THE PML-N government has taken a strong position on drones arguing that drone strikes are against international law. The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf has been even more critical of US drones strikes. Anchorpersons in talk shows have come down very hard on the US administration.

I have participated in several of these shows and have stated that international law does not permit the use of drones. But what is the US narrative for using drones and what are its implications for Pakistan? Not much has been discussed in this regard.The US says that its legal status is one where it is in an armed conflict with non-state actors namely Al Qaeda and its associates and that it will target them anywhere using all means, including drones, under the doctrine of self-defence. Obviously, we in Pakistan disagree as this goes against international law.

Various states support Pakistan’s position as does the UN secretary general. Amnesty International’s report listing incidents of drone attacks further strengthen Pakistan’s position. Let’s see what the Americans are saying in the white paper leaked some time ago to a news channel. More recently, they have been quoted in a preliminary report on drones by UN special rapporteur Ben Emmerson.

They say Pakistan has an obligation to make sure that its territories are not used by a non-state actor against any other state. In this regard, Americans have recently referred to UN Security Council Resolution 1373. They make a point and we need to recognise this. In fact it is not a point made by the US only; it is a well-recognised position under international and UN law.

Under the said resolution, Pakistan has an obligation to take all measures — in our case it means effective police or military operations, proper legislation and strengthening the criminal justice system and political will by KP and the centre —to fight terrorism.

If this is not done, then the argument goes that Pakistan is falling short of its international obligations. On this point, I personally do not agree. But the fact remains that our point of view is not stopping the gradual build-up of this narrative.

It must be remembered that Imran Khan and Mian Nawaz Sharif together are in charge of the theatre of war. They are in charge of what the Americans see as the hub of terrorism. Both Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif have to shoulder the burden of discharging their international obligations under the UN law in 1373. It is no longer a political choice. It is a legal compulsion. Although Pakistan is not responsible for the individual acts of non-state actors outside its territorial boundaries since they cannot be attributed to the state, this does not mean any softening of the country’s obligations under international law in terms of clearing its territory of militants.

The US and Pakistan have a clear divergence of approach when it comes to countering terrorism. The US is going for a ‘war approach’, whereas Pakistan prefers the ‘law enforcement approach’. The US prefers to kill suspected terrorists through drones, or through other direct means. Pakistan claims it wants to arrest them and prosecute them and thus bring them to justice.

Even action in aid of civil power is actually a law enforcement approach since the state is using the Constitution to enforce its writ. Take the case of Osama bin Laden. The US carried out an unauthorised raid and killed him. But we argue that instead of killing Bin Laden, the US should have given us the needed information to arrest him and bring him to justice.

The US reliance on the war approach has increased with the passage of time. There are hardly any reports of the US arresting suspected terrorists in Yemen, or Afghanistan or Iraq and trying them in the US or elsewhere. The prosecution of suspected terrorists has been de-emphasised by the US. Instead, we witness escalated drone strikes and the outright killing of terrorists.

If Pakistan wants a law-enforcement approach and rightly rejects the war approach, then it has to ensure that its legal system is sufficiently strong and backed by proper legislation and is geared to deliver much better than the approach adopted by the Americans.

All this means that the KP and federal governments urgently focus on strengthening counterterrorism measures. After the 18th Amendment, the responsibility of the provincial government has increased manifold to streamline and strengthen the criminal justice system in KP, Fata and Pata. In doing so, it must coordinate properly with the centre.

But we do not see very many signs of such coordination. Both governments need to decide on who will make which laws. Who will work out the logistics of criminal proceedings? The government concerned needs to recruit investigating officers and prosecutors on a very large scale. It needs infrastructure.

It needs to convincingly demonstrate to the world that its criminal justice system has the capacity to effectively prosecute the 5,000 to 6,000 suspects that are detained in internment centres — also in Karachi following the Rangers operations. The prosecution of these suspects is going to be one of the largest and most ambitious exercise of its kind anywhere in the world.

If we are able to convincingly demonstrate to the world that our systems are strong and we can neutralise the terrorists through a criminal justice framework then the American narrative will fail to win a larger audience. On the other hand, if we are unable to do so then the international community will start paying more attention to the US narrative which eventually will strengthen the justification for using drones.

In other words, if the PML-N and PTI want to reduce American temptation for intervention through unmanned aerial vehicles, they must put together their resources and vision to upgrade the criminal justice system of Pakistan without losing further time.

The writer is a former caretaker law minister.

ahmersoofi@hotmail.com