If ever there was any fog surrounding the question whether the drones strikes were illegal or not, UN’s special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights Ben Emmerson’s unequivocal statement on Friday that the strikes breach Pakistan’s sovereignty as well as Secretary General’s Ban Ki-moon’s concern over disregard of international humanitarian law should lift it. Mr Emmerson has also stated the government of Pakistan does not consent to the strikes. The conclusion that he has reached is the result of thorough investigations into the drone programme including several case studies, a fact-finding visit to Pakistan and hence should add credence to what he is saying.
The implications of UN’s position are almost a foregone conclusion; the Obama administration has lost face in front of the American public as well as its allies and would see its standing suffer further jolts. Only a week ago, the European Parliament expressed its deep alarm over the moral, ethical and human rights implications of what it called the “US targeted killing programme”. Drones do violate the sovereignty of the countries they blitz into, but obviously why international opinion has been steadily building up against them and has now led to the UN calling for their cessation is because of those innocent people who die sometimes because they happen to be close to the militants and sometimes, their behaviour is regarded as suspicious keeping in view the criteria set by the “signature strikes” considered evidence enough to be attacked. There is now, firm evidence that, mostly it is the non-combatants who are targeted; one report puts the ratio of civilians to terrorists’ deaths at 50 to one. Pakistan may have a problem with its tribal areas as it tries to set this lawless belt along the right lines but drones figure nowhere in this quest for redemption; if anything, with all the civilian casualties, they boomerang on Pakistan often resulting in mass-casualty explosions, reality that the UN has now acknowledged. The US that never tires of lecturing states around the globe on human rights would have to find other means of combating extremism and threats to its security. The very notion that the life of an average American can be made more safe and secure by killing some militant at the cost of civilian lives virtually blurs the difference between the civilised people and the barbarians.
Obviously, while it is a crumb of comfort that Islamabad is opposed to the aerial warfare, voicing discontent in a tone and tenor seen so far would not have the intended effect. Since a completely new perspective has emerged in the light of the UN’s categorical verdict, it calls for a firm offensive on relevant diplomatic fronts.