The truth about drone attacks
December 4th, 2010
General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has finally admitted that he had allowed “the US to carry out drone surveillance inside Pakistan’s territory”. Had he gone on record earlier when he allowed public opinion to build up against these attacks by the Americans, he would have appeared more credible today. His effort to minimise the blame by saying that his permission was restricted to ‘surveillance’ — and that too for the benefit of Pakistan forces — is greatly suspect.
He says: “We wanted intelligence; we wanted them [the US] to locate targets. It was only a general kind of carpet agreement with the US, and surveillance was allowed on a case-to-case basis. Once we located the targets, we would decide on the method of striking either by helicopter gunship… or some other way. But that was a decision which was left to us.” And when the drone attacks did not abide by this ‘carpet agreement’ (sic) what did the general do, given the public furore against the attacks in Pakistan?
The present government knew that Musharraf had agreed with the drone option. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani says “the previous government” had given permission for “reconnaissance and surveillance flights by spy planes, but never for attacks”. Yet a member of his own cabinet and the allies in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa kept verbalising their approval of the attacks because they took out the leadership of the terrorists killing innocent Pakistanis. Only in October this year the PPP government, along with its allies, changed its stance on drones and began opposing them.
The American reaction has been a kind of policy double-take. The top officials kept on hinting that the drones were flying from Pakistani soil (photographic proof of this was provided in a report published in a Pakistani newspaper in Feb 2009) and attacking with the approval of the government. The statements were muffled and aimed at not embarrassing a government insisting on denial; also, there was the delicate matter of sparing the current army chief who was a part of the set-up that approved — partially or completely — the drone attacks under Musharraf.
If one believes the Pakistani side, the Americans violated the agreement which was that only Pakistan would act on the “location information” of the targets and not the former. That also means that the drones would not carry missiles but only the apparatus that identifies targets. The truth is that the drones too relied on information and tagging from the ground before they could fire their precision missiles. It is difficult to grasp how the Pakistan Army could benefit from the surveillance done without possessing the drone aircraft.
The media has turned against the drones and the Americans have gradually become vilified as allies that violated the sovereignty of the country they were supposed to help. Political parties like the Tehreek-i-Insaaf actually pegged their campaigns on the collateral damage they inflicted on the innocent inhabitants of the Tribal Areas. Is this is a mechanism devised to get out of a commitment that Musharraf had made? The government has now conveyed to the US that drone attacks are not acceptable. The Americans thought they had a clear mandate from Pakistan to use the drones but now the situation has changed. The Pakistanis want the attacks to stop and with the Americans thinking of leaving Afghanistan, the drones are assuming an increasingly greater strategic importance.
Pakistan is on a weak wicket because of its lack of control over areas from where ground attacks inside Afghanistan are being carried out. Moreover, some of the Pakistani territory being attacked by the drones is occupied by non-Pakistani foreigners over whom the Pakistani state has no control over (or it is not willing to exercise it).
Pakistan has to either keep quiet or challenge the American claim that a clear mandate for drone attacks was given. Keeping quiet would be advisable if the former doesn’t want a crisis in its relations with the US. When a decision to defy the American action is taken it will have to be carefully weighed who needs the other more, especially given the fact that many analysts think that America needs Pakistan more than vice versa.
The power of information
December 4th, 2010
Some people, through time, take a leap into the pages of history. The Australian founder of WikiLeaks has done just this, becoming, within months, one of the best known figures around the world — and one of the men most wanted by Interpol. He and his lawyer now say he also faces death threats, which stem from the thousands of documents leaked by the website. It is becoming harder and harder to ascertain truth and falsehood in the case of the WikiLeaks, but certainly it is conceivable that Assange has faced very real threats. There will, after all, be many who are infuriated by the revelations contained in the documents that have shaken the world almost as much as a terrorist attack or other event of such magnitude. In fact, calls have been made, primarily in the US, for WikiLeaks to be treated like a terrorist group. Assange and his lawyers also cite Swedish rape and molestation charges against him as an act of blatant persecution. The somewhat eccentric Assange has been in hiding since the latest set of documents appeared on the WikiLeaks site.
The questions of where the death threats may be emanating from open up all kinds of possibilities. There are so many around the world infuriated by the leaks that it is impossible to pick candidates. The documents from the US describing Russia as a ‘mafia’ state or a Saudi king criticising President Zardari have created their own furore. These are two of many examples. WikiLeaks has, in the past, been accused of endangering lives. But for some powerful figures around the world, public embarrassment may be reason enough to consider putting an end to the source or extracting revenge of the crudest kind (especially since this is the second time this is happening). Assange and his lawyer clearly believe this is the case. The death threats, if anything, further highlight the power of information, the astounding impact it can have and the manner in which it can shake up things even in countries which insist they respect the right of people to know the truth and the right for information to be circulated. For now, the WikiLeaks saga continues and we do not know how it will all end or if this is the last time it will create such controversy.