Pakistan - A Difficult Review

2nd April, 2012 LAST Friday’s drone attack in Miramshah, North Waziristan, may have eliminated four suspected militants but it has also made the parliamentary review of Islamabad’s strategic relations with Washington a more onerous task. The attack came in the same week that saw the first direct public contact between the top military commanders of Pakistan and the US since ties between the two countries reached a nadir following last November’s US air strike on check posts in Salala. Pakistan’s justifiable anger over the attack and the loss of two dozen of its soldiers might have abated had the US issued an unconditional apology. But it was not forthcoming. Anti-Americanism had already been on the boil following the bloody escapade of American defence contractor Raymond Davis in Lahore and was exploited by a security establishment at home that encouraged mass hysteria ostensibly through surrogates among right-wing elements. The US raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound last May further complicated matters and the Salala strike appeared to be the last nail in the coffin, with Islamabad stopping supplies to Nato troops in landlocked Afghanistan. With a parliamentary review of the proposed contours of a new US-Pakistan relationship under way, the latest US attack can only be seen as insensitive by a public that is stridently opposed to drone strikes. The Pakistani military leadership had appeared quietly in favour of resuming Nato supplies after four months of back-channel efforts (the recent agreement between the Pakistan Railways and the military-controlled National Logistics Cell is a clear indication). But now, politicians, whose positions were cemented as a result of hardening public opinion that GHQ itself contributed to, are finding it difficult to support the resumption.

We have always held that the US drone attacks have succeeded in killing some key perpetrators of mass murder here (and abroad). It is equally true that unless there is coordination and intelligence-sharing between the two countries, these attacks will continue to be seen as a breach of sovereignty, a statement of distrust between the allies, and as extracting a civilian toll. Unfortunately, without transparency and a proper mechanism to verify the effectiveness of such attacks, the debate will remain bereft of evidence and continue to be guided by passion rather than reason.

President Barack Obama is believed to have told Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Seoul that whatever the parliamentary review recommends, his need to protect American lives also needs to be considered. The US may have a point but it is intelligence-sharing and coordinated action with Pakistan and not unilateral strikes that will help in the matter, especially as Islamabad reassesses its ties with Washington