The unending game of drones

WHEN Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif met White House officials on his recent visit to the US, candid discussions reportedly took place about helping Pakistan overcome its security challenges and warming trade relations.
The US also expressed its desire to take the relations beyond the war on terror and develop its historically mercurial relationship with Pakistan. However, to the dismay of Sharif, President Obama did not announce any U-turn on the superpower’s stance on drone attacks in Pakistan’s volatile northwestern region.
Even though political pundits did not expect a major shift in the US drone policy, Sharif was vocal about sharing his concerns related to US drone attacks in the country. While drone attacks are a major nuisance for Sharif and support against them has rallied in Pakistan, Obama administration views them as a core part of its counterterrorism strategy.
On the eve of Sharif’s visit, the Amnesty International published a report on the legality of drone attacks and the loss of civilian lives in these secretive missions. Warning that such attacks could be classified as war crimes, the global human rights body argues that drone attacks violate international laws and do more harm than good. In another report, a UN human rights investigator has also demanded that the US release death toll figures caused by drone attacks.
According to Ben Emmerson, UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, about 2,200 people have so far been killed in drone strikes carried out in Pakistan. These include 400 civilian casualties and 200 more victims who were “probable non-combatants.” It is estimated that more than 330 drone attacks have been carried out in the country since 2004.
On several occasions, Pakistani officials have reiterated their opposition to drone attacks on the basis that it is against the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The condemnation of drone attacks has been limited to official statements, as it is largely believed that the government has given a tacit approval for such attacks. This has placed the authorities in a tough spot as the Taleban and other local militant organizations have linked peace talks to a suspension in drone attacks. Pakistan maintains that drone strikes prove counterproductive as they only create more ‘Osamas’ and also cast a negative image of the US.
Efforts to boost partnership in even trade and investment face a roadblock because of rising anti-US sentiments in the country. To forge a relationship based on mutual trust and cooperation, there is an immediate need to stop these unilateral attacks.
Obama will also certainly face a pressure if he decides to suspend drone missions in Pakistan. Any hopes of ending drone strikes are dependent on Pakistan’s efforts to root out militancy and terrorism from its tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
Pakistan needs to convince the world that it is no longer a safe haven for global terrorists and does not serve as a breeding ground for militant outfits. The trust deficit can be bridged by strengthening ground intelligence and operations to identify and eliminate militant hideouts.
Although recent media reports suggest that the US has now limited these surgical strikes to high-value targets in Pakistan, drones remain a reality of modern warfare. With Al-Qaeda on the run, it can be expected that the US will continue to pursue militants in the region as its withdrawal from Afghanistan becomes imminent.