After having shot down Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s demand for American intervention on the Kashmir issue, the Obama administration appears to have poured cold water on the second big item on his wish list – ending US drone strikes in Pakistan.
On the eve of Sharif’s meeting with President Barack Obama, set to take place later on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney strongly defended the use of drones as part of the counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan’s terror sanctuaries bordering Afghanistan, terming them “lawful” and “effective”.
The categorical American line on both Kashmir and drones, however, seemed unlikely to restrain Sharif from making a renewed push on both these issues during his meeting with Obama. Sharif indicated as much in his remarks at a Washington think-tank on Monday.
Virtually ignoring the American snub on Kashmir, Sharif told the US Institute of Peace (USIP): “With its growing influence in India, the US now has the capacity to do more, to help the two sides resolve their core disputes, including Kashmir, and in promoting a culture of cooperation.” Soon after Sharif’s remarks on the subject in london over the weekend while on way to Washington, US officials had made it clear that there was “not an iota of change” in America’s policy on Kashmir, stating that it was for India and Pakistan to determine the “pace, scope and character” of their dialogue on this matter.
But at USIP, Sharif, labelling Kashmir a “flashpoint” for the region and the world, spoke of the role that the US has “historically played in defusing tensions between Pakistan and India” as he continued with Pakistan’s never-say-die push for American intervention. Sharif, however, was quick to reject the Indian description of Pakistan as “the epicentre of terrorism”, commenting that “Pakistan itself has been a major victim of terrorism for over a decade”.
As for the drone strikes, Sharif said: “This issue has become a major irritant in our (Pakistan-US) bilateral relations. I would therefore stress the need for an end to the drone attacks. In my first statement to the parliament, I had reiterated our strong commitment to ensuring an end to the drone attacks.” “More recently, our political parties in a national conference had declared that the use of drones is not only a continued violation of our territorial integrity, but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country,” he said.
Sharif appeared emboldened to pursue his strong line against drones as two major human rights organisations – Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch – came out with a report, terming the US drone operations in Pakistan and Yemen a violation of human rights that could even be classified as a war crime. But the White House more or less brushed aside the charges by the two bodies, with spokesman Carney asserting: “US counterterrorism operations are precise, they are lawful, and they are effective.”
“The United States does not take lethal strikes when we or our partners have the ability to capture individual terrorists. Our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute. We take extraordinary care to make sure that our counterterrorism actions are in accordance with all applicable domestic and international law and that they are consistent with US values and US policy,” Carney said.
Speaking a wide gap between US assessments of civilian casualties and nongovernmental reports, he said: “To the extent these reports claim that the U.S. has acted contrary to international law, we would strongly disagree. The administration has repeatedly emphasized the extraordinary care that we take to make sure counterterrorism actions are in accordance with all applicable law.”
Drawing attention to Obama’s legal and policy framework for the US counterterrorism strategy, Carney said the President has addressed why the US might resort to drone strikes, noting: “Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones and are likely to cause more civilian casualties and more local outrage.”