You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
India-Pakistan
Drone strikes
2012-06-01
[Dawn] EVEN as Pakistain and the US try to negotiate their way into a workable relationship, American drone strikes continue. The last few days have seen a flurry of attacks, with five strikes following the NATO
...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's headquartered in Belgium. That sez it all....
summit at which the two countries failed to reach a deal on Isaf supply routes. Coming after Pak politicians called for their "immediate cessation", this is a snub that implies America respects neither Pakistain's illusory sovereignty nor the democracy it claims it wants to see flourish. More pragmatically, the continuing attacks are making progress on the relationship that much more difficult. Parliament's position could have been taken as a starting point from which to bargain. Pakistain has recognised the value of drone strikes in taking out some of its own enemies. A coordinated mechanism could be worked out in which Pakistain is given a role in the programme -- which should also help minimise civilian casualties -- in exchange for a promise not to disrupt strikes that target known hard boys. But as long as drone attacks remain a bone of contention between the two governments, continuing them only makes it harder to move forward with negotiations and gives Pak hardliners reason not to support a rapprochement and to incite already inflamed anti-Americanism. This isn't just a matter of a few hundred people protesting in the streets; it constricts the space available for parliament and the government to talk to the US.

Reports emerging from within the US administration indicate that it is not just Paks who question these attacks. The outgoing ambassador to Pakistain, Cameron Munter, appears to have disapproved of the handling of the programme here, and the Western media had earlier reported that the State Department is not as enthusiastic about it as the CIA. And despite reports that President B.O. himself approves many targets, in Pakistain drones also seem to hit those simply found in suspicious locations or around known hard boys. The tool is a deeply controversial one, and proceeding with disregard for Pak opinion will only make it more difficult to incorporate it into a functional US-Pakistain relationship.
Posted by:Fred

#4  I understood the phrase as part of Fred's Snark-o-tron, but in every good joke, there is a grain of truth. (or kilo-grain)

In the case of Pakistain, 'illusory sovereignty' is quite apropos. They may play dress-up in Islamabad and pretend to be the government (when they aren't trying to whack each other), but how much influence do they have over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas? (and by influence, I mean something other than smuggling, gun-running and bribery)

By the way, nice concise explanation, tw.
Posted by: SteveS   2012-06-01 22:46  

#3  "Illusory sovereignty" is Fred's little joke, gentlemen. After all these years of reading such self-satisfied claptrap, he wrote a little automatic replacement program for such verbiage. The changes are indicated by a light grey underline. Click on the headline to open up the original article for comparison purposes -- Fred had fun with it. (It was also intended as a defense against Righthaven harassment, though I'm not sure it accomplished the purpose -- thank goodness that particular threat has been vanquished by the legal system eventually working as designed!)
Posted by: trailing wife   2012-06-01 08:23  

#2  I interpret the phrase as recognition of Pakistan, not as a modern nation-state, but more a geographic collection of ethnic tribes and governmental organizations, along with some non-state actors, all engaged in schemes and battles against each other in various combinations. Think South-Central Los Angeles, but with more players and without the stability.
Posted by: SteveS   2012-06-01 02:23  

#1  I'm sorry - I'm know what "illusory sovereignty" specifically or definitionally means as per US, International Political Science + Govt. Affairs, but in this Artic + Others prior it seems the Author(s) want the same to mean "temporary/
false/subjective sovereignty"???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-06-01 01:54  

00:00