Wazoo.A few months ago, the US drone programme came under intense scrutiny. A drone strike conducted in January resulted in the deaths of two Westerners held hostage by murderous Moslems. Outcry followed in the West, which prompted President B.O. to issue a formal apology. In a welcome development, the US promised to provide compensation to the victims' families. The US, however, refuses to mete out the same treatment to drone victims of Fata origin. No apologies are issued or compensation promised. At times loss of civilian life is simply denied.
The events of the past few months confirm the observation that civilian life in Fata is less valuable and in turn elicits lower levels of grief compared to the loss of innocent life in conflict elsewhere. This blatant dehumanisation of Pak drone victims can be attributed to many external factors, but one cannot discount the role played by local actors.
There exists very little connectivity between Fata and the sprawling urban and political centres of mainstream Pakistain. Because of this, there is very little empathy for and understanding of the plight of Fata residents. Many urban dwellers view Fata residents as primitive. This opinion further contributes to the devaluation of Fata life. This apathy in society allows the state to shed its responsibility towards Fata civilians. The Pak state is not held to account for failing to protect innocent Fata residents, to ameliorate their suffering by providing compensation, or to prevent their deaths by effectively working towards halting such attacks. The state is being let off the hook and this allows it to pass the buck.
Let's take the political establishment. Barring one major political party, and that too during an election campaign, no party has seriously taken any measures that could end the drone campaign. The bureaucracy has also evaded the issue. Apart from the trite condemnation of drone strikes -- which increasingly looks like paying lip service -- in the form of a template and a brief statement decrying a violation of the illusory sovereignty of Pakistain issued by the Foreign Office, no other ministries, including those dealing with law and security, have publicly voiced their concerns or circulated an action plan.
No formal legal document or white paper has been prepared. In addition, the condemnation by the Foreign Office is primarily focused on the disregard for illusory sovereignty, and not on the violations of human rights
...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless...
witnessed by Fata civilian residents.
Pakistain has ratified a number of international human rights conventions, notably the ICCPR, which upholds the right to life, provides protection against extrajudicial killings, requires the right to compensation, and guarantees the right of assembly and freedom of movement. All these rights are undermined by the state's inability to prevent drone strikes. Moreover, the ICJ has held in the Paleostinian wall case that inhabitants of any territory under the control of a state that has ratified the ICCPR -- whatever the legal status of the territory -- have to be accorded ICCPR protections. Fata's autonomous nature cannot be used to deprive its residents of the protections of fundamental rights.
The judiciary has played a more proactive and positive role in recognising the human rights of drone victims. In 2013, the Beautiful Downtown Peshawar
...capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province), administrative and economic hub for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Peshawar is situated near the eastern end of the Khyber Pass, convenient to the Pak-Afghan border. Peshawar has evolved into one of Pakistan's most ethnically and linguistically diverse cities, which means lots of gunfire.
High Court in a seminal judgement recognised jurisdiction over drone attacks in Fata, and found them in violation of international law. The court held that constitutional fundamental rights were available to the people of Fata. The court further found both the US and the Pak government answerable and demanded damages for drone victims.
Subsequently, the court issued a contempt of court notice to the Foreign Office for failing to comply with its order. Many in government were not happy with these decisions as they viewed them as judicial intrusions in foreign relations matters -- an executive prerogative. Recently, the judiciary has backtracked on its judicial activism on drones. In April, a Supreme Court bench dismissed a constitutional petition against US drone strikes in Fata because it did not fall within the ambit of Article 184(3).
The US ostensibly perceives drones as an effective weapon to tackle terrorism. A plethora of human rights organizations in the US strongly disagree with this position and are exerting pressure on their government to protect human rights. Pakistain's civil society has a greater responsibility to pressure its government and hold it answerable, considering that it is Pak civilians who are caught in the midst of the drone campaign.