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.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713893627-4/Shredded-10,000-yen-bill-(1)1713893627-4-270x192.webp)
1713889672-1/Plastic-waste-(2)1713889672-1-270x192.webp)
@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!
@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
@Mirza: this is baseless that pakistan is so called helping the high value targets to escape from the attacks position. Pakistan is the only country who has captured and handed over most of the the high value targets of al-Qaida and taliban. So i think we should also see the ground realities and the realities is quite opposite that u r talking.
An example, I would say well quoted. BUt Duhhhh....
In that case, someone running the house (a country) shall not be a weak old man. In such case, the weak old man should simply step down and let someone having "authority and power" rule the house (our country).
If its not the role of the Top Brass to protect the nation, who do u think is responsible? :O
@Abid Javed: "It makes me cry..." Don't cry now Mr.Abid. You should have cried when the establishment decided to nurture those 'strategic assets'. A nation's future was gambled away by a military general. That was the time to cry. Now is the time to laugh at all this. You cannot live in Pakistan without a sense of humour.
@Abid Javed
If your eldest son is harbouring a thief in your house and the neighbours come in to take their revenge, there is not much you can do, especially when the son calls the shots and your a weak old man with nothing but his nameplate on the door. So I suggest you look elsewhere to pin your blame.
@hyderabadi: Because a lot of Pakistanis don't like seeing their favorite anti-American spokespeople ending up dead.
If Pakistan doesnt take action against its own militants in the lawless area and they continue spreading terror in neighbouring countries... Then why are drones a bad thing?
It simply make me cry that our Top Brass is not capable of protecting the sovereignty of the nation. A bunch of Puppets they are, following every stupid directions from foreigners. Sad.
yes and that middle ground is that lord kills your population and you accept that
"Middle ground"? Isn't it the same 'ground' we started out with? There was a time when the CIA used to inform the ISI of a suspected target. The ISI would make a quick call and the US drone would bomb an empty house. It was much later before the US realized that they had been wasting missiles on targets that ran away just before the drones attacked. And they wondered who tipped them off !!
The news says "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" If the US gives the data about the presence of hi value target to Pakistan for F16 strikes then here would be the strikes but the hi value targets would have been moved to safe bases. Do the protectors of terrorists think the world is such a fool? You fooled me once shame on you, fooled me twice shame on me! Pakistan has to catch the top hi value targets and prove their seriousness not the empty words. Until they do that, the drones would continue to do their job.