Many a quarter in Pakistan must be damning Mr Assange for exposing the fork in their tongue, our military establishment not least amongst them. Even though General Kayani and the ISPR have decided to deny what seemed like incontrovertible evidence of tacit support of drone use within the country, the recently released cables have authenticated the long-held suspicion that these attacks are not as much a ‘violation of sovereignty’ as we would like to believe. This doublespeak policy with respect to drones adds another complicating dimension to an issue already mired in piles of populist speechifying as various factions of society have co-opted the issue to grind an axe of their choice.
It cannot be denied that there are arguments to be made for and against these drone attacks. Yesterday’s attack that killed six militants in NWA is a reminder of the fact that the attacks are efficacious. The collateral damage argument to counter the efficacy argument neglects that aerial actions of this kind will always have collateral damage (as the numbers in the army’s own operation in Swat and SWA would prove). If anything, the precision could be a way of minimising this damage. But the fact remains that these attacks come with no accountability attached and the US is not answerable to anyone for the extent of collateral damage involved. And it is in terms of this lack of accountability and not the breach of our sovereignty – in which the argument against these drones can be couched. Because despite what palavers of national honour would have us believe, we have ceded much of our sovereignty by volition: whether to the militants running rampant or to the neo-colonial relationship we have with the US. As Ms Clinton’s statement of yesterday will prove, they are in no mood to respect our sovereignty if we aren’t prepared to do the job they pay us for.
Ostensibly, both countries want an end to terrorism and these drone attacks have de facto sanction from our establishment. Why not then own up to it in public rather than pandering to populism? It may be a hard sell but it’s the pragmatic thing to do. But this pragmatism is not to be expected as this policy of openness would require nothing short of revisiting our security paradigm and bringing the civilian and military establishments on the same page. The way is there, it seems the will is not.
