Thiscomment originally appeared in the Express Tribune on July 4,2013. The July 2 drone strike on a target 50 kms off Miranshah -14th this year ´ evoked another strong protest from the ministry of foreign affairs. This 'outrage' came less than four weeks after the Foreign Office summoned US Charge d– Affaires (CdA), Deputy Ambassador Richard Hoagland, on June 8 to lodge a similar 'strong protest' against a strike that had killed seven people in a North Waziristan village. Do these expressions of rejection and demands for cessation in strikes count? Apparently little because of the US-UK understanding that drones represent an important tool in hunting down terrorists. This issue merits scrutiny in the context of two major geo-political factors to explain as to why these strikes, though on the wane, are likely to continue i) The broad US-NATO agreement on the use of drones against common 'enemies', ii) Increasingly wobbly leadership of a volatile Afghanistan Speaking in Los Angeles on June 25, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said about the UK policy on intelligence-sharing with the United States: 'We operate under the rule of law and are accountable for it. In some countries secret intelligence is used to control their people. In ours, it only exists to protect their freedoms.' Allegations that Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) used a US programme to circumvent the law and spy on British citizens have led to renewed calls for the agency to disclose what its policy is on providing intelligence to support CIA drone strikes. Anti-drone campaigners claim that by sharing intelligence in support of the campaign, GCHQ may have broken both domestic and international law. As for Afghanistan, the pressures from across the border are mounting; the Afghan army chief General Sher Mohammad Karimi who, in a BBC interview broadcast July 3, claimed that Pakistan was complicit in drone attacks because Islamabad had 'given the lists' of militants it wants taken out. He...

Thiscomment originally appeared in the Friday Times on June 28,2013 Pakistan denied its purported contacts with and influence over key Taliban leaders for years. Civil and military officials would reject out of hand any link whatsoever with any Taliban leaders. They also expressed ignorance of the whereabouts of the militant leadership. Beginning early this year, they forgot all those denials and turned over 26 Taliban prisoners in two installments, saying the rest - about a dozen or so - would be set free as and when necessary. By doing so, the Pakistani leadership essentially began admitting what they had been brushing aside as allegations and propaganda. But the bait by American interlocutors (Pakistan is being made relevant to the Afghan reconciliation process) worked, and one after the other, Islamabad and Rawalpindi pulled out cards - first the Taliban prisoners, then linking up the most hunted and condemned terrorists Haqqanis with the Americans, and now claiming credit for what turned out to be, at least for the time being, a big faux pax at Doha ie the Taliban office and the ensuing controversy over the flag of "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". Then, by taking credit for the Taliban office formally launched on June 18 amid great fanfare, Pakistan again displayed the usual indecent haste. Only a day later, Afghan President Hamid Karzai stunned his western backers by announcing a suspension of talks on the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the United States. Ironically, Pakistani officials went the Karzai way, and during special envoy James Dobbins' Islamabad visit, they expressed fears that the initiative might break down due to the 'contradictory approach' of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration. Before that, for two days, newspapers in Pakistan were awash with official chest-thumping for "Pakistan's instrumental role in the reconciliation." Even Foreign Ministry officials went public with a credit-taking, self-adulatory statement,...

June 5, 2013 was a great day in Pakistan's democratic transition.Forthe first time in the country's existence since 1947,Pakistanis witnessed an elected government replace another one as a result of the general elections held onMay 11. There was another historical record attached to this day: the newly elected representatives had just gonethrough the bloodiest election campaign in the history of Pakistan. Nearly 26 National Assembly constituencies and 35 provincial Assembly constituencies were witness to target killings, injuries, destruction and kidnappings that were mostly carried out by militant organisations resulting in the death of 244 persons, including seven candidates for the National and provincial Assemblies: Fakhrul Islam (MQM) NA-221, PS-47, Malik Adnan Khan Wazir (ANP) PK-72, Sadiq Zaman Khattak (ANP) NA-254, Adnan Qualeti (PPP) PS-95, Muhammad Zahir Shah Khan (PPP) PK-96, Abdul Fateh Magsi (independent) PB-32, and Shakeel Ahmed (MQM-H) NA-241 and PS-95. If some of the targeted candidates were lucky enough to escape the deadly attacks, their loved ones, like sons, brothers, and cousins were not. Most of these unfortunate people were sent to their graves by some unknown and unidentifiable creatures using guns, bombs, hand grenades and suicide bombers. Those who claimed responsibility remained beyond the reach of the law-enforcing authorities and were ignored by the people and their leaders too. The number of injured persons was three times higher than the dead ones and all those parliamentarians that now occupy the new National and provincial Assembly seats owe their success to the sacrifices of these people. The security threats that loomed large in the country during the election campaign were very lucidly described by the army chief General Ashfaq Kayani in these words: 'The nation withstood the threat of terrorism and defied the unfounded dictates of an insignificant and misguided minority by actively participating in the general elections.' Alas,...