Kabul: ‘unable’ & ‘unwilling’

IF Pakistan undertakes air strikes inside Afghanistan to decrease, degrade and destroy the capability of terrorist groups who carry out attacks on its soil, does it justify India’s stance of conducting strikes — similar to the ones it resorted to last year — on Pakistani territory? In my view, it does not. This is because, from a legal perspective, the two cases are entirely different. However, it is still important to underscore the importance of a long-term solution to unpleasant bilateral issues — no matter how bitter or intense, and regardless of whether diplomatic or political means are used. And nobody should advocate for the indefinite use of force. But when, despite its peace efforts, Pakistan sees 80 terrorist attacks in February, 146 in March, 85 in April — in fact, hundreds in the past one year — how long can it afford to wait for a diplomatic solution? The state is, in fact, left with no choice than the resort to force in order to incapacitate terrorist groups and curtail the mischief coming from across the Afghan border. Such use of force is justified under the customary practice of self-defence formulated in recent times under the UN Charter. Every strike is intended to prevent another attack. The attacks are averaging three per day. It is unfortunate that a series of brutally executed attacks, across Balochistan and KP in particular, also meet the criterion of ‘imminent attack’ that the law of self-defence so requires. Also Pakistan’s selection of target has been declared as confined to military objects — such as ammunition depots, weapons storage and terrorist training venues and sanctuaries in Kabul, Kandahar, Paktia, Paktika, etc — for which it gathers intelligence from ground tentacles or uses satellite imagery. Any ancillary damage to civilians or error in choosing a target — a regrettable consequence of all aerial operations — has its own fallout. The object is not to attack Afghanistan as a state since it has said several times that it has not