Daily Times

No, I do not mean from a
grammatical viewpoint or even the use of street jargon some potential legislators frequently indulge in. I am referring to policy statements that tend to convey a meaning very different from what was intended. For the sake of brevity let me illustrate with a solitary example.

“If my party wins the mandate to form the government in the Centre, CIA-operated US drones will be shot down if these continue to violate our air space,” thundered the PTI chief during the electioneering campaign. On the surface, the statement is valid and would resonate with the voting public because nation states have the inalienable right to defend their territorial integrity by all means, including the use of force. This is enshrined in the UN charter and any government shying away from this responsibility is deemed to have failed and should abdicate power. However, the issue of uninhibited operations of US Predator/Reaper class armed drones in Pakistan’s tribal belt despite the host nation’s vociferous protests and serious reservations is far more complicated than mere violation of national sovereignty. Consider the following.

The US continues to flout Pakistan’s sovereignty by operating armed drones to target al Qaeda/Taliban forces operating in Pakistan’s tribal belt despite the latter’s protests, yet Pakistan on the basis of being an ally of the US in the war against terror accepts financial compensation from the US for its own military operations against the very adversary in the same location. In the absence of drones, Pakistan resorts to the use of combat planes to conduct air raids against known enemy hideouts in the region. By continuing to accept monetary compensation from the US for similar operations albeit with a different aerial platform, Pakistan’s case of violation of its territory by an ‘ally’ gets diluted in international forums.

US drone operations so far have been limited to FATA, tacitly on an unwritten understanding between the US and Pakistan that both deny in public. FATA remains a hotbed of terror groups that have a fair share of foreign fighters, especially from neighbouring Afghanistan and the Central Asian States. These groups, besides attacking military and civilian targets in Pakistan, also carry out frequent raids across the Durand Line. The inability of the Pakistan government to establish its writ in its ‘Wild West’ tribal belt, its failure to expel the foreign elements that have infiltrated there and ensuring its territory is not used as a launching pad for military aggression against another sovereign state weakens its case against the US drone violations of its own sovereignty. Besides paying lip service, few support its stance at the international or even the regional level.

The US still remains the sole superpower even if its power and influence has somewhat waned since the last decade. While China is fast emerging as a balancing force to US supremacy, especially in the regional context, it is yet to displace the US as the top dog in the global arena. Pakistan and China enjoy very strong bonds and their relationship is of a strategic nature that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future; yet on the subject of the War on Terror, China is on the same page as the rest of the world.

In public China continues to support Pakistan’s stance on the violation of its territorial integrity by US drones, but privately it urges its friend to clean up the FATA mess, especially in North Waziristan. China itself has much to fear from the religiously-motivated organisations that are operating there and it accuses them of fomenting anti-Chinese sentiments in its western province of Sinkiang, which has a sizeable Muslim population. Not surprisingly, therefore, despite the reservation of allowing western forces on its borders with Afghanistan, China not only did not veto the UNSCR 1386 that authorised the establishment and positioning of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2001 but in effect voted in its favour.

The decision to shoot down the drones should be viewed against the backdrop illustrated above. When specifically asked on numerous occasions if he and his party would like to adopt a confrontational attitude towards the mighty US, the PTI chief answered in the negative. Yet his decision to shoot down the drones would amount to literally declaring war against the US. This dichotomy has to be resolved.

There is a realisation even in the US that while drone strikes do offer immediate tactical benefits, the strategic losses in the long run far outweigh the meagre tactical gains. Drone strikes inhibit the mobility of the terror syndicate besides eliminating some of their key commanders. As a result their ability to conduct operations against ISAF and the Afghan National Army (ANA) gets diluted in the short term. However, these strikes radicalise the local public in Pakistan, providing more cannon fodder to the syndicate’s recruitment drive. Thus the battle for ‘hearts and minds’, which is the centre of gravity in this form of warfare, tilts in favour of the militants. This single factor has very serious negative fallout for the state in the long run.

The US plans to end major combat operations in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and presently their priority is to execute an orderly exit and ensure the current Afghan setup and the ANA do not succumb to the inevitable Taliban offensive at least for another six months. For them the immediate tactical advantages that drone strikes provide them in their withdrawal phase is more crucial than the long term strategic losses, which in their opinion would affect Pakistan and Afghanistan far more than it would impact the US. The likelihood of the US totally ceasing drone strikes is therefore slim. That said, the aggressive posture against drone strikes adopted by almost all the political parties during the 2013 general elections has forced the US administration to relook at the old Rules Of Engagement (ROE) that allowed local drone commanders to freely engage even signature targets merely on the suspicion that these could be militants. The latest ROE announced by US President Obama is far more restrictive and, hopefully, would reduce the number of future drone strikes in Pakistan.

Imran Khan has further suggested that if in power his party would initiate measures that would ensure Pakistan’s tribal belt is cleared of illegal foreign elements and the state’s writ is established in the area to the extent it would ensure no Pakistani territory is used for cross-border raids. Should Pakistan succeed in its effort to prevent terror outfits from using the tribal belt as sanctuaries, the very raison d’être for the drone operations would be removed and very likely the drone attacks would also cease as a result.

No sane Pakistani leader, political or military, would advocate adoption of a hostile attitude towards the US, a step that could easily lead to a military confrontation that would put the survival of the nation at stake. Khan in his explanatory speeches more than once has said as much in so many words. Fiery rhetoric of shooting down the drones without mentioning the caveat of removing the irritants that led to the drone assaults in the first place, therefore, amounts to playing to the gallery, with the attendant danger that the message being transmitted is not what the orator meant or can realistically be fulfilled should he or his party be voted to power.

Fortunately, the PTI has failed to win enough seats to form a government in the Centre, which is just as well because Khan’s party then would have been forced to eat humble pie and backtrack on the drone pledge he had made in public or push the nation into a crisis of unimaginable proportions. It would have made much more sense if he had in his election speeches to his cheering supporters clearly outlined the steps he would initiate to address the drone predicament before embarking on the final option of targeting them.

And if the US continues to drone Pakistan against its will despite the state cleansing its backyard of all nefarious and terror elements and adoption of zero tolerance of any group using any part of its territory to conduct cross-border attacks, Pakistan would be well within its rights to shoot down the offending machines. The entire nation would then back the state regardless of the consequences.

The writer is a defence analyst and Director of Centre of Airpower Studies and can be reached at jamal4701@yahoo.co.uk