Mr Obama, define justice

Post Osama bin Laden’s killing, while the bloodhounds in India immediately began to clamour for a similar “surgical strike” on the head of the D-Company allegedly in Pakistan, in the United Kingdom it was a time for sober reflection. A time to ponder about justifying the killing of an unarmed man, in front of his wife and children, even if he was a dangerous terrorist.

The nuanced reaction in Europe, which takes human rights very seriously, has been a little different to that in the US.
In the US, it is apparent, different laws apply to other countries, while America is a law into itself. The scale of the celebration and jubilation over Bin Laden’s death was different in Europe, and apart from Prime Minister David Cameron’s unequivocal statement, there were many voices in Britain, including that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which were not as approving. Was this the only way to “take out” Bin Laden? Does justice now comprise reprisals and bloodbaths — an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? In that case, shall we shut down the courts and say goodbye to human rights altogether? Shall we also forget that the US war on terror has already led to the death of thousands of Iraqis and, thanks to the US’ meddling in Pakistan and Afghanistan, many more people have died there than during the assault on the Twin Towers? But the recent actions of the US, and the hubris, is scary beyond belief. This is one country that can do anything for its self-interest. Thus, though it may be controversial to say so, some of the reaction in Europe has been reassuring.
He may have been a murderer, a war criminal, or even an evil genius, but if other criminals are given a fair trial why was he not hauled up before an international court of justice? Was President Barack Obama’s rough justice — though put across more eruditely and logically than President George W. Bush ever managed to do — any different to that meted out by Saddam Hussein towards his enemies? Even the unfortunate naming of Operation Geronimo, after a native Indian rebel, brought to mind a cowboy and Indian face-off, and we know who the winners of that encounter were. The visuals of Mr Obama and his team looking at the killing (or a report about it) live made it look like a playstation game, wiped clean of all humanitarian concerns. The bloodthirsty acronym “EKIA” (Enemy Killed In Action) belongs more to the virtual world than to real life. Obama-turned-Rambo is an unrecognisable character. Did this man really get the Nobel Peace prize? Through his actions, Mr Obama has completely humiliated Pakistan and created even more dysfunctional relationships in the entire area.
The question once again is, by going into a sovereign country and killing people in order to uphold American-owned “values” and “democracy” what has America achieved? It has killed one “monster” but destabilised an entire region. A kidnap may have been more audacious, but it would not have invited the humanitarian critique now being associated with it.
Isn’t it about time someone pointed out that invading countries in pursuit of the liberal, democratic message might be somewhat contradictory. Even the Israelis in their hunting of war criminals ensured that they faced a proper trial. What India is doing with Ajmal Kasab, whilst it would have been easier to kill him off, is the civilised path to follow.
It also spoke volumes for America’s diminished power that the killing of Bin Laden did not lead to automatic celebration in countries which could be deemed its allies, and was in fact greeted with far more introspection. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, (who had just earned fame for presiding over the “WillKat” wedding) has also expressed his own discomfort. He said, “The killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it does not look as if justice is seen to be done”. While some Americans have been wildly accusing the Europeans of being “cheese eating surrender monkeys”, the concerns expressed have been supported by the constantly changing narrative of the encounter. The shooting of an unarmed man and the hasty burial at sea has left a nasty aftertaste and diminished the image of the US among liberals. Several religious leaders, including the Bishop of Winchester, are now concerned that there may be fresh terrorist reprisals against Christians.
Mr Obama may have as yet made his biggest blunder. Not only has he upset some in Europe and elsewhere, he has also completely alienated the people of Pakistan and others in the Muslim world. In fact, by killing Bin Laden, Mr Obama may have managed to complete the agenda of the dead terrorist.

Meanwhile, coalition blues have begun to hit the ruling party in Britain as the referendum to change the voting process was finally held this week. It has been a very difficult time for the ruling coalition partners who have agreed to disagree. The Tories were persuading voters to stick to the existing system of First Past The Post (FPTP) and the Liberal Democrats were promoting the Alternative Vote (AV) system. The latter, if it were chosen, would have meant that people would cast their votes in order of preference. The tragedy for the LibDems is that their own declining vote ratio has adversely impacted the vote for AV. A while ago, people were so disillusioned with politics (thanks to scams!) that the majority wanted to vote for the change.
But now the numbers are in the reverse: around 60 per cent support FPTP, and only 40 per cent want AV. This has been a huge blow for Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the leader of the LibDems, who had been personally promoting the AV system. Mr Cameron, however, is happy that FPTP won in what was the first serious and very public rift between them. Now it remains to be seen whether this acknowledgement of differences gets translated into other policy matters and whether the precarious bonhomie within the coalition is disrupted by the defeat of the LibDem agenda.

Kishwar Desai can be contacted at kishwardesai@yahoo.com