The Tehreek-e-Insaf says it will block the Nato supply route, but this would be the party's action and not of its government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. That the PTI and its government are not on the same page on an issue as animated as the drone attacks inside Pakistan is an ironic dualistic approach but is dictated by the legal advice tendered to it. This however, does not detract its principal foe Maulana Fazlur Rehman from saying that the Nato supply lines would not be blocked by the PTI "after getting $500 million from the US". The fact, however, is that duality is not limited to the PTI; the federal government which should be far more concerned about the infringement of national borders by the CIA-operated drones is no less confused and victim of double-speak. No surprise then the Advisor on Foreign Affairs and National Security Sartaj Aziz's briefing to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on the prime minister's visit to White House has been interpreted in many different ways. That what he tried to convey to the senators was to some extent misunderstood by the media and that the drones keep visiting - the people of Pakistan knew it the very next morning. There was the pre-dawn drone strike on a seminary in Hangu district that killed five and injured eight others. Not only the strike was outside the tribal areas it was said to be aimed at getting Sirajuddin Haqqani, whose force is pitted against government forces in Afghanistan. His elder brother Dr Nasiruddin Haqqani was gunned down early this month in the suburbs of Islamabad.
Is it that Washington took no time in upstaging Sartaj Aziz who said US assured suspension of drone attacks during talks with Taliban to drive home the word that drones are not going to go away anytime soon? Going by his statement one understands that during the prime minister's meeting with President Obama, understanding was reached that during talks with the Taliban there would be no drone strikes. But isn't it the case this restraint was not available in case TTP chief Hakeemullah or Al-Zawahiri showed up in the sights. There is nothing on record to suggest that any such assurance was made, and the drone attacks also didn't appear in the joint statement issued after the White House meeting either. A clear divergence runs through the positions Pakistan and the United States take on the use of drones. Pakistan says their strikes violate its sovereignty. The Americans insist drones are 'weapon of choice' in taking out Taliban fighters who use Pakistan territory as staging post.
It's the ninth year that drones have operated against targets in Pakistan, initially with latter's help and now against its will and wish. That drones succeeded in decapitating a big chunk of al Qaeda top leadership illegally housed in tribal areas the fact must be accepted. But what cannot be accepted is the violation of our sovereignty - but not the claim that but for the droning of Hakeemullah peace was knocking at the door. By selecting Fazlullah as his successor the Taliban leave no one in doubt that for them peace in Pakistan is not an option. Drones as of now enter Pakistan not only in violation of its sovereignty but also in violation of international law. No political leadership worth its salt can afford to be indifferent to their illegal use. But this is also the harsh reality that America is not going to give up on their use as long as it finds its enemies hiding in Pakistan. There is therefore the imperative that the United States should sit together and clinch some understanding on their use that is both legal and of bilateral advantage. Not much has been lost in the chance to broach peace parleys with the Taliban. If at all the other side is equally motivated for peace parleys then drones or no drones that will happen.
Comments
Comments are closed.