PERSPECTIVE OF A UGANDAN IN CANADA

Opiyo Oloya
The British anti-terror policy of targeted killing which saw an innocent Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes shot dead by London undercover police officers who mistook him for a terrorist last Friday, is a recipe for disaster.

Despite Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair’s assurance that “everything is done to make it right”, the use of deadly force against one’s perceived real or imagined enemy carries the huge risk of backfiring and accomplishing the complete opposite — making Britain even less safe than ever.

All one has to do is look at the chaos brought about by the liberal use of targeted killing in the Middle East by Israeli Defence Forces in Palestine and Coalition Forces in Iraq. Largely ignoring criticisms of its strong arm tactics when it comes to dealing with Palestinians in general and militants specifically, Israel employs the “shoot first and ask questions later” policy.

Todate, according to the respected B’Tselem organisation which keeps statistics on casualties from both sides of the conflict, 187 Palestinians were assassinated under the targeted killing policy since September 2000.

The most highly visible of these killings were the assassinations of Hamas founder and spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin on March 22, 2004 and less than a month later his replacement Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi in a missile strike on his car on Saturday, April 17, 2004.

Naturally, there are criticisms from around the world of Israeli tactic of targeted killing. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw condemned Israel’s policy of targeted killings as “unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive”.

The reality check for Israeli, though, is the fact that suicide attacks on civilians continues unabated — in fact, if anything, the targeted killing appears to have inflamed the situation that has claimed as many as 665 innocent Israeli civilians.

Much as the IDF would like to claim a higher moral ground vis-à-vis the suicide bombers, it finds itself mired in a bloody tit-for-tat war that it cannot win.

Meanwhile, employing targeted killing, Coalition Forces have desperately attempted to push back Iraqi insurgents. Trigger-happy Americans troops are quick to let out a round of automatic fire into anything that moves that is not in a fortified Humvee.

Last month, for instance, Ahmad Wail Bakri, director for Al-Sharqiya television, was reportedly trying to pass a traffic accident in the Sayyidiyya district when US troops opened fire at his car, killing him on the spot.

In March, Italian secret agent Nicola Calipari was killed while on his way to Baghdad Airport after securing the release of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena. The Americans claimed, and the Italians disputed, that the car carrying Mr. Calipari did not stop even after warning shots were fired.

Regardless of what really happened, Mr. Calipari was one of the lucky ones in that his death made the news and the Americans were forced to “look into the circumstances leading to his death”.

Unfortunately, according to Iraq Body Count, thousands of Iraqis have perished, not because of misdirected fire, but as a direct result of US policy that targets the wrong person. And although the US loathes to admit it, the targeting of anyone suspected of links to Iraqi insurgency has made the job of the real insurgents very easy — not only are civilians now reluctant to provide valuable intelligence to the Coalition Forces, it is apparent that so-called fence-sitters are now firmly taking the side of the insurgents.

In Britain where the Muslim community is in shock like everyone else over the home-grown terror, there is united effort to help police investigation of the terrorists.

Muslim leaders have openly condemned the attacks and have supported initiatives to make the city safer. This, however, will change very rapidly if another innocent person, a Muslim, is killed by London Police.

The accumulated goodwill from the community will dry up like morning dew, and in its place will grow hardened resentment that is easily exploited by extremists.

True enough, in war, there is what former US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara called the fog of war — a situation of confusion where you hit innocent bystanders or take out the wrong neighbourhood.

Today it is known as collateral damage which is usually chalked up as the cost of doing the business called war.

However, targeted killing is a deliberate decision to shoot to kill because of perceived threat that may or may not exist.

the person who pulls the trigger is the judge, jury and executioner.

What happened last Friday in Britain was therefore a targeted killing where officers were acting under orders to take out a suspected terrorist regardless of the possibility that the person could be innocent — which is what it turned out to be. Mr. de Menezes never really knew what hit him. five bullets were pumped into his head at close range.

His death and the insistence by London Police that sometimes the innocents may have to die reinforces the obnoxious view expressed by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who said in April 2003 after the fall of Baghdad that, “Freedom’s untidy.

Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things”. One would prefer what Mr. Rumsfeld said in the next sentence “They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things”. Mr. Menezes was not given that chance.

Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca