Broken Windows in Fata
The Amnesty report humanises the people of Waziristan; these are real people being killed.
The writer is a lawyer and partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co in Lahore saroop.ijaz@ tribune.com.pk
“The people think that if we gather at the incident site after the drone attack there is a possibility of further attacks on them because the drones might think that Taliban have gathered and fire again”, Zalan, resident of Mir Ali. “We are scared that at any time there could be a blast (from an armed group) and then the Army will fire mortars without caring who they hit,” Rafeequi Rehman, Tappi Village. These are two statements (highlighted in bold) in the Amnesty Report and cover all the actors. Reading the report, everybody comes out with blood smeared on their hands, except the people of North Waziristan, who are drenched in their own blood. The report is very well written and does something more than the obvious task of stating the wrongs committed by the Taliban, drones and Pakistan’s Military. The report humanises the people of Waziristan; these are real people being killed. This is not only a theatre generating ideological debate. Reflect on the phrase “drones might think” in the opening sentence. Drones do not think, their operators might or might not, but drones are inanimate machines. To you and me they are, not to those who see them kill, to them they are more real than the Metro Bus Service.
And precisely because it is so well written, it is a shame that the political parties and the Foreign Office, which jumped to endorse, even co-opt it, did not bother to give it a quick read. Never mind that the Foreign Office and the same political parties have thought previous reports by Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch and our own Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) as ‘foreign propaganda’, ‘pack of lies’ for talking about women and minorities rights, Balochistan, etc. Yet, even this time, before everybody started acting like the ventriloquist’s dummy, they did not read it. The Report said drone attacks “might” be illegal and more transparency and accountability is needed. Who can really argue with that? Yet, the ‘talks’ crowd saw the words ‘drone’ and ‘illegal’ and let passion take over.
The report tells us in exquisite detail how in Waziristan, there is impunity for everybody. The militant groups (our brethren, the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and cousins al Qaeda), the Pakistan Army and the US drones. ‘Broken windows’ is a theory of criminology. The basic hypothesis is that people are likely to vandalise something that is already slightly vandalised as opposed to something in spanking condition. The original example in the theory was “consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.” If there is room for some impunity, it will gradually increase and come to the point where the building is set on fire.
Fata has had a few windows broken since the British Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) 1901, with no constitutional protections. It still is an island of exceptionalism, where the State of Pakistan has never earnestly tried to establish its writ and hence extend rights. Real squatters came in the first Afghan war and lit up a fire, which reached its high point when the TTP killed off and destroyed the entire traditional social control mechanism. Now, it is a free for all.
The Taliban and their affiliates kill people and so do drone attacks. That is just a fact. No moral equivalence and no comparison in the numbers killed either. One can, and in principle should, be against both of them. There is no binary here.
In theory, the drone attacks should cease. However, one wonders what would happen to the apologists if and when they do? Will they then see the false causation that they believed in or would they concoct new excuses for the killing? They probably will come up with newer justifications. There have been those who cite this report to build up their unrelated arguments for talks. Do those, for whom history (and religious extremism) in Pakistan began post-2001, citing breach of sovereignty by drones and then in the same breath, arguing for talks without preconditions (even the basic norm of laying down weapons and bringing themselves under the Constitution), not realise the absurdity of their position? They probably don’t. Newsflash: you have to possess and demonstrate sovereignty to lose it or have it breached
The Washington Post-leaked report did not get enough attention, even though it also pertained to drones. Second newsflash: according to the report, the Pakistan military not only approved and endorsed but also shared information regarding targets. Takes quite a bit of sail out of the breach of the sovereignty argument, does it not? It is about time to call out the double games and mock outrages. Patriots, planning a march to the GHQ anytime soon? It might be closer to most of the bleeding green nationalists than DC.
Since Fata is an information black hole, we know neither the exact number of people killed by them nor the number of residents for or against drones. Yet, drones have become the blanket cop-out excuse for the apologist. On the other side of the spectrum, drones are the chic/enlightened issue. Drone attacks kill extra-judicially, and hence need to be stopped or subjected to greater scrutiny and transparency. We are also in a state of conflict and the TTP and friends have killed in thousands. There is some onus on those who argue for immediate and complete cessation of drones. If surrender is off the table (as it should be), what would you do instead? If the Pakistani State had done its job, had windows repaired earlier, we would not have to answer this question. However, it didn’t and we have to answer this question. The AI report answers it; the State has to bring the militants to justice. And that will require use of force, and more significantly, will and sincerity. The use of force by the State should be an exceptional recourse and subjected to the highest scrutiny, however, to completely abandon this option is to negate the concept of the State itself.
While we rightly demand that the US show an awareness and respect for laws and norms, it will be useful to our cause if we demonstrate the ability to do the same. Fata will have to be brought under the national ambit, and rights and duties of the State extended to the citizens. The argument for drones has never been rights based, it is efficiency based. We have the burden, for our sake, to demonstrate that we can do it ourselves, proportionally, with minimum collateral damage and efficiently. Our guardians need to understand that playing both sides might have run its course. The AI report beautifully and painfully tells us that people die as we go about our deceit, ignorance and smugness; this is the cost of debating drones in a vacuum.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 27th, 2013.
And precisely because it is so well written, it is a shame that the political parties and the Foreign Office, which jumped to endorse, even co-opt it, did not bother to give it a quick read. Never mind that the Foreign Office and the same political parties have thought previous reports by Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch and our own Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) as ‘foreign propaganda’, ‘pack of lies’ for talking about women and minorities rights, Balochistan, etc. Yet, even this time, before everybody started acting like the ventriloquist’s dummy, they did not read it. The Report said drone attacks “might” be illegal and more transparency and accountability is needed. Who can really argue with that? Yet, the ‘talks’ crowd saw the words ‘drone’ and ‘illegal’ and let passion take over.
The report tells us in exquisite detail how in Waziristan, there is impunity for everybody. The militant groups (our brethren, the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and cousins al Qaeda), the Pakistan Army and the US drones. ‘Broken windows’ is a theory of criminology. The basic hypothesis is that people are likely to vandalise something that is already slightly vandalised as opposed to something in spanking condition. The original example in the theory was “consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.” If there is room for some impunity, it will gradually increase and come to the point where the building is set on fire.
Fata has had a few windows broken since the British Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) 1901, with no constitutional protections. It still is an island of exceptionalism, where the State of Pakistan has never earnestly tried to establish its writ and hence extend rights. Real squatters came in the first Afghan war and lit up a fire, which reached its high point when the TTP killed off and destroyed the entire traditional social control mechanism. Now, it is a free for all.
The Taliban and their affiliates kill people and so do drone attacks. That is just a fact. No moral equivalence and no comparison in the numbers killed either. One can, and in principle should, be against both of them. There is no binary here.
In theory, the drone attacks should cease. However, one wonders what would happen to the apologists if and when they do? Will they then see the false causation that they believed in or would they concoct new excuses for the killing? They probably will come up with newer justifications. There have been those who cite this report to build up their unrelated arguments for talks. Do those, for whom history (and religious extremism) in Pakistan began post-2001, citing breach of sovereignty by drones and then in the same breath, arguing for talks without preconditions (even the basic norm of laying down weapons and bringing themselves under the Constitution), not realise the absurdity of their position? They probably don’t. Newsflash: you have to possess and demonstrate sovereignty to lose it or have it breached
The Washington Post-leaked report did not get enough attention, even though it also pertained to drones. Second newsflash: according to the report, the Pakistan military not only approved and endorsed but also shared information regarding targets. Takes quite a bit of sail out of the breach of the sovereignty argument, does it not? It is about time to call out the double games and mock outrages. Patriots, planning a march to the GHQ anytime soon? It might be closer to most of the bleeding green nationalists than DC.
Since Fata is an information black hole, we know neither the exact number of people killed by them nor the number of residents for or against drones. Yet, drones have become the blanket cop-out excuse for the apologist. On the other side of the spectrum, drones are the chic/enlightened issue. Drone attacks kill extra-judicially, and hence need to be stopped or subjected to greater scrutiny and transparency. We are also in a state of conflict and the TTP and friends have killed in thousands. There is some onus on those who argue for immediate and complete cessation of drones. If surrender is off the table (as it should be), what would you do instead? If the Pakistani State had done its job, had windows repaired earlier, we would not have to answer this question. However, it didn’t and we have to answer this question. The AI report answers it; the State has to bring the militants to justice. And that will require use of force, and more significantly, will and sincerity. The use of force by the State should be an exceptional recourse and subjected to the highest scrutiny, however, to completely abandon this option is to negate the concept of the State itself.
While we rightly demand that the US show an awareness and respect for laws and norms, it will be useful to our cause if we demonstrate the ability to do the same. Fata will have to be brought under the national ambit, and rights and duties of the State extended to the citizens. The argument for drones has never been rights based, it is efficiency based. We have the burden, for our sake, to demonstrate that we can do it ourselves, proportionally, with minimum collateral damage and efficiently. Our guardians need to understand that playing both sides might have run its course. The AI report beautifully and painfully tells us that people die as we go about our deceit, ignorance and smugness; this is the cost of debating drones in a vacuum.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 27th, 2013.