Are drones the sticking point?

If the world is in disagreement with our stance, we should assess our capacity to withstand international disapproval.


Editorial September 30, 2012

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, speaking to the Asia Society in Washington on September 27, posed a conundrum when she said that Pakistan did not disagree with the use of drones to kill militants but could not approve its illegal method. She said exactly this: “If they’re going for terrorists — we do not disagree; but we have to find ways which are lawful, which are legal. The use of unilateral strikes on Pakistani territory is illegal — illegal and unlawful.”

From this convoluted stance springs the Washington claim that drone attacks had Pakistan’s ‘tacit consent’. But Washington, unofficially, is also subject to criticism from within the opinion-makers of America: two American universities, Stanford and the New York University, published a joint report, which said that the drones stirred anti-Americanism in Pakistan as they killed a lot of innocent people as well.

There are further complications on the Pakistani side, as pointed out by Ms Khar: “Pakistan needs to build popular support for its own efforts to crush armed militant groups, but this is impossible as long as the war is viewed as US interference. As the drones fly over the territory of Pakistan, it becomes an American war and the whole logic of this being our fight, in our own interest, is immediately put aside and again it is a war imposed on us.” She said that the US drones policy was an effort to win battles while losing the war. Her recommendation: work together with Pakistan on the war against terrorism. What followed was the forswearing of any ‘favourites’ in Afghanistan. She claimed that Pakistan’s changed Afghan policy was “paying dividends”.

The drones have become internationally controversial but Western capitals accept them as the realpolitik of winning the war against al Qaeda, which is spreading its wings in the space allowed by the misdirection of the Arab Spring. Pakistan is not the only country where drones are being used in targeted, antiterrorist attacks; along with Pakistan, Yemen is also heading the list. When one uses the word ‘illegal’, one is referring to non-binding conventions on which there is little international consensus, given the conditions of new terrorist threats to powerful states otherwise immune from conventional attacks.

As for cooperation with Pakistan on drones, the US says it has learned its lessons and does not trust the Pakistani side, which may be penetrated by elements aligned with al Qaeda. As far as Ms Khar’s claim of the new  ‘Afghan policy’ is concerned, no convincing case in its favour can be built, given the presence in Pakistan of the Afghan shura and the Haqqani network. Pakistan’s own war against the Taliban has produced mixed results given the terrorists’ outreach into the big cities. There is anti-Americanism fanned by our interior minister’s repeated claims that America, India and Israel are behind the Taliban’s policy of killing innocent Pakistanis.

Pakistan is ‘linguistically’ divided over drones. But there is a rare glimpse of realist commentary in some Urdu writings. An article in a major Urdu-language newspaper on August 28 asked whether it was wise on the part of the army to invade North Waziristan, while earlier operations in Swat, Bajaur and Orakzai had produced mixed results. Peshawar, Lahore and Islamabad were not safe as a result of these inconclusive operations. The fact was that the Taliban and al Qaeda were not hurt by the army but by the drones, which took a heavy toll on them. The fact was also that al Qaeda’s commanders were killed by drones and Taliban leaders such as Baitullah Mehsud and Qari Hussain fell to drones.

Pakistan needs to be realistic in the pursuit of its national interests — and these national interests should not be subservient to the passions unwisely aroused by the government’s own isolationist narrative. If the world is in disagreement with our stance, we should assess our capacity to withstand international disapproval — as in the case of the Haqqani network and the 2008 raiders of Mumbai — and adopt a middle course, which enlists the support of important states linked to our economy and gives us strength to stand up to the forces of internal disorder.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 1st, 2012.

COMMENTS (4)

Salma | 11 years ago | Reply

in other words if drones in other countries so fine if drones in Pakistan? and "linguistic divide" is a rather arrogant term because only those who write in english newspapers are not the only english speaking in Pakistan- this editorial is so untrue to say the least.

Zahid Shakil | 11 years ago | Reply

Our FM is attempting to establish the novel concept of “shared sovereignty” – an absurd parody. Why is she only concerned with unilateral attacks why not taking the line of no compromise on crossing the national air boundaries by any other state? Obscurity and logics to defend it is omnipresent in our policies and statements.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
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