Much to the chagrin of Pakistan, the US response to its repeated calls for putting an end to the drone strikes has been to step them up instead, and make them virtually a daily occurrence. The recurrent and deliberate violations of our sovereignty and the deaths these attacks cause have spread a wave of anger and dismay across the length and breadth of Pakistan. Islamabad was, therefore, left with no choice but to summon the American Chargé d’Affaires, Mr Richard Hoagland, on Tuesday and lodge a demarche with him, expressing the government’s serious concern over the issue. Mr Hoagland was briefed that these attacks were ‘unlawful, against international law and a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty’. This is the second such formal protest from our side; the first one was in April last year. The Chargé d’Affaires was also handed over another demarche about unauthorised weapons a US diplomat were found carrying in Peshawar, which the Foreign Office rightly maintained was unacceptable and contrary to both Pakistani law and accepted norms of diplomatic conduct. It is noteworthy that these formal protests have been made against the backdrop of Pakistan’s continuing refusal to reopen the Nato supply lines until its preconditions are met and the climate of worsened relations at present existing between the two countries.
The above scenario shows Pakistan’s markedly hardened stance and reflects its disappointment at the way the US is treating a key ally in the war on terror. The State Department’s Mark Toner instead of commenting on the points raised by the Foreign Office about the illegality of the drone warfare termed it an “intelligence matter”, adding, “I can’t talk specifically about classified operations”. At the same time, he hinted that there was little chance of stopping the drone operation, rather called it serving the common interest of the two countries by hitting al-Qaeda hideouts.
Drones are not the sole topic of friction between Pakistan and the US that the war on terror has occasioned. Washington’s overtures to New Delhi and attempts at giving it a role in the post-drawdown 2014 are another. Defence Secretary Panetta, on a recent visit to India, engaged in talks for sparing its troops to train the Afghan security force personnel. The US must realise that the commonality of Pashtun factor is such a binding factor between Pakistan and Afghanistan that no attempt to sideline Pakistan in the post-2014 dispensation could result in peace in the war-torn country. Islamabad’s assistance in supporting an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned settlement is absolutely necessary.