Pakistan Today

Pakistan demands end to US drone strikes

Taking note of the current pause in the US drone strikes, Pakistan has called for a complete halt to attacks on its soil as the UN Security Council debated protection of civilians in armed conflict.
“What we have called for, and what we continue to call for, is a halt, a stop, a cessation in the use of armed drones,” Ambassador Masood Khan told the 15-member body, saying the strikes have violated Pakistan’s sovereignty, killed hundreds of civilians and radicalised more people. The use of unmanned aircraft has thus been ‘counterproductive’, the envoy added.
Referring to the pause in drone strikes over the past month or so, he said it has given a respite to civilians in the area.
Khan also said the civilian protection was an integral part of 95 percent of peacekeeping missions around the world, and, by now, that mandate was widely recognised.
Civilians disproportionately bore the brunt of war and conflict, with women and children the hardest-hit victims, he said. The international community had done better where the United Nations invested its resources and maintained peacekeeping missions.
The envoy said peacekeepers were mandated to do more without adequate resources, which resulted in unmet needs and unsafe security conditions. Since there was a limit to what peacekeepers could do, it was important to incorporate lessons learned into mission planning.
Participation of troop-contributing countries in the planning stage was crucial, he said.
Peacekeepers could not remain passive bystanders, nor could they become the national defence force of the host country.
“Our experience has shown that a proactive stance in implementing protection mandates, such as through effective and frequent patrolling, disarmament and demobilization, serves as a credible deterrent and, in many situations, obviates the need for the use of force,” he said.
Khan also called on the Security Council to make a clear distinction between civilian protection and the responsibility to protect.
“The conflation of the two concepts creates legal confusion.”

Exit mobile version