India has been loath to retaliate but US can, does, will, retaliate to intervention by Pakistani non-state actors.
WASHINGTON DC: This is with reference to Ejaz Haider’s article “Brennan’s legal realpolitik!” (April May 2). While referring to John Brennan’s statement in which the American had argued that the use of drones by the US is legal because the Congress passed a law authorising the use of all necessary force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Mr Haider states: “Domestic law cannot override accepted principles of international law or customary state practice, especially the principle of non-intervention”.
I completely agree with the writer here. But wouldn’t he agree that this should also apply to Pakistan’s strategic depth policy of supporting the Haqqani network, as well as its earlier support for the Afghan Taliban? This should also apply to — what was earlier not acknowledged and now is acknowledged — the policy of sending jihadis to Indian-held Kashmir. In the case of such intervention by Pakistan in other sovereign countries, wouldn’t the writer agree that the others have a right to retaliate? India has been loath to retaliate in this regard, but the US can, does and will, retaliate in response to intervention by Pakistani supported non-state actors who have a role to play in destabilising Afghanistan.
Ayesha Khan
Published in The Express Tribune, May 3rd, 2012.
