This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Published on February 12, 2010 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

Each war faught during the course of this century of "extremes" as one prominent historian put is has had its own unique features. The horrendous bloodletting in the trenches during World War I, captured so evocatively by Remarque in All Quiet on the Western Front, the large scale destruction of cities and civillian life and property at Dresseden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to forget the Japanese atrocities at Shanghai and Nanking, the Nazi genocide planned and executed by the state, are all unique features of twentieth century history.  The Black Book of Communism published recently by Harvard University Press has documented in some detail the civillian cost of ideologically inspired mass killing. So we are not being overly sensitive to the fact that the War on Terror unleashed by President Bush and carried out with great alacrity by President Obama seems to carry on the glorious traditions of the last century.

Warfare is ugly and more so when the enemy real or imagined is unseen and undetected. In all the rules of warfare in place until now the civillians could not be the direct target. Even when the US atom bombed Japan it was done on the pretext that the Japanese war machinery utilised the industries located in and around the two cities and the fire bombing of Dressden was sold to an unsuspecting public as an attack on the war machine of the Germans. All international conventions to which USA and its NATO allies are party to prohibit the intentional targetting of civillians.

In Afghanistan and in Pakistan the USA has been using unmanned drones carrying leathal bombs to target al-qaeda and taliban leaders. No one will be concerned if the drones kill their purported targets. Often the targets are chosen on the basis of rumours and gossip, malicious rumours that are spread by tribal rivalries and are picked up by US plants and relayed to the CIA headquarters and the order to strike given. In this process a large number of innocent men and women and children are being killed everyday and the drone attacks have become the single most important factor in fuelling anti US propaganda.

In each drone attack at least 20 to 30 people are being killed and in certain instances not a single militant was on the spot. It appears that the US is relying on motivated information in order to launch drone attacks. Apart from the sheer scale of the drone attacks and tney are becoming more and more frequent by the week, the widespread use of drone raises questions about US commitment to the conventions it has signed. I am not calling for a moratorium on the use of drones, as I do realise that such attacks are useful and to an extent necessary. I am simply saying that proper and judicious care must be taken to whet what is touted as "actionable intelligence".


Comments (Page 9)
9 PagesFirst 7 8 9 
on Feb 24, 2010

Dr Guy

Japanese sides is really mentioned.
Rarely.

Dang! Thanks.

That's what happens when I write as quickly as I think the words.

 

on Feb 24, 2010

Leauki


That's what happens when I write as quickly as I think the words.

 

At least your typos are understandable.  I can't say the same for mine.

on Feb 25, 2010

Dr Guy and Rightwinger have had some kind things to say about me from vastly different perspectives. First, I do not come from an anti-American point of view. I have had the opportunity of studying in a very good US graduate school in my field of medieval history which I now teach along with Historiography. In fact I am anti liberal and anti socialist. I would call my self a civil libertarian without being an appologist for sundry violent terrorists. I felt this clarification was necessary as I have been mistaken to be a Liberal which I most certainly am not. I am anti abortion and am against same sex union, though I am against percecuting those with different sexual orientation.

Now the purpose of my BLOG was to show that the uncontrolled use of drones is provoking a backlash and in the long run may prove counterproductive and hence my caution.

on Feb 25, 2010

Bahu Virupaksha

Now the purpose of my BLOG was to show that the uncontrolled use of drones is provoking a backlash and in the long run may prove counterproductive and hence my caution.

If that was your intent, you failed to make that point.  I could actually agree with the statement above to a degree.  But then see the alternatives as being far worse since they would either:

A ) Fail to address the objective (ridding the area of taliban insurgents) - or -

B ) cause greater colateral damage and thus be worse from a "PR" perspective.

on Feb 25, 2010

I agree, drones have their place and are a valuable asset, however there is nothing better (yet) then having boots on the ground. Whether NATO or Pakistan does it, this must be accomplished. Killing civilians have almost always pushed them into the arms of who isn't killing them. These civilians will never understand the terrorists disregard for their safety until the fighting gets down to a personal level.

on Feb 26, 2010

I agree, drones have their place and are a valuable asset, however there is nothing better (yet) then having boots on the ground. Whether NATO or Pakistan does it, this must be accomplished. Killing civilians have almost always pushed them into the arms of who isn't killing them. These civilians will never understand the terrorists disregard for their safety until the fighting gets down to a personal level.

Afghanistan is different from the Middle-East.

In contrast to terrorist groups in the Middle-East, the Taliban have almost no local support in Afghanistan. Their money and arms came from Arab sources and the Taliban's alliance with Al-Qaeda has been understood in Afghanistan as foreigners meddling in their country.

This is not to say that we don't have to be careful not to kill civilians just because they are unlikely to embrace the Taliban if we do. But the sensitivities are different. The clans of civilian victims want compensation for their losses, not us doubting their loyalty to whichenver non-Taliban warlord they happen to be allied with.

In Afghanistan, if you kill someone, you pay blood money. It's a system that has evolved as a solution to the same problem we in the west solve with life insurance.

The Afghanis understand that war costs innocent lives. Heck they have been fighting wars for decades. They know.

But they won't understand why we investigate why someone died rather than pay for it as we are supposed to. To most people on the ground it is obvious how someone died in an air attack.

 

on Feb 26, 2010

Heck they have been fighting wars for decades.

Centuries. They were at it when the British "conquered" them 200 years ago, and probably longer than that.

 

9 PagesFirst 7 8 9