Naïve grandstanding is no solution
The drone strikes in the tribal regions of Pakistan, authorized by Gen. Musharraf to take out terrorists and Al Qaeda operatives in 2004 have continued unabated with varying frequency. With over three thousand civilian lives lost and property worth billions of rupees destroyed, the drones have caused extensive collateral damage, and accentuated the hate syndrome against the US consequently swelling the terrorists’ ranks.
The strategy has not only been self-defeating for the US, it has also confronted Pakistan with an existentialist threat from within. The people of Pakistan are against the drone strikes and would like them to be stopped by all means even if it involved shooting them down. The elements sympathetic to Taliban, the rightist media and the ‘ghairat brigade’ have all contributed in the crystallization of this view. If a referendum is held today on this question, it is likely people will overwhelmingly voted for shooting down the drones to regain national sovereignty and honour. Having felt the pulse of the masses, Imran Khan has also been playing to the gallery, saying that were he voted into power he would give the shoot-down order.
After the latest strike that killed the TTP’s deputy commander Wali-ur-Rahman, the newly elected chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhawa, Parvaiz Khatak, said: “Had PTI been in power in the centre, the US would not have dared to attack”. The PTI stance on the issue is quite naïve and is demonstrative of the lack of understanding of the dynamics of international relations, especially when dealing with the sole super power. The drone strikes are too sensitive an issue to be addressed through sentimental reactions. It needs an objective appraisal of the ground realities, one’s own strengths and weaknesses and of course how it can be ensured that Pakistan remains relevant to the changes that are occurring in our region and beyond which are likely to have a strong bearing on our future foreign policies.
President Obama has promised to bring greater transparency to the use of drones but has not ruled out the possibility of their continuous use as and when required to target the US enemies. The US foreign secretary John Kerry has also defended the US policy on drones and said they were legal and effective, which means that come what may, these strikes will continue till the US thinks they are useful. And we should not expect these strikes to stop before the US leaves Afghanistan.
Pakistan simply cannot afford military confrontation with the US on the issue as any such move might bring incalculable harm to Pakistan not only in military terms but also the US creating difficulties for us in our endeavours to revive the economy through loans from international lending agencies and probably also isolating Pakistan, capitalizing on hostile sentiments against it in the world community that are wary of terrorism emanating from here. Leaders are people with vision and supposed to guide, motivate and educate the people on complex issues rather than being swayed by the sentimental fervour at a particular point of a time. Yes, the drone attacks are counterproductive and constitute a serious breach of our sovereignty. But the point is are we in a position to adopt a belligerent attitude towards the US in the prevailing circumstances, especially when the US is poised to withdraw its combatant troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The only option for us is to facilitate the process of reconciliation within Afghanistan besides ensuring safe and congenial conditions for the withdrawal of American troops and equipment from that country.
The Pakistani leadership should assess the situation rationally and also take the people into confidence on the ground realities. Bringing peace to Afghanistan and consequently to Pakistan is a very convoluted issue which requires a very calculated, pragmatic and workable approach. Untangling the embrace that we have had with the US mostly depends on the bear that is holding us. Those who believe that Pakistan has most of the cards in resolving the Afghan conundrum probably fail to rationally evaluate the situation and the variables involved in this regard. Our room for manoeuvre is quite limited while the US has a number of alternatives to achieve its objectives in Afghanistan and the South Asian region. Despite the fact that US and Pakistan have opposing strategic interests in this region, we still need to remain engaged with them because in the realm of diplomacy engagement is the name of the game.
Pakistan now has a new government, under the stewardship of Mian Nawaz Sharif. There is no doubt that our terms of engagement with the US will have to be revisited but it is imperative for the new government to devise a comprehensive strategy of dealing with the US in regards to the Afghan issue and beyond in consultation with all the stakeholders, particularly the security establishment. Similarly the policy to deal with the TTP also needs to be thoroughly debated and discussed among all stakeholders.
One cannot take an issue with Nawaz Sharif’s contention to explore the option of negotiations with the TTP, for peace is essential for the economic revival. But it is not as simple as it seems, particularly after the latest drone strike that killed Wali as the TTP has vowed to take revenge from the US and the Pakistan Army. Nawaz Sharif as prime minister is well advised to tread along cautiously and avoid the pitfalls of hurried actions. The issue can be resolved as and when the opportunity comes only if besides the political leadership the military commanders are also on board with regards to the strategy to deal with the proposition.
The writer is an academic.
