Pakistani parliament says no to US drones

[Saifullah Sani]

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A major parliamentary review of relations with the United States opened on Tuesday with calls for an end to drone strikes and for an unconditional apology for an American attack that killed Pakistani soldiers last November.
The demands, read to Parliament by the chairman of a cross-party national security committee, set a tough tone for a long-awaited debate that the United States hopes will bring a resumption of full diplomatic relations and the reopening of NATO supply lines through Pakistan.

“The U.S. must review its footprints in Pakistan,” said the five-page document, which read like a laundry list of Pakistani requests to the Obama administration. “No overt or covert operations inside Pakistan shall be tolerated.”

American hopes that the parliamentary review would conclude this week received a setback when the speaker adjourned the debate until Monday, ostensibly to allow the opposition to consider its position. There was another possible reason: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is locked in a bruising confrontation with the senior judiciary that is due to resume in the Supreme Court on Wednesday and that could, under one possible outcome, lead to his resignation by the weekend.

Stressing that the United States should respect Pakistani “sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity,” the committee called on the Central Intelligence Agency to halt its drone strike campaign in the country’s tribal belt, which has resulted in at least 265 attacks since January 2008.

In the future, it added, there should be no American “hot pursuit or boots on Pakistani territory” — a possible reference to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May — and it recommended tighter controls on foreign security companies operating in the country.

Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders are hoping to leverage anger at the November shooting episode, in which American warplanes killed 24 soldiers in an exchange of fire along the northwestern border with Afghanistan, to gain concessions from the United States.

The committee called for a “thorough revision” of the agreement governing the 1,000-mile NATO supply route through Pakistan.

Pakistani officials say they intend to levy a transit tax on American military goods passing through their territory. The committee report suggested that half of all NATO traffic in the future be moved via the country’s dilapidated railway network. The supplies are now transported by road.

The recommendations of the parliamentary review are not binding. But they are the product of cross-party consensus and will shape the mood of next week’s debate, which is likely to last two or three days.

Some clauses acknowledged American concerns — the “elimination of terrorism and combating extremism,” promotion of peace talks with the Afghan Taliban and strengthening security along the notoriously porous Afghan border.

But others stressed ties with American strategic rivals, like China and Russia, and called on President Asif Ali Zardari’s government to “actively pursue” a planned gas pipeline from Iran — a project that Washington has strongly opposed.

“The recommendations are excellent,” said Imtiaz Safdar Warraich, a senior Pakistan Peoples Party lawmaker, outside Parliament. “Sovereignty and territorial integrity are the cornerstone of our foreign policy.”

Kamil Ali Agha, a senator from the Pakistan Muslim League-Q party, predicted a “very detailed and very lively” debate next week. “This is a very, very important issue for each and every Pakistani,” he said.

A resumption of full diplomatic relations with the Obama administration now looks unlikely before the middle of next month. American officials say they are ready to negotiate tariffs on NATO transit goods but will not consider an end to the C.I.A. drone campaign, which is viewed as a vital weapon against Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists operating from Pakistani soil.

The United States is also likely to offer a form of official apology, probably from the military, for the November airstrike. Plans to apologize earlier this month were shelved after controversy exploded in Afghanistan over the mistaken burning of Korans at Bagram Air Base.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/world/asia/pakistani-parliament-demands-end-to-us-drone-strikes.html?ref=pakistan

 

[Awesome]

The Associated Press: Pakistani parliament says no to US drones

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A Pakistani parliamentary commission demanded Tuesday an end to American drone attacks inside the country and an apology for deadly U.S. airstrikes in November as part of a review of its near-severed relations with the United States.

The commission was tasked with reviewing ties with Washington after errant airstrikes four months ago killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and prompted Islamabad to close its borders to U.S. and NATO supply lines to neighboring Afghanistan.

The incident presented an opportunity for the army — furious at the Americans and under public pressure following the U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden last year that was seen in Pakistan as a violation of the country's sovereignty — to gain a negotiating advantage in its turbulent relationship with Washington.

American officials hope the oft-delayed review will lead to the reopening of the supply lines.
"The U.S. must review its footprints in Pakistan," commission head Raza Rabbani said, reading the recommendations. "This means the cessation of drone strikes inside Pakistan."

This demand could complicate efforts to rebuild the relationship. However, the commission didn't say the supply lines should be permanently closed, as many Pakistanis would like, but rather that the government should charge the U.S. and NATO more money for the privilege.

Washington wants to rebuild its relationship with Pakistan, whose cooperation is seen as key to the success of striking a deal with insurgents in neighboring Afghanistan. Also, the supply lines are important for transporting fuel and other non-lethal goods to troops, and will be crucial to trucking out equipment as the U.S. draws down its forces.

The joint session of parliament was expected to immediately debate the recommendations, but that was shelved after opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said his party needed time to study them. He hinted the party could reject them, possibly causing more delays to U.S. hopes of a speedy resumption of ties. The issue is to be debated again on Monday.

The army, and to a lesser extent the civilian government, will ultimately decide whether to restore ties with the United States, but parliament could influence the decision. Analysts say placing the issue before lawmakers was to give the government and the army some political cover, s
o they could claim the support of the country before quietly reopening the supply routes.

"If drone attacks really are stopped and the national sovereignty is really ensured we can approve the recommendations," said opposition leader Khan. "Otherwise we are not ready to give any authority to this government to take decisions under the garb of parliament."

The recommendations said any new agreement on the supply lines should have a clause stipulating their closure in the event that Pakistan's sovereignty is violated by the U.S. or NATO, but didn't explicitly mention drone strikes in this regard.

The demand for an "unconditional apology" for the November attacks could also complicate the rebuilding of ties.

Washington has expressed regret for the border incident, but avoided formally saying sorry. U.S. officials were reportedly preparing to apologize last month, but had to postpone the plan after U.S. soldiers burnt copies of the Quran in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama apologized for that, earning him criticism from political opponents. He also apologized after an American soldier last week allegedly killed 16 Afghan villagers in a shooting spree.

The drone strikes are unpopular among Pakistanis and have long been publicly opposed by the Pakistani army and government, which maintain they fan support for militancy even as they kill insurgents also targeting Islamabad. But their frequency has dropped significantly in recent months, which makes them less politically charged.

The issue is muddied, however, by the fact that in private the army has approved at least some of the strikes, and provided intelligence on them, raising questions over whether they technically violate the sovereignty of the country. American officials rarely talk about the program in public.

"This is neither the first time, not will it be last, that the parliament has demanded an end to drone strikes," said Samina Ahmed, who heads the International Crisis Group in Pakistan. "This is more performance than substance. The military is still the key actor as far as security policy is concerned."

She said the security establishment had "no expectation" that the drone strikes would end.
Privately U.S. officials have said the drone strikes are key to the war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, and Washington is unlikely to permanently stop them.

Pakistan, which had supported the Afghan Taliban, sided with the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, earning it billions of dollars and ending its international isolation. It needs American assistance to keep its economy afloat, while the U.S. needs its help in reaching a deal with the Afghan Taliban, whose leaders are believed to be on its soil and subject to the influence of its security forces.

Gen. James Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command, said earlier this month he expected to visit Pakistan in mid-to-late March to talk with leaders about reopening the supply routes. His would be the first trip by a U.S. military official since the airstrikes, and will be taken as a high-level sign that Pakistan's army leadership wants to re-engage.

US Lawmakers Reject Pakistani Calls to End Drone Strikes | News | English

American lawmakers are rejecting renewed calls by Pakistan for an end to U.S.-sponsored drone strikes in the country.

Tuesday, a Pakistani government commission demanded an end to U.S. military strikes conducted by unmanned, remote-controlled aircraft known as drones. Asked by VOA if the United States should heed Pakistan’s wishes, Independent Senator Joe Lieberman was blunt.

"No. The drone strikes are critically important to America's national security. So obviously I do not believe they should stop,” he said.

Drone attacks are credited with eliminating scores of terrorists and radical militants in Pakistani territory near the border with Afghanistan. The program began under former-President George W. Bush and has been expanded dramatically under President Barack Obama.

In a report read to Pakistan’s parliament, a government commission described drone attacks as counterproductive, alleging the strikes radicalize local populations, create support for terrorists, and fuel anti-American sentiment.

The drones are needed, however, absent a more aggressive effort by Pakistan to root out terrorists and radical militants, according to Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“I think the key is whether Pakistan will go into North Waziristan and other places and take out those terrorist leaders who are essentially fueling and leading attacks against our troops in Afghanistan," she said. "I think that is the outstanding issue, which determines if Pakistan will take the action and shut down the bomb factories and go after the [terrorist] leadership - then the drone is not necessary.”

Pakistan has long complained that drone attacks are a violation of national sovereignty. Although Pakistan has never given the United States formal permission to carry out aerial strikes, the attacks are believed to be carried out with some degree of cooperation by Pakistani intelligence.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he is mindful of Pakistan’s objections.

“I do believe sovereignty is, obviously, a big issue for any country. But I would like to see Pakistan embrace the idea that extremism has no welcome home in Pakistan. The day that the Pakistani people, though their government, will tell extremists 'You are not welcome here' is [would be] a breakthrough for the people of Pakistan," said Graham.

Graham said that drone strikes have been effective and that, in his words, “it is not in Pakistan's long-term interest to be seen by the world-at-large as a safe haven for terrorists.”

The Parliament has spoken - now government should enforce the shooting down of drones whether or not the US lawmakers reject it. The Pakistani lawmakers have said so - go defend yourself.

We have to see now whether the Pakistan government listen to Pakistani lawmakers or American lawmakers.

 

[Awesome]

The sovereignty mantra: Pakistan says no accord with US on drone strikes – The Express Tribune

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Friday denied reports that it was willing to agree on a joint mechanism with the United States to carry out drone strikes in tribal regions to take out ‘high value’ targets associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban.

“We have been saying all along that Pakistan’s sovereignty is non-negotiable. Therefore, we cannot think of, let alone accept any arrangement whereby our sovereignty is compromised,” Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit told a weekly briefing.
Drone strikes inside Pakistan are illegal and these should be stopped, he demanded.

“Moreover, we firmly believe that these strikes are damaging our efforts against militancy and terrorism,” Basit said.

The US policy of using unmanned aerial vehicles in the tribal regions has stoked widespread anti-American sentiments in Pakistan. And even though Islamabad has publically condemned drone attacks repeatedly, it is believed to have an understating on the issue with Washington. The spokesman, however, denied the existence of such an understanding, insisting that the government had been pushing the US to revisit its policy of using drones in the tribal areas.

“We have been taking this issue forcefully with the US and with other Western countries. But, unfortunately, that has not happened,” Basit said, adding that Pakistan would take up the matter with the US once Parliament completes its review to rewrite terms of engagements with the US.

US-Taliban talks

The spokesperson was not taken aback by the Afghan Taliban’s decision to pull out of talks with the US. “Reconciliation in Afghanistan is not a linear process. Since it is intricate and complex, ups and downs will be inevitable,” he said.

He went on to add that it was important for all stakeholders to be patient, perseverant and sincere to the purpose of reconciliation, adding that everyone’s eyes should be on the objective which is to achieve a sovereign, independent, peaceful and stable Afghanistan.

In this spirit, he said, Pakistan would continue encouraging all parties towards an intra-Afghan consensus to achieve a durable political settlement that accords with the aspirations of the people of Afghanistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 17th, 2012.

 

[darkinsky]

its like the ministry of health advertising in cigrette packets that 'cigrette is harmful to your health'

 

[Solomon2]

The Parliament has spoken - now government should enforce the shooting down of drones -

That would violate Pakistan's binding sovereign obligation under international law as established by the UN Security Council's post-9/11 Resolutions and probably result in a near-automatic classification of Pakistan as a terror state.

We have to see now whether the Pakistan government listen to Pakistani lawmakers or American lawmakers.

I don't see why everyone here shouldn't treat parliament's declaration with the supreme disdain it deserves: while U.S. and Pakistani forces are out there battling terrorists Pakistani parliamentarians refuse to take open political risks even as Wikileaks demonstrated that the drones operate with their secret acquiescence and within the limits the civilian and military leadership prescribe.

That means Pakistan's national honor is just about zero, yes? It must be a bitter thing to be an ordinary Pakistani soldier or policeman, knowing that you may be betrayed by your leadership at any moment, sent into battle as cannon fodder rather than to seek victory, or arresting terrorists only to have them released back to the street...

 

[VCheng]

Drone strikes are likley going to continue, unless Pakistan undertakes a massive cleanup operation on its own:

from: Going forward | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

Going forward
From the Newspaper
Editorial | 21st March, 2012


The Parliamentary Committee on National Security’s recommendations on the US-Pakistan relationship contain at least one major new and positive suggestion and at least one significant sticking point. Perhaps the most promising change Senator Rabbani laid out was not just tactical or strategic but philosophical, calling for greater transparency in the US-Pakistan relationship — a transparency overseen by the civilian set-up. On-paper agreements would replace the verbal understandings that have defined the terms of the relationship over the last decade. These would then go through the ministries concerned, including the law ministry, the PCNS, the cabinet and parliament. Slower progress would be an inevitable result, and the security establishment would still play a significant role behind the scenes. But if implemented, and defined in a manner that minimises red tape, this new framework could be a giant leap forward for transparency in the US-Pakistan relationship, the way the Pakistani public perceives the relationship and the strength of civilian institutions.

One particular recommendation does, however, have the potential to become a major roadblock. The PCNS called, more categorically than the parliamentary resolution passed after the Osama bin Laden raid, for an end to drone strikes. But if the terms of these strikes can be renegotiated to ensure that Pakistani sovereignty is not violated, and to minimise non-combatant casualties, it would be worth reconsidering. Drones reach areas the army cannot and cause fewer casualties than traditional air strikes. They have demonstrated their usefulness to Pakistan by taking out Baitullah Mehsud, then Pakistan’s public enemy number one. A more pragmatic approach would be to try to reach an agreement on the frequency of strikes — it would have to be brought down permanently from the pre-Salala level — and on sufficient Pakistani involvement in identifying targets and planning attacks. The risk of adopting the recommendations’ language and calling for an unqualified end to them in a parliamentary resolution is also that they may well continue despite these efforts, embarrassing the civilian set-up and further inflaming public opinion.

Most other demands, while asserting Pakistani sovereignty, have already been stated before or seem more doable. Calls for redrafting agreements on supply routes will come as no surprise here or in Washington. The apology on Salala could well come from the US military, if not from President Obama. Other issues might turn out to be more problematic, including the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline and greater transparency about potential American intelligence activities in Pakistan. In considering these, parliament will have to strike a tricky balance between looking out for Pakistan’s interests and preventing the dissolution of a critical relationship. Sovereignty is important, but Pakistan cannot afford not to be pragmatic.

 

[hunter_hunted]

Give me a second I have to do HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
More HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Look there in the sky is it DRONE bhago bhago . Seems more innocent civilians or gonna die . Thanku Parliament of the thugs and scums

 

[mdcp]

Thanks parlimentarians we must stand firm and say no to american atrocities
Lockerbie for few people libya paid billions of dollars, we should claims for each n every body, their lives, injuries, property etc
We should present our case in internationsl criminal court, we must not hesitate and stay united

 

[Solomon2]

Thanks parlimentarians we must stand firm and say no to american atrocities
Lockerbie for few people libya paid billions of dollars, we should claims for each n every body, their lives, injuries, property etc
We should present our case in internationsl criminal court, we must not hesitate and stay united

Don't you get it? Pakistan can't bring suit in any court because in this regard it has no standing as a sovereign state!

 

[Pakistanisage]

The Parliament has spoken so now it is the responsibility of Pakistan Armed Forces to carry out the Will of the Nation and protect its Sovreignty. If that means shooting down the Drones , so be it.

People like you should be shot. Seriously.

He is nothing but a damn TROLL and the best thing is to ignore this Troll.

 

[darkinsky]

That would violate Pakistan's binding sovereign obligation under international law as established by the UN Security Council's post-9/11 Resolutions and probably result in a near-automatic classification of Pakistan as a terror state.

are you on the finest drugs made in Tel Aviv??

dealings and negotiations with talibans didnt classify US as a terror state

 

[Solomon2]

are you on the finest drugs made in Tel Aviv??

The Secretary-General has quietly tried to get Pakistan (that is, your parliament) to change its laws to comply with the new standards but has always been rebuffed. Why do you think every Pakistani complaint to the U.N. about sovereignty violations is met with deaf ears?

 

[VCheng]

The Parliament has spoken so now it is the responsibility of Pakistan Armed Forces to carry out the Will of the Nation and protect its Sovreignty. If that means shooting down the Drones , so be it.
.................

Not yet. The parliamentary debate is not yet complete, so the final outcome is still not known. Let's see what they finalize.

 

[darkinsky]

The Secretary-General has quietly tried to get Pakistan (that is, your parliament) to change its laws to comply with the new standards but has always been rebuffed. Why do you think every Pakistani complaint to the U.N. about sovereignty violations is met with deaf ears?

because UN is not wag its tail till its fund raiser i-e america says

pakistan is itself responsible for not responding the violations i-e shooting down the violator

 

[lem34]

Not yet. The parliamentary debate is not yet complete, so the final outcome is still not known. Let's see what they finalize.

Yes lets see.