Droning on

The boiling cauldron of public opinion against the drone strikes in the tribal areas has crystallised in a protest movement spearheaded by Imran Khan’s PTI. While those who mounted a blockade of NATO supplies destined for Afghanistan have dispersed, they have pledged to return if the drone strikes do not end permanently.

The issue plays on a very sensitive nerve, Pakistan’s sovereignty. But from Libya to Pakistan, armed drones now constitute a vital component of US strategy. With blatant disregard of international law, drones have emerged as America’s weapon of choice striking across borders at will. Drone strikes have tripled since the departure of Bush while the Obama administration has racked up 123 drone attacks in Pakistan so far. ‘Collateral damage’ is an ever present feature of the campaign. Consequently, the raw emotional anger to execution at the hands of the Americans is palpable. In the eyes of many, it does not matter who is being killed; it is simply wrong. This is the sentiment that dominates public opinion.

While the supporters of the rally claim to put the interests of those on the receiving end foremost, the situation in FATA, unclear in the best of times, is now markedly opaque. Though detractors of the government may cite analysis that drones kill ten civilians for every militant, a senior Pakistani military official, perhaps in the best position to comment, has stated that the majority killed are militants. Those protesting against the drone campaign are well within their democratic right but any sit-in to hinder supplies is on less steady ground. In effect, any future effort along these lines is a raised fist against the democratically elected government and tantamount to challenging the writ of the state. It must be accepted that states have their own matrices of interests to accommodate, a duty which they must fulfill.