WASHINGTON: The United States needs to hammer out a new drone deal with Pakistan as the Nawaz Sharif government is unlikely to continue the current policy of plausible deniability, says a US think-tank report released on Wednesday.

The report by Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, says that the new deal will have to be sensitive to Pakistan’s concerns and objectives.

“This will likely mean that Washington will face new constraints in its counter-terrorism operations. But managed with care, a new agreement could put the targeted killing campaign against Al Qaeda on firmer political footing without entirely eliminating its effectiveness,” he argues.

The report claims that before launching the first drone strike in June 2004, the United States sought personal authorisation from then president and army chief Pervez Musharraf. For several years thereafter, the Pakistani army claimed responsibility for all drone strikes, publicly denying American intervention.

The PPP government and the army under Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani — continued to green light the drone programme.

But this arrangement is unlikely to survive much longer in its current form because the new government will not want to continue it, says the author.

In September, Pakistan will have a new president and a new army chief and if Washington continues the strikes without a new deal, “one can imagine Sharif’s new army chief threatening to shoot US drones from the sky”.

And at that stage, “Washington would likely pull the drones from normal operation rather than play a high-stakes game of chicken.”

While discussing various options for a better understanding between the United States and Pakistan over the drones, the author says that in a new arrangement, Washington will be required to seek Islamabad’s pre-authorisation for specific targets and zones for strikes.

The two sides should also draw a list of potential targets and establish a mechanism for reviewing claims of civilian losses. The arrangement should include provisions for providing appropriate compensation, as the United States has done in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Opinion

Rule by law

Rule by law

‘The rule of law’ is being weaponised, taking on whatever meaning that fits the political objectives of those invoking it.

Editorial

Isfahan strikes
20 Apr, 2024

Isfahan strikes

THE Iran-Israel shadow war has very much come out into the open. Tel Aviv had been targeting Tehran’s assets for...
President’s speech
20 Apr, 2024

President’s speech

PRESIDENT Asif Ali Zardari seems to have managed to hit all the right notes in his address to the joint sitting of...
Karachi terror
20 Apr, 2024

Karachi terror

IS urban terrorism returning to Karachi? Yesterday’s deplorable suicide bombing attack on a van carrying five...
X post facto
Updated 19 Apr, 2024

X post facto

Our decision-makers should realise the harm they are causing.
Insufficient inquiry
19 Apr, 2024

Insufficient inquiry

UNLESS the state is honest about the mistakes its functionaries have made, we will be doomed to repeat our follies....
Melting glaciers
19 Apr, 2024

Melting glaciers

AFTER several rain-related deaths in KP in recent days, the Provincial Disaster Management Authority has sprung into...