The changing face of diplomacy

The recent weeks have been the making of Obama – the killing of the world’s most wanted terrorist followed by an Irish homecoming have made him hot property again. But in the middle of all this, he gave an interview to Andrew Marr of the BBC- an interview in which he fundamentally re wrote international diplomacy- something which perhaps has not been given enough publicity.

Now, what he did in the case of Osama Bin Laden was clearly a gross violation of all international diplomacy. And yes, it was a complete decimation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. If Bin Laden had not been there in the house, it would have been an act of war on Pakistan. However, it was Bin Laden…and that meant that for the world, everything else was forgiven. Even Pakistan, which protested the violation of its sovereignty had to applaud for the killing of Bin Laden.

But in his interview with Andrew Marr, Obama said something else. He basically said that if any one posed a threat to the United States he would be okay to go after them…irrespective of where they were!! The wording was slightly vague. Here’s an excerpt from that interview

And if you find another very high value target at the top of al-Qaeda, Mullah Omar or whoever it might be in Pakistani territory or other sovereign territory, would you do the same again?

Well I've always been clear to the Pakistanis. And I'm not the first administration to say this. That our job is to secure the United States. We are very respectful of the sovereignty of Pakistan. But we cannot allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our our allies' people we can't allow those kind of active plans to come to fruition without us taking some action.
And our hope is and our expectation is that we can achieve that in a way that is fully respectful of Pakistan's sovereignty. But I had made no secret. I had said this when I was running for the presidency, that if I had a clear shot at Bin Laden.

You'd take it.

That we'd take it.

That basically destroys the whole meaning of independent nations with respect for each other. “Our job is to secure ourselves”. Yes and war has always been an “acceptable” form of aggression between nations, once there are reasons for war. But this has basically legitimized aggression within another country even when there is no aggression against the country itself – as long as the “security” is about a country-less individual

Unfortunately, I believe Andrew Marr let Obama off the hook a bit. Marr asked about “Pakistani territory or other sovereign territory” but Obama managed to make it a answer about Pakistan – and in the current scenario it is generally acceptable that Pakistan’s sovereignty has been compromised for the killing of Bin Laden- while leaving the door open for any unilateral aggression against any country in order to “secure the United States”

The implications of that statement- especially if one is willing to interpret security in a slightly broader context , such as energy security- are mind boggling.

Not that the US has been against unilateral aggression, e.g. twenty years ago, they went in and took out President Noreiga from his presidential palace. But generally, they have always tried to build a legal case for it before the action. In this case, the attorney general has tried to build a legal case after the incident. But Obama has taken it further now by effectively eliminating a legal reason altogether and putting self interest as the only reason.

Now, of course, nations act only in their interest…and hypocrisy on legalese always exists. And yes, often might is right! But even just the need to find a legal reason for something creates a pause and makes a more measured response. And gives a chance for something else to emerge.

But Obama has now thrown that out of the window. In the new “Obama doctrine“ all that is required is for the POTUS to feel that his country’s security is at threat….and boom

• Ecological Security is at threat – let’s take out BP


• Job security is at threat – let’s take out Indian call centres and IT shops


• Border security is at threat because of Mexico – let’s shoot all illegal immigrants coming - they are threats to our security and can be hence considered legal combatants


• The price of oil is so high it is affecting our energy security – let’s invade some of the oil producing countries and give ourselves free oil

Now, I know this is absurd, but still it proves a point. Even hypocrisy has its uses. Such blatant disregard for established diplomatic procedures- and clearly enunciating this disregard is dangerous. And with the US remaining the clear superpower for some time to come it could signal an intention of “do what I say, or else.”
Alas, the US does not seem to want other nations, in dealing with them, to have any more choice than Bernard Woolley did when he told Hacker –“your wish is my cooperation”