The
killing of General Suleimani on President Donald Trump's orders would
probably be classified as an act of terrorism if any country other than the
US had done it.
Col
R Hariharan | Global Trends| India Legal January 13, 2020 https://www.indialegallive. com/world-news/global-trends- news/different-strokes-82371
The killing of Major General Qasem Suleimani,
chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)’s Quds Force, considered
Iran’s second most powerful leader, by US airstrike last Friday (January 3) in
Iraq has taken West Asia to the brink of war. The US operation carried out on
the orders of President Donald Trump triggered Iran’s retaliatory military
response after three days of national mourning for the slain leader. The
Iranians fired two dozen missiles targeting two American bases in Iraq, which
do not seem to have suffered much damage.
According to National Interest, the
missiles were area weapons fired from 400 miles away on targets of a few square
miles with minimal effect. This would indicate Iran’s response was
calculated to be symbolic to satisfy the masses, baying for revenge. President
Trump’s national address on the attack also indicated, at least for the time
being, that the US would leave the crisis simmering rather than burst into
full-fledged war.
While strategic analysts continue to debate the
cause and effect of the latest US-Iran stand-off, it raises a number of
uncomfortable questions on the legality of their conduct. The Quds Force, a
part of the IRGC, led by General Soleimani, was responsible for extra
territorial unconventional warfare and intelligence. The US designated it a
terrorist organization in 2007 with Canada, Egypt and Saudi Arabia
following suit.
The US had for long held
General Suleimani and the Quds Force in its sights for carrying out terrorist
attacks through local extremist groups in the Levant. The US act of
carrying out a drone strike to kill Soleimani in Iraq when he was on his way to
Baghdad airport , on President Donald Trump's orders, for his alleged role in
killing "millions of people," would probably be classified as an act
of terrorism, if any country other than the United States had done it.
After the attack, angry Iranian foreign
minister Javad Zarif in a tweet called the US action an act of international
terrorism and said it was an extremely dangerous and foolish escalation. “The
US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism.
Can the US action be called terrorism? For
long, the UN had difficulty in defining terrorism that is acceptable to
all member nations. However, since 1994, the UN General Assembly,
after adopting the 1994 UN Declaration on Measures to Eliminate
International Terrorism annexure to UN General Assembly Resoution 49/60
“Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism” of December 9, 1994 uses the
following political description of terrorism to condemn terrorist acts:
"Criminal acts intended or calculated to
provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or
particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance
unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked
to justify them.”
By this UN definition of terrorist
act, the killing of General Suleimani may fall under the above category
of terrorist act.
Other than this, UN’s
international conventions on anti-terrorist measures for various sectors, ARE
based on operational definition of the specific type of terrorist act. These
measures focus on action by non-state actors and adoption of a criminal law
enforcement model under which states would cooperate in the apprehension and
prosecution of those who committed the terrorist act.
Though the UN has had difficulty in defining
terrorism, the US defines terrorism in Title 22 Chapter 38 U. S. Code § 256f as
"premeditated, politically motivated, perpetrated against noncombatant
targeted by sub national groups or clandestine agents." So the
act of killing Suleimani by using an air strike may not pass muster in
the US as an act of terrorism.
In April 2019, in a questionable move the US
designated the IRCG, a constitutional entity of the Iranian government, a
terrorist organization. This was said to have been opposed by the Central
Intelligence Agency. The IRCG is distinct from the Iranian army which is
entrusted with national security. The IRCG’s role is protecting the Islamic
system, to prevent foreign interference and coups by the military or other
opposition movements. Evidently the US action was taken to check IRCG
activities in Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.
Mary Ellen O’Connell,
research professor of international dispute resolution, at the University of
Notre Dame, in her comments to the CNN held that Trump’s decision to kill
General Suleimani was not legal as it had the quality of an act of revenge,
reprisal and punishment. She cited the President’s Twitter that General Suleimani
“was plotting to kill many more….but got caught…” and “he should have been
taken out many years ago” and the Department of Defense
press release calling the attack “a defensive action”.
Moreover,
under the right of self-defence, military attack is permitted under UN
Charter Article 51 only “if an armed attack” occurs on the defending nation.
The triggering action must be significant and the response necessary and
proportionate to halt and repel the ongoing attacks. So Prof O’Connell
holds the killing of Suleimani cannot be justified by the law of self-defence.
Her
comment “Trump is not the first president to carry out
drone killings in violation of international law. He has taken the practice to
a new level of lawlessness” says it all.
The writer is a military
intelligence specialist on South Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for
China Studies
No comments:
Post a Comment