In his first meeting with
President Obama, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
read a carefully-worded
statement asking for an end to American drone
strikes, even as new
evidence emerged that Pakistan's leaders knew of
and participated in some of the
attacks. The question is - which leaders,
and when did the executive branch
know? And - does it even matter?
Progess
for Nawaz: Drones, War Crimes and Sovereignty
(The Daily Jang, Pakistan)
"This year has already seen a significant drop off in the
number of drone attacks, and while that may not be the same as halting them
altogether, it does show that Pakistan’s continuous focus on the issue may be
making a difference. A period without drone attacks may also help the
government convince the Tehrik-i-Taliban
Pakistan to come to the negotiating table and finally allow talks to commence."
Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif may have left the United
States, but recriminations from his meeting with President Barack Obama continue
to be heard, with the issue of drone attacks predictably sucking up most of the
oxygen.
In
a perfect storm of events, just as Nawaz landed in
Washington, an Amnesty
International report declared that some drone attacks could be considered
war crimes. Nawaz then brought up the matter with
Obama and declared in their meeting that that drone strikes must cease.
Finally, a leak
to The Washington Post suggested
that Pakistan was complicit in allowing drone strikes to take place, at least between
2008-2011.
Now
every other political actor is weighing in on the issue. Nawaz
commented on the Amnesty International report, saying that while he doesn’t
consider drone attacks to be synonymous with war crimes, he does believe they
violate Pakistan's sovereignty. What constitutes a war crime is naturally a
matter of debate between states and human rights bodies, but if you ask those
who have lost family members and all hope for a normal life as a result of
drone attacks, their answer is as clear as day. We stand with and for that
clarity. What Nawaz has said of sovereignty is
certainly true, but not if the government is secretly sanctioning drone strikes.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
Meanwhile,
Information Minister PervezRasheed
has declared that [former President] PervezMusharraf will be put on trial for sanctioning drone
attacks, a position that can only be justified if the PPP government [which
lost the last election] is also held to account, and there is proof that the current
PML-N
government has done away with this two-faced policy. Even then, holding former
rulers to account for privately supporting drone attacks, however wrong-headed
that may be, will only complicate issues better resolved at the political
level.
One
benefit of all the chatter on drones is that it may finally have put the Obama Administration
on the defensive. While the U.S. president refuses to admit that drone attacks
are a violation of our sovereignty or that they cause too many civilian
casualties, there are indications that America may consider a temporary pause
in its drone campaign.
This
year has already seen a significant drop off in the number of drone attacks,
and while that may not be the same as halting them altogether, it does show
that Pakistan’s continuous focus on the issue may be making a difference. A
period without drone attacks may also help the government convince the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan to
come to the negotiating table and finally allow talks to commence.
However,
slight U.S. flexibility in this area shouldn't be mistaken for a general
softening. The United States is still pushing Pakistan to arrest Hafiz Saeed and ban the Jamaat-ud-Dawa.
Such pressure will not go down well here since Saeed,
unsavory though he may be, directs most of his rhetoric and actions toward
India, not the Americans. Still, we should expect no less from the United
States, which will continue to believe it has the right to dictate to us even
in matters that do not concern it directly. How strongly Nawaz
resists this pressure may end up defining our future relations with the United
States.
