,000 meal 
packets, each with a days' worth of food.(3)

However, even a cursory analysis reveals how 
inadequate -- insultingly inadequate -- such "aid" 
is. At best, those packets could feed about 5 
percent of the seven million Afghans the United 
Nations believes are on the  brink of starvation 
for one day. That's ignoring the fact that the 
military scattered the meals from high altitudes 
over remote, landmine-rich areas.

President Bush also called on Amerikan children to 
donate $1 each to support relief efforts by the 
Red Cross(4) -- whose warehouse u.$. planes just 
bombed. The Amerikan attack on Afghanistan 
disrupted international food aid programs, both by 
driving international aid workers from Afghanistan 
and by creating a large number of refugees.

This shows how childish the idea that 
"humynitarian aid is apolitical" can be. The 
political situation dictates what kind of aid can 
be given and what the effects of that aid will be.

In the lofty realm of principle, we agree with 
President Bush that the transfer of wealth from 
the First World to the Third will go a long way to 
making long-lasting peace between nations 
possible. In fact, such reparations are the key to our 
platform.

Our reparations platform, however, demands a 
fundamental change in what form aid takes and how 
it is controlled. Up to now, Amerikan "aid" has 
come with strings attached and has generally taken 
a form which will aid imperialist business 
interests. Grants for infrastructure, for example, 
are used to pave roads to aid in the extraction of 
wealth -- to a mine or an export processing zone 
-- not to aid agricultural self-sufficiency. 
Corrupt local elites pocket much of the "aid" as 
payment for defending Amerikan interests.

The system of imperialism is based on the 
exploitation of the poor countries by the rich. 
President Bush, of course, represents the biggest 
imperialist power in the world. That's why his 
pretty words remain just that.

That's no terrorist camp, that's my home

As usual, the Pentagon is touting its supposed 
ability to hit purely military targets with 
pinpoint accuracy. There are two problems with 
this line. First, the strikes are not all that 
accurate. The Pentagon itself admitted to dropping 
several 1,000 pound bombs on the Red Cross 
building.(3) Earlier u.$. strikes destroyed the 
offices of a U.N.-funded mine clearing company, 
killing four workers.(5)

Second, there are no purely military targets in 
Afghanistan. A veteran of the Soviet invasion of 
Afghanistan told the Los Angeles Times the story 
of his first raid on a "destroyed rebel base." He 
found "no ruined fortifications... no rebel 
corpses. All he saw was a handful of crumbly huts. 
And two old men carrying a little girl, no more 
than 3 years old.

"Her foot had been blown off."(6)

The Taliban claims that the Amerikan bombs have 
killed several hundred civilians.(7) Amerikan 
military officials don't dispute these numbers per 
se, rather they argue that the civilians did not 
die when the bombs hit, but when the bombs' 
targets exploded. This wonderful piece of 
sophistry only proves our point that when it comes 
to military action, it's hard to separate military 
targets from the civilian population.

The terrible aftereffects of the Gulf war on the 
civilian population of Iraq has turned into a 
public relations fiasco for Amerikan imperialism. 
That's why Bush et al are trying to put a 
humynitarian spin on the war on Afghanistan. 
However, the reality of this war and imperatives 
of the imperialist system keep their efforts from 
doing any real good. The imperialists' sham 
concern only deepens the anger of the oppressed 
and their allies.

Notes: 
1. Reuters, 11:15 a.m. EDT 16 Oct 2001. 
2. Associated Press, 7 Oct 2001. 
3. Associated Press, 
9:00 p.m. EDT 16 Oct 2001. 
4. White House Press 
Release, 11 Oct 2001, www.whitehouse.gov. 
5. Associated Press, 9 Oct 2001. 
6. Los Angeles Times, 19 Sep 2001. 
7. Reuters, 11 Oct 2001; Chicago Tribune, 16 Oct 2001.