It is incredible how successive governments in Pakistan have been so generous in the distribution of land to foreign governments for their exclusive use. First, the Shamsi airbase was given to the UAE for frivolous and environmentally incorrect purposes. In 2001, it was then handed over to the US as a launch pad for drone strikes across the border in Afghanistan, and on the tribal areas in Pakistan. Similarly, PAF Shahbaz Base — which was also given to the US — has been off-limits to the citizens of Pakistan even though the ministry of defence still denies the presence of any foreign soldiers there and claims that the base is under the control of the PAF. Self-contradictory statements to amplify an already prevailing state of confusion have been a timeworn speciality of the authorities in Pakistan. Following the November 26 NATO attack on Pakistani troops, our government decided to finally put its foot down, saying that Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity need to be safeguarded at all costs and the way to do that was by renegotiating its relationship with the US. Blockade of NATO supplies to Afghanistan, evacuation of the US forces from the Shamsi airbase, and reports of a decision to shoot down any US drones that impinge on Pakistan’s airspace are some of the steps employed as pressure for renegotiating the new terms of engagement. It is pertinent to be mindful of the government’s standing on the subject of drones in the past where it has often turned a blind eye to drone attacks due to their precision in taking out the militants and causing minimum collateral damage in the bargain. And so in an unspoken and unwritten agreement with the US, the drone strikes have been allowed to continue. As upright and audacious as the reports that the armed forces now intend to shoot down the US drones are, they are also quite provocative in the sense that if they are not followed through on, it would be disgraceful and humiliating, and if pursued, the risks are enormous. One might recall that when asked why Pakistan did not retaliate when attacked at Salalah, the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Major-General Ashfaq Nadeem said that the technological imbalance would have been greater and the consequences of such retaliation against a superpower would have been catastrophic — a monumental folly indeed. If this was the statement of the DGMO back then, would the same not be applicable vis-à-vis the shoot down of drones now? It seems that the sustained blockade of NATO supplies to Afghanistan and the statement by an unnamed army official regarding the shooting down of drones are pressure tactics employed by the government to get NATO to concede the new terms of engagement. It is obvious that the new terms of engagement — in the ‘interests of the country’s sovereignty’ — would leave Pakistan conveniently able to protect the safe havens it has given to the Afghan Taliban from being attacked and thus allowing it to pursue its proxy war in Afghanistan without any fear of interference. With our prime minister on board, the government is clearly determined to back the ambitions of the military establishment. But the repercussions of this would be grave not only for Afghanistan and the region, but devastating for Pakistan as well. With a new foreign policy vis-à-vis the US in the process of formulation, have the long-term implications arising from such a policy been understood? With this policy, is Pakistan treading the path towards global isolation? If that is indeed our self-chosen path, the government ought to think again. In a highly interconnected and interdependent world and for a country highly dependent on foreign aid, this policy is stoking the fire and may end up hurting the whole of Pakistan, rather than just its sovereignty.*