Category Archives: United States

Government, Middle East, National Security, Pakistan, Society, United States

Drone strike against the Taliban chief in Pakistan is a questionable victory…

U.S. DRONE STRIKE

Following last Friday’s US drone missile attack that killed the leader of the Pakistan Taliban, many ordinary people in Pakistan remain incredulous over US aims and objectives.

The assassination which came a day before a government delegation from Pakistan was due to meet him, leaves the government of Nawaz Sharif looking unreasonably irrational in the eyes of its own population. Worse still, the temper of anti-Americanism in Pakistan is likely to be exacerbated given the probable complicity in US violations of its sovereignty.

Hakimullah Mehsud was a repellent individual. Under his auspices, the Pakistan Taliban (the TPP), have killed thousands of people in sectarian driven attacks.

Western policy makers, however, should pause before rejoicing in the death of a reprehensible Islamist. The question is not whether Mehsud had a redeeming side, but crucially whether America’s drone missiles and the tactics being deployed are making a dangerous situation on the Pakistan-Afghan border even worse.

The evidence clearly suggests the situation has become worse. One only needed to have noted the furious reactions to Friday’s strike from prominent politicians in Pakistan such as Imran Khan and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Pakistan’s Interior Minister. Both indict the Americans with sabotaging the chances of peace talks between the Taliban and the government. Whether the CIA set out to deliberately derail the talks, or refused to be side-lined over its strike plans, the decapitation strike and timing of Mehsud’s killing was terribly misplaced to say the least. The very prospect of a negotiated end to the Taliban’s reign of terror was not mere idle fantasy on the part of the Islamabad government. Only two weeks ago, Mehsud told British journalists that he felt open to the idea of a peace pact.

Negotiations are now off the table. As normal with high-profile capitulations, the CIA will congratulate itself on having knocked out a long-standing target. Mehsud was on the agency’s most wanted terrorist list for a 2009 bombing in Afghanistan that claimed the lives of seven CIA operatives. Yet, after a successor emerges, Mehsud will quickly be forgotten. Meantime, the 30 or so Islamic militant groups loosely affiliated to the TPP will be off the leash, competing for the honour of how best to exact revenge on the U.S. or their perceived stooges.

It will be a surprise to no one that people in Pakistan have become weary of the war that America is conducting on their soil against militant Islamists. The recent visit to Washington by President Sharif in urging Barack Obama to stop the drone strikes came to nothing. This has only reinforced the feeling that, in the context of the alliance, Pakistan’s own wishes count for little.

The United States should listen to the concerns being expressed by their ally on drone strikes, but in all likelihood seems unlikely to. Instead, as we witness, Mr Obama has increased using them. A war without borders looks set to splutter on, while Pakistan continues picking up the pieces.

Related:

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, Intelligence, Military, United States

Drones and the unproven efficacy of these weapons…

U.S. DRONE POLICY

The unedifying and continued use of drones has once again brought the issue to the door of the United States.

Nabila Rehman and her brother Zubair, aged 9 and 13 respectively, were picking okra in their garden. They posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else, but their innocence did not keep them safe. The pair were injured by shrapnel from a drone-missile that killed their grandmother and wounded five other children at the family home in North Waziristan, in Pakistan’s north-western border zone.

Earlier this week, they confronted the U.S. Congress with the ugly and devastating reality of the drone attacks. Under President Obama, use of drones has become an increasingly important weapon in response to dealing with terrorism.

Attack from the air is always terrifying, but unmanned aerial vehicles – controlled and guided by faceless operatives thousands of miles away – are in a definite league of their own. The ethical objections to their use, however, not as battlefield weapons but as tools of assassination with inevitable collateral death and injury to the innocent, have been swept aside by their ostensible military effectiveness.

For both the U.S. and the Pakistani government, which have secretly colluded in the drone strategy, drones may have seemed the perfect answer to liquidating dangerous militants and extremists in Pakistan’s treacherous no-man’s land. North Waziristan is a notoriously difficult region for western intelligence services and monitoring the movements and activities of insurgents always risks others being unwittingly caught up in the crossfire.

But the fury and anger drones provoke, as Nabila and Zubair’s testimony bears out, can make them counter-productive. As President Obama and other western leaders know, far from helping to secure peace in the West, drones frequently embolden its enemies. Indeed, those flocking to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in their droves were done so in seeking refuge and protection from the continued onslaught of U.S. drone attacks.

A RESPONSE TO THE ECONOMIST

On 8th February, 2013, MD responded to an article on The Economist, ‘The debate over drones’. That response is reproduced:

“The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution protects “any person” (not just US citizens) from being “deprived of life . . . without due process of law.”

Until the 9/11 attacks, the legal position was unambiguous: in war, active combatants could kill and be killed, subject to rules governing surrender and the use of banned weapons. But the ‘law of war’ applied only to conflicts between armed forces of opposing states, invoking the right of self-defence. Confrontations with insurgents and terrorists were strictly governed by human rights law, which requires state use of force to be reasonable in the circumstances. This ‘reasonable force’ requirement invokes a necessary and human restraint over soldiers’ actions and, as a direct extension, must surely apply to drone targeters. The rule of war is not being adhered to in places where drones are operating as “suspects” are being killed without much compunction.

The states that deploy drones argue that they are operating under war law, where human rights are less relevant. The US argues that it is in an ‘armed conflict with al-Qaeda . . . and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence . . . including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning to attack us.’ However, this statement prompts many questions. For instance, how can you have an ‘armed conflict’ without an enemy state? Or, what criteria is being used for putting names on the secret death list or what is the required degree of proof before suspects are targeted and killed?

There are no accountability mechanisms for the use of drones – no inquests, and often not even a casualty list which is a direct contravention of the normal rules of war and engagement. The US does, though, announce and celebrate when it hits a ‘high-value target’.

In aerial drone warfare, there is no fairness or due process to enable potential victims, their relatives or any outside body to challenge the accuracy of the information on which the targeting decisions have been made.

Some analysts may suggest that drone strikes are an exercise in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But Article 51 applies only to attacks by other states, not by terrorist groups. Yet, what is becoming increasingly of concern is that the record of drone attacks demonstrates that very often individuals are targeted when they constitute no clear or present danger.

Drone killings in tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen have taken the lives of targets who are armed and who presented a clear danger, but others have merely been attending weddings or funerals or emerging from hospitals or mosques. ‘Decapitation strikes’ in Pakistan have resulted in families being killed by mistake and which have severely damaged US relations with a politically tense and nuclear-armed nation that is not at war with the US.

American officials also say that the Fifth Amendment could not avail a US citizen who joined an enemy force. This is correct as far as it goes, but the Fifth Amendment must entitle a citizen or his family to know whether he is on a death list and to apply to have himself taken off it.

Those who press the Hellfire buttons in Nevada do not pause to consider whether their targets are engaged in combatant missions or not. The criteria for drone use are covert CIA prerogatives, beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.”

© MarkDowe2013: all rights reserved

Standard
China, Economic, Government, Politics, United States

The shifting tide of global power…

CHINA VERSUS AMERICA

A week of global economic peril, concluded late last week with a sigh of relief that reverberated around the world. America’s Republican Party zealots finally backed down following President Obama’s steadfast refusal to compromise on his signature healthcare bill. Life in Washington has returned to what passes for normal, but for the risk and uncertainty of a U.S. default deferred until January.

Late last week, too, came the news that China’s economy – the world’s most important locomotive – has recovered from two lacklustre quarters to report annual growth figures of 7.8 per cent. The good sense of the UK Chancellor, George Osborne, to engage as keenly as possible with China should be self-explanatory.

Yet, these two different events portray in the simplest terms the widening gulf and relative performance of the world’s two most powerful states. That in turn is reflecting the rather expeditious way in which global power is shifting. The Obama administration made a pivot to Asia a central tenet of its term in office, a policy that was made in response both to the economic opportunities on that side of the world and the brisk growth in China’s economic muscle. China’s geopolitical ambitions are a direct threat and challenge to the United States.

Mr Obama’s tactical approach was a sound one. The fact that Washington’s bitter political stalemate has led the president to cancel two planned Asian summits this month speaks loudly for the limits on the actual power of the man – often described, erringly, as the most powerful in the world.

China, meanwhile, continues to surge ahead, its peculiar and atypical political architecture proving to be more than adequate in hauling the rest of the world out of recession.

The economic data released from Beijing has received a muted greeting from many economists: the wild and extraordinary years in which China’s economy grew at double figures are undoubtedly over, and China’s new leadership certainly does not want them back. The Chinese challenge is to keep the economy growing fast enough to maintain a strong employment market and to avoid any prospect of incomes stagnating. Protecting domestic consumption on which future growth will inevitably depend is an important factor. Dramatic growth figures, however, will make it much harder for the Chinese government to push through their plans to curb inefficient and highly polluting industries. They need just enough growth to allow the economy to become leaner and more contemporary, but not much more to allow the unreformed parts to inflate more than they already have.

In achieving this, China has the advantage, and one that is shared by all authoritarian regimes, that all the political controls and levers are in their own hands – at least notionally. And it has to be said they are managing them with impressive competence: Xi Jinping’s self-congratulatory tune that China’s economy is basically doing very well, and that the slowdown was the result of its own adjustment initiative, is largely correct.

China is still growing, and the geopolitical power is increasingly pivoting to the East. The U.S. has tied itself in knots which it will struggle to untangle if a clear budget blueprint is not now delivered.

The implications may be stark enough, but this does not necessarily mean that we should resign ourselves to a new kind of dominion in our dealings with the Far East. For centuries, foreigners who have lived in awe of China’s size and revered age performed a pandering act. We should be careful in repudiating the idea that anyone should not be nervous about doing business with say the Chinese firm Huawei, a company that is frequently accused of industrial espionage, or by embracing Chinese management of our nuclear power stations, and saying nothing of a controversial nature. Dictatorial regimes have brutal histories, and in the case of China persecuting religious minorities and suppressing Tibetan autonomy are well documented.

Standard