The writer, a Fulbright Scholar and recent graduate of The Fletcher School at Tufts University, US, was previously a senior sub-editor at The Express Tribune
We need to understand that with consent professedly given by the host country, i.e., Pakistan, the principle of sovereignty does not apply. If you allow your air space to be used by a foreign country, it is not a breach of state sovereignty. In Pakistan’s case vis-a-vis drone strikes, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the Law of Armed Conflict, is applicable because of this very consent, not International Human Rights Law. IHL is the body of international law that attempts to humanise war and armed conflict; hence, an armed conflict should be under way for this regime to be applicable. And this law, like it or not, allows for absolute killing.
My argument on drone strikes in Pakistan is two-pronged. First, the use of drones in this country is legal under IHL because we have allowed another state to use force in our sovereign territory and there is a state of ongoing conflict. I would also argue that force is being used against a ‘shared enemy’. For example, the first reported drone strike in South Waziristan in June 2004 killed Nek Muhammad Wazir, a Pashtun militant, who, according to some, allegedly posed a greater threat to Pakistan.
Second, the ways in which surgical strikes are conducted — not the strikes themselves — violate the law. The Predator surgical strikes do not comply with both the cardinal IHL principle of discrimination as well as that of proportionality, which is explained in the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions 1948. Discrimination requires the state using force to distinguish between the military and civilians. Meanwhile, the proportionality requirement limits the permissible level of force based on the threat posed. The proportionality principle also necessitates that targeting decisions in military operations avoid civilian causalities that are excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
The status quo on drone strikes cannot be acceptable. The United States cannot conduct a surgical-strike operation without transparency, accountability and fact-finding investigations. Meanwhile, Pakistan cannot continue to turn its face away from the civilian casualties and the resultant fallout. These surgical strikes are driving terrorists into the country’s cities, particularly Karachi. The unabated and unreported civilian casualties are also breeding more terrorists and increasing the number of sympathisers. Ms Riffat, a teacher at a government school on the outskirts of Karachi, found out that one of her students was killed in a drone strike when he went to visit his village in North Waziristan. She later learned that the boy’s family, dejected with the heart-wrenching incident, took out all his brothers and cousins, who studied in the same school, from the primary education system and sent them to a madrassa. This is one of the many unaccounted for eventualities in the drone saga that the Pakistani state cannot ignore anymore. Pakistan needs to stop denying that it is not on board with the drone programme. It is an open secret that the country’s leadership has given its full assent to the drone programme.
Both Pakistan and the US need to own the drone campaign and make amends. For Pakistan, the task is more challenging; introspection is never easy, especially for a country with many skeletons in the closet. Nonetheless, Pakistan needs a reset button on its stance on the drone programme.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 24th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (38)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1731325890-0/trump-(24)1731325890-0-165x106.webp "article")
The army of Pakistan faces the direct threat from the Taliban. The situation no doubt is extremely critical as there is every chance of civilian casualty that will bring an unwarranted ill fame to the army as an institution. The skill of leadership of the Pakistan army is now at test and the real performance and efficiency as well as discipline of the institution is being put through this critical examination which the army has to pass and qualify thus successfully complete their military operation in Waziristan. Civilian casualties are rather unavoidable in that hostile terrain despite all the care and caution taken. Besides the dichotomy being faced by the Pakistan army is that they are fighting this war on their own land against their own people. This is no way a 'fox land' that they have to capture or fight against. The second most important aspect is the infiltration within the Pakistan army of elements who are either sympathetic to the Taliban or support them in a covert manner because of which in all probability the information with regard to the planned army moves in the area are known to the Taliban who are able to take remedial steps in accordance. The third factor is related to the international pressure on Pakistan from the US and the pressures from within which also are responsible in creating obstacles for the Pakistan army as there is a considerable logistic support that the Pakistan army is getting from the US at this point of time. These factors or aspects are playing the role and making military operations not very easy to conduct within Waziristan. The drone attacks are no doubt an effective surgical operation against terrorism nevertheless their is a hurt caused to Pakistani psyche as this is reflecting on the mettle of the defence forces of Pakistan. As a nation Pakistan has suffered for certain political and strategic moves of the past which perhaps were a result of the then ongoing power struggle due to the Cold War. The political conditions of Pakistan during the Cold War period were perhaps compelling for the nation to have joined the CENTO. Thus a nation became a tool in the hands of the neo-imperialist powers that has been used by those forces to realise their political and strategic ends. Critics no doubt may argue that Pakistan is reaping the harvest they have sown in the past which is not wrong but, this is not the appropriate time to unnecessarily rake up such issues. Discretion is essential at this point of time.
@Sana Soleri: Out of curiosity, do the militant foreign fighters in the FATA region violate Pakistan's "Sovereignty" or were they all issued "tourist" visas???
How ironic that space is being given to novices who are not even aware of international laws! Drones violate international law, as a matter fact, Miss Fulbright scholar!
@Amjed Jaaved:
Hopefully this will get posted.
Only convenience forced them to change their decision as they intellectually robbed Germany of its technology.
Never heard this piece of wisdom before. Would you kindly elaborate on this a little bit?
@Amjed Jaaved:
**> Blockquote Only convenience forced them to change their decision as they intellectually robbed Germany of its technology.
This is a new one on me. Could you elaborate on this a little bit please? Not hostile enquiry at all at this point.
@Amna Rizvi:
Back in 2007 how much experience did Pakistanis have to distinguish drone strikes from helicopter or airplane strikes? Chenagai was only the second one on the list.
I've read news reports that at Chenagai locals saw drones, saw explosions, saw an errant missile land in a stream, and saw Pakistani helicopters flying before and attacking afterwards. I haven't read an account with a direct quote from an eyewitness at Chenagai who declared he or she saw a drone launch a missile, have you? The early reports definitely implied the helicopters launched missiles; in some of these the word "drone" isn't even mentioned. What seems clear is that it was a single explosion that destroyed the seminary and killed all those people.
"There have been countless reports of high civilian casualties." So we are to make a condemnation in a specific case even if that means ignoring the evidence and context to reinforce what you think is the general case? That's an entirely flawed approach, both logically and morally.
The hurt of a nation's national sentiments is quite poignant in this article. As the Pakistani intelligentsia does not approve of the drone strikes by the US. No doubt a necessity to check terrorism and taliban the innocent civilian too is being hurt. This is where governance and a responsible role of the defence forces comes into play. Having given a leeway now Pakistan is facing the pinch of drone strikes. This issue now needs to be handled with care and caution at the same time terrorism has to be put an end to. The Government of Pakistan must take up the matter with the will to solve it.
I could have not said it better. Thank you for your article, I have been saying this for years that let us not blame others( Americans) for our own faults and misery, we are the ones to fault. When ever I complained about US interference in Pakistan's internal affairs, my late wife Dinah Faber of Brewster,Kansas used to say that the fault lies with the Pakistani people to allow the US to interfere in their internal affairs. How true.
Before stopping drone strikes can even be considered there needs to be an effective alternative in place. There simply is no backup plan - PTI's vaguely naive banter of 'talks' (no terms or conditions of these talks have been clearly released till now) is increasingly turning into a farce. And let's face it, there is no sovereignty of Pakistani government in FATA anyway - it's a lawless mountainous belt largely devoid of any kind of functioning governmental authority.
@Solomon2: I have also read that wikipedia article. The local witnesses can easilty distinguish between a drone attack and strike from Jets/Helis by Pakistani forces. The local witnesses claim it was a DRONE STRIKE.
Pakistan had a habit of claiming drone strikes as its strikes (Do you remember Nek Mohammed of TTP) We claimed we hit him, but turned out it was drones. Same was the case in Chenagai airstrikes.
So please, stop advocating for drone strikes. There have been countless reports of high civilian casualties.
Ok so u had to quote the first reported drone but what about the later strikes which resulted in deaths of innocent civilians including children? Drones need to be stopped and discontinued as lives of muslim brothers and sisters are most important !
Honorable writer! Can you imagine a gadget like drone entering into the space of even in a small country of Europe violating the airspace,forget about firing missiles?No you cant imagine,but interestingly you can imagine here because 'everything is fair here!
Well in first place there is no sovereignty. This article and its likes are a typicxal so called pseudo secular farce staged to attain the sympathies of US masters so carry on
One can't talk of partial sovereignty wherein Taliban, fugitives and terrorists are not considered infringing on sovereignty(though they aRE OPENLY FIGHTING THE COUNTRY,killing innocents citizens indiscriminately,and attacking other countries from its soil) but drones are.
As per its Constitution, Pakistan is a republic. Being a republic, Ultimate Sovereignty belongs to the people and since drone strikes are not voted upon (directly or indirectly) by Pakistani People (Pakistan's National Assembly has never passed a resolution in favor of drone strikes, but if I am correct has many times condemned them) and involve foreign infringe on the Pakistani people's territory- So, Yes they are indeed a violation of Pakistan's Sovereignty by all means. Shady backdoor dealing of Pakistani military & spy elites with their American counterparts is infact a way by which People's sovereignty has progressively gotten eroded in Pakistan and one of the reasons why Pakistani State is no longer taken seriously by a big bunch of its own citizens.
Now Whether drone attacks are effective, ineffective or are backfiring? Well, I don't know. That would require a sophisticated research by an Independent third party (Author has a serious conflict of interest).
No,no, disagreed,drones are violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan because,pakistan granted no permission to the United States to do so and killed innocent people of the country that is independent sovereign state.
This is very nice and well argued article, America is killing all those terrorists once they were right hand of America.
@author, very sad that people educated in big universities and in big positions as assistant editor etc., are not able to read the situation in ground properly. OR may be do not want to face the truth. " Both Pakistan and the US need to own the drone campaign and make amends. " Author, In which forum has the US not owned the drone campaign. Author, In which forum has the Pakistan owned the drone campaing.
This itself shows that u are comparing apples with oranges.
Regarding Civilian casualties, your logic is ridicules. In all wars certain civilian casualities will be there. And this is not a conventional war - declared by two states. This is a special war, where civilians (not terrorist for ur benefit of understanding) are fighting a state. These civilians are helped by some portion or some people of the state itself (which you do not want to acknowledge). So rather than talking about Human rights violation etc., you should know that some of these civilians are also non combatant fighters, like people supporting the fighters willingly or unwillingly. So please do not bring human rights issue here, support your people eradicate this problem, that is the least you can do.
I support drone strikes across pakistan to weed out terrorists. A good piece overall. But sad about the civilian casualties too. But then terrorists don't play by the rules do they ? Cheerio
The contributor bases her view on questionable assumptions. What is sovereignty? Could it be allowed to be compromised by an individual or pseudo-ruler like Musharraf. Could even a so-called terrorist be killed without a fair trial? What are the charges against Osma, or Nek Mohammad or Saddam Hussain, all swaggering braggarts? Who authorised individuals in Pakistan or USA to kill people on self- concocted grounds? The problem with USA and its universities is that they victimise students who do not tow their line. During Iraq war days, I took GMat at Avari, Lhr. The supervising American lady harangued us on importance of influencing our kith and kin in favour of America so that we could continue studies in USA. The supervisor disturbed our composure and devoured our several minutes as she spike while the test was on. Has any other country in the world allowed drone attacks on its people?It is the American govt. not the people who are killing other peopl. Chomsky calls the Americans ` a bewildered herd'. Americans did not like fighting Germans. Through Kreel Commission their minds were turned topsy-turvical. They wanted to tear apart Germans limb by limb.After the Second World War, America wanted to convert Germany into pasteurs. Only convenience forced them to change their decision as they intellectually robbed Germany of its technology.
If you have a gun and allow others to shoot at your Family, without even attempting to shoot back at them, it means you have given you assent to the Others.
Then, you claim the Others are harming your family is, well, deceitful.
Why do so many of these high class Pakistani women have Hindu names ?
@Anas Abbas:
Agreed. Author has done a good job penning this article. Drone all the way against terrorists, who have no valid cause to fight.
@Amna Rizvi: The Chenagai airstrike is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenagai_airstrike. As you can see, the Pakistani government originally took credit for the action, then blamed the U.S., probably when it became clear that the death toll was mostly civilians. Apparently the later story is what made it into this "official" report - a measure of how dysfunctional Pakistan's government is, I suppose.
In any case, a single drone - all that's alleged to have been involved in this event - is hardly likely to be able to kill 80 people whereas a fighter-bomber can. We're talking one or two Hellfire missiles with eighteen-pound warheads vs. one to four 500-lb bombs.
Perhaps it was this event, more than any other, that convinced the Pakistani government that U.S. airstrikes were a better way to attack alleged terrorists than Pakistani ones - especially since the U.S. was so willing to take the heat from angry Pakistanis.
@Khan Wazir:
the author is right.
Wow. A fulbright scholar (read: American money & American university) defending drones! Are they really surgical? Then can you please explain how and why did they kill 80 (yes,, 80 nt a typo) children in this drone strike! There are many mor examples, read the full report please.
30/10/2006 Drone strike on a seminary. 81 dead. 80 childrens, 1 man - All civilians! Source: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/get-the-data-the-pakistan-governments-secret-document/
Writer assumes following universal truths on the basis of one statement in the report.
A) Pakistan’s consent was permanent and it cannot be retracted.
B) Somehow after giving consent Pakistan has lost the right to retract it.
C) Even publically voiced opposition, by the government, cannot count as retraction.
D)UN’s view that drones violate Pakistan’s sovereignty is not valid.
E) US legal experts question legality of drone war are wrong.
God save us from such experts on how to best serve US interests
You have not said anything that is not known or is earth shaking in any way.................but the very fact that you are saying it is important because it needs to be said.
excellent article
this is the first time ive made such a comment on tribune
The unabated and unreported civilian casualties are also breeding more terrorists and increasing the number of sympathisers. Ms Riffat, a teacher at a government school on the outskirts of Karachi, found out that one of her students was killed in a drone strike when he went to visit his village in North Waziristan. She later learned that the boy’s family, dejected with the heart-wrenching incident, took out all his brothers and cousins, who studied in the same school, from the primary education system and sent them to a madrassa.
What, are we readers supposed to assume that madrassas automatically breed terrorists and that this is the parents' intent?
Under post-9/11 international law (Ch7 UNSCR 1373) Pakistan has the binding sovereign obligation to eliminate terror havens, terror financing, etc. from its territory. Whether Pakistan agrees to drone strikes or not if it does not work to enforce this obligation its sovereignty is null regarding other nations attacks on terrorists in uncontrolled territories; these are open battlefields.
The United States cannot conduct a surgical-strike operation without transparency, accountability and fact-finding investigations.
This statement is a trick of language. Of course the U.S. can do the strikes legally, but the U.S. can't know that the "surgery" was "successful" without such investigations. A good example of a sentence that may be legally correct but misleads its intended audience.
The bottom line is: the U.S. has few, if any, "amends" to make yet Pakistan has many: to the U.S., to the Afghans, to its former citizens of East Pakistan, and to its current citizenry. Perhaps once Pakistan does so and accepts it with humility - not humiliation - Pakistanis will then be free to work to create a happier country.
You have to exercise sovereignty before you can claim someone has violated it. The reality is that Islamabad has almost no control over these territories - don't treat it's citizens the same as other Pakistani's and your national leaders are even afraid to visit.
This is a great article and well argued. Most drone activists miss the point in maintaining that drones inherently violate humanitarian law or sovereignty. But they are like any military weapon in that it's the way they are authorized and used that poses the issue, and each use of force must be examined on its own- all weapons systems must be used with discrimination and proportionality.
There are two arguments to make- that the use of force against militants in a general sense isn't effective and should be lessened, in which case another strategy should be discussed; or that when military force is determined necessary, that drones are a worse tool than other weapons available in enabling violations of IHL (like white phosphor in Gaza, an inherently disproportionate weapon). Your examples bolster this first argument, but are not entirely convincing on the second.
Your example of a drone strike resulting in radicalization may be true, and unfortunate- but not unique to their use. It's inherent to the use of force, especially outside of a traditional battlefield. One could argue that the Pakistan army's large scale use of ground forces in FATA, with the same basic aims of drones, has resulted in far more radicalization- civilian casualties, tens of thousands of refugees, the inevitable abuse of civilians and anger that occurs when any military force occupies an area. This is an important point- IHL does not say that there shall never be civilian casualties, rather it recognizes that the use of force inherently creates the potential for civilian casualties, and calls on every commander to minimize this to the best of their ability in proportion to military aims. It's an unfortunately murky distinction.
But I haven't seen evidence that drone strikes are less proportionate or less discriminatory compared to alternative military approaches, certainly not inherently. If force is believed necessary, given the choice between a ground operation or a drone, the latter seems a more plausible way to minimize casualties. What other weapon system is able to examine a target for hours or days, combining air and ground assessments of a target, before authorizing a strike?
Specific strikes may not have been proportionate, and operators have made really unfortunate mistakes in their use. Their ease of use does pose a potential enticement for overuse that must be checked and prevented, with strong oversight.
But given IHL's allowance for civilian casualties, simply identifying that some casualties occurred in a strike does not meet the test for violations of IHL, and your argument that such strikes increase radicalization is stronger when applied generally to military means against extremism versus the use of drones.
A very superficial viewpoint. First, I don't think anyone who reads beyond the headlines ever bought the idea that there was no nod from some Pakistani authorities on drones. So much for beating a dead horse. Maybe the layman in Pakistan need to hear this, but I doubt this is the right publication for that. Now add in a layer of complexity: The relevant Pakistani authorities (whoever they are) have lost control of the drone program: the US now does not feel the need to seek Pakistan's approval for each drone strike. If I were to buy the premise of this article, it implies that Pakistan gave the US a blanket permission to operate drones with impunity in its territory, without a time restraint. Likely? I don't think so. Please educated me if Pakistan agreed on a contract/arrangement for eternity without a right to reverse it's decision on drones. And such a simplistic viewpoint undermines factions within Pakistan that actually might want to stop this program (read: perhaps the new civilian government?) Why should they suffer if someone in the past agreed to drone strikes? Or why can't arrangement be nulled? In short, I think dismissing a legitimate argument (sovereignty) under the impression that everyone is "in" on the drones deal with the US, is naive. Second, I'm baffled as to the construction of the second layer of the argument. The drones were always (and still are) carrying out signature strikes. Could you elaborate on a more benevolent way of operating drones and eliminating the "shared" enemy in context of Pakistan? If you are trying to be an advocate of the US viewpoint, I think drone technology has come a long way to discriminate against civilians (the largest number of civilian causalities are from the earlier years and have trended downwards, right?) even Michael Walzer wouldn't side with you. A disappointing piece overall.
@Mkz: It is good to give opportunities to new comers in the field. There is no harm in it. One can always write to present alternate opinions and views if one does not agree with what they write.
Laws can be amended and interpreted to serve national security. When you are standing trial, you do not want the law to be fair. You want it to benefit your case. That is how the US sees it, and that is how all responsible government approach it. The desired outcome is not justice, it is victory.
Drones are here to stay because they have been productive mostly. Majority of the criticism and vitriol directed against drones is a result of propaganda campaigns by terrorists and their sympathisers in Pakistan. More detail is in my Research proposal for drone attacks http://aacounterterror.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/a-case-for-drones-how-drone-attacks-have-been-productive-in-pakistan/
More and more articles written on ET Op-Ed seem to be by novices in the field, having studied in (read: fled to) a university in the USA and will pretty much do nothing about it other than write.
Force is being used against disgruntled, simple people of FATA, who are honorable old fashioned people who have taken arms against foreign invaders. When drones leave they will go home.