Tags:
Journalism of Courage
US missile strikes on Khartoum and terrorist sites in and around Jalalabad have been seen as a new phenomenon in the international situation. There is cognition about their legitimacy and implications. Yet this operation was not unprecedented. The US has taken unilateral punitive military action in foreign territories as retaliation or a pre-emptive measure. Recent examples are Lebanon, Libya, Grenada, Panama and Haiti. The most large-scale action was in Iraq, though undertaken under Security Council resolutions. The military build-up to compel Iraq to accept continuous UN inspection of its military facilities in February was also in essence a unilateral US action.Memories are short, but India has been a target of such action. Nixon sent the aircraft carrier Enterprise to the region in 1971 to press India to stop its military operations against Pakistani forces in East Pakistan. Britain, France, Israel and Russia have also undertaken such intervention.
The only difference between the latest US strikes andthe other examples is that the latter were reactions to political events or crises, whereas the US has now retaliated against what it identified as terrorist groups led by Osama bin Laden. America8217;s allies and a number of South American, African and Asian countries have welcomed the decisive action against international terrorism. The majority of Muslim countries and many developing and non-aligned countries have criticised it as a violation of international law and interference in sovereign states. A third reaction is that the US should have ensured legitimacy for the strikes from the Security Council. This was articulated in Boris Yeltsin8217;s outrage at not being consulted.
The political reality is that the UN has been given the go-by. In terms of normative requirements, America8217;s actions can be considered illegal. It has violated the territorial jurisdiction of a number of countries. From one point of view it creates a dangerous and destabilising precedent. It is that if a state is powerful and immune from retaliatory action, it can indulge in unilateral and coercive military operations against other countries or sections of their people at will. Israel perhaps is the only other country which has undertaken similar anti-terrorist action, but it has never launched large-scale missile attacks on othercountries. Most of its operations have been commando operations. If the US considers a military or security posture of a country like India a threat to its security or to its stipulations on peace and stability in our region, it would feel free to undertake long-distance military strikes against Indian targets. Even if this is far-fetched, the fact remains that Tomahawk missiles can carry nuclear warheads. How does the international community cope with such a prospect? The Security Council and the General Assembly in its sessions between September and December should focus on this.
Indian reactions have been mixed. Atal Behari Vajpayee, without commenting directly, has stated that the American action provides the basis for unified efforts by the international community against terrorism. This presumably is the government reaction: unified support for the US action. America8217;s action will certainly make it difficult for it to lecture us if we decided to take pre-emptive action against terrorist headquartersin Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. But George Fernandes has roundly criticised the Americans. So has the Communist Party, and Pranab Mukherjee of the Congress. Pakistan faces a contradictory predicament. If it supports the US, it risks strong domestic opposition and trouble from the Taliban and militant Afghan elements. If it opposes it, American pressure will debilitate it. It is also potentially vulnerable to India considering retaliatory strikes in PoK. India8217;s primary stance should be to utilise this precedent for its security interests while remaining committed to broad stipulations of international law.
