Humanitarian aspect of drone attacks
By Dr Zahid Anwar


Another contention is that drone strikes violate national sovereignty. The people of Pakistan know very well that the war against global terrorism is asymmetrical warfare in which the strong party uses drones and the weak uses suicide attackers.

The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) are part of the federation of Pakistan, and its people are as patriotic as people in other parts of the country. Since the birth of Pakistan, they have been performing the duty of safeguarding the physical frontiers, particularly the eastern frontier, and ideological values of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. After 9/11, the area suddenly received global media attention. It has become a kind of undeclared war theatre but the tragic tale did not start on September 11, 2001; rather, we need to go further back to when Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. All those forces that opposed the invader were supported and depicted as heroes and, through Operation Cyclone, Muslims from all parts of the world were encouraged to come to Pakistan and Afghanistan and were groomed to fight against the troops from the USSR.
For almost a decade this process continued. It brought great social change to the thoughts and crafts of the people of the region. A war economy developed, many rich people became poor and many poor people became rich. During those years, participation in war and violent conflict became worth appreciation. People were encouraged to actively take part in that phenomenon. When the Soviet army left, Afghanistan lost its attention and those who were trained with billions of dollars to fight started a civil war. Pakistan lacked the resources to fix the regional problem alone. People with vested interests rushed to fish in the troubled waters.
When the war against global terrorism started, the people of Pakistan generally, and the northwestern parts particularly, suffered directly and indirectly. The tribal people, who were victims, were depicted as perpetrators. A large number of Maliks/Masharan (tribal elders), who were patriotic Pakistanis, lost their lives for supporting Pakistan. They were between the devil and the deep blue sea. They suffered from both sides — on the one hand they were killed in drone attacks for associating with the Taliban and, on the other, they were killed for supporting Pakistan and its regional policy.
When Pakistan became, for the second time, a frontline state in a war, the people of FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suffered in different ways — one among them being drone attacks. Their effectiveness has been much discussed but their negative impact needs attention. Did they cause human suffering and if so, to what extent? Their negative impact has not been given due projection whatever the reason may be. This will become clear by just focusing on Waziristan. South and North Waziristan are two tribal Agencies, and both have borders with Afghanistan. Miranshah is the capital town of North Waziristan and Tank is its winter headquarters. Wana is the summer headquarters of South Waziristan. Despite several ups and downs, modernisation has not penetrated much of the area. Religion and Pakhtunwali (the tribal code) play an important role in the life of the local people. Most drone attacks have taken place in these areas.
Drone attacks are counterproductive; the argument is put forward that they breed more suicide bombers. Besides members of al Qaeda, many innocent people are killed. This collateral damage gives rise to anger, vengeance and jihad. These strikes have become a good propaganda tool to instigate the youth into becoming suicide bombers. Many local people who were the only bread earners of their families were either killed or lost their property and a large number of the members of the Wazir and Dawar tribes of South and North Waziristan have become psychologically sick as a result of these strikes.
The majority of FATA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and a great chunk of the population of Balochistan are Pakhtuns who are custodians of a rich cultural heritage. They are the inheritors of time-tested conventions called Pakhtunwali, which plays a significant role in the day-to-day life of an average Pakhtun. Namous (honour), malmastya (hospitality) and badal (vengeance) are some components of this tribal code. The drone strikes stir that set of conventions when the mosque (a religious symbol), the hujra (a cultural symbol), funerals and jirgas (assembly of elders) are targeted due to which these strikes become counterproductive.
Another contention is that drone strikes violate national sovereignty. The people of Pakistan know very well that the war against global terrorism is asymmetrical warfare in which the strong party uses drones and the weak uses suicide attackers. The majority of people in Pakistan consider drone strikes a violation of the country’s sovereignty. Being a nation with tremendous self-respect, it vehemently opposes those actors, both state and non-state, who violate state sovereignty. It is the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens. A passive approach to drone attacks harms national integration because the people of the struck area feel as though they are considered less patriotic and, as a result, feel disappointment, frustration and alienation.
Another plea is that it is one of the basic principles of Pakistan’s foreign policy to establish friendly relations with all countries on the basis of equality. The five principles of peaceful coexistence provide the framework for that relationship. Since its inception, Pakistan sought friends, not masters. With every drone strike the government of Pakistan faces the music to reconsider its position in the global war against terrorism. It has become a tightrope walk for the country. The US played an important role in the economic development of Pakistan during the Cold War, particularly when both had the same policy against the Soviet troops’ presence in Afghanistan. It is said that Pakistan received $ 25 billion when it became a frontline state in the war against terrorism. The US expected that Pakistan would play a more active role against a nameless and faceless enemy while Pakistan expected that its sacrifice of 50,000 citizens, both civilian and military, and property loss of $ 100 billion would be duly acknowledged; the lack of fulfilment of these great expectations further galvanised the trust deficit.
One other aspect in this connection is that the drone attacks are harming the nascent democracy in Pakistan. The strengthening of democracy in the country is a good development. People appreciate the rejuvenation. Democracy is that political system in which the political decisions of the government are taken as per the citizens’ aspirations. The people of Pakistan, who empowered the present day governing parties, expect that these parties will govern the country according to their yearning since the majority of people do not want drone strikes in Pakistan. The government’s failure to stop drone strikes undermines its credibility and damages the trust of the people in the democratic system.