Missile strikes in Pakistan illustrate larger foreign policy dilemmas
Nov 13th, 2008 by lynn
Missile blasts in two Pakistani villages, suspected to have been fired by an American remotely piloted aircraft, killed 27 people on Oct. 31, according to the New York Times.
Since August, 17 strikes have occurred in Pakistan near the Afghan border, targeting members of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups while also purportedly resulting in civilian deaths. Although the US has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility for the attacks, Pakistan’s foreign ministry said in a statement that “it was underscored to the [American] ambassador that the government of Pakistan strongly condemns the missile attacks which resulted in the loss of precious lives and property,” according to the BBC.
To what degree the next presidential administration will respect this admonishment from the Pakistani government remains to be seen. President elect Barack Obama has promised to hunt down Osama bin Laden and members of Al Qaeda, even if that requires military incursions into Pakistan. Former candidate and Senator John McCain, never publicly affirmed this course of action during his campaign, categorizing his opponent’s willingness to do so as cavalier. On other subjects, however, McCain took a harder line, saying as recently as this year that military action against Iran might be better than “living with an Iranian bomb,” according to a recent New York Times article.
“The stakes have never been higher for us individually, nationally or globally. We live in a time of unprecedented danger and opportunity,” says Greg Moser, executive director of the Homeland Security Program at the University of Denver (DU).
Obama will inherit the substantial challenge of reconciling the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and determining how to utilize America’s power to confront international threats and crises. As President Bush’s approval ratings have shown, national and international success requires support from individuals both at home and abroad.
War crimes protesters at the White House call for Bush
Nick Phelps, an international business student at DU, supports operations like the recent missile attacks in Pakistan.
“If you have to kill ten people, to save an entire city, it is worth it. I don’t believe in mass wars; I believe in special forces and clandestine services that will take care of certain situations when they need to be handled,” says Phelps.
Should the United States pursue military action against terrorist cells in the border regions of Pakistan despite the Pakistani government’s condemnation of such actions, the United Nations will likely become involved. Many Americans want the United States to obtain international support before intervening in foreign countries.
“Intervention is acceptable when it’s compatible with the provisions of the UN Charter and/or the Genocide Convention— i.e. when another country has used force against us and we are entitled to use self-defense under Chapter VII of the Charter, or when it’s necessary to prevent genocide or widespread massacres while the UN Security Council refused to act,” says Bob Gotlen, director of the International Human Rights Advocacy Center at DU.
Some Americans, like Katie Ross, a business and marketing major at DU, would like the US to give more precedence to human rights issues rather than focusing on security.
“The war in Iraq did not need to happen yet they terribly needed us with the genocide in Rwanda and we ignored it. When people call to us for help we should probably learn to listen” says Ross.
Determining how to confront such issues will continue to be difficult. This past election season has demonstrated that the likelihood of the American people, let alone the international community, reaching a consensus on these issues is remote. In today’s world, however, nations can afford to be independent but not insular.
“I think that the US needs to continue to be involved internationally,” says Matt Krebs, a graduate business student. “I have come to believe that diversity is America’s greatest gift, and we need to prize those differences in our society. That said, it is incredibly important that we defend the beliefs of the majority of Americans.”
Hope for change and hope for a stronger America sent voters to the polls, ultimately revealing Obama to be the victor. Only the future, however, will ultimately reveal the form that his leadership will take. In spite of the disappointment felt by some, Americans can still hope that the fervor and controversy of this election has made enough of an impression on Washington and the constituency that there is reason to hope for a better future. Looking ahead, Moser says, he can see that possibility: “If we recommit ourselves and the nation to optimism, justice, accountability, tolerance, freedom, development of all human potential, and the preservation of our environment, I think we will have the possibility of meeting the many challenges we face in the coming century.”