Drone attacks: a separate issue
Monday, May 25, 2009
Dawn, Pakistan
By Gul Bukhari
Monday, 25 May, 2009
PRIOR to the All-Parties Conference of May 18, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is said to have been apprehensive regarding the stance that right-of-centre and religious parties could take.
The leaders of some of these parties had indicated at the outset that they would endorse continued military action against extremist militants in the Malakand division only if the Pakistani government took a firm stance on the issue of drone attacks in the Fata area.
From the draft document of the APC resolutions, as well as subsequent dissenting statements in the media by the Jamaat-i-Islami, Tehrik-i-Insaaf, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) and a few other parties, it’s apparent that Mr Gilani’s concerns were on the money. Clearly, unequivocal support of the military operation, the cause célèbre of the conference, is nowhere to be seen in the resolution!
Instead, expressions of grief, reaffirmation of commitment to sovereignty of state and constitution, safety and wellbeing of the internally displaced persons, appreciation of sacrifices of people etc form the bulk of the draft. Very noble, no doubt, but lacking concrete endorsement of military action against violent extremists.
Interestingly, one article of the draft resolutions condemns ‘the violation of Pakistan’s political, economic and territorial sovereignty including drone attacks’. Thus in conformity with their reported promised position on drones vis-à-vis backing the military operation, the same political parties have publicly condemned and called for a halt to the military action in Malakand post the APC. By extension, they see the entire war as America’s war and still recommend ‘negotiations’ with the Taliban.
Given that there are extensive arguments on record in support of the operation in Malakand, and it enjoys wide public support, it would be more pertinent to touch on the more complicated and emotive issue of the drones instead.
Drone attacks inside Pakistan by the US are an issue. However, the idea that these attacks are, or should be, linked to an endorsement of, or detraction from, an indigenous counter-terrorism policy is incomprehensible. Our leaders need to be very clear in their minds that the issue of sovereignty of the country is a completely different one from that of fighting a known, recognised, tried and tested enemy within. Those mixing up the two issues need help understanding why the two are, and must be kept, separate.
First, how will halting the military operations, or not backing any indigenous anti-terror policy, stop the drone attacks? Logically, not conducting an operation should spur the US to intensify the attacks rather than the opposite.
Secondly, not continuing to back the ongoing operations and allowing the militants to consolidate and continue their struggle to seize countrywide control, is akin to cutting your own nose to spite another’s face i.e. letting Pakistan burn to spite the US. Not a shred of sense is visible here.
The only mad glimmer of reasoning could be that it would be Pakistan thumbing its nose at America, ‘hey, see my suicide jacket? I will blow myself up if you don’t stop punching me, and you’ll be left behind cleaning up the mess I make with my bloody remains all over the region.…’
Having said this, the issue of the drones makes for a curious case in terms of evolution of the governmental stance. Over the past year and a quarter, the position has evolved from denial of the existence of attacks, to not having any bases within the country or lack of ability to put a stop to them to a final lack of will.
Ironically, having condemned violation of the country’s sovereignty continuously, including at the APC, the prime minister and his government are now reported to be in a dilemma vis-à-vis the US reaction if Pakistan were to actually take strong action, for example cutting Nato supply lines to stop the drone attacks. The fear being that the international community, led of course by the US, might in retaliation withdraw promised aid for the IDPs. This too is a bizarre connection to make.Firstly, the US is very unlikely to try and lead such an embargo out of public image concerns if nothing else. The current US administration has been seen to be at pains to improve its image worldwide, especially amongst Muslim nations. To refuse or actively impede aid, in the face of an enormous and burgeoning humanitarian crisis being beamed around the world, would rob the US of any moral high ground in terms of world opinion.
Secondly, the IDPs issue has gained recognition domestically and internationally as being one of the key factors that will determine continued public support for the war in Malakand. As a result it is being increasingly named as one of the biggest factors that will play a hand in whether this war can be extended to its logical conclusion. So, from a strategic perspective as well, can the US reasonably be expected to shoot itself in the foot by actively and vindictively precipitating further the IDPs humanitarian crisis, almost ensuring Pakistan’s defeat in the war against violent extremism?
Washington’s immediate goal is to crush the militancy in Fata. The drones are only a tool towards that end. It would not make any logical sense for the US not to see the wood for the trees.
It is critical to understand that drone attacks are a sovereignty issue. The war in Malakand is an issue of fighting an internal existential threat. Whether the government decides to take a firm stance on the drone attacks or not the support for this war will continue, since public support is based on considerations of self-preservation. It would be beyond foolishness to try and link the two.
Similarly, the aid issue is also a red herring. If the government isn’t able or willing to force a halt to drone attacks for whatever reason, the IDPs and their welfare should not be made the excuse. Either the state needs to take visible steps clearly in its power to stop the drone attacks, or take honest political ownership of them.
Instead of creating and pandering to misconceptions and false linkages the government and other national leaders need to help clarify issues and lead from the front.
Source
By Gul Bukhari
Monday, 25 May, 2009
PRIOR to the All-Parties Conference of May 18, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is said to have been apprehensive regarding the stance that right-of-centre and religious parties could take.
The leaders of some of these parties had indicated at the outset that they would endorse continued military action against extremist militants in the Malakand division only if the Pakistani government took a firm stance on the issue of drone attacks in the Fata area.
From the draft document of the APC resolutions, as well as subsequent dissenting statements in the media by the Jamaat-i-Islami, Tehrik-i-Insaaf, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) and a few other parties, it’s apparent that Mr Gilani’s concerns were on the money. Clearly, unequivocal support of the military operation, the cause célèbre of the conference, is nowhere to be seen in the resolution!
Instead, expressions of grief, reaffirmation of commitment to sovereignty of state and constitution, safety and wellbeing of the internally displaced persons, appreciation of sacrifices of people etc form the bulk of the draft. Very noble, no doubt, but lacking concrete endorsement of military action against violent extremists.
Interestingly, one article of the draft resolutions condemns ‘the violation of Pakistan’s political, economic and territorial sovereignty including drone attacks’. Thus in conformity with their reported promised position on drones vis-à-vis backing the military operation, the same political parties have publicly condemned and called for a halt to the military action in Malakand post the APC. By extension, they see the entire war as America’s war and still recommend ‘negotiations’ with the Taliban.
Given that there are extensive arguments on record in support of the operation in Malakand, and it enjoys wide public support, it would be more pertinent to touch on the more complicated and emotive issue of the drones instead.
Drone attacks inside Pakistan by the US are an issue. However, the idea that these attacks are, or should be, linked to an endorsement of, or detraction from, an indigenous counter-terrorism policy is incomprehensible. Our leaders need to be very clear in their minds that the issue of sovereignty of the country is a completely different one from that of fighting a known, recognised, tried and tested enemy within. Those mixing up the two issues need help understanding why the two are, and must be kept, separate.
First, how will halting the military operations, or not backing any indigenous anti-terror policy, stop the drone attacks? Logically, not conducting an operation should spur the US to intensify the attacks rather than the opposite.
Secondly, not continuing to back the ongoing operations and allowing the militants to consolidate and continue their struggle to seize countrywide control, is akin to cutting your own nose to spite another’s face i.e. letting Pakistan burn to spite the US. Not a shred of sense is visible here.
The only mad glimmer of reasoning could be that it would be Pakistan thumbing its nose at America, ‘hey, see my suicide jacket? I will blow myself up if you don’t stop punching me, and you’ll be left behind cleaning up the mess I make with my bloody remains all over the region.…’
Having said this, the issue of the drones makes for a curious case in terms of evolution of the governmental stance. Over the past year and a quarter, the position has evolved from denial of the existence of attacks, to not having any bases within the country or lack of ability to put a stop to them to a final lack of will.
Ironically, having condemned violation of the country’s sovereignty continuously, including at the APC, the prime minister and his government are now reported to be in a dilemma vis-à-vis the US reaction if Pakistan were to actually take strong action, for example cutting Nato supply lines to stop the drone attacks. The fear being that the international community, led of course by the US, might in retaliation withdraw promised aid for the IDPs. This too is a bizarre connection to make.Firstly, the US is very unlikely to try and lead such an embargo out of public image concerns if nothing else. The current US administration has been seen to be at pains to improve its image worldwide, especially amongst Muslim nations. To refuse or actively impede aid, in the face of an enormous and burgeoning humanitarian crisis being beamed around the world, would rob the US of any moral high ground in terms of world opinion.
Secondly, the IDPs issue has gained recognition domestically and internationally as being one of the key factors that will determine continued public support for the war in Malakand. As a result it is being increasingly named as one of the biggest factors that will play a hand in whether this war can be extended to its logical conclusion. So, from a strategic perspective as well, can the US reasonably be expected to shoot itself in the foot by actively and vindictively precipitating further the IDPs humanitarian crisis, almost ensuring Pakistan’s defeat in the war against violent extremism?
Washington’s immediate goal is to crush the militancy in Fata. The drones are only a tool towards that end. It would not make any logical sense for the US not to see the wood for the trees.
It is critical to understand that drone attacks are a sovereignty issue. The war in Malakand is an issue of fighting an internal existential threat. Whether the government decides to take a firm stance on the drone attacks or not the support for this war will continue, since public support is based on considerations of self-preservation. It would be beyond foolishness to try and link the two.
Similarly, the aid issue is also a red herring. If the government isn’t able or willing to force a halt to drone attacks for whatever reason, the IDPs and their welfare should not be made the excuse. Either the state needs to take visible steps clearly in its power to stop the drone attacks, or take honest political ownership of them.
Instead of creating and pandering to misconceptions and false linkages the government and other national leaders need to help clarify issues and lead from the front.
Source
Labels: APC, Drone Attacks, IDPs, Militants, Swat Operation, Taliban, Terrorism, US Pakistan Relations
posted @ 11:14 AM,
0 Comments:
Post a Comment