Middle ground may be found on drone campaign

Spymasters from Pakistan, US to hold face-to-face talks in the coming weeks.

Kamran Yousaf April 16, 2012

ISLAMABAD: The new policy guidelines approved by parliament may have demanded an immediate end to the drone strikes inside the country’s tribal belt, but Pakistan and the US will push for a ‘middle ground’ on the CIA-piloted drone campaign.

The controversial issue will be discussed between the two countries in meetings being planned in upcoming weeks to revive their cooperation in the wake of new recommendations drafted by an all-party parliamentary panel.

One such meeting will take place between the heads of both countries’ spy agencies — the ISI and CIA.

These face-to-face talks between Pakistan’s recently appointed spymaster Lt General Zaheerul Islam and CIA chief David Patreaus will be the first of its kind in months.

“The meeting is likely to take place before the Nato summit in Chicago next month,” said the official, who requested not to be named.

The military and the ISI, however, did not comment on the meeting when contacted.

“Ideally, Pakistan wants to see an end to the drone attacks, but it appears the US will not go that far,” another official acknowledged.

The official said that in the past Islamabad had offered to use F-16 fighter jets as an alternative to drones in order to take out “high-value targets” associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban, but Washington refused to accept the offer underlining the trust-deficit between the allies. The official disclosed that in order to find some common ground, Pakistan was likely to propose a mechanism under which the US will have to seek permission for every drone attack it plans.

In addition, the talks also seek to limit the frequency of drone strikes in an effort to pacify the growing public anger, the official said.

Meanwhile, an American diplomat also confirmed that the Obama Administration was willing to accommodate Pakistan’s concerns; however, it will not compromise on the drone campaign.

A member of the parliamentary panel revealed that the concerned authorities had pushed for a “watered down” clause on the drone attacks.

“Some concerned quarters in the power hierarchy were not interested in a categorical no on the drone attacks,” he said — adding that was the reason the new foreign policy guidelines did not directly link the drones with the resumption of Nato supplies.

The revised draft had excluded the original clause that said the government must immediately suspend land routes for forces stationed in Afghanistan if US/Nato/Isaf forces violate in any manner the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan.

However, the approved guidelines have called for an immediate end to the predator strikes but stopped short of calling the CIA campaign “counter-productive”.

“The fact of the matter is that drones are one less expensive military tool to target militants in the tribal areas but as far as the government is concerned this idea is very hard to sell publicly,” said a federal minister.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 16th, 2012.



G. Din | 9 years ago | Reply

@Kamran Changwani: "Pakistan is the only country who has captured and handed over most of the the high value targets of al-Qaida and taliban." Pakistan was the only country because all those assets roamed in Pakistan. Where else could they have been captured? They were captured and handed over because the right offer came along. Those for whom Pakistan felt the fair price would be higher than what was offered, were tipped off to be put on the block another day. Does that make sense? Why otherwise would OBL continue to live in a garrison town? If OBL thought he was being protected, no greater fool than him lived. When the price was right, even he would have been handed over!

gp65 | 9 years ago | Reply

@Kamran Changwani: "@Mirza: this is baseless that pakistan is so called helping the high value targets to escape from the attacks position."

Mirza is actually correct. Actually a few months back their CIA chief Leoan Panetta had specifically presented examples of militants moving away right after CIA shared information with ISI. This is why they had stopped collaborating with ISI on their drone campaign. Please see this: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077103,00.html

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ


Most Read