web analytics

America and the chronic art of intervention

Under the cover of classified evidence, very less has ever been declared from the American side with regard to sudden attempts to intervene in the state affairs of another nation, whether Iraq of March 2003 or the close-end encounter of Syria last year, "on humanitarian grounds" ofcourse. Drones are another mass discrimination stunt, where a nation's sovereign territorial integrity is forced out of question against the title of war against terror, justifying the excessive loss of lives, let alone cries for humanitarianism. Yet on a vaster global scale, similar questioning observations speak volumes of America’s continued hunger for violence and how the superpower earns an open license to indiscriminate killings, far too arrogant to consider the undue side-effects of such roughly plotted attacks on a state; dismissive, ferocious, negligent. The egging dose of moral support was working greatly in Syria's case, as on ground realities reinforced America's persistent aid for local militant groups and rebels against the Syrian state, empowering them with arms and background protection, as seen through-out the superpower's pounding history. With a far more strengthened opposition at hand, it becomes obvious for the targeted-state to retaliate. Hence, for Syria in the most recent instance, it was the fortune of the nation to escape the American rifle bullet; a rarity in the making. Consequently, this pioneer of war and saint of world conflict ends up escalating violence at the cost of country, letting the media cash into the subject as trouble explodes, arranging a press briefing to recite the public-friendly guidelines of Pentagon’s stance on National Security, leading them four steps closer to their objective, the world in disarray.

The prime reason as to why in Waziristan, the upper-north of Pakistan, a struggling, common refugee is more likely to be inducted into the TTP and globally active Al-Qaeda agenda is because endless blood and bullets has these men and women's emotions dented, avenues of rationality and motivation lost; all eyes red-heavy on America, an enemy at large. In order for the political power of such a country to eradicate militancy, the expansion of these entities is a must, which calls for an end to emotionally-motivated terrorism first. The mystery should not be too hard to unmask as the American government desirously plays as the source of ratification for each of its intelligent assessments as well as global policy makers, shifters and implementers, the sole dictators of their allies’ agenda and the independent judge of each of the 206 sovereign nations’ fate – firing bullets of dictatorship in the name of genuine democracy. As seen previously in the nuclear weapons episode in Iraq, the irony of the Syrian predicament and the thickly stressed "presence of chemical weapons" was that the US has no legal basis to intervene in the first place. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 which is upheld by Syria and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 (which is not) denies the use of chemical weapons, but a violation of these treaties by a nation does not grant others the right to attack it by any means.

The US has toppled global benchmarks by ignoring the UN’s rules and regulations multitudinous times in the past — Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, the second Iraq War, and the 2011 war in Libya. However, such manipulation of tactics, the immediate practice of reverse agenda and garnering immunity from latter legal consequences would always be reasonable strategies when related to the United States, because for the rest of the world, UN conditions are a requirement to comply by. Failing to abide by them results in the signing of an execute order, putting sanctions into effect, that too with genuine intelligence evidence ofcourse. Article 51 of the UN Charter states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”, equipping a hand full of targeted states with the strongest right to retaliate against a possible armed attack in the near future. 

Either the American narrative, in-spite of its artificial humanitarian flavor, has impacted convincingly enough to silence the rest of the world on its destructive strategies and immoral ambitions. On the other hand, perhaps genuine concern for a nation under deep stress such as Pakistan or Syria for that matter may never be put into effect beyond verbal condemnation. Current reality suspects a great deal of both. Too much silence from a responsible state only provides a flawless roadmap for America to heighten its personal motives and persuasive attitude upon. A fancy diplomatic stunt with a thirty-party non-ally such as Russia on a blue-moon for instance would work as a perfect attention detraction strategy, or the signing of a strictly conditional agreement with another nation would widen its dependency on America for a greater reason, quite possibly setting the perfect stage for a conveniently timed military action in the near future.

Facebook Comments