Dated: 2nd Feb 2012
Obama on drones
PRESIDENT Obama’s public acknowledgment of drone strikes on Pakistani territory may have lifted the official veil on the ‘covert’ programme, but it was hardly a revelation. It has, however, put the Pakistani administration in an embarrassing position. While in response the Pakistan Foreign Office has called the strikes “unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable”, the fact is that Mr Obama’s claim has only further exposed a glaring instance of doublespeak on the part of successive Pakistani governments and military leaderships that have supported drone strikes in private conversations with the US and taken no military or diplomatic action against them despite opposing them publicly.
Deployed in a cooperative framework drones can be an important weapon of war, but by trying to have it both ways — benefiting from the elimination of militants and at the same time pandering to anti-US sentiments — Pakistan has unnecessarily politicised the option. The same goes for the US, which has not developed more transparent rules of engagement for the operation of drones.
Unofficial reports emerging from both Pakistan and America have indicated that in Salala’s wake the two countries are looking for a more transpar-ent, clear-cut relationship going forward. In that context, President Obama’s acknowledgment of drone strikes is an opportunity. As parliament devises a new framework for the Pakistan-US relationship, it has a chance to come clean before the nation on the issue. But there is reason for doubting that this will happen. For one, the government has painted itself into a corner with the policy of tacit appro-val and public denial that it borrowed from the Musharraf administration. And differing opinions among lawmakers on the drone problem will not make consensus easy. But if the administration is able to negotiate with the US greater Pakistani involvement in the programme, it could make a case to the public and find a way out of its dubious position. The alternative is further loss of goodwill as Pakistan continues to bluster in public but does nothing to stop drone strikes even after the American president has stated he will continue them.
There are questions that America should answer about the precautions taken to avoid civilian casualties, how targets are defined, and the legitimacy of drone strikes under international law. This is especially important given that the remoteness of the territory under attack makes it near-impossible to determine how many non-combatants have died. But if the Pakistani government is convinced enough of the benefits of drone strikes to let them continue, now is the time to find a way to legitimise them in the eyes of the Pakistani public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karachi Violence
IT is difficult to say what exactly is behind the latest upsurge in violence in Karachi, specifically the resumption of ‘targeted killings’. Victims have been gunned down not only due to their religious and political affiliations, but also, seemingly, because of their profession. On Tuesday, two people were killed when assailants stormed a cellphone franchise in North Nazimabad. Two other cellphone businesses in nearby areas were targeted in similar fashion in the recent past. It appears the attackers were not interested in looting the premises but in spreading terror. The police claim the Taliban were involved in past attacks on cellphone franchises, but it is not clear why the militants would target this particular business.
Extortion has been suggested as one possible motive. Meanwhile, a doctor was gunned down also on Tuesday as he drove to his clinic. The possibility of sectarian motives has been suggested by the police. Another doctor, associated with an imambargah, was shot in front of his house a few days ago, while lawyers from the Shia community have also been killed. In the early hours of Tuesday, the wife, daughter and driver of a Balochistan MPA were also murdered in a drive-by shooting in the city while a number of political workers have been gunned down.
Although sectarian animosity is a clear factor, there seems to be no common thread linking the killings, other than the intent to spread terror. Though some politicians have suggested that citizens take steps for ‘self-protection’, the law-enforcement apparatus cannot be let off the hook so easily. Since it is the police, Rangers and administration that bear primary responsibility for keeping the peace, it is they who must explain why such acts of violence conti-nue unabated. ‘Targeted’ search operations have begun, but why must such measures have to wait until after the body count begins to mount? Last year it took the Supreme Court’s intervention for the authorities to take action to stop the targeted killings, which claimed hundreds of lives. What will it take this time to motivate the government into doing so — before Karachi’s violence spins out of control once again?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A place in the museum
ONE way of keeping an issue alive is by resisting all provocations to resolve it. At least this is the successful Pakistani method of mummifying all problems, especially those which carry the ‘national importance’ tag on them. No files are ever closed here and newer ones are opened with fanfare, keeping people engaged, before they take their place in the ever-growing national museum of unsolved cases. ‘Memogate’ may be an exception; it has been declared as an archival article in a bit of a hurry. The memo has or is shown to have lost its urgent appeal even though three pillars of
the state — the army, parliament and the judiciary — had all committed themselves to unearthing the truth behind the allegations made by one individual. That individual has now chosen to not appear in a court in Pakistan, and it is as if this is sufficient reason for a general loss of interest in a matter that gained so much currency despite its rather odd origins.
‘Memogate’ is an exception to the rule, the Saleem Shahzad investigation is not. The memo is going to have a shelf by itself in the archives for the researchers to grapple with, while the Saleem Shahzad probe will be in illustrious company. The journalist who was killed after he went missing last May is going to be surrounded by national luminaries, starting with the Quaid, whose last worldly journey remains shrouded in mystery more than six decades after his death, and by the likes of Liaquat Ali Khan and Benazir Bhutto. Perhaps Saleem Shahzad would have preferred a less ceremonious burial and would have wanted to be counted among the beneficiaries of Pakistanis’ current surge for justice. But, given his high profile and the scope of the investigation, that would have been against Pakistani norms.
-------------------------------------------------