Obama's Drones:
Drawing the Wrong Conclusions from bin Laden's Demise (Estadao,
Brazil)
"The
notion of a 'global theater of battle' has terrifying implications, which moves
humanity closer to the sphere of barbarity. With this legal defense, American
drones would exterminate al-Qaeda terrorists in London or Sao Paulo, while
Israeli drones would kill Hezbullah militants in Lebanon and their Chinese
counterparts would eliminate Uygur separatists in Kazakhstan. ... Given the
crisis exposed at the Brennan hearings, U.S. Congressmen formulated the idea of
a revising the list of targets for 'targeted killings.' This is only a way of brushing
up a cover-up of an intolerable 'American exception.'"
John O. Brennan: Chief counter-terror advisor to President Obama and his nominee to lead the CIA, Brennan embodies the inherent contradictions of America's policy of drone use and targeted killings.
In Congressional hearings for John Brennan, Barack
Obama’s choice to lead the CIA, the U.S. Senate witnessed a spectacle of sound
and fury. On one hand, the indiscriminate barrage of criticism for the policy
of “targeted killings” carried out by drones shed no light on a vital debate.
On the other, the government’s allies in Congress engaged in an attempt to
cover up the disastrous strategy, which was inspired by the Bush Doctrine.
Does the state have the right to promote extrajudicial
killings on foreign territory? The laws of war, which fall under International
Humanitarian Law, accept the killing of enemy combatants within the borders
of a theater of battle. In its inherent flexibility, it allows for the death of
civilians as collateral damage, as long as no deliberations about engaging in
massacres can be proven. Outside the theater of battle, international
human rights law prevails, which in all cases vetoes extrajudicial
executions, except when the target represents a direct and immediate threat to third parties.
American counterterrorism policy is criticized for violating the body of international
human rights law; while the U.S. government retorts that “targeted killings” are
situated within the framework of International Humanitarian Law. On this point,
the reason is Obama.
It has been shown that drone attacks have accuracy far
superior to conventional aerial bombing. Drones have not killed hundreds of
civilians, as inattentive newspapers and anti-American fanatics have reported,
but a few dozen over several years. The original sources of these exaggerated
estimates are invariably local newspapers in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas of Pakistan, which are controlled by Taliban and Pakistani intelligence
agencies celebrated for their cooperative ties with jihadi
groups in Kashmir. Unfortunately, the voice that expressed such truths in the
American Senate was that of the sordid John Brennan, a figure marked by his tacit
collaboration with the torture practices employed under George W. Bush's “war
on terror.”
The American Civil Liberties Union pleaded in court that “targeted
killings” could be carried out in Afghanistan under the cover of international
human rights law, but they are never permissible in Pakistan, Yemen, or other
territories outside the theater of battle. But in the case of “global terror”
organizations, the geographic limitation argument under International
Humanitarian Law is not only wrong, it is politically intolerable. The main
purpose of the laws of war are to protect civilian populations in conflict
zones. If the thesis of the ACLU won out, the laws of war would be converted
into tools for protecting the “armies of terror,” as all countries outside Afghanistan
would gain the status of sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and illegal combatants, none
of whom observe International
Humanitarian Law and deliberately attack civilian targets. Under this
hypothesis, jihadi leaders would have the
extraordinary privilege of unilaterally choosing the location of successive
theaters of battle, which would always be created by their own acts of terror.
Posted By
Worldmeets.US
In the case of new forms of transnational conflict like
the “war on terror,” the laws of war cannot be circumscribed by traditional
geopolitical boundaries: the theater of battle moves along with the movement of
actors to the conflict. The Bush Doctrine derived this correct conclusion by
postulating a maximalist “global theater of battle.” The same postulate leads
the Obama government to claim an “American exception”: in its counter-terrorism
policy, the U.S. would have the privilege of ignoring geopolitical borders and
the sovereignty of nations.
The notion of a “global theater of battle” has terrifying
implications, which moves humanity closer to the sphere of barbarism. With this
defense, American drones would exterminate al-Qaeda terrorists in London or São
Paulo, while Israeli drones would kill Hezbullah militants in Lebanon, and
their Chinese counterparts would eliminate Uygur separatists in Kazakhstan.
The law of neutrality, which is part of the laws of war, should
lead Washington to think twice before positing a “global theater of battle.” It
imposes obligations both on neutrals and belligerents. A neutral cannot give shelter
to forces of the warring parties. Moreover, hostile parties cannot operate militarily
in the territory of a neutral. In 2001, Afghanistan became a legitimate target
for American military action when it rejected a U.S. ultimatum to expel al-Qaeda
from its territory. But, at least in principle, Pakistan, Yemen and other
countries are not legitimate targets for drone raids.
The scene on the ground is less clear than the lawyers
would like. In theory, the government of Pakistan is a U.S. ally in the “war
on terror.” But the jihadists are not being effectively besieged by Pakistan forces
in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Pakistan’s double game conferred a
legitimacy to the action of U.S. commandos who wiped out Osama bin Laden, but
cannot serve as justification for continuing drone attacks not formally
authorized by the country. In Yemen, Libya and other places, things are even
more scandalous, as the U.S. hasn’t even tried to coordinate these operations
with national governments.
Obama drew the wrong conclusions from his triumph of eliminating
bin Laden. His approach to the “war on terror” establishes frightening
precedents. The hunt for jihadists, including with the use of lethal drones operations,
demand international cooperation. But Washington continues to reject the
multilateral framework of the U.N. Security Council for setting up a legitimate
theater of battle. Given the crisis exposed at the Brennan hearings, American
Congressmen formulated the idea of revising the list of targets for “targeted
killings.” This is only a way of brushing up a cover-up of an intolerable
“American exception.”
*DemétrioMagnoli is a sociologist with a doctorate in human
geography from USP. E-mail: demetrio.magnoli@uol.com.br
