There is no information in the public domain as yet if the Pakistani demarche would restrict itself to questions of sovereignty and management of public opinion in Pakistan or also touch upon numerous other issues including the legal and ethical implications of the use of killer machines — flying robots — that are being debated all over the world. Some of these issues got highlighted not so much by the civilian death toll on Pakistani soil as by the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen by a drone in Yemen.
A brief reference to some of the points raised in the debate may be in order. First and foremost, there is the persistent argument that deaths caused by drone attacks, especially the civilian deaths, have actually helped al Qaeda and the Taliban to recruit more volunteers. Secondly, there is the concern that the campaign has almost abolished the otherwise sacrosanct legal obligation to capture and bring to trial the criminals and suspects in question. Third, there have been misgivings about the procedures with which victims are selected. The fact that President Obama has put himself at the apex of this process of ‘nomination’ has been supported and attacked. The supporters have argued that it reflects the great care and discretion that a liberal president exercises while authorising killings by CIA’s drones. The opposing opinion is that the actual process involves a weekly list by numerous intelligence sources of proven terrorists and ‘suspects’ based on circumstantial evidence and that the presidential scrutiny cannot be foolproof. It is an important point with a bearing on the Pakistani offer to act on drone intelligence. Will the Pakistani authorities carry out any confirmatory procedures of their own or just carry out the recommendations made by the CIA? Parliament has an inescapable responsibility to elicit more information on Pakistan’s alternative plan, even if it is shot down in Washington.
Similarly, the entire defence of drone deaths on the ground that civilian deaths are only a fraction of the enemy combatants killed by them has been questioned by analysing the counting method, which according to troubled US officials considers “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants”. This is outrageous and parliament should ensure that the government publishes a list of all the dead and wounded whether the drone stroke is unauthorised as now or in future strikes by drones or F-16s, if the alternative plan is ever accepted.
It is a measure of unease about the legal and moral questions that efforts are made to construct a moral justification of killings by UAVs. The main argument is that compared with other methods the percentage of innocents who perish while terrorists are hunted is small. This argument is taken to absurdity when the apologists say that drones do away with the need to stage another Dresden or another Tokyo fire storm. These war time atrocities had complex motivations with the preponderant calculation that mass destruction was necessary to break the will of Nazi Germany and militaristic Imperial Japan.
The issues connected with drone strikes should not be obfuscated in the name of expediency as the UAV systems are the weapon of choice for the future and are registering an astonishing growth rate in production and deployment. Not to be forgotten is the fact that before long the US would not be the principal owner of these systems. To re-phrase and modify a comment by The Economist, the world has “a potent new weapon” and now it needs to adapt it to international law.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 23rd, 2012.
COMMENTS (26)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Dr. Meekal Ahmad: My main concern was with the reports that Pakistan's alternative plan was to act on American intelligence under American monitoring by sending in F-16s. as I said the American lists of "suspects" lack authenticity. I posed the question if Pakistan would care to re-check and reconfirm as F-16s are likely to cause even more damage to life and property. I asked the government to publish names of victims. As to the counter-factual, drone attacks are not making any material difference and are, in fact, widening the web of terrorism. Time has come to work towards a negotiated settlement that would be facilitated by a winding down of the so-called war. One feasible idea was ceasefire in agreed areas and for agreed periods of time to give peace-makers a chance. Pakistan and Afghanistan talk of reconciliation but does Nato really want it?
I am grateful that so many people took time to comment on a short Op-Ed piece on a highly vexed subject. I wrote out of the conviction that continuation of lethal attacks in Afghanistan and on targets in Pakistan are not compatible with the claim that Nato/Isaf seek reconciliation as they get ready to disengage from combat. In the specific case of Pakistan, drone attcks play into the hands of TTP which is different from the Afghan Taliban and much more criminalised.I admit Pakistan has not been able to defeat the TTP though TTP has suffered reverses at the hands of the Pakistan armed forces.
It is also true that there are territories in the 'badlands' on which Pakistan does not have full control. An effective control across-the-board is virtually impossible while the Coalition wages war while talking of peace. Indiscriminate killing is one of the several reasons why a ten year old campaign waged at a huge cost in blood and treasure has failed.
Re B-52s etc: There has never been any shortage of hired hands that justify atrocities in situations of conflict. I will advise them to re-visit the history of Vietnam with the bombing of neighbouring states thrown in for good measure. Iraq and afghanistan are actually reminders of that dreadful failure.
@Aabpara
So what you’re saying is that the superpower has already lost in Afghanistan as it is unable to prevent area under its alleged control from falling to taliban. So, why are we still fighting this failed war on terror? Let’s close shop and go home.
Correct,except for the recommendation of closing shop and going home. It has now been realised that the international community has so far been fighting the symptoms and not the disease. It seems now the world has decided to fight the disease. Sample this, A. During the NATO meet one President refused to acknowledge another. B. US Senate is preparing to name Haqqanis as a terrorist group and their hosts are likely to be named as sponsors of terror. C. The host in question is taking desperate measures to get on the right side of NATO. D. Saudi Arabia extradited a terrorist to Kaffir India, despite the Umrah performed by the Army Chief of a Beleiving Country. E. The Sultan of Aabpara is on his way to Washington, uninvited.
So the last line should read, Let us reaim and hit the disease.
@Aabpara: You can check the UN web site and read the texts of the Resolutions as well as I can. Why don't you do that?
@Solomon2: How convenient that the UN resolution applies to everyone else but the US. How long will this "Transition" period last for the Kabul mayor? Until 2014? Maybe a few more decades of being unable to defeat taliban?
@gp65: So what you're saying is that the superpower has already lost in Afghanistan as it is unable to prevent area under its alleged control from falling to taliban. So, why are we still fighting this failed war on terror? Let's close shop and go home.
The old rhetoric of halve/full talibans and their supporters. Mr ambassador, you know that we have to change our mindset and our wrongdoings. If we want to live with dignity & prosperity in today world. Our motto is: Live with love-Let democracy work
This will always remain hugely controversial.
But we should also ponder the counter-factual: what if these strikes stopped?
The whole issue of drone attacks in Pakistan raises many fundamental questions about the legality of this within the US Vis-a-Vi ordering assassinations which were expressly forbidden by Presiden Ford and that law is still in place. This topic is dicussed at great length in David Sanger's book "Confront and Conceal" in chapter ten. On page 259 the author makes it clear that there is an understanding between the US and Pakistan on this issue. Pakistani Prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani overrode objections by his interior minister about Predator attacks in the tribal areas against militants... But there has to be an internation agreement not only on this but also the use of Cyber technology.
nature of pak-america relatoins remind me of my school days. playing throughout the day and having not done my home work, next day i would bear the wrath of teacher(how brutal were teachers in those days!).once the pain gone, would continue again doing no home work hence wrath of tacher again i learnt one lesson and that,every joy in our life has some cost.now we as a nation living in citadel of our delusions, enjoying being great partner in world affairs,are not ready to do our home work.we should know that there is a cost for every joy.so why wondering if paying that cost!Go ahead with this luxry and face the wrath.
Dear Author, If Pakistan abondens the theory of good terrorist and bad terrorist and also the theory of strategic depth every thing will fall in line; drone attacks will naturally stop as these are necessarily the out come of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. SIMPLE but will it happen the world wants an answer. Till then I do not think America will stop elemenating so called good terrorists.
The problem with 'intelligence sharing' is that the same 'intelligence' can be further 'shared' with the 'strategic assets'. This will enable the 'strategic assets' to make an exit leaving the civilians to take the fire. And then Pakistan can make a song and dance about faulty intelligence or civilian deaths.
A better option would be to paint the Drones green and allow Pakistan to make the claim that these are operating under Pakistani control.
First and foremost open up FATA to the Media so that the facts get correctly reported, not doctored rumours. People must understand why intelligence on terrorists is never shared with Pakistan -- every time it was shared the targets got tipped off and fled. Once trust is destroyed it is very difficult to rebuild. That some elements sheltered Osama Bin Laden and there was no inclination to find out who did, cannot help the country to build trust. The World does not mind if the public is fooled by propaganda but it will be gullible to expect them to be taken in by duplicity.
Dear Author Question for you: In place of Drone Strikes, Air Strikes on TTP positions by PAF F-16s will (a) be more accurate than Drone strikes! (b) cause less/fewer collateral damage issues than drone strikes! (c) NONE OF THE ABOVE!
Drones are good for your health.
@Basit: UNSCR 1373 doesn't apply fully to the government of Afghanistan since the U.N. Security Council currently characterizes (in UNSCR 2041) Afghanistan's government as in "transition" to assuming full security responsibilities and stresses "the crucial importance of advancing regional cooperation as an effective means to promote security" - including Pakistani cooperation, you see.
So if Pakistan really wants to eliminate the threat from any TTP havens in Afghanistan, the SC says it has to "cooperate" with ISAF. Thus UNSCR 1373 and UNSCR 2041 are complementary resolutions and "the superpower", as you put it, has not "failed to abide by its own promoted resolutions" - which, incidentally, Pakistani diplomats fully endorsed.
@Basit: "Does this same UN resolution apply to to Afghanistan, where safe havens for TTP and other groups exist out in the open?"
Don't Pakistanis gleefully say that USA is losing in Afghanistan. They control no more than Kabul. The rest is controlled y Afghan Taliban and Haqqanis? If that is so then you should be blaming Afghan Taliban and Haqqanis for those safe havens should you not? Either that or admit that US is actually has complete control over Afghanistan?
@Solomon2: Does this same UN resolution apply to to Afghanistan, where safe havens for TTP and other groups exist out in the open? The superpower itself has failed to abide by it's own promoted resolutions.
More drones are needed to take out all the terrorist from Pakistan. By terrorist, I also means people like Hafeez.
The best answer is to use B52's and take out entire grid squares.
Its incomprehensible. If such an insurgency were raging in an Indian province, the army would have had complete control over the situation - or at least be present and be active in the theatre. Yet the Pak Army sits on its hands and allows the US to do the dirty work. What's the matter Pak Fauj? Scared?
When police raids a house to arrest suspects, and the suspects open fire, what does the police do? Does it arrest them, so they can be charged in court? Or does it retaliate to kill the suspect? Right to trail exists if a person surrenders or gets arrested. But this is not possible in case of FATA
"The solution to drone attacks has always been for you to take control of these territories and eliminate the terrorist – something the American’s have been suggesting for many years."
Furthermore, under post-9/11 international law (UNSCR 1373) Pakistan has the binding sovereign obligation to do so" no action against terrorists => no sovereignty. Which is why Pakistani whining about "sovereignty" every time a drone strikes meets no echo among its closest friends and allies, not even China or North Korea.
Same old drone arguments. Asking for target information says that you don't know where the bad guys are which implies your intelligence service is inept and/or your lying. It also reinforces the image that you have no control over these territories which further damages your sovereignty argument. The solution to drone attacks has always been for you to take control of these territories and eliminate the terrorist - something the American's have been suggesting for many years.