US DRONE ATTACKS AND NATIONAL SECURITY OF PAKISTAN – IMPLICATIONS FOR PAKISTAN-US RELATIONS

Dr. G. M. Chaudhry

Policy, Governance and National Security Analyst

Parliamentary Council and Legislative Draftsman

ISLAMABAD

E-mail: drgmchaudhryg@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

Pakistan is facing multiple threats to its national security requiring effective measures for its national defence and security. However, the US drone attacks have posed serious threats to its defence and security. Right to self-defence of every state is universally recognized and guaranteed under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. In this scenario, it is necessary for Pakistan to review its national security policy and take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and national integrity from all types of external aggression. Hot pursuit of non-State actors did not allow any state to violate international boundaries and sovereignty of any state. There will be no end to violation of state sovereignty by useof latest defence-related technologies and new interpretations of UN Charter and international law to threat national security of any state in this world by powerful states emanating threat to international peace and order. There is a need to sensitize the UN to play its role to prove its relevance for international peace and security as if states are allowed to resort for use of military power against non-State actors then certainly it will lead full scale war sometime gripping the entire world in inferno of war. Pakistan and the United States have a longstanding bilateral relationship and the United States drone strikes will have serious implications for national security of Pakistan and international peace also.

Key words :   Pakistan, United States of America (USA), Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), Drone, Predator, South Asian Region, bilateral relations, economic assistance, strategic relations.

____________________

Introduction:

Drones proved a technology which has redefined the defence strategy and warfare. The changes in defence strategies directly affect bilateral and multilateral relations of the states. It is has not only changed the intelligence gathering but also given new tactics and tools for tactical and surgical striking limited targets with precision and accuracy. States have to rethink about their bilateral relations due to ease of intelligence and information about activities of the states. Pakistan and the United States having longstanding bilateral relations marred with perceptions and misperceptions which require redefining in the light of national security needs of Pakistan. The United States launched operations within Pakistan’s geographical territories to attack non-state actors and terrorists, aliens and local, who are allegedly carrying terrorist operations against the US people and forces in the United States and other countries.

Drones – Changing the Warfare

Drone technology is not a new one as the same was being used for different purposes for many years before its use for defence purposes.In Robot Aircraft Today, Jane’s, the authoritative military publishing company, in 1970, mentioned about 120 different types of pilotless planes in its pocket guide which were then known as remotely piloted vehicles (RPV).[1]RPV was a radio-controlled vehicle but initially could not be used for military purposes due to its poor reliability. Historically, German and the US forces tried to use radio-controlled jets during the World War II which failed due to different technical factors. Radioplanecompany started producing for army its propeller-driven remote-control target drones after the war. It was May 1, 1960, when the Soviet Union shot down a high-altitude U-2 reconnaissance jet flown over its territory by CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers, releasing the US Air Force for pilotless jets. The US Air Force awarded a contract to Ryan Aeronautical Company to adapt its jet-powered Q-2 Firebee target drones for photo reconnaissance. Shot down of another U-2 on October 27, 1962, one day before the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis further highlighted the need for pilotless jets. During the Vietnam War the US Air Force used different versions of Firebees, Fireflys and Lighning Bugs for photo reconnaissance which derivatives of Ryan’s jets. Mostly, they were launched from under the wing of a C-130 transport plane to fly their missions while being remotely controlled from a ground station transmitting radio signals susceptible to interference from other radio traffic.[2] Later on Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was able to develop a little drone weighed 105 pounds when totally empty but could carry 95 pounds of fuel, an uncommonly high “fuel fraction” of 47.5 percent, a key feature of aircraft endurance, namely Albatross.[3] The same was tested on November 30, 1983, successfully, with its flight of many hours. It was followed by development of Amber in mid-1985. After working on Amber, a more sophisticated Gnat was produced which was using information technology in the year 1988. This was the first time the term “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” or “UAV” was used because of the increasing autonomy in air vehicles made possible by the rapid evolution of computer technology. The US Navy in 1988 has a large number of UAVs being used to defend America. In the same year a new multiservice Unmanned Air Vehicle Joint Program Office (the JPO) was launched by the Pentagon spending a huge amount of $1.2 billion. Gnat 750 was a further improved version of drones from General Atomics.

On July 12, 1993, initiated “Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Program” for provision of “urgently needed, critical, worldwide, releasable near real time intelligence information on mobile targets” with John M. Deutch, Under-Secretary of Defence.[4] The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) used Gnat 750 flying over Bosnia launching from a military air base in western Albania called Gjader, located on the inland side of some foothills on the coast of the Adriatic Sea for a Line-of-Sight communication to the skies above Sarajevo, a roughly 140 miles distant required by CIA to provide an intelligence information required by President Clinton about real artillery from decoy, find surface-to-air missile sites and spot tanks and gun movements. This successful experiment encouraged the CIA and Pentagon for extensive use of UAVs for defence purposes. A video of pedestrians crossing a bridge in Mostar, Bosnia, by Gnat 750 further proved its worth for intelligence missions. The word “Predator” was used due to its surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. After its test flights, the Predator, formally rolled out at El Mirage on August 31, 1994, for its commercial use by General Atomics. Hellfire, Hesitation and other generations of the Predator are now being used for military purposes with state of the art missiles fired through such Predators.

Drone Used Hellfire Missile First Time – Taliban Government and Incident of 9/11

On December 26, 1979, the Soviet Union forced rolled into Afghanistan install Babrak Karmal, a leader of the Parcham Partyas the President of Afghanistan[5] which was not accepted the people of Afghanistan. People of Afghanistan started an armed struggle against USSR armed forces themselves declaring it as a “Jihad” i.e. the holy war. Initially, Pakistan autonomously taken a decision to provide some assistance to warring people of Afghanistan. However, the US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended to President Carter for review of the US Policy towards Pakistan as sanctions were imposed against Pakistan due to non-proliferation policy.[6]Resultantly, allowed military and financial assistance in different forms. Soviet Union was forced to withdraw its forces unilaterally with the signing of Geneva Accords by the foreign ministers of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Soviet Union and Secretary of State of the United States on April 14, 1988. However, the Geneva Accords paved the way for Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan but there was no stability in Afghanistan. There was a civil war in Afghanistan from 1990 to 1998 among different warring factions of Mujahideen Alliance as they were unable to establish an effective central administration. Consequently, there was a rise of Taliban led by Mullah Omar who belonged to different religious institutions. Taliban took control of most of the Afghanistan except in northern provinces under control of Tajik and Uzbek warlords.Taliban were following extremist interpretation of Islam. Taliban allowed militant Muslims from other countries and particularly from Arab and Central Asian States and provided them military training and arms. Such militant Muslims launched attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and consequently the US Security Council passed Resolution 1189 of August 13, 1998, condemning terrorist attacks and calling on all states to take effective steps for prevention of terrorist attacks and for prosecution of culprits. Security Council also demanded for justice against Bin Laden while imposing sanctions against Afghan Airline. However, the Taliban ignored all such Resolutions and demands resulting into imposition of more sanctions against Afghanistan.

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, changed the world politics.Osama bin Laden was accused by the US media being the mastermind of the terrorist attacks as well as Taliban and threatened for severe action. Finally, the US-led coalition attacked Afghanistan on October 6, 2001, disintegrating the Taliban Government in Afghanistan.Most of the Taliban and other foreign Jihadis including Osama bin Laden crept into Pakistan in its Tribal Areas.

Pakistan provided all out support to the US administration for their War on Terrorism (WoT) but still the US administration was not happy with operations being conducted by Pakistan against Osama bin Laden and other terrorists hidden in Pakistan’s territories. There was a constant demand of “do more”. Similarly, the US administration was also puzzled due to its failure to strike Taliban leader Mulla Omar’s hide outs and convoys in Afghanistan or adjoining areas of Pakistan.[7]Ultimately, the US administration started using predators for intelligence of the Taliban leader Mullah Omar. They successfully spotted out Omar’s house in Kandharwith a walled compound on Monday, October 8, 2001, in the countryside with the help of predator. CENCOM (US Central Command)General Tommy Franks ordered for two strikes of Hellfire with 30-pound warheads. Target was successfully hit dawning a new way of waging war killing the enemies. It was the dawn of remote-control war and remote-control killing which was not remote idea then but a reality.[8]It was the world’s first intercontinental drone strike. It was era of lethal drone war which is now having serious impact on bilateral relations of the states and writing of their foreign policies. President Bush was proud of it when he brought up the Predator during a National Security Council meeting on October 10, 2001.[9]

After the first use of Hellfire missile through Predator, it was the beginning of an era of new warfare. The US command got an alternative to address reluctance of Pakistan’s authorities during their WoT particularly in Pakistani territories as the Predators were at their sweet will instead of intelligence and logistic support of Pakistan. Now the US commanders were informing the Pakistani authorities and thereafter choosing their targets by their own while saying “Never mind … We’ll do it ourselves”.[10] Thus, it was beginning of a new war i.e. remote-controlled war. Thereafter, the US commanders hit may high-value targets amongst Taliban leaders, Arab Jihadis i.e. Osama bin Laden’s colleagues and other terrorists wanted during the WoT.

The New American Foundation, a think tank, tracked drone strikes beginning in 2004. About 50 strikes were carried during the President George W. Bush’s tenure and more than 400 during President Barack Obama’s first term launching 122 in the year 2010 alone. There were as many as thirty-three hundred Al-Qaeda, Taliban and other militants were killed during such strikes including more than fifty senior terrorist leaders.[11]

Following are details of drone strikes since the year 2004 with the their probable loss of lives whereas it is difficult to exactly calculate loss of property and other collateral damages:–

US Drone Strike according to New America Foundationupto 17th September, 2017[12]
Year	Strikes	Casualties
		Militants	Civilians	Other	Total
2004	1	3	2	2	7
2005	3	5	6	4	15
2006	2	1	93	0	94
2007	4	51	0	12	63
2008	36	223	28	47	298
2009	54	387	70	92	549
2010	122	788	16	45	849
2011	70	415	62	35	512
2012	48	268	5	33	306
2013	26	145	4	4	153
2014	22	145	0	0	145
2015	10	57	0	0	57
2016	3	9	0	0	9
2017	5	18	2	0	20
TOTAL:	406	2515	288	274	3077

 

Legality of Drone Attacks

There are different points of views of the experts of international law about the legality and moral aspect of drone attacks declaring them legal, illegal or immoral.

President Barak Obama during his address at the National Defence University in Washington, D.C.,  on May 23, 2013, said, “This new technology raises profound questions – about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality.”. However, he also defended the tactic saying drone strikes were legal under America’s “legitimate claim of self-defense” against Al Qaeda and other terrorists and were being conducted under “clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.”.[13]Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations[14] guidelines provides that “lethal force” (drones strikes) would be used only when there was no alternative means of preventing a terrorist posing a “continuing, imminent threat”to “U.S. persons” and when there was a “near certainty” that no “non-combatants” would be injured or killed.

After the 9/11 incident the US administration launched Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan with use of extensive force to destroy the Taliban regime and foreign terrorists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. The legality and morality of the Operation still remained a disputed question although majority of scholars in international law supported the US administration’s point of view being it a war for self-defence. Pakistan has nothing to do with the US administration’s actions in Afghanistan, however, it was worrisome when there was the direct effect of the Operation on Pakistan. Thousands of non-combatant population of Afghanistan crossed the palpable border of Afghanistan into adjacent Tribal Areas of Pakistan which are known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Later on it was alleged by the US forces fighting in Afghanistan that persons hiding in FATA and other areas of Pakistan are launching offensive attacks on them causing loss of life and property. Similarly, it was also alleged that high-value Taliban and other terrorists were hiding in Pakistan. However, there is no doubt that Pakistan government extended all out cooperation to US administration and forces in their War on Terrorism (WoT). President Pervez Musharraf, wrote that on September 13, 2001, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, brought a set of seven demands which were also previously communicated by the US State Department and among those reasonably conditions were accepted without “blanket permission” for anything.[15] In this way, there was a great cooperation between Pakistan and the United States in its Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and later on War on Terrorism (EoT).

With the passage of time and due to failures of the US armed forces in Afghanistan, the US CENCOM started shifted blame of its failures on Pakistan as the alleged terrorists were operating from territories of Pakistan and particularly the FATA. Doctrine of hot pursuit was applied and US armed forces sometimes entered in Pakistan’s territories whereupon strong protests were lodged by Pakistan. It was also condemned by the experts of international law being a disregard to norms of international law and the US also did the same in the case of Panama.[16]The US policy of violation and interference in Pakistan’s territories was a policy of self-interest instead of policy of self-defence.[17]The US dissatisfaction and disenchantment against Pakistan was its routine international behaviour as the US administration always required its allies to blindly follow the US policy or line of action.[18] The same happened in the case of Pakistan and ultimately the Government of Pakistan began to follow its own policy regarding cooperation with the US in its War on Terror. It was a routine demand of “do more” from all dignitaries of the US administration whether low or high whenever visiting to Pakistan or interacting with Pakistan’s authorities. In this perspective the US justified itself for drone strikes within Pakistan’s borders as the terrorist threats emanating therefrom.[19] Quite interestingly there is no commonality of objectives between the US WoT and Pakistan’s alignment with the US administration due to different in strategic interests and approaches.[20] Therefore, there are also different perspectives for drone strikes and their legality. Thus, there is widening of gulf between Pakistan-US bilateral relations for future. Only the weakness of Pakistan is the stumbling block in the way Pakistan to openly challenge and respond drone attacks in its territory and sovereignty.

There is no justification of the US drone attacks in Pakistan on the basis of right of self-defence. Logically, right of self-defence is always available against an enemy state whereas in the case of Pakistan itself is the partner and ally under-compulsion of the USA in its WoT since the year 2001, after the incident of 9/11. There are different requirements like immediacy, necessity and proportionality for resorting to principle of self-defence under the Caroline Paradigm in the presence of effective collaboration and cooperation regarding WoT between Pakistan and the USA.[21] There is no recognition to pre-emptive strikes in international law as a strategy of self-defence as it was and is happening in the case of drone strikes on Al Qaeda and Taliban or other terrorist targets. Thus, there nothing like self-defence in case of drone strikes within Pakistan territory except a serious breach of trust between two partners and allies in War on Terrorism. In this context it is also relevant to point out that the US administration miserably failed to realize losses to Pakistan’s economy and infrastructure due to its partnership in the US WoT or GWoT which are pointed out Pakistan and Pakistani media from time to time.

National Power defines Right of Self-defence

National Power is a determining factor in international relations and politics. Powerful or strong states dictate poor or weaker states in international relations. The US drone attacks are also such terse reality of international relations. The USA never resorted such drone attacks on China or Russia even during the war in Afghanistan when only the Pakistan, Taliban and other Jihadi groups were used to attack Soviet Union’s positions in Afghanistan. Even parity of national power restrains states from aggression or use of right of self-defence. There is always skirmishes on the eastern borders i.e. Line of Control (LoC) in the disputed territory of Kashmir, with India. But always there was “tit for tat” from Pakistan to such Indian offences. Pakistan shot don an Indian drone on October 27, 2017, spying across Line of Control (LoC) in Rakhchikri Sector in Kashmir.[22] However, there was no reaction or application of doctrine of self-defence by India as the Indian Government was well aware about consequences of such action.

Analysing Impact of the US Drone Attacks in Pakistan

Neo-classical Realism is the political approach to examine and analyse the foreign relations and policies of different states in international affairs. Robert Axelrod effectively explained the evolution of cooperation between the persons which can applied in cases of state behaviours. The Game Theory as well as a Prisoner’s Dilemma explaining different patterns of mutual interest and cooperation[23] and in the case of Pakistan and the US relations and particularly with regard to Pakistan’s vulnerability in case of the US drone attacks. There is no doubt that the US administrations tried to sell their psychological explanations of threat inflation for the consumption of American people perceived after 9/11 incident. Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda was perceived as the biggest threat to the US national security and prevalence of future terrorist attacks within American territory. Thus, American people expect that the Osama bin Laden should be brought to justice at any cost and the US political leadership sold this idea for their political objectives which was not possible without creating fear inflation amongst the American people. In this way, the US administration left with no option except pursue Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leadership wherever they may be. The USA used threat inflation while punishing Saddam Hussein of Iraq and same strategy was adopted in case of Afghanistan.[24] Although the US administration was able to dictate its terms to Pakistan but ultimately with its traditional distrust forced to Pakistan to search for alternative partners and friends to meet its national security and strategic needs in the changing international scenarios where there is a great trust deficit between Pakistan and the USA. Ultimately, Pakistan reviewed its policy towards Russia and further strengthened and expanded its relations and cooperation with China which is now able to redefine international political and strategic dynamism in the South Asian Region. The mistrust promoted by the US policy-makers and analysts forced a trusted ally to search for new partners and friends proving the failure of the US strategic vision in international relations. Thus, power halts power is only valid principle of international law still holding the force and utility.

However, in the case of the US drone attacks, the balance of power is in favour of the USA but morality, customary and international law is in favour of Pakistan but the same is not workable effectively in international power politics.

Drone Attacks in Pakistan – The US Foreign Policy Failure

There is no doubt that the USA is a sole military super power in the world with its ability to dictate about its interests but forgetting the political history of the world. Power politics of the world had seen many big powers with their rise and fall. The US fall will be attributed to misperceived and wrong policies of its political leadership vis-a-vis its political leadership which had made it an economic and military super power after two World Wars. There was no need of drone attacks in Pakistan if the US administration was able to convince Pakistan’s political and military leadership that War on Terrorism (WoT) is in their common interest as both the countries had become victims of acts of terrorism. However, the US administration instead of creating a psychological need for cooperation dictated their policies and actions almost Pakistan disowning their needs in Afghanistan particularly when the US administration at the same time began promoting Pakistan’s arch enemy in Afghanistan affairs which was not acceptable to Pakistan at any cost. Thus, certainly there were questions about the legality of the US drone attacks in Pakistan. President Obama’s views about drone attacks justified drone attacks as those were part of US Defence Policy and approved by the President.[25]But this was not a plausible interpretation to international political community and for international law. Pakistan’s leadership categorically denied any secret agreement between Pakistan and the USA about drone attacks time and again[26] as it was reported in The Washington Post and other US newspapers allowing drone attacks within Pakistan.[27]It is quite strange and interesting that the US administration always claimed their drone attacks in Pakistan territory for self-defence against terrorism but at the same time never reported such resort of military power to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Therefore, the US drone attacks on Pakistan are not sustainable under the principles of international law.[28]

The US drone attacks were not only breach of trust but also destructive for bilateral relations between Pakistan and the USA widening of gulf of mistrust. Attacking enemy territory during a war is understandable phenomenon but attacking an ally and partner in war is completely a new concept in international relations and international law which is introduced by the US policy-makers and decision-makers eroding the concept of international partnerships and strategic relations particularly in perspective of weaker states and nations which is big blow to international alliances and alignments in future particularly with the USA.

Reaction of International Organizations and Community on Drone Attacks

Pakistan being a weaker state could not thwart the US drone attacks although the people of Pakistan always reacted sharply and hardly against the US administration as well as the Government of Pakistan. Similarly, international human rights organizations and community also reacted against drone attacks in Pakistan killing and injuring innocent civilians in addition to loss of their properties. The United National Husmn Rights Council (UNHRC) presented a report on June 3, 2009, highlighting civilian casualties during drone operations without any inquests about their involvements in terrorist activities.[29]NaviPilay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also called for a new investigation into US drone strikes in Pakistan being “indiscriminate” and constituting violation of human rights.[30] Similarly, Christof Heyns, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, called on the Obama administration to justify its use of targeted assassinations rather than attempting to capture al Qaeda or Taliban suspects.[31] In this way, the US drone attacks invited criticism from international organizations as well as activists on human rights throughout the world.

Bearing the Cost to Appease the USA and Participation in War on Terror

Pakistan has borne a gigantic cost while becoming a partner and ally in the US WoT since 2001 due to terrorist and subversive activities carried out by terrorist groups within Pakistan’s territory. It is estimated that Pakistan bore US$123 billion cost of WoT since 2001.[32] The similar views have also been expressed by Khawaja Muhammad Asif, Foreign Minister of Pakistan while commenting a positive statement from US President Donald Trump. However, the US policy-makers mounted a pressure on Pakistan until Pakistan rebuffed such undesirable pressure after President Donald John Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia (US SASA) announced on the August 21, 2017, giving a key role to India in Afghanistan.[33]In the aftermath of US SASA, Pakistan-US relations touched to its lowest point in the history of Pakistan-US relations. In this context, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister reacted sharply saying “No surrender to US demands”[34] and further said, “Pakistan will not be scapegoat for US failures”.[35]China, being an old friend and in a new China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) partner also reacted and announced its support to Pakistan with an advice to the US for recognition of Pakistan’s anti-terror efforts.[36] China also rejected the US remarks about CPEC wherein James Mattis, US Defence Secretary, told to a US Senate Armed Services Committee that the one Belt, One Road “goes through disputed territory, and I think that in itself shows the vulnerability of trying to establish that sort of a dictate”.[37] However, after escalation of tension between two partners and allies, the sanity prevailed at all levels in both sides and there was reassertion for improvement of deteriorating ties with a fresh start during a brief meeting between Pakistan’s Prime Minister ShahidKhaqanAbbasi and the US President Donald Trump while attending 72^nd session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.[38]Similarly, there were fresh engagements between both countries at different levels.[39] However, misperceptions and misgivings are still there which will take time to be corrected.

Implications of Drone Attacks on Pakistan-US Relations

Pakistan-US relationship is marred with disenchantments and misperceptions. Pakistan believed that the US always used Pakistan for service of its interests and thereafter ditched. Pakistan also believed that instead of being rewarded it received harsh sanctions from the US administration as soon as the US interests were served.[40] Pakistan became an attractive during allied partnership and played the most important role in the South Asian Region for the US policy of containment of communism and expansion of Soviet Union in the South Asia and Middle East.[41] Similarly, the US has perception that the US provided economic and military assistance to Pakistan but Pakistan had not fulfilled its bilateral commitments. There is no doubt the Carter administration left Pakistan in lurch after the end of Soviet Union war in Afghanistan which is termed as a major policy failure affecting the course of relations between Pakistan and the US in near past still having serious implications on their bilateral relations.[42] However, all this divergence was due to their strategic and policy objectives. Pakistan always followed its geopolitical position, its cultural values and structure of authority within government while negotiating with the USA while the US always kept in mind the broader international perspective and particularly Indian concerns being the largest democracy of the world.[43] The carrot and the stick remained the prominent technique by the US administration whereas the same had not worked all the times in case of Pakistan.

It is also important that Pakistan’s prime concern was its national security against Indian hegemonic designs in the South Asian Region posing it as a mini-super power or as a regional power which was never acceptable for Pakistan. Presently, the US administration’s prime policy objective is to use Pakistani military, police and intelligence assets to eliminate Al Qaeda leadership and other terrorist outfits operating within or from outside Pakistan or from Afghanistan with their connections with Pakistani militant groups in its Global War on Terrorism (GWoT). Similarly, the US war in Afghanistan is practically impossible without active role and assistance of Pakistan which is also realized by Pakistani authorities. However, Pakistan is not willing go beyond certain limits as these militant groups are of importance for Pakistan’s policy objectives in Indian Occupied Kashmir which is a major point of divergence between two countries.[44]

In all this the US policy-makers are considering a Jihadist Pakistan as a serious threat to the United States ever faced since the end of the Cold War particularly when aligned with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups being a nuclear weapon state. It is also well established that the US actions in Pakistan and Afghanistan are producing severe reactions with more hatred and propaganda. However, there is every reason for the US administration to engage Pakistan as there is no effective alternative available.[45]

The US major concern is threat of terrorism resulting from the clash of civilizations and particularly from Islamic Jihadists like Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups successfully appealing and attracting oppressed and dissatisfied Muslims due to their brutal governments. Thus, there is need to attack the support base of such groups by weakening their appeal which is only possible by addressing their grievances in a serious way as political problems cannot be bombed or missiled out of existence. There is need to check spread of hatred and violence against the USA.[46] Thus, the US way to tackle the problems is more problematic as happened in the case of drone attacks in Pakistan which are breeding more sympathizers to Al Qaeda and Jihadists instead of hatred towards them. Backlash and collateral damage of drone attacks is creating more animosity towards the USA as the terrorists living among innocent people are not having collateral damage.

The USA is pursuing two policies at the same time as it is engaging Pakistan for securing its policy interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan for elimination of terrorism while also decreasing reliance on Pakistan but at the same time promoting India as a strategic partner to contain a dangerous Pakistan which cannot work at the same time. Therefore, there is a need to rectify policy perception for suitably wooing Pakistan to safeguard the US interests in the South Asian Region. There is no doubt that Afghanistan is also confluence to conflicting interests of different states due to its geographical location. However, it may be noted that all paths to any success go through Pakistan.[47] Thus, there is need to revisit the US policy towards Pakistan keeping in view ground and strategic realities instead of drawing room chatting and policy formulations.

“Operation Neptune Spear” in Abbottabad : Implications for Pakistan-US Relations

Al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden was the main target of Americans in Afghanistan with its changing positions in different parts of Pakistan. Although Pakistan Government never accepted about presence of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The US CIA was able to trace out Osama bin Laden in garrison city of Abbottabad of Pakistan through hectic spying network. Then an operation named “Operation Neptune Spear” which was also code named as “Geronimo-E KIA” or “Operation Geronimo” was conducted on the May 2, 2011, killing Osama bin Laden[48] in a compound attacked by United States Navy SEALS from the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) of informally by its former name, SEAL Team Six of the Joint Special Operations Command supported by CIA operatives on the ground which authorised on the April 29, 2011,[49] by the US President Barack Obama. Thereafter, in the late evening of the 1^st may, 2011, the US President announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed in the operation. Two teams of 12US Navy SEALS from the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (SEAL Team Six) of the Joint Special Operations Command and working with the CIA paramilitary operatives, stormed Osama bin Laden’s compound in two helicopters[50]. One of the helicopters experienced a vortex ring state upon approach resulting in a grazing of the tail rotor with compound’s wall. The damaged aircraft was “hard-landed” allowing the mission to continue, however, it had to be destroyed on-site to protect technology secrets[51]. Back-up forces were immediately available and another helicopter was brought in to retrieve the commandos and relevant contents. All combined, a total of 79 commandos and a dog (believed to have explosive-detection training) were involved in the raid[52].News of bin Laden’s death was announced from the scene with the word “Geronimo” indicating the alphabetical ordering of the letter “G”, having successfully completed that part of the mission[53]. The White House, top US counter-terrorism official John Brennan, and other US officials said the SEALs were prepared to capture bin Laden if he had surrendered, but one unnamed US official said the SEALs mission was not to take bin Laden alive[54]. In his broadcast announcement Obama said that US forces “took care to avoid civilian casualties”. The attack was carried out without the knowledge of the Pakistani Government[55].

Although the “Operation Neptune Spear” was a big success for the Americans but it had taken Pakistan-US relations at the lowest ebb which were already constrained due to unsolicited drone attacks in Pakistan’s geographical territory. The attack humiliated the Pakistani military as it had cast a negative aspersion about capability of military reducing its credibility also.[56]

Future Course of Action and Drone Attacks

The US administration had never assessed and evaluated pros and cons of drone attacks within Pakistan’s geographical territory. In addition to collateral damage in terms of loss of life and property, drone attacks are causing ideological and political loss to the USA as hatred against the US is the most reactive element which is increasing among the people of Pakistan. Pakistan remained a trusted ally and partner of the USA in the past and such relationship of mutual trust can again be revived if the US administration has a will to do so keeping in view strategic importance of Pakistan in the South Asian Region. A stable, democratic and prosperous Pakistan actively combating itself religious militancy is vital for the US interests. Only the US economic assistance will not change ideological scenario and religious intolerance unless there are concerted efforts for an economically stable and political egalitarian society with good governance instead of influencing state policies with the help of corrupt bureaucracy and non-governmental organization which are not allowing economic benefits to the people of Pakistan. Pakistani intelligence and military have capability to combat terrorism and alien Jihadi groups promoted by the US during the Afghan occupation by Soviet forces. Similarly, persistent Predator and Reaper i.e. drone attacks are ideologically counter-productive with minimum gains in the form of killing of Al Qaeda and terrorist elements but with huge collateral loss to lives and properties of innocent civilians. Therefore, drone attacks are adversely affecting the Pakistan-US relations and having serious implications for national security of Pakistan which are not tolerable by the government as well as military.[57] The US policy and decision-makers are unable to realize that excessive and coercive pressure instead of confidence-building is compelling Pakistan to turn towards China and also revive dormant relationship with Russia particularly in the perspective of expanding relations of the USA with India, being the arch rival of Pakistan in all matters.[58]

Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state which can effectively deter all dangers to its national security by using nuclear deterrence which had already working against India with mounting probability of nuclear war. Thus, there is need for review of the US policy towards the South Asia as a whole instead of antagonizing and promoting confrontation between Pakistan and India by preferential treatment as the same will have serious implications for future of Pakistan-US relations.[59]

Therefore, drone attacks are result of short sightedness of the US policy and decision-makers having serious implications for Pakistan-US relations. Foreign policies with short terms objectives never produce good results in the long run.

Conclusion

The US drone attacks in Pakistan are counter-productive with their overall impact assessment. There is more collateral damage in terms of loss of innocent civilian lives and precious property as compared to targeted loss of Al Qaeda and terrorists. Foreign policy of any nation is reflection of wishes of its people and drone attacks within geographical territory of Pakistan are only causing hatred and resentment ultimately forcing the government to review its relations with the United States.

Public trust deficit always remained an important factor in Pakistan-US relations as the US policy and decision-makers always felt comfortable to deal with government and military functionaries instead of confidence building of masses towards the people of the America and policies of the American governments. Ultimately, with the change of such governments and public functionaries there was always a big gap between the people of Pakistan and the United States of America. Huge economic assistance given to Pakistan also could not produce required results as the same were siphoned in pockets and personals accounts of public functionaries instead of evoking public trust and thankfulness for such economic assistance.

Short term and inconsistent policy initiatives also frustrated the policy-makers of Pakistan as it was dubbed that the US policy and decision-makers always cared for their instant national and strategic interests and ditching after service of such short term interests. Drone attacks are also the result of such short term policy-decision instead of trusting on armed forces of Pakistan which are less productive as compared to political and strategic damage forcing the Pakistan to see for other trustworthy allies and partners in the light its national and strategic interests.

____________________

Author

Dr. G. Chaudhry, Policy, Governance and National Security Analyst, Parliamentary Council and Legislative Draftsman. He is based in Islamabad and heading a Research and Consultancy Firm namely Chaudhry and Chaudhry Associates, Islamabad.He is the author of more than two dozen Books in the field of Law, Legislative Drafting and Process in Pakistan, Intellectual Property Rights, Military Laws and Constitution of Pakistan in addition to a collection of essays on Law, Justice, Human Rights and Legal System. He also worked as Legislative Adviser/Draftsman in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights and participated in drafting of hundreds of laws.  His books titled “Practical Approach to Legislative Drafting” and “Legislative Process in Pakistan” are like text-books in the field of legislative drafting and law-making process and working of Parliament in Pakistan. “Essays on Law, Justice, Human Rights and Legal System” is a collection of essays on different topics as apparent from the title. Presently, he is heading a firm which is providing consultancy services and dealing with matters relating to Law, Governance, Management, Legislative and Parliamentary Drafting and Counselship in addition to delivering lectures as a Visiting Faculty Member in different Colleges and Universities.

____________________

[1]Richard Whittle, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2014), p. 13.

[2]Whittle, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution, pp. 21-22.

[3]Whittle, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution, p. 25.

[4]Whittle, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution, p. 79.

[5]Abdul Sattar, Pakistan’s Foreign Policy 1947-2012: A Concise History (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 172.

[6]Steve Coll, ‘This Ghost War: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and bin Laden’ quoted in Dawn, Islamabad, November 19, 2004.

[7]Whittle, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution, p. 255.

[8]Whittle, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution, pp. 259-261.

[9]Woodward, Bust at War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 223.

[10]Whittle, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution, p. 276.

[11]Whittle, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution, pp. 302-303.

[12]Estimated that the CIA conducted: “Drone Wars, Pakistan: Analysis,” New America Foundation, at http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis.

[13]Obama finally addressed the issue: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, May 23, 2013, new release, “Remarks by the President at the National Defense University”.

[14]Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Guidelines issued by the US Administration.

[15]Pervez Musharraf, In the Line of Fire: A Memoir (London: Pocket Books, 2006), pp. 204-207.

[16]J.F. Murphy, The United States and the Rule of Law in International Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 40-47.

[17]M. Solaun, US Intervention and Regime Change in Nicaragua (USA: University of Nebraska Press, 2005), pp. 14-15.

[18]W.P. Nagan and C. Hammer, “Patriotism, Nationalism, and the War on Terror: A Mild Plea in Avoidance,” Florida Law Review, 2004, Vol. 56, pp. 933, 973-984.

[19]A. Baker, “US Stepping Up Operations in Pakistan,” Times, September 17, 2008, accessed online at http://content.time.com/world/article/0,8599, 1840383, 00.html.

[20]A. Rashid, Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia, (USA: Penguin Books, 2008), pp. 28-32.

[21]Caroline Paradigm as enunciated in “Letter from Daniel Webster to Mr. Fox on 24 Apri 1841,” British and Foreign State Papers, 1843, Vol. 29, p. 1129.

[22]Mariana Babar/APP, “Pakistan shoots Indian drone down,” The News, Islamabad, October 28, 2017.

[23]Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Boos, Inc., Publishers, 1984), pp. 109-123

[24]Trevor Thrall and Jane K. Cramer, eds., American Foreign Policy and the Politics of Fear: Threat Inflation Since 9/11 (New York: Routledge, 2009), pp. 47-53 & 121-130.

[25]Obama finally addressed the issue: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, May 23, 2013, new release, “Remarks by the President at the National Defense University”.

[26]T. Khan, “Pakistan Denies NYT Report on CIA Drones Deal,” News Pakistan, April 7, 2013, accessible online www.newspakistan.pk/2013/04/07/pakistan-denies-nyt-report-cia-drones-deal/ accessed on March 12, 2014.

[27]A Quite Deal with Pakistan, The Washington Post, October 4, 2008, accessible online at http://www.washington post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008110302638.html.

[28]S. Khan, “US Drone Attacks Destabilizing Pakistan: Winning Hearts and Minds Has Failed,” IslamOnline.net, July 30, 2009, accessible online www.islamaonline.net/serlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout&cid=1248187501549.

[29]“U.N. envoy calls for probe into U.S. drone attacks” reported by CNN on June 4, 2009, accessible online at http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/04/drone.attacks/.

[30]“UN wants investigation into drone attacks inside Pakistan” Agence France Press, June 7, 2012, accessible online at http://dawn.com/2012/06/07/un-wants-investigation-into-drone-attacks-in-pakistan/.

[31]Nebehay, Stephanie, “U.N. Investigator Decries U.S. Use of Killer Drones,” Reuters, June 19, 2012.

[32]MehtabHaider, “Pakistan bore $123b cost of war on terror since 2001,” The News, Islamabad, October 16, 2017.

[33] Press Release of the White House by the Office of the Press Secretary, dated 21-08-2017 accessible at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/21/remarks-president-trump-strategy-afghanistan-and-south-asia.

[34]Iftikhar A. Khan, “No surrender to US demands,” Dawn, Islamabad, October 26, 2017.

[35]Staff Reporter, “Pakistan will not be scapegoat for US failures,” Dawn, October 27, 2017.

[36]“China asks US to recognize Pak anti-terror efforts”, The News, Islamabad, October 9, 2017.

[37]“China rejects US remarks about CPEC”, Dawn, Islamabad, October 9, 2017.

[38]“Abbasi, Trump emphasise need to continue bilateral ties”, Dawn, Islamabad, September 22, 2017.

[39]Anwar Iqbal, “US, Pakistan stay engaged to defuse tensions,” Dawn, Islamabad, October 8, 2017.

[40]Kux, Dennis, The United States and Pakistan, 1947-200: Disenchanted Allies (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Centre Press, 2001), p.361.

[41]Kux, Dennis, The United States and Pakistan, 1947-200: Disenchanted Allies, p.359.

[42]Howard B. Schaffer and Teresita C. Schaffer, How Pakistan Negotiates with the United States: Riding the Roller Coaster (Lahore: Vanguard Books, 2011), p. 163.

[43]Howard B. Schaffer and Teresita C. Schaffer, How Pakistan Negotiates with the United States: Riding the Roller Coaster , pp. 163-182.

[44] C. Christine Fair, Keith Crane, Christopher S. Chivvis, Samir Puri and Michael Spirtas, Pakistan: Can the United States Secure an Insecure State? (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010), Pp. 139-180.

[45] Bruce Riedel, Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of the Global Jihad (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2011), pp. 112-113.

[46]Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (Crows Nest NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2007), pp.209-211.

[47] Saeed Shafqat and Raheem ulHaque, Pakistan, Afghanistan & US Relations: Implication and Future Directions (Lahore: Centre for Public Policy and Governance), 2011), pp.26-34.

[48]Information used in this section has been taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama bin Laden on 25.08.2011 at 2.50 a.m.

[49]Thompson, Mark. “Inside the Osama bin Laden Strike: How America Got Its Man”.Time.http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2069249,00.html.Retrieved on 24^th August, 2011.

[50]Michael Murray (May 2, 2011). “Osama Bin Laden Dead : The Navy SEALs Who Hunted and Killed Al Qaeda Leader”. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/US/osama-bin-laden-dead-navy-seal-team-responsible/story?id=13509739. Retrieved on the 25^th August, 2011.

[51]“Osama Bin Laden Killed By Navy Seals in Firefight”. Abcnews.go.com. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed-navy-seals-firefight/story?id=13505792. Retrieved on the 25^th August, 2011.

[52]Obama Calls World ‘Safer’ After Pakistan Raid. The New York Times, May 2, 2011.

[53]Tapper, Jake. “Osama Bin Laden Operation Ended With Coded Message ‘Geronimo E-KIA’ ”. 2 May 2011. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bin-laden-death-prompts-celebrations-security-alerts/story?id=13507836. Retrieved on the 25^th August, 2011.

[54]The Goal Was Never to Capture bin Laden, in The Atlantic, May 4, 2011, as reported in Wikipedia weblink.

[55]“Osama bin Laden is killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan”. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/osama-bin-laden-is-killed-by-us-forces-in-pakistan/2011/05/01 /AFXMZyVF_story.html. Retrieved on the 25th August, 2011.

[56] Anil Bhat, After Abbottabad: Terror to Turmoil in Pakistan (New Delhi: Pentagon Press, 2012), p. 114.

[57] DeAndre K. Whitley and Kieth E. Noel, eds., Pakistan U.S. Relations and Foreign Assistance (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2012), pp.2-33.

[58] DeAndre K. Whitley and Kieth E. Noel, eds., Pakistan U.S. Relations and Foreign Assistance, pp.34-35.

[59] Bruce Riedel, Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back (Noida, UP, India: HarperCollins Publishers India, 2013), pp.182-184.