by Imtiaz Gul Is the relationship strained and chequered because of the frustrations in Afghanistan, or is it a façade for something else? In an apparent damage-control attempt, David Hale, the US ambassador to Pakistan rushed for a meeting on May 25 with the boss of the General Headquarters (GHQ), General Raheel Sharif. What he heard from the host was a plain rebuke on the drone strike (that reportedly killed Taliban Mulla Mansoor) as an act of “sovereignty violation” that is detrimental to relations between both countries and is counter-productive for ongoing peace process for regional stability. Much earlier, in October 2013, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had described the issue of drones as a “major irritant in our bilateral relationship.” The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country,” Sharif had said in an address at the US Institute of Peace in Washington. Even otherwise, Pakistan has routinely lodged protests since 2006, the CIA has conducted about 423 such strikes (according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism). Drones linked to the US policy Did such protests also by the Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch deter the CIA from deployment of drones? Certainly not because the US thought differently. “US counterterrorism operations are precise, they are lawful, and they are effective, and the United States does not take lethal strikes when we or our partners have the ability to capture individual terrorists,” White House Spokesman Jay Carney had said in October 2013. The frequency of drone flights has considerably declined in the last two years or so but not because of objections or deference to concerns of other countries; most al-Qaeda operatives either got killed or left the region. The bottom line, as spelt out by diplomatic sources, is unambiguous: if a threat exists where Pakistan or any other country has ceded...

by Imtiaz Gul “Our job is to help Afghanistan secure its own country, not to have our men and women in uniform engage in that fight for them,” told reporters in Vietnam on May 23. “On the other hand, where we have a high-profile leader who has been consistently part of operations and plans to potentially harm US personnel, and who has been resistant to the kinds of peace talks and reconciliation that ultimately could bring an end to decades of war in Afghanistan, then it is my responsibility as Commander-in-Chief not to stand by, but to make sure that we send a clear signal to the Taliban and others that we’re going to protect our people.” It is quite obvious that by taking out an Al Qaeda-linked Taliban leader on Pakistani soil in mysterious circumstances, President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to all those his administration considers inimical to the peace process in Afghanistan and the interest of the US.  But the entire episode – confused responses in Islamabad and contradictory postulations out of Washington on how “an obstinate” Mullah Mansoor was killed – seem to have plunged the Pakistan-US relationship into another phase of acrimony. Although David Hale, the US ambassador to Pakistan, seems to have rushed for a meeting with the boss of the General Headquarters (GHQ) Gen Raheel Sharif on May 25 to control further damage, one can fathom how much one meeting can mitigate the sense of humiliation and betrayal that Pakistan has endured through a controversial strike still shrouded in mystery. Will this “slap-first-apologize-later” conduct continue until the US and its allies believe Pakistan has bent fully in compliance? Many in Pakistan are saying the circumstances surrounding the attack are mysterious. If a predator drone dumped two hellfire missiles on the target vehicle, it should theoretically have blown it into pieces and its cargo and passengers should have been charred beyond recognition, they say. His travel documents filled the cyberspace...

by Imtiaz Gul With the death of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, the Taliban leader, in a drone strike, Pakistan once again finds itself under international scrutiny. The nature of the attack and the unscathed passport of “Wali Mohammad” beg a thorough investigation. The incident has on the one hand dealt a severe blow to whatever has been going on in the name of peace efforts under the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG). On the other, it draws Pakistan into yet another round of global debate on the issue of support to the Afghan Taliban and their presence here. At the same time, it exposes the country to new threats, such as direct drone strikes and latest regional realignments such as the Iranian-Indian-Afghan transit agreement on the Chabahar port. India plans to invest up to $500 million in a deal to develop Chabahar into a strategic port in Iran, precisely the way China is investing in the Gwadar port for connectivity to its western Xinjiang region. These developments contain several lessons for Pakistan because they indicate an ever-increasing encirclement of the country for multiple reasons. Firstly, it appears clear that the US will deploy drones wherever it finds elements detrimental to its interests — regardless of the location. And President Obama made it quite clear during his press stakeout in Vietnam onMay 23 that “Our job is to help Afghanistan secure its own country, not to have our men and women in uniform engage in that fight for them. On the other hand, where we have a high-profile leader who has been consistently part of operations and plans to potentially harm US personnel and who has been resistant to the kinds of peace talks and reconciliation … then it is my responsibility as commander-in-chief not to stand by, but to make sure that we send a clear signal to the Taliban and others that we’re going to protect our people.” Secondly, the Afghan Taliban are being treated as an extension of al Qaeda as well as a criminal syndicate. By implication, any...

by Zeeshan Salahuddin Panama Papers dominated the airwaves this week. It seems that nearly no other piece of news has been discussed, dissected and discoursed. It has become a part of our national vocabulary, an interminable point of friction between the government and the opposition, and an undeniably impactful event in Pakistan’s history. However, the tenacity of the Panama Papers cannot and should not overshadow the prime minister’s National Action Plan (NAP) against terrorism. It is an omnipresent idea, a consistent, unwavering, unflinching response to the wave of terror and militancy facing the country. The agenda items on the National Action Plan (NAP) are neither new nor novel. Multiple versions of these ideas had existed for quite some time but NAP, for the first time, consolidated them all into a comprehensive document. The main difference this time is the strong across the board political will that drove this change, undoubtedly fueled and reinforced by a strong military push. However, should this political will fail, falter or fade, as it seems to be in the wake of the Panama Papers, Pakistan can slip back into the stark violence of the past fifteen years. Second, there seemed to be a concerted effort by the government to bring all parties on-board, and especially to appease the religious hardliners with political muscle. While these are good measures for building confidence and presenting a united front in the face of an unrelenting enemy, the counterterrorism narrative necessitates relentless focus and complete state ownership. The ruling party PML-N, for better or for worse, is the executive branch, with all the powers and privileges that come with that territory, and it needs to take commend of the counterterror campaign and the development of the alternate narrative rooted in the constitution of Pakistan. Pakistan can slip back into stark violence The military is a stable, well-oiled institution with a long-standing history of friction with...