By Imtiaz Gul, July 2, 2010 Friday, July 2, 2010 - 10:14 AM Share
While Pakistan's
security forces battle al Qaeda-inspired Pakistani Taliban militants in the
volatile tribal regions of Bajaur and Orakzai, CIA-operated drones continue
chasing foreign al-Qaeda operatives hiding in the wild Waziristan
region. The latest such strike on a hide-out in South Waziristan tribal area
near the Afghan border took out eight
militants earlier this week, including an Egyptian allied with al-Qaeda,
Hamza al-Jufi.
Believed
to be operating out of Forward Operating Base Chapman, located across the
border in Khost, Afghanistan, drones have struck targets
inside Pakistan at least 141 times since 2004, including 45 attacks already
this year so far. Regardless of how effective drones may be against al-Qaeda
and its affiliates, their use is the subject of widespread debate, due in large
part to questions about the legality of the drones.
Condemnation of such attacks and their characterization
as a violation of the "sovereignty, solidarity, integrity and defense of
Pakistan," in the words of Pakistani parliamentarian Imran Khan, is primarily
rooted in the context of the global war against terrorism that began in October
2001 under President George Bush. This association with Bush has in part led
many conservative Pakistanis and right-wing political groups such as the Jamaat-i-Islami
and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam to openly oppose the drone strikes.
Even the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the
Waziristan-based group that is spearheading the insurgency in the northwestern
regions, has justified
attacks as a reaction to the drone strikes.
Others object not to the drones, but to Pakistani public
opinion on their use. For instance, Ayaz Ameer, an analyst-turned-politician, and
an MP from the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-N, said at a recent conference
hosted by my Islamabad think tank that Pakistani officials take two
contradictory positions on drone strikes: publicly condemning them while
endorsing them privately.
Chriss Rogers, research fellow at Campaign for Innocent
Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), said at the forum,
"Since Pakistan formally never raised the issue at any international forum nor
did it formally and officially issue statement against it, there seemed to be a
tacit understanding between the United States and Pakistan over it."
But covert Pakistani consent does not necessarily make the
strikes legal. According
to Ahmar Bilal Soofi, an expert in international law, "The United States
is applying drones in the name of self-defense and the war on al-Qaeda, but
even this is a violation of international law and Pakistani sovereignty."
Furthermore, he argues,
"These means become even more objectionable because the CIA is operating drone
strikes, thereby compromising issues such as transparency and accountability."
Some observers have also suggested that a Pakistani
operation of the drones could significantly blunt criticism of the strikes.
Indeed Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and army leaders have frequently asked
that the technology be transferred to Pakistan, and has said that such a
transfer would blunt
criticism of the strikes..
Increasingly, Pakistani critics have also relied on arguments made by Philip
Alston, a New York University law professor and the U.N. special representative
on extrajudicial executions, who in a June report
recommended that the U.S. military handle drone strikes against the Taliban and
al-Qaeda-related militants in Pakistan, and also wrote that, "[i]f a State
commits a targeted killing in the territory of another State, the second State
should publicly indicate whether it gave consent, and on what basis."
Set
against the backdrop of the recent command change in Afghanistan, U.S. policy
on the drone attacks may perhaps also undergo some qualitative changes.
Particularly in view of Obama's search for rapid success in Afghanistan, for
which Pakistan's support is crucial, the Obama administration may work out a mechanism
that, while eliminating al-Qaeda members, also addresses Pakistani concerns on
the legality of drone strikes. This change could also erase quite a bit of
mistrust of the U.S. in Pakistan and help improve bilateral cooperation. But
Pakistan's government must first end its dueling public and private positions
on drones and state clearly where it stands on this simmering issue.
Imtiaz Gul heads the
Center for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad and is the author of The
Most Dangerous Place (Viking Penguin USA/UK).
Pakistan doesn't get to have a claim to full sovereignty if they will continue to shelter the Taliban. If the ISI really is supporting them they should count themselves lucky the CIA hasn't exploded their headquarters.
It seems strange that the ISI would actively support the Pakistani Taliban in 2010 while the soldiers of Pakistan has been engaged in a War in North-West Pakistan. Although it is obvious that the ISI had a huge role in the formation and support of the Taliban under the Pakistani government in earlier years, now the roles have switched. It appears that the Pakistani government and military is moving against the Taliban and militant Islamist while the ISI appears to be supporting the Taliban. Instead of seeking dialogue with the Pakistani government over the legality of the drones, the United States and Pakistan must figure out what to do with the ISI and its free reign.
This is the price Pakistani sovereignty must pay since the government has been at least complicit in, and the ISI actively supports, terrorist groups that destabilize the region, murder civilians, kill US, Afghan, and Pakistani soldiers. Until they agree to go into North Waziristan, investigate the ISI, stop using the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, etc as proxies while using double talk to collect billions in aid, I don't give a damn what their MPs think. They can't have it both ways.
I do, however, think we need to make an effort to establish and classify the legality of drones to some degree. I think it's quite clear that legal ambiguities only lead to trouble. Waterboarding for instance was a big mess for (and with that at least we had some form of legal precedent) precisely because of the legal ambiguities that existed which were open to interpretation/exploitation (depending on who you talk to).
Is that the way to treat an ally? The ISI set up the taliban with FULL U.S support; that was then -fighting the Russians. Subsequently, the U.S lost interest and left the Taliban to the Pakistanis to sort out. The Pakistani Taliban were fighting the dictatorship of the then General Musharraf, who had massive U.S, support. One thing led to another and the war-on terror came and the U.S, suddenly wants the Pakistani government to put-down the Taliban. That is hardly possible and the reckless use of drones by the C.I.A with sometimes heavy civilian casualties only made matters worse; because the C.I.A will not even admit to carrying out the attacks let alone take responsibility for the innocent women and children killed! The Pakistani government may not have much of a choice under these circumstances because their views will make little difference to the U.S administration since NO AMERICAN LIVES ARE LOST to the drone attacks.
Is THAT the way? No I suppose you'd suggest that the "proper" way to treat an ally is supporting an insurgency that we are directly combating in a neighboring country. Supporting an insurgency that sheltered (and refused to hand over) the network that murdered almost 3,000 civilians, is taking the lives of US (and many other nations) troops, while receiving billions in US taxpayer money, all while cursing our presence in the region. Some ally they are. At this point, giving the Pakistanis some much deserved tough love is long overdue and only constitutes a reactionary measure for all the double talk diplomacy/sabotage that the US has tolerated for so long. And another thing, what about the support for the Taliban throughout the 90's. Not so convenient for your fluid narrative? The Taliban received support instead of the Northern Alliance (or anyone else for that matter) because they wouldn't tolerate a Tajik gov't in Kabul and most importantly because they continue to use the Taliban as a proxy to satisfy their military's hyper-paranoid concerns over India. No way to treat an ally? Oh please. The Pakistanis have had one hand out asking for billions while the other is hand feeding us Takfiri poison. Don't start talking about being a good ally, they don't have any. Maybe you can wait for IPPON (or his new commentary alias since people started ignoring his BS) to support your argument with his fantastical blog facts.
It is unlikely that welcoming drone strikes against Islamist types on Pakistani territory is all Pakistani officials do privately.
It is more likely that the drone offensive could not be conducted without intelligence from the Pakistani security services. Moreover, there is reason for concern that Pakistan's influence is behind drone attacks on Islamist leaders who have not been active in Afghanistan, but who have grievances against the government of Pakistan.
What Pakistan is dealing with today is effectively a civil war. Much of its population prefers not to see this, choosing instead the traditional casting of blame for Pakistan's problems on forces outside Pakistan. The government prefers not to acknowledge it, since doing so would expose its own infirmities and poor performance over the course of many years. Instead, the government calls on the United States for help targeting militant leaders, while encouraging an empty debate over whether drone strikes compromise Pakistani sovereignty and international law.
If Pakistan really feels threatened by Taliban (Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are one and the same regardless of what Pakistan claims), then Pakistan to come out of closet and make CIA drone attacks official.
Afterall Pakistan itself has acknowledged the existential threat from Al Qaeda - Taliban axis operating on its soil. Pakistani Army has clearly shown inability or unwillingness to go after the elements of this axis operating from North Waziristan and Quetta.
US clearly has asserted its right to go after the threat this axis poses to US/NATO troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan has only perfunctorily protested.
So it is about time that US demand and Pakistan concur to make drone attacks official, thereby making associated civilian casualties a ‘necessary collateral damage’ to root out the terrorism threat posed by Al Qaeda/Taliban axis operating from Pakistani soil and threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Mr Gul here conveniently omitted the Pak Govt (Or should say Pak Army which is the real foreign policymaker in Pakistan!) wants Drones and Drone technology from US. There have been no. of public statements from President to ISPR on this topic.
However, they do not want Drone strikes as it "escalates public anger" - which is absolute non-sense. If Pak Air force can use F-16 and bomb the hell out in FATA, which US can't do the same with much more precision of Drones? It is because US attack targets what Pak Army and ISI is hiding from the world. Taliban Shura and Haqqani network - their "strategic assets"!
As for sovereignty of Pakistan, well that comes with the price. IF Pakistan would not stop exporting terror to the world, it has no right to expect no Drone strikes. Sovereignty of Uganda was violated by other nations when Idi Amin did commit crimes against humanity. If Pak Army's "strategic assets" continue their terror exports and crimes against humanity and wider world, rest of the world has responsibility to VIOLATE Pakistan's Sovereignty with Drone strikes to obliterate the threat.
You have some interesting preconditions there. First: talibans are evil, supporting Al-Quaeda, should be punished, etc. After being said a thousand times daily for the past 9 years just to justify a war, it may well seem evident but it is not. US is pursuing Al-Quaeda for its supposed links to the 9/11 attack. Now, when a policemen commits murder, do you prosecute the whole police system or the one responsible? Clearly the responsible, but US needs this Al-Quaeda thing to keep their war running.
Second, taliban sheltering Al-Quaeda. Still no hard evidence of any of this, yet you hear it from „independent” (read: government-sponsored) media everyday, so one might even think it’s true. By the off chance that among the many lies in this war, that one news has a shed of truth in it – the taliban did not commit any crime on American soil so there is no business for the US to go on invading Pakistan after Afghanistan and Iraq.
Third: Pakistan must help fight the talibans. Why? If you’ve read the aforementioned 2 points, there’s nothing incriminating to the taliban. You say that some taliban are carrying out attacks in Pakistan? Well, that’s Pakistan’s business, no one can compel a state to prosecute it’s own citizens. This is much like the few weeks after 9/11, when the US ran around the globe like a headless chicken, crying that every single country in the world should go to war, because New York was attacked. It is America’s problem, they should deal with it on their own soil. They can’t? Bad luck. I bet Pakistan would be really happy to go on prosecuting it’s enemies in India, yet they can’t do it because of sovereignty and international law. The same rule applies to America: stay at home, and shut the … up, your problems are not Pakistan’s problems.
If it were "One Two Three" don't you think this would already be solved? What you and everyone else refuse to believe is that Oil and Weaponization in the middle east has given the poor in the world a reason to revolt. The Rich are so power hungry they do not remember all the revolutions throughout history.
When you are standing on the beach looking at some billionaire in his Yacht, YOU are apparently not starving, uneducated and have not watched your children die of simple and curable diseases because there is no medical care for the poor in your country. YOU sir have hope and Democracy while the people who joined the Taliban have given up hope and embraced death. They have decided to bring it to YOU since you will not bring Life to them. That is why they are growing. That is why people in America are joining. You are an oversimplification yourself.
Drones (like all warfare) are simply protecting the Rich and Powerful. Share wealth equitably and you end all wars and hate.
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE