View Single Post
  #4  
Old Saturday, March 31, 2012
Taimoor Gondal's Avatar
Taimoor Gondal Taimoor Gondal is offline
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mandi Bahauddin
Posts: 1,583
Thanks: 1,658
Thanked 2,188 Times in 1,060 Posts
Taimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant futureTaimoor Gondal has a brilliant future
Default Drone Attacks, FATA and Haqqani Network

Drone Attacks, FATA and Haqqani Network


Introduction


The use of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, is a new technology used in modern warfare. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), also known as a Unmanned aircraft System (UAS) or a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) or unmanned aircraft functions either by the remote control of a navigator or pilot (called a Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) or autonomously, that is, as a self-directing entity. Their largest use is within military applications.
In the current so-called ‘War on Terror’, the same has been frequently used by the United States in Pakistan and Afghanistan. A lot has been said against American drone attacks as a violation of sovereignty of Pakistan but the issue is getting more intense by each passing day. When the US drones attack Pakistan’s tribal areas, it is not just the ten, twenty or fifty innocent civilians they kill but it creates the anti-US sentiments in masses and a global feeling of disgust against US. Few stay mum and numb but there is large number of victims who vent their hatred very violently against US and its ally Pakistan. US is insensitive to the fact that civilian killings in these drone attacks provides reason to the youngsters for joining terrorist groups waging war against US and of course Pakistan, for being its closest ally in war on terror.
The drone strikes have pushed militants deeper into Pakistan and gave them an excuse to strike the heart of the country, further destabilizing it. No doubt drone attacks did kill some militants but at what cost???
To further probe into this aspect, this presentation will look into functioning of drones, negative and positive aspects in pertinent to our country vis-à-vis drawing some conclusions.

Definition

To distinguish UAVs from missiles, a UAV is defined as a "powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload". Therefore, cruise missiles are not considered UAVs, because, like many other guided missiles, the vehicle itself is a weapon that is not reused, even though it is also unmanned and in some cases remotely guided.

US, Pakistan, Tribal’s & UN’s Point of View on Drone Attacks

1. US Point of View

a. Self defense
i. Preemptive Strategy. Bill was passed by congress in 2002 under Bush administration to carry out attacks in preemption and self defense of its citizen and state in pursuance to September 11 attacks on twin tower.
ii. International Protocol on Hot Pursuit
b. Symmetric decimation of Al-Qaeda leadership
c. Use of highly sophisticated technology
d. Escalation of attacks under President Obama
e. Opposition within US

2. Pakistan’s Point of view

a. Official
b. Response of opposition parties, civil society and media
c. Wiki leaks
d. Pakistan military official papers

3. United Nations Point of View

On 27 October 2010 UNHRC investigator Philip Alston called on the US to demonstrate that it was not randomly killing people in violation of international law through its use of drones on the Afghan border. Alston criticized the US's refusal to respond to date to the UN's concerns. Said Alston, "Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws."
‘’Alston, however, acknowledged that the drone attacks may be justified under the right to self-defense. He called on the US to be more open about the program. Alston's report was submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the following day’’
‘’The US representative at UNHRC has argued that the UN investigator for extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions does not have jurisdiction over US military actions’’

4. Opinion of FATA Locals

The New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow have conducted the first comprehensive public opinion survey covering sensitive political issues in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. The unprecedented survey, from June 30 to July 20, 2010, consisted of face-to-face interviews of 1,000 FATA residents age 18 or older across 120 villages/sampling points in all seven tribal Agencies of FATA, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent, and field work by the locally-based Community Appraisal & Motivation Programme.
More than three-quarters of FATA residents oppose American drone strikes. Indeed, only 16 percent think these strikes accurately target militants; 45 percent think they largely kill civilians and another 39 percent feel they kill both civilians and militants.

Statistical Data of Drone Attacks in Pakistan

The US ramped up the number of strikes in July 2008, and has continued to regularly hit at Taliban and Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. There have been 264 strikes total since the program began in 2004. From 2000-2005 there were only one drone strike each year,3 in 2006, 5 in 2007, 35 in 2008, 53 in 2009, 117 in 2010 and 49 ,so far, in 2011.
Of the 264 strikes since 2004, 182 have hit targets in North Waziristan, and 67 have hit targets in South Waziristan, Khyber agency=5, Kurram=4, Bannu=3, Bajaur=3, Orakzai=1.
Since 2006, there have been 2,080 leaders and operatives from Taliban, Al Qaeda, and allied extremist groups killed and138 civilians killed.
The majority of the attacks have taken place in the tribal areas administered by four powerful Taliban groups: the Mehsuds, Mullah Nazir, Hafiz Gul Bahadar, and the Haqqanis. In 2010, there was a dramatic shift in strikes to tribal areas administered by Hafiz Gul Bahadar.
The Pakistani government considers Nazir, the Haqqanis, Bahadar, and Hekmatyar to be 'good Taliban' as they do not carry out attacks against the Pakistani state. All of these Taliban factions shelter al Qaeda and various other terror groups.

Critical Analysis:-

Positive Fallouts

1. Technological Advancement

As revolution in military affairs, UAVs offer the possibility of cheaper, more capable fighting aircrafts that could be used for multipurpose tasking without a life risk to aircrews.

2. Tactical advantage

The drones program is effective in terms of getting terrorist operatives in places where there's limited reach or no accessibility.

3. Accuracy and Precision

Due to built in sensors and laser guided munitions the predator strikes are accurate and precise in causing devastating effects to the desired target.
4. With the help of precision strikes predator strikes have successfully killed top militant commanders and Al-Qaida operatives like Nek Muhammad, Baitullah Mahsud, Ilyas Kashmiri etc.
5. No life loss to crew as the predator is operated without a pilot
6. Surveillance capability and updation of information of intelligence value.

Negative Fallouts


1. Sovereignty and Integrity

Compromising sovereignty and integrity as no international law permits aggression and use of force against another sovereign nation.

2. Breeding suicide bombers/terrorist

US has become insensitive to the fact that carrying of drone strikes is in turn giving a reason to the youngsters of the affected areas to join militant groups and continue undertaking terror activities and suicide bombings against them and Pakistan being its ally. In KPK 49.9% people (1499) have been killed due to suicide bombing, 27.7% (834) in Punjab, 17.5%(562) in FATA, and 5%(150) in other provinces.

3. Indiscriminate killing with no differentiation between friend and foe

Although International protocol regarding Hot Pursuit Operations permits haunt of terrorist with no geographical boundaries limitations however in carrying out such practice no international or domestic law permits killing of innocent civilians or non combatants

4. Anti state sentiments particularly against LEAs

These drone attacks are creating a sense of resentment against the state as the tolerance level of effected has crossed the threshold over inability of the state to counter or curb the violation and killings of people in tribal regions due to drones.

5. Questions legality/ Jurisdiction of court over extra judicial killings

No court of law is taking any action over such killings

6. Deteriorating image of country and terming as a terrorist breeding nation
7. Strained relations with US
8. Condemn by Religious parties
9. Anti US Sentiments
10. Poses high alert and retaliatory situation for LEAs operating in such territories.

Legal Implications/ Conclusions

Firstly, the rumors that the government of Pakistan might have signed a secret agreement with the US is irrelevant and misleading because under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, no such treaty is valid. Moreover under Art 102 of the UN Charter, such treaties have no legal standing.

Secondly, the drone attacks in Pakistani territory are a serious violation of the International Law as they are like attacking a sovereign country.
No judicial Inquiry has been over extra judicial killings caused by such attacks.The domestic laws of both countries i.e US and Pakistan do not allow extra judicial killing in any manner whatsoever the reason may be.
The United Nations charter doesnot allow any aggression or use of force against another state
The International Humanitarian Law clearly differentiate between a ‘Combatant’ and ‘a non combatant’ or a civilian whereas these attacks are carried out indiscriminately without having any regard for the rule of law
There might be different interpretation of the term ‘Intervention ‘but at least four considerations are to be taken into account for determining its validity on moral and legal grounds.
a. Proportionality.
b. Distinction of target.
c. The agent carrying out the strikes.
d. The process or manner in which targeting decisions are made.
US drone attacks fall short on all above mentioned accounts. That’s the reason why NATO does’nt openly support them and declares them as “Amercian Operations”. Different humanitarian organizations and the UN secretary General has shown their concerns over the issue.
The term used by the US “Unlawful Combatants” is not mentioned anywhere in the international Humanitarian Law (the Law of War). No inquiry has been made as to what had been the actual targets of such attacks. The rule of law prohibits extra judicial killings in each and every circumstances and unlike International Humanitarian Law, the International Human Rights Law remain intact in all kinds of situations (war or peace). Therefore, on the above grounds, drone attacks inside Pakistan territory can not be justified on any grounds whatsoever.

Recommendations

1. Operation within our territory is the responsibility of state therefore drone technology be transferred to Pakistan for carrying out operation even in the airspace by LEAs themselves instead of US.
2. Sharing of Information between ISI & CIA to minimize collateral damage and avoid incidents of targeting own check posts/Border Outposts and a previous incident of innocent killings during a jirga.
3. Sending strong Message by Pakistani representatives at all international forums highlighting the issues.
4. Constitution of commissions to inquire extra judicial killings and document the decree for presentation at UNHRC and all forums for its pursuance.
5. US be asked to avoid delivery of toxic/chemical munitions through hellfire missiles as it bears negative externalities by causing severe skin diseases to the nearby populace.
6. Elimination of all acts which gives US a reason to carryout drones

Haqqani Network:-

The Haqqani Network is an independent insurgent group originating in Afghanistan that is closely allied with the Taliban. Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani along with his son Sirajuddin Haqqani lead the Haqqani network, which is based in the Afghanistan–Pakistan border areas. According to US military commanders it is "the most resilient enemy network" and one of the biggest threats to NATO and United States forces in Afghanistan. Some notable US officials have alleged that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) service has been enabling the network. Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, refuted the allegations and said that Pakistan had no relations with the network and that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had "trained and produced" the Haqqani network and other mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Malik's statements were contradicted by the network's warnings against any US military incursions into North Waziristan and by the Pakistan Army's public acknowledgement of contacts with the Haqqanis.The Haqqanis hail from the Zadran qaum (tribe), who are mostly based in Paktia and Khost provinces in the east of Afghanistan.The group has been active mainly in the east of Afghanistan—in Paktia, Paktika, Khost, Ghazni Wardak and even Kabul provinces.

Critical Analysis:-

The New York Times reported in September 2008 that Pakistan regards the Haqqani's as an important force for protecting its interests in Afghanistan in the event of American withdrawal from there and therefore have been unwilling to move against them. Pakistan presumably feels pressured that India, Russia, and Iran are gaining a foothold in Afghanistan. Since it lacks the financial clout of these other countries, Pakistan hopes that by being a sanctuary for the Haqqani network, it can assert some influence over its turbulent neighbour. In the words of a retired senior Pakistani official: "[We] have no money.
All we have are the crazies. So the crazies it is." The New York Times and Al Jazeera later reported in June 2010 that Pakistan's Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and chief of the ISI General Ahmad Shuja Pasha were in talks with Afghan president Hamid Karzai to broker a power-sharing agreement between the Haqqani network and the Afghan government. Reacting to this report both President Barack Obama and CIA director Leon Panetta responded with skepticism that such an effort could succeed. The effort to mediate between the Haqqanis and the Afghan government was launched by Pakistan after intense pressure by the US to take military action against the group in North Waziristan. Hamid Karzai later denied meeting anyone from the Haqqani network. Subsequently Kayani also denied that he took part in these talks.
According to a July 2011 report published by West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, the network acts as a key facilitator of negotiations between the Pakistani government and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and as the "primary conduit" of many Pakistani Taliban fighters into Afghanistan.
In September 2011, Sirajuddin Haqqani claimed during a telephonic interview to Reuters that the Haqqani network no longer maintained sanctuaries in northwest Pakistan and the robust presence that it once had there and instead now felt more safer in Afghanistan: "Gone are the days when we were hiding in the mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Now we consider ourselves more secure in Afghanistan besides the Afghan people." According to Haqqani, there were "senior military and police officials" who are aligned with the group and there are even sympathetic and "sincere people in the Afghan government who are loyal to the Taliban" who support the group's aim of liberating Afghanistan "from the clutches of occupying forces." In response to questions from the BBC's Pashto service, Siraj denied any links to the ISI and stated that Mullah Omar is "our leader and we totally obey him."
The group's links to Pakistan have been a sour point in Pakistan – United States relations. In September 2011 the Obama administration warned Pakistan that it must do more to cut ties with the Haqqani network and help eliminate its leaders, adding that "the United States will act unilaterally if Pakistan does not comply." In testimony before a US Senate panel, Admiral Mike Mullen stated that the network "acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency." Pakistan in return rejected the notion that it maintained ties with the Haqqani network or used it in a policy of waging a proxy war in neighboring Afghanistan; the Pakistani interior minister also warned that any incursion on Pakistani territory by U.S. forces will not be tolerated. A Pakistani intelligence official insisted that the American allegations are part of "pressure tactics" used by the United States as a strategy "to shift the war theatre." An unnamed Pakistani official was reported to have said after a meeting of the nation's top military officials that “We have already conveyed to the US that Pakistan cannot go beyond what it has already done".
__________________
Success is never achieved by the size of our brain but it is always achieved by the quality of our thoughts.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Taimoor Gondal For This Useful Post:
Abid khan Achakzai (Monday, July 15, 2013), anam047 (Friday, April 27, 2012), BALOCHISTAN (Friday, October 12, 2012), Mehwish Pervez (Friday, December 28, 2012), noomee (Sunday, April 01, 2012), pisceankhan (Monday, October 20, 2014), Rushna Qureshi (Saturday, October 06, 2012)