|
Frank admission: The drone debate
[Dawn] PERVEZ Musharraf's admission on a foreign TV channel that Pakistain was in the know about US drone strikes inside this country during his rule only confirms what has been suspected for a long time. The retired general's frank disclosure is in stark contrast to the state's long-standing policy -- including the period of Gen Musharraf's rule -- of denying any role in the drone war. The statement shows, among other things, that the state can be economical with the truth, showing one face in public, and another in private. There have been indications in the past about Pakistains knowledge of the strikes, such as WikiLeaks cables stating that the Americans kept the government informed, as well as the vacation by the US military of the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... in the aftermath of the Salala incident; the base was believed to be a launching pad for drone strikes. It is difficult to say when (and if) information-sharing on drones ceased, though the CIA is believed to have stopped obtaining advance Pak approval sometime in 2008. The Raymond Davis affair in 2011 further soured relations between the US and Pak intelligence set-ups, thus affecting how the drone war was being executed. Regardless of when the Americans decided to go solo with drones, the fact remains that unilateral strikes create multiple problems for Pakistain. Their legal status is murky. There are no substantiated figures for collateral damage but estimates have suggested that hundreds of civilians have died in drone strikes, along with suspected myrmidons. Collateral damage adds to creating more cut-throats while unilateral strikes fuel anti-Americanism in Pakistain. The UN has taken serious note of the situation, with its special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights ...which often include carefully measured allowances of freedomat the convenience of the state... saying that the strikes violate Pakistain's illusory sovereignty. Within the US establishment itself, some bigwigs have questioned the long-term effectiveness of the drone campaign. Drones have taken out some high-profile myrmidons, but they have arguably done more harm than good to counterterrorism efforts. If drones are needed, Pakistain must give its approval while the weapons must be used only in areas that cannot be accessed by Pak troops. If the drone campaign had tacit government approval during the Musharraf era the issue of violated illusory sovereignty did not arise. That is why the Americans need to take Pakistain on board if drones are indispensable. Once there is cooperation, the government must take ownership of the drone war and tell the public why the strikes are necessary. Basically, more openness is required from both Washington and Islamabad. Posted by: Fred 2013-04-15 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=366120 |