The idea behind the blockade is not to delay the Americans’ departure but to pressure them to stop drone strikes.
KARACHI: In his article ‘Agreed, but?’ published on November 20, M Ziauddin says: “Drones come in presumably in ‘hot pursuit’ of those Afghan Taliban led by the Haqqani network who mount targeted attacks on foreign troops stationed in Afghanistan from the safe havens located on our side of the Durand Line. International law allows countries to cross borders in hot pursuit of intruders. However, it is only logical to presume that once the foreign troops leave Afghanistan, the US will have no reason to send in its drones.”
I think the writer is over-expanding the term ‘hot pursuit’ when claiming that drone strikes have legitimacy under international law, which allows countries to cross borders in hot pursuit of intruders. For example, if militants from Pakistan launch attacks on Nato forces inside Afghanistan, and a fighting ensues which forces the attackers to retreat to their bases in Pakistan and the Nato forces chasing them reach the Durand Line, it is then that the concept of ‘hot pursuit’ will perhaps come into force, and the Nato forces could then enter Pakistan to deal with the attackers. It is important to note here that the initial attack, the retaliation, the chase and entering the other country all occur as part of one engagement and the Nato forces know for sure as to who attacked them. It is quite different with drone strikes where the alleged original attack and the supposedly retaliatory drone strike do not form part of a single engagement and the determination of the target depends more on whims and not on clear evidence. Also, while it is true that the UN authorised the invasion of Afghanistan by ISAF and as a UN member, Pakistan is obliged to facilitate that, but the UN definitely did not authorise invasion of Pakistan, through drones or through other means, and its special rapporteur on human rights has spoken against drone strikes, declaring them to be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
As for the writer’s assertion: “However, it is only logical to presume that once the foreign troops leave Afghanistan, the US will have no reason to send its drones”, well, it is difficult to just take the US’s word for it. As a matter of fact, the US intention is to keep a force of a few thousand Americans in Afghanistan even after 2014. So, even if the bulk of foreign troops depart, there will still be American presence in Afghanistan, and the drones may remain the weapon of choice for the US.
As for the threats of blocking overland supply routes, the writer says: “Blocking would only delay the departure of foreign troops, tempting the Haqqani network to continue attacking from across the Durand Line, which in turn would instigate the US to send more drones, which in turn would infuriate our terrorists and force them to continue ambushing our security agencies, their installations and innocent civilians with IEDs and suicide bombings.” The idea behind the blockade is not to delay the Americans’ departure but to pressure them to stop drone strikes. The writer referred to ‘bloody game’ played by the Haqqanis from their safe havens of North Waziristan but failed to mention cross-border attacks launched by militants from their safe havens inside Afghanistan. I think Afghanistan and Pakistan need to, and will eventually adopt, a live-and-let-live policy, so essential for both countries, and for peace in the region.
SRH Hashmi
Published in The Express Tribune, November 22nd, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
