For the US, the times are a changing
Four reports denouncing drone attacks and underlining their illegality have appeared in a week on international media. First came studies by two UN rapporteurs followed by two well-researched reports by the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch. The reports maintain that drone attacks are illegal and the killing of civilians in strikes that were intended to hit militants constituted war crimes. The reports demand declassification of information about the secretive drone killings and clarification of US position on the legality of the attacks. Besides the humanitarian and legal aspects, drone attacks can have serious implications for world peace, a report maintains. Their extensive use can jeopardise international security by encouraging more states and terrorist groups to acquire unmanned weapons
The reports appear at a time when Pakistan is pressing the issue at various UN forums. Pakistan has raised the matter at the Security Council calling for urgent talks to resolve the problem. The world body was told that out of some 2,200 people killed by drone strikes in the past decade, at least 400 were civilians and an additional 200 victims were deemed probable non-combatants. The issue is now to be debated in the General Assembly on Friday. On Tuesday Mian Nawaz Sharif dilated on the issue while addressing the US Institute of Peace. He maintained that the drone strikes constituted a major irritant in US-Pakistan relations. The attacks were not only a continued violation of Pakistan’s territorial integrity, but also detrimental to its resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from the country.
The US has never been under such international pressure as it is now on the drones issue. An adamant White House spokesman however insists that drone strikes are legitimate, also denying they infringe international law and maintains the US did all it could to avoid civilian casualties. Further by deciding to use drone aircraft against terror suspects, rather than sending in troops or using other weapons, Washington was “choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.” The four reports by independent and highly respectable organizations contradict the stand. The US in the past never paid heed to world opinion when pursuing its perceived national interests. The reverse gear applied in the case of Syria however implies, things are different this time. It remains to be seen if the US would be willing to call off drone strikes in Pakistan without a quid pro quo.
