The truth about drone attacks

Published: December 3, 2010
The Americans have gradually become vilified as allies that violated the sovereignty of the country they were supposed to help. PHOTO: AFP

The Americans have gradually become vilified as allies that violated the sovereignty of the country they were supposed to help. PHOTO: AFP

General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has finally admitted that he had allowed “the US to carry out drone surveillance inside Pakistan’s territory”. Had he gone on record earlier when he allowed public opinion to build up against these attacks by the Americans, he would have appeared more credible today. His effort to minimise the blame by saying that his permission was restricted to ‘surveillance’ — and that too for the benefit of Pakistan forces — is greatly suspect.

He says: “We wanted intelligence; we wanted them [the US] to locate targets. It was only a general kind of carpet agreement with the US, and surveillance was allowed on a case-to-case basis. Once we located the targets, we would decide on the method of striking either by helicopter gunship… or some other way. But that was a decision which was left to us.” And when the drone attacks did not abide by this ‘carpet agreement’ (sic) what did the general do, given the public furore against the attacks in Pakistan?

The present government knew that Musharraf had agreed with the drone option. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani says “the previous government” had given permission for “reconnaissance and surveillance flights by spy planes, but never for attacks”. Yet a member of his own cabinet and the allies in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa kept verbalising their approval of the attacks because they took out the leadership of the terrorists killing innocent Pakistanis. Only in October this year the PPP government, along with its allies, changed its stance on drones and began opposing them.

The American reaction has been a kind of policy double-take. The top officials kept on hinting that the drones were flying from Pakistani soil (photographic proof of this was provided in a report published in a Pakistani newspaper in Feb 2009) and attacking with the approval of the government. The statements were muffled and aimed at not embarrassing a government insisting on denial; also, there was the delicate matter of sparing the current army chief who was a part of the set-up that approved — partially or completely — the drone attacks under Musharraf.

If one believes the Pakistani side, the Americans violated the agreement which was that only Pakistan would act on the “location information” of the targets and not the former. That also means that the drones would not carry missiles but only the apparatus that identifies targets. The truth is that the drones too relied on information and tagging from the ground before they could fire their precision missiles. It is difficult to grasp how the Pakistan Army could benefit from the surveillance done without possessing the drone aircraft.

The media has turned against the drones and the Americans have gradually become vilified as allies that violated the sovereignty of the country they were supposed to help. Political parties like the Tehreek-i-Insaaf actually pegged their campaigns on the collateral damage they inflicted on the innocent inhabitants of the Tribal Areas. Is this is a mechanism devised to get out of a commitment that Musharraf had made? The government has now conveyed to the US that drone attacks are not acceptable. The Americans thought they had a clear mandate from Pakistan to use the drones but now the situation has changed. The Pakistanis want the attacks to stop and with the Americans thinking of leaving Afghanistan, the drones are assuming an increasingly greater strategic importance.

Pakistan is on a weak wicket because of its lack of control over areas from where ground attacks inside Afghanistan are being carried out. Moreover, some of the Pakistani territory being attacked by the drones is occupied by non-Pakistani foreigners over whom the Pakistani state has no control over (or it is not willing to exercise it).

Pakistan has to either keep quiet or challenge the American claim that a clear mandate for drone attacks was given. Keeping quiet would be advisable if the former doesn’t want a crisis in its relations with the US. When a decision to defy the American action is taken it will have to be carefully weighed who needs the other more, especially given the fact that many analysts think that America needs Pakistan more than vice versa.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 4th, 2010.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (5)

  • khan
    Dec 4, 2010 - 2:41PM

    the drone attacks are the matter of grave concern for Pakistan and the tribal is seen that drone attacks have killed many innocent lives and there is found a strong resentment and disliking for America because of these attacks.this is like we say in Pushtu putting whole your blanket in fire to kill one lice. and second drone attacks are also causing bad name to Pakistan due to violation of its territory and international human rights conventions again and again. it is written clearly in UN human rights convention that drone attack is only allowed when there is no chance of civilian casualties. but the American have fired missiles on mosques, marriage ceremonies and bazaars killing many civilians in every attack.Recommend

  • Another Khan
    Dec 4, 2010 - 3:40PM

    @khan LISTEN !!!

    your name is khan and you are either too naive or a sympathizer of these militants or maybe you are follower of Imran Khan or some other pseudo mullah and these all MAKES YOU CLOSE TO BEING A TERRORIST yourself…

    well whatever the reason maybe but you need to get your facts straight, i know there is an American report indicating that “innocent” civilians are killed in the drone attacks… OOOO listen !! they are either the relatives or the people whom are providing them shelter. so they very much deserver the same fate as their terrorist friends!!

    You should do some research and see how these drone strike? and by the way i would love to know which mosque was targeted??? well first of all it never happened but if there are cache of arms lying there, then i would say that its nothing more than a bunker used by terrorists and i would say NUKE IT !!!! let alone bombing it..

    and this miran shah bazar is a safe heaven of these sick terrorists,,, they have their offices there,, i would say they should completely bomb that place into pieces !!!

    and there is only one instance where the wedding ceremony of a terrorist was bombed…. and i would say HELL YEAH to using weapon of mass destruction in that place…

    So just shut up and stop spreading lies !!! gullible *..

    Sub Se Pehlay Pakistan,,
    Pakistan Hamesha PaindabadRecommend

  • 'Tis I
    Dec 5, 2010 - 1:38AM

    You cannot solve a problem using the same mind that created the problem in the first place. Is it logical that bombing and killing can somehow lead to peace? Conflict is a choice and the spirals of violence will continue only as long as people are willing to fight each other. So be the change you want to see and perhaps one day leaders will call for war and no one will show up to fight it.Recommend

  • G. Din
    Dec 5, 2010 - 3:11AM

    “…it is written clearly in UN human rights convention that drone attack is only allowed when there is no chance of civilian casualties.”
    Could you please quote the article etc of this requirement. It is asinine to believe that in any armed conflict, civilians will not be injured or killed. A drone attack minimizes such casualties. You cannot specify that no casualties can occur. The targets of current military conflict purposely mingle with the civilians. It is the civilians that have the responsibility not to harbour such malevolent characters.Recommend

  • Palvasha von Hassell
    Dec 5, 2010 - 8:01PM

    To all those who favour the bombardment of the tribalsI’ll see how you feel the minute an innocent relative or friend of yours dies in a drone attack; it is extra-judicial killing, and as such not to be condoned. It is the height of callousness for those ‘not’ affected by such violations of international law not to stand up for those who are. These strikes have been said to have only 2% accuracy, by high -ranking officials such as Philip Alston. I say more and more voiceless victims in the tribal belt who have been affected through loss of family members should sue the American Government for massive damages. Truly amazing that Pakistanis can be so ignorant and wish such unfair treatment of their fellows. No wonder the country doesn’t progress, is divided and hate is fostered within. Recommend

More in Editorial