His comments in a CNN interview screened on Thursday night follow US media claims this week that Pakistani officials were for years intimately involved in the US drone campaign in the country. The unexpected admission breaks Pakistan's policy of blanket denial of involvement. Last month following a visit to Islamabad Ben Emmerson QC, the UN's special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, said he had been given assurances that there was no "tacit consent by Pakistan to the use of drones on its territory".
For its part the Obama administration has defended the legality of its drone activities and said strikes are conducted only with consent from the states involved.
Musharraf said Pakistan gave permission "only on a few occasions, when a target was absolutely isolated and [there was] no chance of collateral damage".
He said the strikes were discussed "at the military [and] intelligence level" and cleared only if "there was no time for our own [special operations task force] and military to act. That was … maybe two or three times only".
Musharraf added: "You couldn't delay action. These ups and downs kept going … it was a very fluid situation, a vicious enemy … mountains, inaccessible areas."
Pakistani denials of involvement have been questionable since the WikiLeaks disclosure of a 2008 diplomatic cable in which the US ambassador Anne Patterson mentioned a discussion about drone strikes during a meeting with the then interior minister, Rehman Malik, and the then prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani.
Last year Pakistan's parliament declared all drone strikes illegal, which activists argue overrides any secret arrangements that might still exist with the US. There have been reports that the CIA sends regular faxes to Pakistan's military spy agency, notifying them of the general areas where drones will operate.
The issue of whether Pakistan has approved US drone strikes on militants is a key issue in determining the legality of the strikes under international conflict law.
On Tuesday US media firm McClatchy reported on a review of US intelligence reports that it claimed confirmed for the first time the existence of a long-term arrangement between the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), under which US drones were used against Pakistani Taliban militants at the ISI's request in exchange for helping the US to identify and hit al-Qaida targets.
According to McClatchy: "That partnership was so extensive during the Bush administration that the Pakistani intelligence agency selected its own targets for drone strikes. Until mid-2008 the CIA had to obtain advance approval before each attack, and under both administrations the Pakistanis received briefings and videos of the strikes."
The collaboration was continuing as late as 2010, documents reportedly show, although an ISI veto on targets had by then been removed. The McClatchy claims followed a report in the New York Times last week based on a dozen interviews with US and Pakistani officials, offering a detailed depiction of the beginning of secret co-operation between the ISI and CIA over the Pakistani drone campaign.
The claims appear to have made Pakistan's policy of denial unsustainable. What is puzzling, however, is why Musharraf chose to break precedent, beset as he is by multiple court cases and a distinct lack of popular enthusiasm for his election campaign, which he kicked off last month by returning to Pakistan after more than four years of self-imposed exile.
Shahzad Akbar, a lawyer and Pakistan's most prominent anti-drones activist, said the remarks would potentially change the legal status of only a handful of strikes, and not the vast majority that occurred after Musharraf stood down in 2008.
"The only thing it changes is we have one more person to sue, one more person to bring cases against," he said.
Akbar, who is awaiting the verdict in a case at the Peshawar high court that is likely to declare drone strikes illegal and order Pakistan to pay compensation to people killed by the attacks, said he would explore whether Musharraf could be prosecuted for "waging a war against Pakistan".
"Either he is extremely stupid and doesn't realise what he's doing, or he knows that there is nothing left and it was a big mistake to come back to Pakistan," Akbar said. "He's giving the US a leeway on the legality of drone strikes, he is looking for a safe passage out."
Read article here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment