Atlantic Sentinel

Tag: United Nations

  • US Set to Expand Drone Strikes in Pakistan

    When Pakistan’s battle with militancy is concerned, the United States have very few options. Introducing American troops into North Waziristan to flush out the militants would be an extremely difficult mission, and it would no doubt further expand a war in Afghanistan that people are already growing tired off. Poking and prodding the Pakistani armed forces to launch another offensive has been rebuffed time and time again. The Pakistanis argue that they must first consolidate military gains in South Waziristan and Swat before another front is opened. Ordering US Special Forces into the area is risky, since disclosure would provoke a harsh Pakistani response.

    With all of these limitations, the use of drones has become the default alternative for Washington. It is not as if drone strikes have been a terrible policy. Top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders have been killed as a result of the CIA program. Militants from the Haqqani network are constantly on the run, diverting time that could be used for planning attacks toward ensuring their own personal safety. The Pakistani government is even complicit in the attacks since much of the intelligence that makes drone strikes so successful is disseminated from Inter-Services Intelligence.

    Obviously, there are problems. The United Nations Human Rights Council submitted a report earlier in the year exposing the program’s unethical nature. Philip Alston, the man in charge of the council, claims that the attacks may even be illegal under international law.

    Pakistanis residing in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, North Waziristan in particular, are often killed when the missiles are targeting militants. There have been a number of cases where mothers and children were among the casualties due to their personal relationships with Al Qaeda, Haqqani, or Pakistani Taliban insurgents.

    Despite the criticism, there really isn’t another options for keeping militants on their toes.

    The tribal regions are nearly impossible to navigate by foot, rendering any ground operation lengthy and perhaps downright impossible. Therefore, it’s no wonder that Washington is trying to increase the range in which drones are permitted. American and NATO intelligence have already requested that American drones be allowed to scan targets in the Pakistani city of Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban leadership is believed to be based. The request has been denied by Pakistan, but the fact that the CIA submitted it expresses how valuable the unmanned vehicles have been in the fight against international terrorism.

    Civil and human rights activists and organizations will be disappointed by the request. But surely a missile targeting a single house, acting on accurate information, is better than the alternative: a full-scale ground invasion? The former kills the intended target with limited civilian casualties. The latter option would no doubt leave many more people dead or wounded, in addition to destroying a tribal infrastructure system that is already weak at the margins.

    The United States recognized this discrepancy long ago. It may be time for others in the international community, including the United Nations, to recognize it as well.

  • The Upcoming Iran Meeting of December 5

    It seems like Iran and the United Nations Security Council have been jostling about Tehran’s nuclear program forever. It’s the same old equation: the UN try to adopt a deal that Iran would accept, but then the deal falls apart after a few days of consideration. Such was the case last year when Iran and the Security Council both accepted an agreement whereby 2,600 pounds of low enriched uranium would be sent to France and Russia for further processing. Originally, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agreed on the contours of the deal. But when the Iranian president came back home, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the conservative clerics forced him to renege on the proposal.

    The nuclear talks between the United States and Iran have been stalled ever since, with both sides refusing to budge on their positions. For the United States, it’s Iran’s refusal to uphold international demands that have been the sour point. For the Iranians, it’s the perception that the West is simply trying to deprive their right to produce nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And for Turkey, Brazil and everyone else in between, it’s a combination of the two.

    So when news breaks that Iranian and European negotiators have finally agreed on resuming the broken down talks later in December, questions automatically surface as to whether this round will be any different from the last.

    The Washington Post reported a few weeks ago that both sides have in fact settled on December 5 for talks to begin. But so far, the topics of the discussions, let alone where the talks will be held, are still up for debate. Tehran wants to negotiate in Turkey, the same country that brokered a fuel swap deal earlier this year. The Security Council, on the other hand, is fearful that talking in Turkey will only bring a powerful pro-Iranian voice into the process; something that the United States surely want to avoid.

    From this early date, it’s difficult to believe how the December 5 negotiations can work. While economic sanctions from the EU, United Nations and United States have inflicted harm on the Iranians for the past few months, it appears that these punishments have only hardened Teheran’s position on their nuclear enrichment rights. And in Washington DC, patience with diplomacy is running thin. With Republicans set to assume dominance in the lower chamber of Congress, the Obama Administration will be pressured to act tougher — and for most Republican legislators, tougher means using or threatening to use force.

    Diplomacy is complicated and at times infuriating, especially when the country you are trying to negotiate with carries a bulk of Western distrust on their shoulders. But without diplomacy, there are only three options available for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue: more sanctions, military force, or Cold War style nuclear containment. All three are controversial, and all three may only exacerbate the situation. Compromising face to face is something that every reasonable person can support.