Sovereignty of Pakistan: Challenges from within, an imbroglio.
By: Professor Dr. Gholam Mujtaba
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif declares that a recent drone attack reportedly killing Afghan Taliban Chief in Baluchistan was an intrusion in Pakistan’s sovereignty. This brings the following pertinent questions that requires an answer:
PART-A, The Intriguing questions
- Why did the Pakistani foreign office acknowledge of having a prior knowledge of the drone attack, a statement issued yesterday?
- Having a prior knowledge of the attack in the light of a National Assembly resolution restricting such attacks on Pakistani soil clearly shows Pakistan’s incompetence and failure in dealing with the situation.
- Does this mean that Pakistani defense forces have either no writ, or lack the capability to face it?
These are some of the important point that requires an answer.
PART-B Foreign Hands
The man who was killed in the drone attack carried a Pakistani passport with a valid foreign visa.
Didn’t the Indian Naval Officer of RAW was carrying an Indian Passport with a third country visa?
Why a third country is guilty of providing visas to the terrorists targeting Pakistan?
Why explanation from this country is missing on matters of national importance?
May we know numbers, as to how many foreign connections have been established with those reprimanded by the law enforcement agencies, and why such connections have been concealed?
PART-C, The Confusions
Why statements showing weaknesses of the Pakistani defense apparatus are issued on a routine, such as requesting world body to denuclearize the Indian ocean after Indian display of missile deterrence, or the successful drone attack on terrorist targets?
PART-D, “THE LAW”
On the day after September 11, the U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks “in the strongest terms” and regarded “such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security.” Security Council Resolution 1368 called on all nations “to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable.” Importantly, the Security Council reaffirmed and recognized “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter.” (U.N. Security Council, Resolution 1368, S/RES/1368, September 12, 2001).
Thus, targeted drone strikes by the United States against terrorists comply with international law, particularly with the law of war, both because the U.S. is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda and associated forces and because the U.S. has an inherent right of self-defense. Armed drones are particularly well suited to target enemy belligerents while minimizing the harm to civilian populations—per the law of war. The United States should preserve its ability to use all of the tools in its arsenal, including armed drones, to ensure that terrorist organizations and their operatives do not successfully attack the U.S. homeland.