& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

A matter of national sovereignty

Liaquat Au Khan
। Part of this determination mirrors the American mindset that Muslim nations would indeed be better off if they simply borrowed secular institutions of the United States. This mindset presumes that Islam is a reactionary religion that impedes material prosperity and social justice.
ARTICLE 2(4) of the UN Charter promulgates: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.'
Territorial integrity and political independence are the principles of national wvereignty -- key principles of the U. N. Charter and post-colonial international law - which empower nations to freely determine their political, social, eco-nomic, and religious institutions, without eternal coercion, diolomatic oressure.
war threats, and economic sanctions.
Philosophically, these principles respect human diversity and presume that no system, including liberal democracy, can be the singular model for all nations. The principles caution against any mindless importation of legal and political systems that are successful in other nations. Accordingly, the peoples of the world are free to institute political systems of their choice, including constitutional monarchies, presidential systems, secular or religious forms of government
Contrary to the U.N. Charter, and in violation of the principles of territorial integrity, the US seems determined to shape the Muslim world In its own image. Part of this determination mirrors the
American mindset that Muslim nations would indeed be better off if they simply borrowed secular institutions of the United States. This mindset presumes that Islam is a reactionary religion that impedes material prosperity and social justice.
Part of this determination reflects the dark side of American self-pride and super power exceptionalism, which sees most other nations as the lesser nations in need of American guidance. Undoubtedly, the U.S. foreign policy is also geared toward obtaining key natural resources (such as oil) and maintaining strategic military dominance in various Muslim regions of the world.
For most part of the twentieth century, Muslim nations, some emerging from the colonial yoke, approached the US for economic assistance, development, and even protection against regional and global enemies. For example, the U.S. played a supportive role in the independence of Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation.
The fear of the Soviet Union, which had occuoied Central Asian Muslim
nations and later invaded Afghanistan, drove many other Muslim nations to seek U. patronage. For a variety of reasons, the US succeeded in constructing strategic alliances with key Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran under the Shah.
The relations with the Muslim world, however, began to fracture as US foreign policy favoured Israel in the Middle East conflict. The 1979 Iranian revolution painted the U.S. as the Great Satan, and highlighted the immorality of US foreign policy that subsidises occupation of Palestine and institutes puppet governments In Muslim countries. A few years later, the Al Qaeda, an international militant organisation, launched asymmetrical warfare against US targets to draw attention to the occupation of Muslim lands. In countering terrorist attacks, the U.S. bombed Tripoli and Khartoum, ratcheting up the conflict with Muslim nations.
The 9/11 attacks and subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have further fractured relations with the Muslim world. The U.S. homeland secu-
rity and the associated legal rhetoric of self-defense and the war on terror have been invoked to establish a new justificatory paradigm for violating territorial integrity of Muslim nations. The phraseology of "Islamic fascism" and "Islamic terrorism" paints Muslim militants as inherently violent individuals who kill to please God and to go to heaven. Almost every Muslim nation, foe or friend, is under US diplomatic pressure to take action against national militants.
The US logic of homeland security is weighing heavily on Afghanistan, where the war machine has killed civilians in pursuing the dubious goal of defeating the Taliban. Even Pakistan, an ally, has been subjected to drone attacks while Pakistan's democratically elected government and its armed -forces seem to be helpless in protecting the nation's territorial integrity.
In addition to military attacks, the U.S. foreign policy employs dubious modus operandi. The 2006 Iran Freedom Support Act allocates millions of dollars authorising U.S. Intelligence agencies to suooort crouns onoosed to the Iranian
government. This law is fashioned after die Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a law that paved the way for invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The threats of attacking Iran are in the air. Meanwhile, US intelligence agencies are busy trying to destabilise the Iranian government by sowing seeds of confusion and anarchy.
Unfortunately, these massive violations of the U.N. Charter, specifically of the principles of territorial integrity and political independence, go unnoticed. US foreign policy remains the same under President Obama, who promised to mend relations with Muslim nations.
Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers continue to talk about winning hearts and minds of Muslim populations. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Iran, with so many Muslim countries on die US watch-list, it is unclear how a foreign policy of territorial aggression, invasion, and subversion can generate goodwill that the US seeks in the Muslim world.
Liaquat AJi Khan is Prolessor of Law at Washbum University School of Law in Topeka. Kansas and the author of ATheory of universal Democracy 12006)