The Pak-US relations have seen many ups and downs in the past. Never in history has any super power felt so free as to put in question an ally’s sovereignty. The state of affairs is such that the leadership of Pakistan is crying foul at frequent violation of its airspace by the American drones, but it finds no receptive ears in Washington. The hard realities of international politics apart, what is at stake is the basic principle around which the security of the state is evolved and evaluated: sovereignty.
Since the modern state appeared in Europe in 1648, only to proliferate outside of the region through imperialism, the security doctrine has revolved around the concept of sovereignty —vested either in the hands of crown or parliament (a representative body of the people). The sovereign principle recognises the right of a nation to retaliate in the face of aggression. America is simply violating this principle despite condemnations from the other side. Interestingly enough Pakistan is also not utilising the military and diplomatic means to discourage the drone attacks.
Pakistan can take up the matter, if the government wants so, at any international forum. Diplomacy can be given a chance when it lacks military means to confront the most powerful nation on earth. But keeping the issue alive but taking no meaningful steps to resolve it raises the level of frustration among the general public.
Since there is a civilian government in power, it is natural that it has to be accountable to the parliament. It has to respond queries as to why the US is taking so much liberty that it kills people on Pakistan’s territory and destroys homes at its sweet will. Since government denies existence of any agreement with the US that gives it a right to violate its sovereignty, it is quite natural that it should condemn and protest over the matter whenever it occurs.
It is a fact that Pakistan, during most part of its existence, has been the US ally — supporting it to carry outs its certain foreign policy objectives. Once it was the Soviet Union which America was against, it is Al-Qaeda that is its concern right now. Pakistan has gained certain benefits from the partnership with the US. The frontline role, as it is mostly termed, has enabled it to overcome fiscal deficits and feed and equip its oversized army.
The US kicked Soviets out from Afghanistan by using Pakistan’s territory as a base camp. Jihadis, coming not only from all parts of Pakistan but also the rest of the ‘Muslim world’, were fed, trained and equipped in FATA and sent to Afghanistan to wage war against the infidels. The US, along with its allies pumped billions of dollars into Pakistan. The state remained tolerant towards the jihadi culture the religious groups of militant orientations promoted during the 1980s.
Though the US withdrew its support from Pakistan after the end of Cold War and subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union, civilian governments, that dominated the political scenario in 1990s, did not deem it fit to demilitarised FATA and demobilise jihadis. Neither the PPP nor the PML-N realised the need to change the policies of the Zia’s regime. Civil war in Afghanistan had probably discouraged these regimes from disturbing the status-quo. It is quite possible, as the leadership of these mainstream political parties has claimed time and again, that the civilian governments were denied any freedom to change the Afghan policy.
The US violated the Pakistani territory in the 1990s as well as its naval ships fired cruise missiles on an Al-Qaeda camp inside Afghanistan from the Arabian Sea. The Nawaz government did not react as energetically as the case is right now.
Pakistan did provide airbases and logistic support to the US and its allies when they attacked Taliban regime on the pretext that its host, Al-Qaeda, had masterminded 9/11 attacks. The US has been asking Pakistan to stop infiltration of militants into Afghan territory from the day one it entered into Afghanistan but it never violated its airspace until 2007 when Damandola incident took place.
Musharraf regime came under fire on the issue and it still remains one of the main reasons of his ouster from the country’s political scene. Drone attacks have continued despite the change of guards in Islamabad. Neither Pervez Musharraf nor Asif Ali Zardari has been able to convince the Americans how grave the matter of drones is.
The drone affair has not proved such a thorny issue that could dent the Pak-US relations. The reason lies in dependency Pakistan has developed on the US. Probably no country in the world has so much military and financial resources to help Pakistan to fund its huge bureaucracy and large army. Due to Pakistan’s dragging into international politics, there exists no necessary infrastructure to develop its own resources so that the dependency on the US is over. The tax-GDP ratio remains low and the well-off sections of the society are unwilling to contribute meaningfully to the national exchequer.
There is a problem and that too of very serious nature as far as the sovereignty of Pakistan is concerned. The public outrage is understandable and natural as well. The lower and middle-income groups are coerced to pay taxes more than their well-off counterparts but they get little in return. They are made to use substandard goods in the name of protecting domestic industry; they find the kitchen items and quality food beyond their reach with every passing day, for the government makes sure earnings by taxing the essential goods and the oil products.
The drone affair is quite frustrating for the general public. Neither the government endorses any sort of understanding with the US nor does it take up the matter at the appropriate forum to stop violation of its territory. The president and the premier of the country are urging on the US to stop drone attacks lest their government loses grounds on which it is waging war on militants. The Bush Administration does not understand that the success and failure of democracy hinges on the US attitude towards Pakistan’s sovereignty. It is yet to be seen as to how much the next regime, led by Barack Obama, proves sensible to this end.
