By Ajmal Ghaznawi
The issue of the missile attack on Kunar is not merely a piece of local security news; rather, it is a recurring wave of that deep-seated problem within the contemporary international system, where the gap between law and reality widens day by day. The system established after World War II in the name of human protection, state sovereignty, and the safety of civilians is now facing a severe trial across many geographies, a trial whose answers are written not on the pages of books, but on the ground at the cost of human blood.
The Pakistani military regime has carried out mortar and missile strikes in various parts of Kunar province, inflicting heavy losses on the city of Asadabad and its surrounding areas. The recurrence of such incidents intensifies the critical question: to what extent is the legal framework for cross-border military operations being observed, and how much does the protection of civilian life truly remain a part of the strategic calculus?
According to international humanitarian law, any intentional or reckless attack on civilian residences, educational institutions, and public infrastructure is strictly prohibited. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols explicitly emphasize that parties to a conflict are obligated to prevent civilian casualties and must uphold the principles of proportionality and distinction during any military action. However, as the geography of conflict expands, these principles are often undermined by political and security exigencies, and the language of law pales in the face of the language of force.
In an environment where determining the truth of an incident cannot rely solely on official communiqués, a major flaw of the contemporary international system is revealed: facts often become lost amidst statements, mutual accusations, and political narratives. Each side presents its own version, while mechanisms for impartial investigation are either weak or remain constrained by geopolitical pressures. It is here that the concept of justice is called into question: if the truth cannot be illuminated, how is accountability possible?
At the regional level, such incidents carry more than just physical destruction; their psychological and social consequences are far more profound. People in border regions live perpetually under the shadow of an undefined threat, a danger whose timing and targets are unknown. The continuity of education, economic activity, and the sense of social stability all fall under the constant pressure of fear. This situation gradually disrupts the natural trajectory of human development and drives entire communities toward long-term instability.
On a global scale, such incidents further deepen the crisis of trust between major powers and regional states. When cross-border military actions are conducted without transparent legal explanations, they not only increase the suspicion of the opposing side but also jeopardize the entire security balance of the region. These are the sensitive flashpoints of international politics, where a minor incident can serve as the catalyst for major crises.
Yet, behind all political and military analyses, one fundamental truth remains constant: the burden of war always falls upon the shoulders of the common person. The child who hears the roar of explosions instead of the lessons of school, the family facing the threat of displacement instead of a peaceful life, and the society preoccupied with survival rather than the future, this is the hidden cost of every strategy.
It is precisely here that the most critical test of the international system arises: are international laws merely restricted to the level of documentation, or do they hold equal value for everyone in the practical arena? If the law exists only for the weak while power grants the right of exception, then the very foundation of the international order remains built upon the cornerstone of inequality.
Issues such as the incident in Kunar lead us to the conclusion that the greatest need of the contemporary world is not merely political consensus, but the practical implementation of legal standards. Until the life of a civilian is prioritized above all strategic calculations, the credibility of every peace, every declaration, and every treaty will remain transient. The fundamental question remains the one that resurfaces after every conflict: will the world ever stand for humanity under the shadow of the law instead of power, or will this recurring history continue in the form of endless suffering?