COMMENT: Obama — illegally blonde in Afghanistan —Miranda Husain

Surely, it is not too much to expect that Mr Obama’s Harvard education might have equipped him to recognise that any reconciliation efforts will be rendered meaningless once the concept of justice is eliminated from the narrative

It appears that the US president
is under pressure. In fact, we should really spare a thought for the poor chap. No one, it seems, understands just how weighty is the burden of that Nobel Peace Prize. It forever looms large. Like some realpolitik version of Banquo’s ghost.

It was again there taunting him during last month’s conference on Yemen and international terrorism. Following December’s direct attempt on the US homeland by al Qaeda in Yemen, the world’s most powerful man — Obama not Osama, just to be clear — was reduced to downgrading the presence of active terror cells in that county to a mere ‘internal affair’. Thus he vowed that not a single US soldier would touch base on Yemeni soil. In fact, Washington’s role was to help ‘reduce the influence’ of such groups in Yemen. Less global policeman and more neighbourhood watch.

Secretly, though, the prized one must have been somewhat pleased to have the summit showcase the sharp contrast between his peace-loving credentials and those of his warmongering predecessor.

Ditto the London Conference on Afghanistan. The trump card there being his full support for the concept of nation building, something that the swaggering W had always found too hard to swallow.

Just look at how he has thrown himself behind the Afghan president’s calls for the reconciliation of Afghan society through the reintegration of a Taliban free from al Qaeda game plans. And see how he nods his head knowingly when the Afghan president promises that this double R drive of the last resort will not be permitted to thwart the advancement of human rights, especially those of women, or undermine the Afghan constitution.

And just take a moment to consider the way in which he generously plans to allow the Afghan authorities to ultimately take control of all the country’s prisons. Including those not-so-secret US detention facilities. Meaning that Kabul will then have the exclusive honour of liberating those who should not, perhaps, have been incarcerated in the first place.

Unfortunately for Mr Obama, it is the latter that will likely prove the proverbial fly in the ointment. That last hurdle to having declared nobly peaceful his selfless hopes of bequeathing sovereignty to the Afghan people.

For history will, indeed, remember that pesky little matter of illegal CIA rendition programmes. Similarly, the subsequent legal black holes due to that niftiest of moves — to bypass Geneva Convention safeguards — that heralded the new-fangled ‘enemy combatant’ designation. Not to mention how the continuance of justice’s denial will undermine the Afghan president’s claims that nothing will be allowed to usurp the rule of law in a free Afghanistan.

Surely, it is not too much to expect that Mr Obama’s Harvard education might have equipped him to recognise that any reconciliation efforts will be rendered meaningless once the concept of justice is eliminated from the narrative.

Failing that, maybe his missus could have taken a short break from tackling childhood obesity to have reminded him of another home truth: ignorance of the law is not an excuse for its violation. And that the combination of knowledge of transgressions and the absence of remedial measures ought to be considered as serious as initial violations.

So, what might the US president wish to say in his defence?

Naturally, the fault lies not with him. He was simply following in the footsteps of his role model, that other good guy. Remember him? That one-time world body chief who would not permit the small matter of an illegal pre-emptive war to interfere with the honourable task of nation building?

Unfortunately, this reckless precedent set down by the UN former secretary general has been mimicked by those who pay no heed to the international legal framework but simply wish to change the subject.

This is why Britain, also a partner in CIA rendition programmes, has its former prime minister bleating on about the government’s latest Iraq probe being nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

This is why, here, in Pakistan, we have effectively bathed the Dr Aafia Sidiqui case in the dimmest of lights.

Following the Pakistani neuroscientist’s conviction in a US court, many here are calling for her to be brought home, including the government.

These calls have been applauded by British journalist Yvonne Ridley, one of the first voices to highlight the presence of the Grey Lady in Bagram. As she puts it: “When injustice is the law, it is the duty of everyone to rise up and challenge that injustice in any way possible.” But injustice only becomes the law when legal safeguards are systematically flouted. Thus the only appropriate response is to reinforce the law and bring violators to account.

This means remembering that Dr Aafia ‘disappeared’ during the tenure of the previous regime, yet another CIA partner in the crime of rendition. And this means acknowledging that if Islamabad fails to bring the former government to book, it willingly casts itself in the role of accomplice.

International law must be respected. By everyone. It is not enough to muddy the waters and hope that everyone forgets what was fair and what was foul.
Daily Times

I don't think she likes O..