Why Obama’s Killer Drones Violate International Law

[VCheng]

Please allow me to present the other side of the coin:

Teeta, US has a lot of options, first and foremost, it must change it's policy of hostility towards Pakistan - such a policy is a terrible negative for the US and for Pakistan - in the US some policy makers are convinced that Pakistan are a push over, this is not just poor analysis but a terrible, even tragic, long term mistake.

Pakistan needs to change its policies regarding support of non-state actors. Policy makers in Pakistan a.k.a the Army, also need to realize that USA is not a short-term planner as they perceive it to be, and will remain engaged in the region long after 2014.

Had the US chosen a wiser course, that is to say, had not taken the advice of CIA radicals buffeted by certain think tanks in the US, Afghanistan would have been a done deal by now and the US would be a long way along in improving relations with Iran as well. Instead the US chose to allow Pakistanis to conclude that the US is a net negative, a losing proposition.

So if USA concludes that Pakistan is a net negative and a failing and losing state, which side stands to lose more? Had Pakistan taken the advice to wind up its program to support non-state actors as extension of its foreign policies, Pakistan itself would have been far more peaceful internally.

Had the US not chosen to lay the foundation of the international public perception that she is hostile towards Muslims, not just terrorists, and that the US needs the support of Muslim populations, things would be very different.

International geopolitics is not a popularity contest. What exactly is this support that USA needs from such a mass of radicalized illiterates (mostly, no offence intended) and how is it valuable enough to be taken into account in the pursuit of its national interests?

Less is More, the US really ought to consider how it can it leverage this notion - In Pakistan, with these AID programs, the US policy makers think they are making a dent in the negative perception of the populace, however, the reality is that these programs do not reach most people, and really it's unrealistic to imagine that they ever will -- what is required is the creation of the perception that the US is a friend - not a friend of the army or politicians but just simply, a friend, for this it must not be seen as too present in the affairs of Pakistan, in particular as a force in the creation of Policy - rest assured terrorism as an idea does not have the support in Pakistan, of any other than psychotics (though they mask their psychosis in religious rhetoric and imagery)

The perception that USA is the enemy du jour is one that is reinforced intentionally by the Army to keep their flock in line. The vociferousness of the chatter is turned up and down to strengthen its hand in negotiations and to provide convenient excuses for not eliminating the roots of many problems.

Drone are a great tool, effective even, however, they have become a political liability - think of Gen. Giap's comments on Tet.

As long as the many benefits exceed the relatively small political costs, the drones will continue to be used. I do not foresee that balance changing anytime soon.

 

[VCheng]

Although I do agree with you that a hue and cry be raised on legal lines by Pak (if we have ground to do so), but I think you would agree with me that UN and ICJ are absolute failures on the world scene. What US wants, it gets. Or to put it more nicely, what a superpower wants, it gets. UN can't do anything about it. At best, it is just a tool to legalize your wars (Iraq), and get some backing. If you don't get it from there, it doesn't matter anyways. Doing something in some African countries once in a while doesn't make the UN successful. So even if we do make a strong legal case in the ICJ or anything, it won't make a difference until US itself doesn't want to stop drones (for whatever reason).

A opinion in today's local paper. The UN is defunct

That is the key phrase: "A hue and cry be raised on legal lines by Pak (if we have ground to do so)". Pakistan's silence indicates acquiescence, which supports the legality of the drone strikes.

I agree with you that the UN/ICJ is imperfect, but other countries are playing within the same imperfect system to support their national goals, and Pakistan must learn to do the same. Sitting on the sidelines claiming that the game is rigged will get it nowhere.

 

[MilSpec]

THE KEY WORDS "INTERNATIONAL LAW"

just wondering if pakistan has violated any such laws by:

Aiding a propping brutal regime of taliban
Providing covert support to militant organization around the world
Nuclear proliferation
Violation of MTCR
Genocide in east pakistan

 

[Jango]

That is the key phrase: "A hue and cry be raised on legal lines by Pak (if we have ground to do so)". Pakistan's silence indicates acquiescence, which supports the legality of the drone strikes.

IMO, Pakistan has no grounds to pursue a legal case. These drone strikes take place in coordination with Pak, atleast majority of them. And in alot of cases, they take out useful targets.

I agree with you that the UN/ICJ is imperfect, but other countries are playing within the same imperfect system to support their national goals, and Pakistan must learn to do the same. Sitting on the sidelines claiming that the game is rigged will get it nowhere.

Agreed. Everybody supports their own national goals. USA, Russia or China. Nobody is friends with somebody because they are good morally, but just because that friendship helps them pursue their goals. We should look after our own selves rather than keeping care of the 'mohalla'.

 

[muse]

VC

Thank you for your post, though I wish you would done better - lets deal with these, I don't mean just "dismiss" them, but examine why these positions will not further US and Pakistani interests - this will help us understand why a different approach and indeed, an entirely different framework may be required.

Please allow me to present the other side of the coin:

Pakistan needs to change its policies regarding support of non-state actors. Policy makers in Pakistan a.k.a the Army, also need to realize that USA is not a short-term planner as they perceive it to be, and will remain engaged in the region long after 2014.

Yes, certainly - How can Pakistan be helped to do just that, assuming that we are well wishers and that is what we want to see, a progressive, prosperous, forward looking Pakistan -- On the other hand if we have allowed the creation of the perception that we are hostile to Pakistani interests and "calibrate" our "friendship" to ensure that Pakistan can exercise no strategic autonomy that may be an impediment to our interests as we presently construe them ---- and of course, this brings us to am examination of US policy to muscle into Central Asia (read China read Afghanistan primarily but also India). The US argues that it's primary purpose and reason for being in Afghanistan is the elimination of Terrorism - and we can all agree that terrorism has to be eliminated regardless of why it exists - however, having said this, we must be conscious that this goal not become confused in policy and public perception as a mask or canard for other policy goals ---- elimination of terrorism in Afghanistan, that means elimination of Pakistani interests in Afghanistan is a NON-STARTER - no if's and or buts - it simply, as these last 11 years have demonstrated, is a flawed tactic and strategy - So, before we discuss whether US policy can incorporate Pakistani interests as vital and necessary for the elimination of terrorism, lets posit, the "OUGHT" -- many are waiting for this examination and it's conclusion, thus far, we have n heard a clear annunciation of this "Ought" - and till we have this, US policy is not going anywhere except leaving a bigger mess than when the US muscled it's way into this complex stew.

Lets for arguments sake, say that the US policy makers have come to the conclusion that the inclusion of Pakistani interests is vitally important to US policy and that US policy is understood and public accepts it and supports it - would the US be using Drones which Pakistan would or could publicly reject?

See, I think most people would agree that a world without a US as a major power is a dangerous and more brutish world, however that US and what we have now are different, they are different in their approach to or at least in the perception of the US approach towards Muslims.

So if USA concludes that Pakistan is a net negative and a failing and losing state, which side stands to lose more? Had Pakistan taken the advice to wind up its program to support non-state actors as extension of its foreign policies, Pakistan itself would have been far more peaceful internally.

This is hardly realistic - a population of 200 million, a nuclear power, close relations with a host of other regional and international powers - a "Failed State" really? one expects so much more from you - and if indeed this is the conclusion of the US policy makers, then are you arguing that the US is indeed hostile towards Pakistan and Pakistani interests? If yes, then we have no disagreement.

International geopolitics is not a popularity contest. What exactly is this support that USA needs from such a mass of radicalized illiterates (mostly, no offence intended) and how is it valuable enough to be taken into account in the pursuit of its national interests?

All evidence is to the contrary to your suggestion - Intl Geopolitics is indeed as much about the acceptance of policy as it is the substance of policy - Obviously, right? I mean there's a reason public opinion must be considered and won over, right??

The perception that USA is the enemy du jour is one that is reinforced intentionally by the Army to keep their flock in line. The vociferousness of the chatter is turned up and down to strengthen its hand in negotiations and to provide convenient excuses for not eliminating the roots of many problems.
As long as the many benefits exceed the relatively small political costs, the drones will continue to be used. I do not foresee that balance changing anytime soon.

Yes, we all agree, but once again, public opinion, especially one influenced by States, be it Pakistan or be it the US, cannot further policy goals if either side concludes that it's interests are being disregarded. Pakistani interests protected and furthered, what then could the impediments be to increased Pakistani cooperation??

The kinds of ideas you now find compelling, that is to say the exercise of will over an adversary, is not necessarily an absolute, like some law of physics, we must be mindful not just of limitations of such ideas in the evolving geo-political contexts.

 

[VCheng]

VC

Thank you for your post, though I wish you would done better - lets deal with these, I don't mean just "dismiss" them, but examine why these positions will not further US and Pakistani interests - this will help us understand why a different approach and indeed, an entirely different framework may be required. ..................

The kinds of ideas you now find compelling, that is to say the exercise of will over an adversary, is not necessarily an absolute, like some law of physics, we must be mindful not just of limitations of such ideas in the evolving geo-political contexts.

I also wished I would do better too, Sir.

And I agree with you that an entirely different approach is needed on both sides to move this important relationship forward, as the existing framework seems to have failed both sides.

To stay on the topic of this thread, there is no doubt that US policymakers realize that the recognition of Pakistani interests is important to achieving US goals in the region. Yes, drone attacks are a subject of great controversy for Pakistan, but they are necessary given the lack of any realistic alternatives given Pakistan's refusal to take effective steps to extend the write of government to those areas.

 

[Rank]

Tell that to your fellow Pakistanis.

Pakistan also have option.... Nuke Afghanistan where NATO/US forces supporting terrorist into Pakistan and all your next 20 30 years of India > Afghanistan and using India against China policy will be ****!

 

[Teeta]

Pakistan also have option.... Nuke Afghanistan where NATO/US forces supporting terrorist into Pakistan and all your next 20 30 years of India > Afghanistan and using India against China policy will be ****!

Don't be too emotional. Take things with cool mind.

 

[muse]

I also wished I would do better too, Sir.

And I agree with you that an entirely different approach is needed on both sides to move this important relationship forward, as the existing framework seems to have failed both sides.

To stay on the topic of this thread, there is no doubt that US policymakers realize that the recognition of Pakistani interests is important to achieving US goals in the region. Yes, drone attacks are a subject of great controversy for Pakistan, but they are necessary given the lack of any realistic alternatives given Pakistan's refusal to take effective steps to extend the write of government to those areas.

VC

Are Pakistanis pursuing armed Drone technology?? Of course they are - that is to say most everyone interested agrees that Drones provide an effective tool -- the argument is not whether or not armed Drones are a good tool, rather it's the politics involved that are a bone of contention, so to speak.

I would like to point out that Pakistan are a immensely important country and that with or without the US, this will not change - I also think that US is perhaps the most loved country ever, in the world and that this period in it's history is a sort of aberration, I certainly hope so, and I think the US, to continue to be a power for good in the world, must have the support of Muslim populations - consider these as you evaluate the various policy papers you will shortly encounter.

 

[VCheng]

VC

Are Pakistanis pursuing armed Drone technology?? Of course they are - that is to say most everyone interested agrees that Drones provide an effective tool -- the argument is not whether or not armed Drones are a good tool, rather it's the politics involved that are a bone of contention, so to speak.

The politics may be contentious, but only from the Pakistani point of view. From USA's, the political price being paid at the moment is less than the advantages being accrued by the drone program. Were Pakistan to change than balance by extracting a political price higher than than what the drone attacks are worth, they will stop forthwith, I am quite sure. But it is up to Pakistan to change that equation based on the tools at its disposal.

Not only Pakistan, but many countries will soon be coming out with armed drones and that will change the nature of warfare irreversibly.

I would like to point out that Pakistan are a immensely important country and that with or without the US, this will not change - I also think that US is perhaps the most loved country ever, in the world and that this period in it's history is a sort of aberration, I certainly hope so, and I think the US, to continue to be a power for good in the world, must have the support of Muslim populations - consider these as you evaluate the various policy papers you will shortly encounter.

I agree with you that both Pakistan and USA are important countries. As a person intimately related to both, I want to see a positive relationship between the two prosper, now and always, despite the present abysmal condition. Hence my presence on this forum despite many setbacks.

I look forward to the position papers and the ensuing discussion.

 

[muse]

The politics may be contentious, but only from the Pakistani point of view.

White House Presses for Drone Rule Book - NYTimes.com

 

[VCheng]

White House Presses for Drone Rule Book - NYTimes.com

I am aware of that article. The discussion does not rise to the level of being contentious. It is only to seek further clarification.

 

[Ark-Angel]

India has nothing to do with this.
They have not interested in invading Pakistan out of fear of disturbing their own economic process - this is a layman excuse.

Beside BLA, TTP and dozen others are doing more damage than India could only dream of. Its really a severe case of incompetency nothing else. General have gotten too fat on easy money, property schemes, etc.

No matter what happens.... I repeat no matter what happens, our national defence policy will always be India-centric. Pakistan is economically weak... We're already at a disadvantage in a conventional war with India, Afghanistan is no more in our control (I'll elaborate this point if you want me to) - so naturally Pakistan is not interested in depleting its meager resources fighting TTP and BLA - any major mil OP can only take place in times of massive aid and CSF arrival. Covert OP's against BLA and TTP are taking place this very moment - while I write this - but covert OP's can't alone solve our problem - large scale mil OP's, rebuilding/reconstruction of concerned areas and psyops to eliminate extremism/terrorism are needed but we just afford all this at the moment. I'll give you an example here... since past two years MoI has not released complete funds to Rangers & FC - because we're not receiving the required amt of $$$ - now how can we (Pak) conduct mil OP's? US need to continue supplying us with mil equipment and give us $$$ if it wants Pakistan to operate against TTP (etc).Especially, US shouldn't let 7 Div and FC (KPK) even slow down their anti-militants OP's because if this happen then all the hell will break lose and United States will also suffer.... - just directly supply 7 Div and FC with mil eq and $$$. (AT LEAST).

 

[Ark-Angel]

Teeta, US has a lot of options, first and foremost, it must change it's policy of hostility towards Pakistan - such a policy is a terrible negative for the US and for Pakistan - in the US some policy makers are convinced that Pakistan are a push over, this is not just poor analysis but a terrible, even tragic, long term mistake.

Had the US chosen a wiser course, that is to say, had not taken the advice of CIA radicals buffeted by certain think tanks in the US, Afghanistan would have been a done deal by now and the US would be a long way along in improving relations with Iran as well. Instead the US chose to allow Pakistanis to conclude that the US is a net negative, a losing proposition.

Had the US not chosen to lay the foundation of the international public perception that she is hostile towards Muslims, not just terrorists, and that the US needs the support of Muslim populations, things would be very different.

Less is More, the US really ought to consider how it can it leverage this notion - In Pakistan, with these AID programs, the US policy makers think they are making a dent in the negative perception of the populace, however, the reality is that these programs do not reach most people, and really it's unrealistic to imagine that they ever will -- what is required is the creation of the perception that the US is a friend - not a friend of the army or politicians but just simply, a friend, for this it must not be seen as too present in the affairs of Pakistan, in particular as a force in the creation of Policy - rest assured terrorism as an idea does not have the support in Pakistan, of any other than psychotics (though they mask their psychosis in religious rhetoric and imagery)

Drone are a great tool, effective even, however, they have become a political liability - think of Gen. Giap's comments on Tet.

I'm personally against drones but again, there's no point in discussing whether it is legal or not... The target of our discussions should be to find a solution to drone attacks and we all know that the solution lies in either reacting militarily or maintaining silence. Reacting Militarily can have serious repercussions including growth of terrorism, remember: our own fighter jets bomb tribal areas (I'm not against their use), so what makes you think that those bombs don't cause collateral damage? I think it's better to let drones cause that collateral damage rather than JF-17's causing that damage. Let the drones fly! But yes, Army must retaliate if it comes under fire from US/Coalition Forces.

 

[muse]

I am aware of that article. The discussion does not rise to the level of being contentious. It is only to seek further clarification.

Not yet it doesn't however, clearly it is a political matter even in the US - and this is just the beginning - I think we should be open to the fact world public opinion is evolving on this subject - it's not just Pakistan that has to "influence" the US, it's just not a issue with a single facet.

I am persuaded that we are seeing the last gasps of some of the ideas that gained greater currency immediately after 9/11 - it's time to move along with the world. (see China Bluff on "Brave New World" thread