WASHINGTON:
In a rare, yet non-startling admission, US President Barack Obama on Monday confirmed that US drones have targeted Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Pakistan, in a programme that has escalated under his administration.
The confirmation of an otherwise clandestine programme brought to fore a host of ethical and legal questions surrounding it. Obama himself, during an interview on Monday, attempted to justify the unpopular programme that Islamabad insists causes more harm than good.
“Notwithstanding tactical advantages of drone strikes, we are of the firm view that these are unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable,” Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit told AFP on Tuesday.
Islamabad appeared to shrug off the confirmation’s implications though.
Justifying drones
Asked about drones in a chat with web users on Google+ and YouTube, Obama said “a lot of these strikes have been in Fata” – Pakistan’s semi-autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border.
“For the most part, they’ve been very precise strikes against al Qaeda and their affiliates, and we’re very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,” Obama said on Monday.
“This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases, and so on.”
Obama said that many strikes were carried out “on al Qaeda operatives in places where the capacities of that military in that country may not be able to get them.”
“For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we’re already engaging in.”
Pakistan’s ‘limited capacity’
Obama’s justification for drone strikes was seconded at a hearing of the US Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
“Pakistan military leaders have had limited success against al Qaeda operatives, other foreign fighters and Pakistani militants who pose a threat to Islamabad,” said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The hearing, attended by leaders of the US intelligence community, including the heads of the CIA and National Intelligence, focused on worldwide threats in 2012.
There was admission of Pakistan’s support in counter-terrorism operations, though.
CIA Director General (retd) David Petraeus said that, on the level of intelligence services, relations with Pakistan were productive and there was also communication going on.
He said that in October, they had “captured or killed” four al Qaeda leaders, which was also due to some cooperation with Pakistan. Petraeus added that while Pakistan had conducted operations in Fata and Swat, they had not pressured the Haqqani network or Mullah Nazir’s group, nor pressured those present in Balochistan.
Amnesty’s questions
“The US must give a detailed explanation of how these strikes are lawful and what is being done to monitor civilian casualties and ensure proper accountability,” said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director, in a press release.
“What are the rules of engagement? What proper legal justification exists for these attacks?” Zarifi asked.
US Attorney General Eric Holder will reportedly reference US legal arguments in support of such killings by drone attacks in a speech on national security in coming weeks.
Past justifications offered by US officials have invoked legal theories based on a “global war” between the US and al Qaeda, a concept not recognised by international humanitarian or human rights law.
“The US must … disclose the relevant legal and factual documentation necessary for a meaningful assessment of the lawfulness of the deliberate killings it is carrying out – simply trying to find another way to say ‘trust us, it’s legal’ will not be good enough,” Zarifi added.
(With additional input from AFP)
Published in The Express Tribune, February 1st, 2012.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
World is a global village and event occuring in part of the world affect the other parts of world whether it is new emerging disease or economic disorder or breeding ground for terrorists. Pakistan can not claim to be a nuclear power and fifth or sixth largest army in the world and yet have no control over its own border or law and ordeer situation. A FM station can operate in Pakistan for years and yet no resources are deployed to locate or shut it down. If Pakistan want to be part of a civilized global village than follow th norms of the world or global village will do something about it and you may not like the solution imposed on you.
@tauseef: If you meant that (innocent) civilian deaths are acceptable, then I weep for your lost humanity. I weep for it anyway.......
Wisdom is not the same as intelligence. If it is unwise to write a memo condoning a questionable act which some may be considered torture, it's also unwise to admit to a questionable acts which some may consider to be extrajudicial killings or violations of sovereignty.
By the logic given above by all, there is no need to fight terrorists, as Pak and US government doesnt care so we shouldnt raise our voice against it, is that the deal now a days?? pathetic response by those who think that the lives of innocent people in the remote areas of pakistan and afghanistan should be at the mercy of government policies on drone strikes.
so according to obama, american lives are worth killing a few innocent people every now and then? how is this any less atrocious than what the terrorists do? it's really sad how in the name of democracy and what-not, they do whatever they wish (like a dictator) and make every wrong sound like a justified right. if only, instead of such violence they adapted to more peaceful and human-ways, it would really set an example for the world to see.
Legal & Ethical dimensions? A war would be a blunt weapon that'd kill thousands indiscriminately to take out a few terrorists. So, apparently that's not a choice.
Taking out terrorists thru drone has ethical dimensions? If so, then what else is a country attacked to do? Twiddle its thumbs and hope things get better? If India had a way to take out Dawood Ibrahim or Hafeez Saeed, like US does, won't it do so?
The ethical dimension is in the fact that Pakistan Army has given up on all ethics in hosting such outlaws. Leaving international community very few options.
If we, as a nation, haven't taken any strong steps to stop these attacks then why keep on saying that drones kill innocents? We have proved our indifference and we chose to stick to the sidelines as they violated international law, and despite our "world's best trained PAF" and F16s we still haven't sent our planes to stop this gross violation of our country's sovereignty. If we don't defend our rights, we have no right to say that the US doesn't respect our rights. We don't give a damn about the innocents killed in these drone attacks; let's just shut up and go back into our state of hopeless oblivion! Besharam to ham hain; maan lena chaiye ab is sach ko!
I do not see anything in it to disagree. Though its a given that there are innocent people who do become a victim in addition to extremist fighters.
If you leadership(civilian, military, bureaucracy and judiciary) have any self respect or an ounce of regard for the mother land and its people it should immediately stop these attacks and take their case to the UN and International Criminal Court.
Did president Obama explained the deaths of innocent civilians as a result of drone strikes, I don’t see him any different then any other leader of the world who committed war crimes, just because the world doesn’t care about crimes done by US doesn’t mean they are not crimes against humanity. There is no justification of killing innocent civilians just because you want to kill terrorists regardless of how” high value target” it is, it doesn’t make it right. Talibans IED’s kill lot of civilians and every one in the world condemns those deaths, how drone killing civilians is any different?