Thursday, 6 March 2008

Colombia and a short history of the pre-emptive strike


In the wake of the strike launched against the FARC, both Ecuador and Venezuela have reacted indignantly and threatened Colombia with legal action and military retaliation.

The incident itself consisted of an aerial and groundforce action just inside Ecuadorian territory which resulted in the death of Raul Reyes, one of the most powerful and oldest commanders of the rebel organisation. But while Ecuador cries foul and claims its sovereignty has been violated, the demise of Reyes represents a huge blow to the guerrilla group which for over 40 years has terrorized Colombians.

Ecuador can claim with justification that its rights have been infringed in this instance and the matter looks set to go before the OAS, the Organisation of American States and possibly the United Nations. Colombia, armed with good intelligence it seems and in the midst of an internal conflict, employed a tactic which we have seen throughout the history of nations: the pre-emptive strike.

Perceiving themselves threatened, states have long used the method to stun and disable their opponents in order to head off danger. And as history shows us, law-abiding best intentions and the stark choice of survival rarely make the best of friends in times of crisis.

What better example than that of Pearl Harbor? Choked of supplies and raw resources by the Americans on one side and threatened with a belligerent Russia on the other, the decision was made in 1941 that Japan would seize the vital oilfields of south-east Asia. It was thought at the time that only the American fleet could pose a significant threat to Japanese intentions, so a brilliant strike was conceived: to knock out the US naval aircraft carriers while at anchor in a single surprise blow. Thus could the Japanese disable a dangerous opponent without the risk of costly full frontal war. As we know the strike itself, while daring, ultimately failed in its objective of neutralising enough enemy aircraft carrier capacity. In America, the only emotions greater than moral indignance were the sense of profound shock at the nature of the attack and massive relief that all had not been lost.

In May 1967, Egypt massed troops and tanks on its Sinai border in response to rising tensions between its enemy, Israel, and the surrounding Arab states. With Syria, Jordan and Egypt building up their forces north, east and south, Israel found itself almost totally surrounded and facing the prospect of military annihilation as the world looked on. What followed has become legendary in military history: a devastating surprise attack which left all three Arab armies shattered, shocked and in total disarray. The Israeli airforce crippled its Egyptian counterpart in an overwhelming surprise strike and the army swiftly followed up by seizing the Sinai peninsular in the south and Golan Heights from Syria in the north. Jordanian forces were forced quickly from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, leaving the borders of Israel largely as they are today. Israel, seen as something of a pariah by many, is regularly criticised by countries in more peaceable regions for its aggression and readiness to strike. But Israel sees itself as living constantly on the brink and remembers all too well what it means to have destruction brought upon its people.

Controversy still rages over the Royal Navy's sinking of the ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands war of 1982. In early May the British nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine HMS Conqueror detected the warship close to the Burdwood Bank, south of the islands. Although outside the declared exclusion zone of 200 miles by radius from the centre of the Falklands, Prime Minister Thatcher consulted with her staff and decided the warship and its group presented a clear threat. On May 2 two torpedoes hit and sank the ship resulting in the deaths of 323 men. Despite the fact that the threat to the fledgling and precarious task force was effectively eliminated, the case quickly became a cause-celebre for anti-war activists. To this day criticism is directed at the warlike British leadership of the time.