Droning on and on
We need to weigh pros and cons of drone attacks and then enter into meaningful discussion with the US government.
The writer is Editor of The Express Tribune
For us to make any progress on drone attacks, we have to be honest to ourselves. Our leaders misguide us and leave us with expectations that they have no intention of fulfilling. We also have to understand the context of the problem and appreciate the fact that if this matter is taken to the Security Council, as declared by Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, we may well not see any solution in the short term.
The whole debate on drones has to be turned on its head. In 2011, this newspaper, in exclusive cooperation with the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, revealed that 2,200 people had been killed in over 290 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. The toll has risen since then.
The Bureau has worked tirelessly to reveal the human side to the drone attacks. At its worst, there was a drone strike every four days under the Obama Administration. Many leading publications in the West refused to publish the report. But we did. And today, that report is one of many that is helping shape the debate on drone attacks.
For the American government, and to a large extent the American public, drones are a solution and not a problem. The use of technology has helped that country achieve its strategic objectives without loss of human life on their side. But the problem is that lives are lost in large numbers on this side, many of them women and children.
And yet, in President Barack Obama’s address in May to the US National Defence University, while he conceded that civilian deaths due to drone attacks would “haunt us as long as we live”, the US would continue to take action where home governments do not or will not act against what the US defines as terrorists.
This arrangement has suited Pakistan’s security establishment so far. More so, because it has been unable or unwilling to attack the high value targets on its own. But there are a number of problems with this. First, that the terrorists defined by the US may not be the same as those defined by Pakistan. Second, that the civilian cost of such drone attacks is high. And third, that the immediate fallout of such attacks has been in the form of suicide bombings on Pakistanis. So, we need to act.
Last week, in his opening speech to parliament, Imran Khan stated the obvious — that drone attacks must end. Drone attacks have been the cornerstone of the PTI’s election campaign. So, it is not surprising that this statement was made. More surprising was what came after that.
In the same speech, Imran Khan announced a major policy change without a blink of an eye — that the change in the drone attack policy should be done through diplomatic channels and not by shooting them down.
Now let us put the record right, till last month Imran Khan was insisting that drones would be shot down if his party came to power. He said this in political speeches and also in interviews. So, his claim in his speech to parliament that he himself was not in favour of shooting them down sounds somewhat inconsistent.
More worrisome is Imran Khan’s insistence that the political leadership has been behind the continuation of such attacks. He has called for the PM and the army chief to sit down with the chief ministers (so that his party has some input) to evolve a policy on drones. He has excluded the president in this. This is political grandstanding at its best. And it is not honest.
In reply, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has continued the Sharif government’s policy of being ambiguous on the matter. One is reminded of the manner in which the Pakistan Peoples Party government handled the investigation of the killing of their leader, Benazir Bhutto. Loud claims and noises but nothing else. Perhaps, the biggest failing of the PPP government was that despite the passage of five years, we are still clueless about who killed Benazir Bhutto.
We fear the same fate on the drone attacks. That we will make no headway. We need to sit down and weigh the pros and cons of drone attacks and then enter into meaningful discussion with the US government on this. We also need to show that we, too, are serious about fighting terrorism and also come up with something to back this up. If this does not happen, the on-ground situation will remain the same in the years to come. And that will be another tragedy.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2013.
The whole debate on drones has to be turned on its head. In 2011, this newspaper, in exclusive cooperation with the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, revealed that 2,200 people had been killed in over 290 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. The toll has risen since then.
The Bureau has worked tirelessly to reveal the human side to the drone attacks. At its worst, there was a drone strike every four days under the Obama Administration. Many leading publications in the West refused to publish the report. But we did. And today, that report is one of many that is helping shape the debate on drone attacks.
For the American government, and to a large extent the American public, drones are a solution and not a problem. The use of technology has helped that country achieve its strategic objectives without loss of human life on their side. But the problem is that lives are lost in large numbers on this side, many of them women and children.
And yet, in President Barack Obama’s address in May to the US National Defence University, while he conceded that civilian deaths due to drone attacks would “haunt us as long as we live”, the US would continue to take action where home governments do not or will not act against what the US defines as terrorists.
This arrangement has suited Pakistan’s security establishment so far. More so, because it has been unable or unwilling to attack the high value targets on its own. But there are a number of problems with this. First, that the terrorists defined by the US may not be the same as those defined by Pakistan. Second, that the civilian cost of such drone attacks is high. And third, that the immediate fallout of such attacks has been in the form of suicide bombings on Pakistanis. So, we need to act.
Last week, in his opening speech to parliament, Imran Khan stated the obvious — that drone attacks must end. Drone attacks have been the cornerstone of the PTI’s election campaign. So, it is not surprising that this statement was made. More surprising was what came after that.
In the same speech, Imran Khan announced a major policy change without a blink of an eye — that the change in the drone attack policy should be done through diplomatic channels and not by shooting them down.
Now let us put the record right, till last month Imran Khan was insisting that drones would be shot down if his party came to power. He said this in political speeches and also in interviews. So, his claim in his speech to parliament that he himself was not in favour of shooting them down sounds somewhat inconsistent.
More worrisome is Imran Khan’s insistence that the political leadership has been behind the continuation of such attacks. He has called for the PM and the army chief to sit down with the chief ministers (so that his party has some input) to evolve a policy on drones. He has excluded the president in this. This is political grandstanding at its best. And it is not honest.
In reply, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has continued the Sharif government’s policy of being ambiguous on the matter. One is reminded of the manner in which the Pakistan Peoples Party government handled the investigation of the killing of their leader, Benazir Bhutto. Loud claims and noises but nothing else. Perhaps, the biggest failing of the PPP government was that despite the passage of five years, we are still clueless about who killed Benazir Bhutto.
We fear the same fate on the drone attacks. That we will make no headway. We need to sit down and weigh the pros and cons of drone attacks and then enter into meaningful discussion with the US government on this. We also need to show that we, too, are serious about fighting terrorism and also come up with something to back this up. If this does not happen, the on-ground situation will remain the same in the years to come. And that will be another tragedy.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2013.