Lets Suppose…
… just for a minute, that al-Zawahri was known to be in Pakistan, and even known to have a better than even chance of being in the village of Damadola – does the military of United States of America have the right to enter the sovereign airspace of that country and bomb said village?
In a previous thread I took a bit of heat for focusing on what I consider to be the completely unnecessary deaths of the men, women, and children in that event, I don’t want to go there this time, I want to focus on the legality of the United States sending their military into a foreign country without so much as a by-your-leave.
This is not by any means the first time that the United States has violated the airspace of another nation with their military, in January of 2005 it was reported that they had repeatedly entered Iranian airspace to test defense and locate targets (we talked about it here), in September 2002, months before the US Congress authorized any military action against Iraq, US and British forces entered Iraq airspace (we talked about it here), and, in fact, we had our own little run in with related things in Fenruary of 2004 when US police crashed through the Canadian border at Niagara Falls in a high speed chase and a Canadian woman ended up dead (we talked about it here).
In my opinion every country does what it does with [it's own] “justifiable reasons”, pick a country, any country, that has done “whatever” that you and your government considered wrong – they obviously thought that they were doing the justifiable and necessary thing at the time didn’t they?
Think about it, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 they didn’t do it for shits and giggles over the week-end because their navy was bored now did they? They invaded to recover “Las Malvinas” that had been wrongfully “taken from them” by Britain. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 they didn’t do so because a food fight at the Kremlin got out of hand, it was in their national interests to do so wasn’t it? This stuff has been going on for centuries… how many crusades did Europe see because Christians and Muslims both wanted Jerusalem for their religion? A perfectly justifiable reason to go to war at the time - and hey, the way things are looking that time honoured tradition may be making a comeback.
The question we need to ask, about every country, is what do we, as a global society do about it? Is might right? Can countries that believe they have to do “X”, and have the wear-with-all to do “X”, do “X”, regardless of international law and treaties?
That attack was just wrong. Even had it been successful, it would have been wrong.
The so-called Bush “doctrine” (which is simply the morality of a schoolyard applied to the international scene) is very simple. The United States reserves the right to attack anyone, anywhere, at any time, in defiance of any international law, if it feels such an attack serves its own strategic interests.
The US is a rogue state by any definition. It is not the equivalent of Hitler’s Germany or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Bush is not a towering figure of evil. It’s simply a frightened, spoiled, giant, rich kid with way too many guns.
There is no short-term reason why a giant, spoiled, armed rich kid needs to listen to anyone else or follow anyone else’s rules. In the long term, I personally believe it’s to the US’s advantage to promote an international rule of law, but that’s not a view that Mr. Bush and I share.
>>….does the military of United States of America have the right to enter the sovereign airspace of that country and bomb said village?”
No.
Well folks, that answers 1/2 the question – what about the “what should be done about it” side of things?
Are we talking appeasement? Are we talking wait until a new government takes power and hope things change? What if they don’t? Should the international community take any sort of action over and above a bunch of pointless diplomatic protests that the Bush administration doesn’t seem to care much about?
Nice to see bith the left and the right agreeing ont his one – there may yet be hope for compromise in a Harper minority.
Now what SHOULD be done? Well what would the US do if Pakistan did this to them? What happned to the Taliban when they supported someone that DID do this to the US?
An unprovoked attack on a soveriegn nation would be considered by many an act of war. Certain the US would if the tables were turned. The death of civillians would cause a cry for revenge or “bringing the culprit to justice”. Such an attack is certainly a violation of the Geneva Convention.
What should be done? Given the above, Bush, or whomever ordered this (and I highly doubt some field commander did) should be arrested and tried for war crimes. I would not advocate a war or counter strike, even it that would be the US response if it happened to them (and was).
Should we try sanctions?
Sadly, until the American people decide enough is enough, the only realistic thing that can be done is a bunch of pointless diplomatic protests. At least they can be loud and obnoxious.
>>”Should the international community take any sort of action over and above a bunch of pointless diplomatic protests that the Bush administration doesn’t seem to care much about? ”
There should be a formal condemnation of the U.S. by the UN General Assembly. I can’t see any other practical course of action beyond that.
In my view, a best case scenario involves the Bush administration coming to the realization that they seriously crossed the line here, and that no repetition of this incident can be allowed to occur.
Unfortunately, there’s a strong likelihood that this isn’t going to be the case. When I see John McCain defending the attack, that makes me very pessimistic.
For al Qaeda, Waziristan has become a downsized version of the former safe haven that was Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The U.S. is understandably frustrated that this new al Qaeda stronghold exists within the borders of a country that claims to be an ally in the WoT. The most obvious solution would be for Musharraf to commit the Pakistani armed forces in a determined campaign to root out al Qaeda from the region. Failing that, he could give government approval, on a case by case basis, allowing the American military limited targeted strikes.
The problem is, Musharraf isn’t in a position to do either, without provoking serious domestic wrath. Musharraf is only too aware of the fact that is very survival is at stake, not simply his political survival.
If the US didn’t inform the Pakistani government and request the Pakistani government to take action, and did not in lieu of that have a standing agreement to permit the attack, then the US had no right to make the attack.
If there was a standing agreement, or the Pakistani government was informed and either could not or would not act, then the US had the right.
It is also possible the Pakistani government permitted the attack, but for its own political purposes declines to share information regarding its co-operative spirit with the Pakistani people.
What is needed is Access to Information. Absent that, you may speculate on anything.
I would say that heavy sanctions be placed on the US.
Of course this wont happen, but thats only because countries are too chickenshit to do it.
Imagine, if even 5 European countries sanctioned the US. Or just Canada, their economy would crash in no time.
Lets do it. Just for fun.
Well, lrC, given that the Government of Pakistan has protested the attack, and given that the Government of the Unites States has NOT (that I’ve read) claime the existence of prior notification or a standing treaty (correct me if I’m wrong, seriously)…I’d say they did a bad thing.
>>”If there was a standing agreement, or the Pakistani government was informed and either could not or would not act, then the US had the right.”
lrC, it isn’t sufficient that the U.S. ” inform ” the Pakistani government of an impending attack. They have to ask for, and receive, permission before any strike is carried out. I think that’s what you were getting at in your first paragraph, but your second paragraph seems to contradict that position.
For what its worth, you may be right concerning your other point. The U.S. has claimed that Pakistani government officials were informed of the air strike before it occurred. I just don’t see that this changes much, even if it is accurate.
This is simply another way of saying that the US has the right to carry out the action regardless of the circumstances IrC?
I think a formal scolding is in order.
As I’ve pointed out on my blog, my opinion is that Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity.
>lrC, it isn’t sufficient that the U.S. †inform †the Pakistani government of an impending attack.
I did not intend to imply the Pakistani government should be informed of an impending attack. What the Pakistani government would have to have been informed of was the presence of enemy combatants on Pakistani soil.
A nation has the right to pursue hostile combatants onto neutral soil if the neutral party will not or can not detain and disarm them.
If the US simply went in and notified the Pakistani government shortly beforehand of what was an impending fait accompli, that would be wrong.
There is one other mitigating possibility: if Pakistan at some point in the past (ie. the duration of the current conflict) had failed to meet its obligations as a sovereign nation with regard to belligerent parties on its soil, the US would be excused. It would not matter whether the Pakistanis were merely incompetent (could not) or complicit (would not).
>>”I think a formal scolding is in order.”
Dispense as you see fit, Cait.
>>”There is one other mitigating possibility: if Pakistan at some point in the past (ie. the duration of the current conflict) had failed to meet its obligations as a sovereign nation with regard to belligerent parties on its soil, the US would be excused. It would not matter whether the Pakistanis were merely incompetent (could not) or complicit (would not).”
There might be some merit to that argument, lrC, if Pakistan was a co-belligerent, in league with al Qaeda. That isn’t the case. I think there’s a difference between aiding and abetting, and being unable or unwilling to act. In my view, Musharraf is more ” unable, ” to act than he he is “unwilling.”
Mike, sovereign neutrals actually do have obligations they have to meet under international law; if they fail to meet those obligations, they lose some of their sovereignty. Under international law there is no distinction between “unable” and “unwilling” – the provisions were written in a manner to ensure belligerents couldn’t take a “time out” behind a line on a map.
throbbin, Canada placing sanctions on the US would hurt us more than them as they make up the bulk of our foreign trade. This is a situation where, IF we had even a quarter-decent relationship with them, PMPM could pick up the phone & say “WTF was that” and try to apply some moral pressure. Alas, that is not even vaguely an option.
At this point, about all that can happen is outright indignation from the world (not the UN, the OFF scandal among other things has seriously depleted their weight IMHO…but then again, I’m biased) and lots of outrage.
We DO need more info, though, as the comments above point out, before jumping on any one bandwagon.
>>”Mike, sovereign neutrals actually do have obligations they have to meet under international law; if they fail to meet those obligations, they lose some of their sovereignty.”
That’s a reach, lrC, for several reasons. Pakistan isn’t “neutral.” Musharraf has committed the Pakistani government as an ally of the U.S. in the WoT.
As I see it, that is the key element that makes this situation different, and why it places the Bush administration in an untenable legal and moral position.
Take away the fact that Pakistan is an ally, and the air strike there isn’t any different than air strikes carried out by the Clinton administration, in terms of legality under international law. Clinton violated the sovereignty of Serbia in 1999, by bombing it over Serb ethnic cleansing it Kosovo. He did the same to Afghanistan, when he sent cruise missiles at the al Qaeda camps. Blowing up the Sudanese chemical plant in 1998 is another example.
Where Clinton’s actions diverge from those of Bush is the fact that you can make a case that the countries in question ” had it coming, ” so to speak. All three were pariah states, two of them being terrorist supporters. Further, all three governments had copious quantities of blood on their hands when dealing with their own citizens.
As a result, I view Clinton’s use of air strikes as illegal under international law, but defensible. On the other hand, Bush doesn’t have that same justification. Pakistan isn’t a de facto enemy of the U.S., it’s an ally.
>>”Under international law there is no distinction between “unable†and “unwilling†– the provisions were written in a manner to ensure belligerents couldn’t take a “time out†behind a line on a map.”
I don’t think international law makes that distinction, lrC. Understand that I’m not a fan of ” international law,” when it is selectively and hypocritically applied by the UN to protect genocidal tyrants. Setting that aside, I’m not aware that it would be ” legal,” for say, India to invade Pakistan after being attacked by Pakistan, then chase the Pakistani army into Afghanistan, and continue waging war there. Especially if the Afhgan government wasn’t actively aiding Pakistan in the conflict.
“Mike, sovereign neutrals actually do have obligations they have to meet under international law; if they fail to meet those obligations, they lose some of their sovereignty.”
This sort of takes “blame the victim” to a whole new level, doesn’t it?
If the Afghan government failed to intern the Pakistani army, the Indian army would have every right to pursue the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.
It’s fair to criticize nations for violating international law, regardless of the fact international law doesn’t have an enforcement agency. It would be ridiculous to criticize a nation for not violating international law.
That stated, we don’t know what information – if any – was passed between the two government, or when.
To answer the question:
If Pakistan had an agreement with the US then yes, if no then they shouldnt, but we dont live in a world that will do anything about it so the question is a mute point.
To rant:
We all know whats going on, the US is using their “leverage” with the IMF and their extensive foreign aid budget to nudge countries in a direction that they want (much like what they are doing with Pakistan). So if you are a country known to harbor terrorists or dont do anything to prevent it (ie Phillipines) then your foreign aid budget will be decreased and anothers increased. Every country does it, its just that the US plays with 100’s of Billions of dollars where Canada/France/Germany play with considerably less and as such they dont have as much leverage.
If a country is found to be harboring people that have attacked a sovereign country then I have no problem with it (ie if a political leader was assasinated in Canada and then fled to an unfriendly country like Syria or Lebanon – and they wouldnt play ball to return him you are damn right I would want the JTF or Airborne or whatever Military force we have that can kick a$$ to go in). Pakistan is on very murky waters where on one hand the official government glad-hands with the US while the “tribal” leaders glad-hand with those will to pay the most (in this case the terrorists).
MYK in Alberta.
>>”If the Afghan government failed to intern the Pakistani army, the Indian army would have every right to pursue the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.”
I don’t want to run very far with this hypothetical example, lrC, but under international law, isn’t it more likely that the obligation on India, having successfully defended itself from attack and defeating the Pakistani army, would be to withdraw from Pakistan, rather than take the war into another adjacent country? For India, isn’t self defence accomplished in this scenario prior to any decision to chase the Pakistanis into the next country?
>>”That stated, we don’t know what information – if any – was passed between the two government, or when.”
I suppose it’s possible that the U.S. and Pakistani governments agreed in advance that the Americans would carry out targeted strikes on Pakistani soil, and that following these attacks, Musharraf would deny authorization, and make formal protests, to preserve some domestic political capital. I don’t think that’s likely, but one can’t rule it out entirely.
Under international law, India’s obligation to stop attempting to neutralize the Pakistani army would kick in when a ceasefire or surrender were negotiated. There are no knock-down counts in war.
>> ” Under international law, India’s obligation to stop attempting to neutralize the Pakistani army would kick in when a ceasefire or surrender were negotiated. There are no knock-down counts in war.”
I don’t think the Afghans, or the UN, would agree with you, lrC. You can have a look in the UN Charter, but I’m fairly confident it doesn’t contain any latitude which would allow for invading an uninvolved third party, and killing its citizens, in the name of self defense.
lrC, I’d also like to point out that al Qaeda and its affiliated franchises constitute an amorphous enemy, rather than a state-configured enemy. Unless I have it wrong, international law, as it relates to war, is overwhelmingly confined to hostilities between states.
>I’m fairly confident it doesn’t contain any latitude which would allow for invading an uninvolved third party, and killing its citizens, in the name of self defense.
It would help if you retained a shred of an objective mind here and didn’t try to characterize what happened as a randomly-decided killing of non-combatants. As it stands, the Pakistani government has confirmed that one Abu Khabab al-Masri was present and killed. al-Masri is described as a bomb-maker and al-Qaeda’s go-to guy for WMD initiatives.
If you read international law documents, you will find references to “belligerents” and “parties to a conflict”. In fact, the evolution of international law of armed conflict in recent decades (for example, the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions) has been to extend recognition and protections to non-state actors, provided they comply with some basic rules governing combatants in war. But, as you put it, “overwhelmingly” is not “entirely”.
>>”It would help if you retained a shred of an objective mind here and didn’t try to characterize what happened as a randomly-decided killing of non-combatants. As it stands, the Pakistani government has confirmed that one Abu Khabab al-Masri was present and killed. al-Masri is described as a bomb-maker and al-Qaeda’s go-to guy for WMD initiatives.”
lrC, it would help if you had a shred of a clue about where I stand on the WoT. I’m at a loss to explain why you apparently don’t. You comment here enough, so you should know that my views are close to your own. That makes your accusation of a lack of objectivity on my part quite ridiculous.
I’m aware that al Qaeda leadership targets were eliminated in the air strike. I have not characterized the strike as ” a randomly-decided killing of non-combatants.” It was anything but random, but it did kill non-combatants from an allied nation, and unless proof to the contrary arises, the attack was carried out without the permission of, and against the wishes of, the government of that allied nation. How deep do you have to twist yourself into the ground on this, lrC, before the laws of physics kick in and put a stop to your spin?
>>”If you read international law documents, you will find references to “belligerents†and “parties to a conflictâ€. In fact, the evolution of international law of armed conflict in recent decades (for example, the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions) has been to extend recognition and protections to non-state actors, provided they comply with some basic rules governing combatants in war.”
What do these protocols say about attacking ” belligerents” and ” parties to a conflict” in a non-belligerent neighbouring nation? The Geneva Convention governs the conduct of war. The UN Charter determines the legality of the conflict itself. Is there anything in the UN Charter that justifies the U.S. strike on the Pakistani village?
I don’t recall offhand which agreement covers the so-called “doctrine of pursuit”. You won’t find it in the Geneva Conventions, which do not govern the conduct of war but rather cover protections for non-combatants in time of war. The closest thing I can think of to conventions governing conduct of war are the original Hague Conventions. Rules governing conduct of war predate the League of Nations, let alone the UN.