President Barack Obama is indeed a miracle man. His election as Americas first-ever black president was in itself a miracle, but becoming a Nobel peace laureate as head of state of a super power that is tirelessly fighting wars since after the Second World War is even a bigger miracle. His choice as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was an unexpected honour and a big surprise for Obama himself. When in Oslo to pick up his prize, he drew laughter from his hosts by jokingly admitting considerable controversy over their generous decision.
But T S Eliot was not joking when he once said, The Nobel is a ticket to one’s own funeral. No one has ever done anything after he got it. President Obama got this ticket too soon in his presidency. Within less than a year after his election as the first-ever non-white US president in more than two hundred years of American history, Obama got last years Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. He is good at making eloquent speeches. He made one while taking presidential oath at the Capitol Hill.
President Obama spoke of costly wars, global image erosion, and shattered economy as his terrible legacy of multiple challenges. He vowed then that these challenges will be met. He promised a new America for the Americans as well as for the world, an America which would be at peace with itself and with the rest of the world.
Obama also belittled the Bush era as a bleak chapter in Americas history.
He pledged to restore what he called our lost sense of common purpose by acclaiming America, we are better than those last eight years. Across the globe, there was great relief on the prospect of change in Americas global policies and outlook. There was a feeling that for the first time since John F Kennedy, America had a different kind of leader. Obamas presence at the White House not only brought a new facelift to the US but also embodied hope for change.
But after first two years of his presidency, neither the American people nor those of the world saw any sign of the promised change. The American people spoke loud and clear in the mid-term polls to register their disillusionment with Obamas complacent approach in handling the multiple challenges that he had pledged to meet in consonance with the wishes of his people. The Democrats lost their majority in the House and narrowly escaped the same fate in the Senate. The people around the world were also disappointed to see Obamas views on the need to resort to force beginning to harden within months after his coming into office.
When he went to Oslo last year to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama was a different person altogether. From being a global peace-maker, he turned his Nobel moment into what observers found an unapologetic defense of war. He was at his Hegelian best when he proclaimed war as an ethical aspect which ennobles human activity. He justified wars to make peace. “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world”, he declared while making his case that evil must be fought with evil. As Nobel laureate, he was sounding fury and smelling gunpowder.
Obamas new hawkish doctrine must have only embarrassed the Nobel Committee for having made a mockery of the Peace Prize. Even American analysts were filled with self-reproach on seeing their president being given an honour that he didnt deserve. They found it difficult to digest Obamas new belligerent message which was clearly at odds with the spirit bequeathed by Alfred Nobel. He was receiving an honour for peace that is nowhere in sight.
His belligerence smacked of Bushs deific neocon outlook which must have shamed even Alfred Nobels ghost who in his lifetime had invented dynamite but in his dying will, he recognised that weapons bring no peace. It seems the US establishment is so powerful as not to let Obamas peace vision come true. He soon started speaking rather nonchalantly of US troops in Afghanistan: “Some will kill. Some will be killed.” Once admitting that there was no military solution to the Afghan imbroglio, Obama now claims that force is sometimes necessary and that we will not eradicate conflict in our lifetimes.
Even though, the US and NATO have agreed at the recent Lisbon Summit to transfer security to Afghan forces by 2014, it seems the man still calling shots in Afghanistan is none other than Obamas military Commander General David Piraeus who is determined to pursue his Iraqi strategy in Afghanistan. While NATOs 2014 deadline provides Obama an exit opportunity, the Pentagon seems set on a continued combat course for military victory in Afghanistan. It says any troops withdrawal will be conditions-based, not calendar-driven.
No wonder, from the beginning of his presidency, Obama was forced not only to order military surge in Afghanistan with 30,000 additional troops but also escalate CIA-operated drone attacks in Pakistan. Even though these unmanned aerial attacks are aimed at suspected Al Qaeda or Taliban targets with covert consent of Pakistani rulers, they constitute violation of Pakistans territorial integrity as well as breach of international law.
Under the UN Charter, no country, however powerful or dominant, can resort to pre-emptive or preventive use of force or to any punitive action unless it is authorised by the UN Security Council within the scope of Articles 42 and 51 of the UN Charter. Likewise, Article 2 of the UN Charter obliges all states to settle disputes by peaceful means, to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
According to a recent UN study by an independent investigator Professor Philip Alston, under submission to the UN Human Rights Council, the use of drones by intelligence agencies, such as the CIA to carry out targeted killings in Pakistan and elsewhere, are illegal and a breach of the rules of war. It calls on countries to lay out the rules and safeguards they use when carrying out so-called targeted killings, publish figures on civilian casualties and prove they have attempted to capture or incapacitate suspects without killing them.
The programme, which US officials say has killed many insurgents in more than one hundred strikes during this year alone, has been condemned by critics who say it may constitute illegal assassinations and violate international law. Those responsible for these strikes could be at risk of prosecution for war crimes under the International Criminal Court Convention commonly known as the Rome Statute. The US officials have defended their secret operations in Pakistan saying the attacks are being undertaken with Islamabads consent and cooperation.
For the purpose of this Statute, war crimes means grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 including acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention. These include wilful killings and enforced disappearance of persons. Thus even though Pakistan and America are non-signatory to the Rome Statute, they might still be accountable under the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 with their leaders facing charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The latest WikiLeaks might perhaps be pouring new oil on the smoldering tinder.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.
