Drone strikes

President Obama recently finally acknowledged that the US carries out drone strikes inside Pakistan’s territory. In many ways it has been beguiling and rather absurd as to why the US maintained a policy of non-acknowledgement, if not denial, about this issue. You would think that an administration that prides itself on getting rid of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” would see the virtue in being candid. Still, better late than never.

The issue of drone strikes has been a public relations disaster. The silence, as far as I am concerned, has been inexplicable. From a legal perspective, I have seen the drone strikes as something flowing from a tacit agreement between two sovereign nations. Therefore, the rhetoric of violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty may be seen as revealing less than meets the eye. Documents leaked during the WikiLeaks saga seem to confirm that the Pakistani security and political establishment were on board.

Drone strikes are a sensitive issue and I can fully respect, albeit disagree with, people’s arguments about effect of drone strikes on the sovereignty of Pakistan. However, the lack of candor regarding this policy has hurt both US and Pakistan at a deeper level.

America’s image has been considerably hurt because of its silence. Since it was not present on the debating table it literally contributed nothing. This left the field open for jingoism by the Pakistani media as well as certain political parties. The silence hurt Pakistan in the same way as our discourse on the issue became corrupted. Many an opportunity to discuss causes of rising extremism has been lost. A simplistic narrative, attributing rising extremism to drone strikes, has gained traction and has remained largely unquestioned.

Of course, cases of collateral damage do have an impact and can be used as a tool of propaganda to recruit extremists. However, this argument almost deliberately ignores the fact that extremism in Pakistan has been rising consistently for a while and did not start flourishing a day after the first drone strike. Issues such as lack of curriculum reform and absence of effective regulation over sources of funding for madrassahs have not received the attention they deserve. We must , however, realise that while we can look away from rising extremism we cannot wish it away.

As a citizen, for a while now, I have supported drone strikes as a necessary evil. The cynics, of course, might say that because I go to school in the US I am brain-washed. That is a point of view that I can do nothing about and for which I have little time. Drone strikes are not just more precise than action by infantry or artillery forces would be but the chances of collateral damage are lesser. Those rallying against the drone strikes often fail to consider and weigh the alternatives available. And the fact that the US maintained silence over the issue allowed the debate to be hijacked. Lack of transparent data has also not helped matters but if the issue had been handled with candor from the beginning, a great deal of damage could have been avoided.

Absence of openness has meant that the US played straight into the hands of our security establishment. The military, even though it was clearly on board, has clearly distanced itself from any responsibility and has taken every opportunity to revile the US. Politicians, like Imran Khan, have also been allowed to take the issue and run away with it while relying on an absurd logic.

Granted it would not have been an easy debate to manage but had the US been open about the drone policy from the beginning, then members of the governing party (PPP and ANP, for instance) along with other segments of society persuaded by the “necessary evil” argument could have tried making a case, however difficult, for drones. Sure, the debate might not have been won but it would have allowed countering to some degree the absurd narratives now gaining traction in Pakistan.

There is also talk now of certain NGOs taking the issue of drone attacks to the Supreme Court. It will be highly unfortunate if the Honourable Court becomes involved in the matter. Courts in the United States have always stayed away from adjudicating on issues of the legality of a war and one hopes that our apex court will follow that example. A tragedy of this whole process, yet again, might well be that the democratic leadership will be maligned in public while the military establishment will remain unscathed. Anyone thinking of taking such issues before the courts should think twice. Such petitions will further not just naïve self-righteousness but also a discourse that undermines elected representatives.

If transparency is a value that the US prides itself upon then it must be seen to be implemented in difficult times. More information is also needed to address concerns about the burden of proof that is met before such attacks are carried out. These are important questions and must be addressed. Guarding information has to balanced against an equally important strategic interest of preventing US’s reputation from declining further in Pakistan.

For our part, while we must condemn loss of innocent life, we should also remain vigilant against attempts by certain politicians and the security establishment to insult our intelligence and our struggle against extremism. Extremism is not born in a day in societies. There are deep rooted fault lines which we must correct. While the US could have been smarter about this issue, we must not forget where the ultimate responsibility for countering extremism and narratives supporting it rests. It rests with you and me.

The writer is a Barrister and an Advocate of the High Courts. He is currently pursuing his LLM at a law school in the US and can be reached at [email protected]