Durdana Najam
Violation of international law is how most of the critics have described the drone-killing of the Iranian Military Commander Qassim Soleimani. However, the attack amounts also to deceit and double-game when gleaned from the assertion made by the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi; in an address to the Parliament Mehdi insisted that Soleimani and Abdul Mahdi al-Muhands, the leader of the Iranian-backed Iraqi militia, were targeted as they were coming to see him. Abdul Medhi also claimed President Trump had asked him to mediate with Tehran. On its part, the US took the usual line of defence to justify the attack i.e. “to avert imminent attack on the US personnel.” No evidence has so far been produced to substantiate the claim. In fact, in a brazen retaliation to Iran’s spontaneous vow of “severe revenge” for the killing of Soleimani, Trump even threatened to attack Iranian cultural sites – which too is a war crime. Though Trump did not specify, yet experts and analysts suggested the president may have been referring to symbols like the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic republic and several other holy shrines.
Also, despite a call by the Iraqi Parliament through a resolution to expel the US military from the country, Trump despatched another 3,000 soldiers to Kuwait. US Defense Secretary Mark Espe had earlier rubbished reports that additional 14,000 troops will be sent to the Middle East.
Is it the first time that the US has made an intervention to purportedly protect American lives? No.
Afghanistan was invaded for precisely the same purpose after 9/11 even when not a single Afghan was part of the team that attacked the twin towers, with no UN sanction for this act. Iraq was invaded even when the United Nations Security Council refused to ratify the US resolution seeking a legitimate invasion on the pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to Al-Qaida. In 1989 Panama was invaded on the phoney ground that “the US had acted in defence against anticipated attacks on US personnel in Panama.” Even though most members of the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly vetoed against the invasion, calling it “strongly deplorable, the US refused to budge. In a similar disregard to international laws, Trump unilaterally recognized Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
There are several examples of such interventions leading to either regime change, or extraction of desired results. Iran has been one such example. The US-led western adventure into Syria being another example that plunged the Middle East into an unending war. Libya endured the same fate, premised on the argument of self defense. Libya today is at best a fragmented fiefdom.
“Endless wars” – motivated by the US establishment’s long-term interests – have offered an enabling environment for proxies as instruments of policy. The latest intervention will likely further aggravate this situation.
Over the years there has been a collective tolerance – among big nations – for repression to guard self-interest in a complete negation of international laws. The insensitivity was visible when Rohingya’s were forced to flee Bangladesh, or when Israelis double down on Palestinians, or when Kashmir was locked down in a permanent curfew turning the region into jail and when President Trump allowed the segregation of mothers from their infants on the Mexico-US border to stem migration.
In complete contrast to this indifferent behaviour, the world leaders usually resolve to bring peace to the world through shared values, human rights and commitment to the rule of law. In many cases, it is not more than ceremonial lip-service. The second US-India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in December represents one such example of sham commitments to ideals of justice and rule of law. In the joint statement both India and the US reiterated their commitment to human rights, tolerance, democracy free, open and peaceful cooperation in the Indo-pacific region. Do they really mean it when viewed against the Indian conduct in Kashmir since August 5 and the indifference to protests against Citizenship Amendment Act?
Geo-political interests seem to legitimize rougher methods of “conflict management, resolution or perusal of objectives – however questionable they may be in the eyes of others.
Qassim Soleimani’s elimination is another reflection of how the mighty nations flout international law for their own interests. The tendency to exercise “might is right” has grown stronger than following the rule of law as dictated in the international statutes.
