Song from Peshawar: "My gaze is as fatal as a drone attack".

A new romantic song by Pakistani singer Sitara Younis compares the gaze of a beautiful dancing girl to a drone attack. Both are equally fatal to men.

The appended video comes from the city of Peshawar. The song from a popular movie has some of the standard lyrics of love songs. There is mention of rosebuds and wine. The blaring music celebrates a temptress who has "sweet lips". Her smile is as fresh as early dew..However the repeated chorus is:

"My gaze is as fatal as a drone attack".

This hit for Younis follows upon another last year in which the temptress warns a drunken man to stay away:

"Don't chase me, I'm an illusion, a suicide bomb."

Khalid Jilanii a part time lyricist and professional driver said that singers and poets are more and more drawing upon the local situation for ideas and images. Jilani said:

"It's been a hit because people like the music and the movie that it was written for. Now you hear it all the time being played at wedding halls and in cars."

Younis's performance was getting many hits on You Tube before You Tube was shut down by the government due to anger over the anti-Islamic film trailer posted on the site.

The composer of the music Maas Wesal claims the drone reference has nothing to do with politics just that the eyes of a beautiful dancing temptress can destroy men just like a drone. Nevertheless the song shows that events in the adjacent tribal territories are being reflected in popular culture.

Music such as this would be suppressed in the tribal areas where the Taliban along with drones are active. However the music flourishes in Peshawar a vibrant and quite diverse city of over three and a half million people.

Bakhtar Khattack, a composer in Peshawar, said:

"In the last five years we have suffered a lot of losses because of this war. People hear about so many different incidents that it becomes part of their psyche. It is actually very destructive to our society that these things are being taken lightly and people are even dancing to these sorts of tunes."

Some critics believe the songs are harmful to Pashtun culture and want a board of censors to ban this type of material in spite of or perhaps because of its popularity. The Express Tribune newspaper said: "All in all, the war on terror in these tribal areas has not only become a part of their art, literature and cinema but even the Pashto tele-films, which are famous for vulgarity and Kalashnikov culture."

Although the Pashto is not translated in the video you can see the characters with Kalashnikov's in the background. The video is vibrant and vulgar and I expect to the Taliban quite unIslamic.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/333209#ixzz272hDG1Zg

Pakistani President Asif Zardari again demands U.S. end drone attacks

After talks with special envoy to Pakistan Marc Grossman, President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, called for an end to drone strikes on militants in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

A presidential spokesperson told reporters that Zardari and Grossman:

".. discussed bilateral relations, the fight against militancy, the regional situation, drug trafficking and drone attacks...(Zardari) reiterated his call for an end to the drone attacks, terming them counterproductive in the fight against militancy and in the battle of winning hearts..We need to discuss alternatives on the question of drone attacks,"

Zardari also said that the trust deficit between the two countries needed to be overcome to establish a long-term durable relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan. It is not at all clear how this trust relationship can be easily restored. The U.S. believes that at the very least Pakistani intelligence retains close relationships with the Haqqani network a group that mounts raids into Afghanistan from Pakistan.

Drone attacks are very unpopular in Pakistan as is the United States. There have been many demonstrations against the strikes in Pakistan claiming that the attacks are a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and often kill civilians. Zardari's statements against the attacks probably mean little. There have already been three different resolutions passed through the Pakistani parliament demanding the attacks cease. Ceasing attacks was also a condition of re-opening NATO transit routes through Pakistan. The routes have opened but there was a drone attack almost immediately after the re-opening as if to emphasize that there was no deal with respect to stopping drone attacks.

Grossman also spoke about trade relations saying that they should be based upon market access. The U.S is working on a bilateral investment deal that would improve market access and encourage U.S. investment in Pakistan. Grossman had talks with other Pakistani officials as well including the Foreign Minister, Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani, the Foreign Secretary, and some parliamentarians.

Grossman noted that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the anti-Islam film that has resulted in often violent demonstrations in numerous countries including Pakistan. Anti-U.S. feelings are already extremely high in Pakistan with over 90 per cent of Pakistanis considering the U.S. an enemy. This is one reason why Zardari demands that drone strikes cease while probably agreeing to them in private. Pakistan no doubt often provides intelligence to the U.S. for targeting purposes. As far as trust is concerned, Pakistan can trust the U.S. not to stop drone attacks in the tribal areas.

Top Pakistani official in UK criticizes drone attacks

      Wajid Hasan is Pakistan's High Commissioner to the UK government. He argues that the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas are weakening Pakistani democracy and create a risk that even more people will choose to join extremist groups. He also suggested that there are some in Washington who would prefer to work with one person rather than have to pass policies through parliament.
       Hasan said: ‘What has been the whole outcome of these drone attacks is, that you have rather directly or indirectly contributed to destabilizing or undermining the democratic government. Because people really make fun of the democratic government – when you pass a resolution against drone attacks in the parliament, and nothing happens. The Americans don’t listen to you, and they continue to violate your territory.’  ‘Please don’t embarrass us by violating our territory because people question why the hell we have such a huge standing army, where we spend so much on our national defence budget, when we can’t defend ourselves?’
  Although the Pakistani parliament passed several resolutions demanding the drone strikes stop and also made stopping strikes a condition for reopening NATO transit routes, the strikes did not stop. NATO transit routes have re-opened.
       Hasan realizes that Pakistan cannot really stop the drone strikes except he says through public opinion. If public opinion in Pakistan could have stopped the strikes they would have stopped long ago since over ninety percent of Pakistanis disapprove of the strikes.
  Sherry Rehman the Pakstaini Ambassador to the U.S. also continued the official Pakistani line:‘We will seek an end to drone strikes and there will be no compromise on that.’ The Pakistani armed forces heads as well as intelligence service officials are apparently trying to negotiate a deal that would allow Pakistani forces to carry out any strikes against terrorists. Such a deal is quite unlikely since the U.S. wants to attack some groups that may have links to Pakistani intelligence. The Pakistanis would not sanction attacks on them even by Pakistani armed forces.
 Hasan says that agreement is necessary because of the high anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan. However that sentiment has been present for ages and seems unlikely to have any effect on U.S. policy. It is U.S. domestic attitudes that count for U.S. policy makers and most Americans are concentrated on domestic issues. Pakistan is probably regarded as an unreliable ally and a recipient of undeserved aid if it is given any thought at all.
   Hasan noted that Pakistan is an ally in the fight against Islamic radicals and  that thousands of Pakistanis have died in terrorist attacks and many soldiers have been killed in trying to eliminate extremists.
Hasan claims drone attacks violate Pakistan's national sovereignty. However in the past it is clear that there has been implicit acceptance of the attacks by the government and armed forces. Perhaps this reality is changing although this not certain. If  it were the case Pakistan would hardly have re-opened NATO transit routes. For more see this article in Juan Cole's blog.

CNN continues ludicrous drone reporting style

 CIA drone attacks continue in Pakistani tribal areas in spite of several resolutions in the Pakistani parliament demanding they stop. CNN reports on drones continue to call the attacks "suspected" drone attacks and use anonymous officials as sources.
 CNN, The Cable News Network, is a large U.S. based media outlet. CNN is in turn owned by giant Time Warner. "Time Warner is an American multinational media corporation headquartered in the Time Warner Center in New York City..As of mid-2010, it was the world's second largest media and entertainment conglomerate in terms of revenue (behind Disney), as well as the world's largest media conglomerate ."
Even with these impressive credentials CNN does not fear to sound ridiculous as it joins the media parade of drone drivel. Recently in a headline CNN reports:"Suspected drone attack kills 12 in Pakistan"
 Everyone knows that it was a drone attack and that it was directed by the CIA on behalf of the U.S. The CNN however feels duty bound to follow the position of the U.S. that to officially admit that this program exists or does not exist would endanger U.S. security. CNN is just carrying out its patriotic duty.
CNN is much more patriotic than President Obama or Defense Secretary Leon Panetta who have not only talked about the program but defended and boasted about it. The body of the CNN report notes that their information comes from two unidentified Pakistani intelligence officers. The officers cannot be identified since they were not authorized to talk to CNN.
"" A suspected U.S. drone strike killed 12 militants Monday evening in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan, two Pakistani intelligence officials told CNN.""
 Note that CNN even when reporting what the two Pakistani intelligence officials told them put in the term "suspected" before "U.S. drone strike". Were the Pakistani intelligence officers really so cautious? The targets are now clearly identified as militants but only through the testimony of the anonymous Pakistani officials. There is no independent verification.
 Not all sources are as careful as CNN. Antiwar.com simply says straight out. "US Drone Strike Kills 13 in North Waziristan " The site does not go on to label those killed as suspected militants but instead remarks: "None of the people killed in the attack have been identified, but all were predictably labeled suspects by officials." Most reports list targets as militants or suspected militants. However there are reports of attacks that are different but they are rare.
 The Muslim News in the UK reports on a drone attack in Afghanistan: Afghanistan:"US drone attack kills young girl and 5 others " This headline contrasts with the constant refrain of militants or suspected militants being killed common in most mass media reports on the strikes. Of course this headline is propaganda too. Propaganda however can be true. It is the spin and the function that make the reports propaganda.
The Muslim News report actually says in the body of the report that four of those killed were Taliban commanders according to officials." Four Taliban commanders and two civilians were killed in a drone attack carried out by the international troops in eastern Nuristan province on Monday, officials said."
 Unlike the mass media professionals in the mainstream press this source actually names officials rather than citing anonymous official sources." The incident took place at around 12:30 pm in Want Waigal district, when the individuals were travelling on a passenger vehicle to the district centre, Governor Tamim Nuristani, told Pajhwok Afghan News." and" Police chief, Col. Ghulamullah Nuristani, identified the dead rebel commanders as Habibullah alias Dadullah, Mullah Yahiya Rakiti, Younus and Haroon"
 In contrast the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) media office confirmed the attack but provided no details. While the Muslim News does try to evoke sympathy for some victims in their headline compared to CNN their overall report is much more specific and better sourced. For more see here, and here

Pakistan and U.S. nowhere near a deal on drone attacks

    The Pakistani parliament has several times passed motions demanding that U.S. drone attacks cease. Cessation of drone strikes was also made a condition of reopening NATO transit routes  through Pakistan to Afghanistan. However after Hillary Clinton apologized for a border incident in which 24 Pakistani troops were killed Pakistan reopened thee routes. The drone attacks did not cease. A drone attack was launched shortly after the reopening.
      Since the attacks continued after the NATO routes were reopened it appeared that perhaps Pakistan had tacitly agreed to the attacks. Sherry Rehman the Pakistani ambassador has vehemently denied this and reaffirmed Pakistan's opposition drone attacks as a violation of its sovereignty.
    Negotiations between the U.S. and Pakistan on some type of compromise deal on drones have been ongoing. However a senior official said::. “Cessation of drones is still a high priority for us in the dialogue with the US, but I’m afraid we are nowhere near a deal on the issue,”  “But we’ll keep talking to them about it,” 
   The defense committed of the Pakistani cabinet said after a meeting on July 3 that Pakistan“will continue to engage the US on counter-terrorism co-operation and counter-terrorism tools that are in line with international law and practice”  There have been recent meetings between Pakistani foreign minister Hina Khar and U.S. Secretary of  State Hillary Clinton..
  Just days before the July 3rd deal to reopen transit routes Pakistan suggested that there were alternatives to using drone strikes in the tribal areas although officials did not disclose exactly what they were. Foreign Office spokesperson Mozzam Khan said:“Pakistan’s position on drone attacks is very clear, and very clearly stated. This is an issue and both countries want to resolve it in a mutually acceptable manner,”  The drone attacks are quite unpopular in Pakistan. In the past the government has criticized the attacks in public while tacitly agreeing to them behind the scenes.
     Since the U.S. is adamant that the attacks continue a deal seems unlikely. However it is possible that if Pakistan is given more control over targeting and attacks launched only with Pakistani agreement a deal could be reached. However the U.S. is not likely to be agreeable to cede that much power to Pakistan.

Reports on drone strikes often misleading

 News sources differ in the precise wording they choose to use in reports. This article illustrates these differences in reports on drone strikes in Pakistan.

 For several years the CIA has been launching drone attacks on targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Almost everyone knows this. However the official position of the CIA is that to even assert or deny the existence of these attacks could endanger the security of the U.S. Important officials including President Obama and the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have acknowledged the attacks and even boasted about them. Nevertheless the official position is "" The Central Intelligence Agency continues to refuse to confirm or deny the covert military use of drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas, despite President Barack Obama’s and even a former CIA director’s admission of the agency’s targeted killing program. ""


While this position appears ludicrous it has a rational function and that is to block the release of any information about the program. At the same time any information that the administration wants released for propaganda purposes can be leaked or announced. The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times attempted to obtain information about the strikes through the Department of Justice with no success. They have now turned to the courts. The case is continuing but the Obama administration has tried to have the request for documents denied."" The Obama administration has sought to block the release of documents related to its use of robot drones to strike suspected terrorists overseas, claiming that it can still not admit that the secretive programme of targeted killing exists"".
The official policy is often quite visible in reports of drone attacks. The language used in reports often avoids mentioning that the attacks are by the U.S. Phrases used vary. Some sources speak of "suspected U.S. drone attacks". Other sources simply speak of "drone attacks" with no reference as to who might have launched them. Here for example is a headline from 2010 in CNN."Drone attack kills 20 in Pakistan" Even back in 2010 some sources must have thought it ridiculous to not attribute the attacks to the U.S. A Reuters report headline from 2010 is as follows."" U.S. drone strikes kill 18 militants in Pakistan"" However in the body of the report Reuters notes that the headline statement is according to Pakistan intelligence officials. Reuters itself is simply reporting what anonymous officials said and are not themselves affirming or denying that the U.S. launched the attacks.

 CNN is still in 2012 going along with the official story even while many outlets have moved on. CNN reports recently with a headline that speaks only of a drone attack:"" 20 dead in drone attack in Pakistan ""Even when reporting what a Pakistani intelligence official said the word "suspected" is inserted before "U.S. drone strike""" A suspected U.S. drone strike killed 20 people in North Waziristan, a region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, a Pakistani intelligence official told CNN Friday""

. Usually those killed in the attacks are described as militants or suspected militants or not described at all. The CNN report cited above reports that an intelligence official claims that 20 people were killed but has no description of the victims. The Reuters report cited earlier has a headline reporting that 18 militants were killed. Only later does the report note that this is according to Pakistani intelligence officials. Pakistani intelligence officials are not likely to report civilian deaths or women and children as victims. Reports of drone strikes rarely report any civilian deaths. Even if there are such reports they will be from local people and will often conflict with official statements. Estimates of how many civilians are killed by drone strikes in Pakistan vary.. Officials often give very low estimates. However the Bureau of Investigative Journalism studied the issue at some length.""Based on extensive research, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.""

 Most reports on drone strikes provide no evidence of civilian deaths. Those killed are militants or suspected militants. Victims are identified only if they are believed to be significant militant leaders. Mainstream media reports on drone strikes seem designed to mislead the reader.

Pakistan agrees to reopen NATO supply routes

     The routes have been closed since last November when a U.S. raid killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Among the conditions for reopening the routes was an apology for this event. Hilary Clinton is reported to have apologized in a telephone conversation with Hina Khat the Pakistani Foreign Minister. '
   Clinton said:. "We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again." Sherry Rehman the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. said:. "We appreciate Secretary Clinton's statement, and hope that bilateral ties can move to a better place from here. I am confident that both countries can agree on many critical issues, especially on bringing peace to the region,"
    There is no mention of any cessation of drone attacks. Obviously the Pakistani side had not intention of making their cessation a real condition  for reopening the routes. Apparently NATO also rejected a huge hike in fees for transport. However, there will be the release of about a billion in military aid as part of the payment for Pakistani operations against militants. No payment has been made since 2010 and Pakistan puts the bill at over 3 billion. The Pakistani Taliban will attack the convoys one they begin again. For more see this article.
   Even with losses from attacks the Pakistani routes are much cheaper than alternative routes through the north.

Drone Strikes: Government lawyers hold that even existence or non-existence of strikes should not be revealed

The U.S.government which itself has now admitted, defended, and praised the drone program has asked a federal court to reject ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) demands that the government release information on drone attacks. U.S. government lawyers filed a brief that says in part:“Whether or not the CIA has the authority to be, or is in fact, directly involved in targeted lethal operations remains classified"

Logically it would seem that to refuse either to affirm or deny the existence of the program is ludicrous given that there is a constant flow of information about the attacks. The situation is so ludicrous that even the ludicrous main stream press has on the whole given up on reporting suspected U.S. drone strikes by simply describing them as U.S. or CIA drone strikes. But being illogical has a rational purpose and that is to keep information about the drone strikes from the populace while leaking out any information that might be found politically positive. Much of the leaked information may be misinformation as well since the populace cannot gain access to genuine information since it is classified.

The ACLU together with the New York Times has requested documents that explain the legal basis for the raids and killing of U.S. citizens. The U.S. government wants a summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuits. The government brief warns:“Even to describe the numbers and details of most of these documents would reveal information that could damage the government’s counter terrorism efforts,” The ACLU's Jamee Jafeer countered:“Senior officials have discussed it, both on the record and off. They have taken credit for its putative successes, professed it to be legal and dismissed concerns about civilian casualties,”

While the government brief said that it realized that there was public concern about the details it had to take into consideration the need to keep information classified. If there is so much concern about releasing classified information about the program why are top officials such as Obama, Brennan, and Panetta constantly releasing information?

The UN has also been asking the same sorts of questions as the ACLU and has even suggested that some attacks may involve war crimes. However, the Obama administration has been accountable in the only way it knows how by selectively setting out purported data about the strikes that is meant to serve their own interest. For more see this article.

UN asks U.S. to provide justification for increased drone attacks

Christof Heyns a UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution issued a report that has called on the U.S.to justify its increasing use of drones in attacks. Heyns claims that the attacks take some innocent lives and may violate international law.

Both the U.S. military and the CIA have used drones in a number of countries including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Heyns says that the U.S. should clarify the legal basis for these attacks. The U.S. has so far refused to do so. In fact the practice has been to simply leak information that the government thinks will be politically positive but when the ACLU tried to get information through the Freedom of Information Act the courts have said that even admitting or denying the existence of the programs would be against national security interests. The legal nonsense continues because it is in the interest of the U.S. government.

Heyns particularly wanted to know the legal basis for killing suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders rather than attempting to capture them. The UN Human Rights Council will be debating the issue in Geneva.

Heyns report notes:"The government should clarify the procedures in place to ensure that any targeted killing complies with international humanitarian law and human rights and indicate the measures or strategies applied to prevent casualties, as well as the measures in place to provide prompt, thorough, effective and independent public investigation of alleged violations," Some of this information was also requested by the ACLU so far without any success.

Heyns noted that all studies indicate that the use of drones has dramatically escalated. The escalation has happened since Obama took office. The Pakistan Human Rights Commission claims that 957 people were killed by drones in Pakistan in 2010 alone.About 20 per cent of those killed in drone attacks are estimated to be civilians. U.S. figures are almost invariably much lower. Similar questions were raised in as 2009 report by Philip Alston to which Washington failed to respond.

Pakistan''s Ambassador to the UN Zamir Akram spoke at the opening session of the UN human rights group. He said that the Pakistani government considers the use of drones by the U.S. in the Tribal Areas is illegal, counter productive and a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. So why does Pakistan not shoot them down? The U.S. has ignored the Pakistani parliament's demand the attacks stop. I expect that Pakistani politicians as in other countries have lots of hot air for domestic consumption. For more see this article.

CIA and U.S. government still neither affirm or deny existence of drone program

Even though everyone knows that there are drone attacks by the CIA in Pakistan and Yemen among other locations targeting suspected terrorists the official position of the CIA is that they neither confirm or deny it. Obama has bragged about killing terrorist leaders in Pakistan and Yemen. Panetta has defended the program and called it successful. Yet the official CIA line does not even admit the program exists.

Given that everyone knows the program exists and the president and national defense chief have specifically talked about the program it seems a bit asinine to deny that it exists. However the CIA position has a purpose and that is to keep any details hidden from the public while U.S. officials reveal whatever aspects of the program they think will be politically advantageous to them.

The ACLU has been for some time trying to obtain information on the drone program through the Freedom of Information Act. There will be a hearing on the matter on Sept. 20. Twenty six members of the U.S. Congress have asked Obama to consider the consequences of the program and explain its necessity. However, the ACLU has been trying to get information from 2010. The ACLU asked to see the legal basis for the attacks, restrictions on those targeted, civilian casualties, geographic limits to attacks, and the number of attacks carried out and other features of the program.

A federal judge sided with the CIA ruling that to confirm or deny the existence of the program and records would expose national security secrets. So there you have it. Even to admit the existence of the program would expose national security secrets. However Obama can reveal anything about the program that he finds useful politically and Leon Panetta can do likewise. This is what is known as accountability. For more see this article.

Pakistan protests U.S. aid cuts by cancelling meeting with CIA chief

The Senate Appropriations Committee cut 33 million in aid for Pakistan one million for each year of the sentence imposed upon a Pakistani doctor who worked for the CIA to identify Bin Laden's presence in Abbotabad. At the same time drone attacks are becoming more frequent even as talks to reopen supply routes are ongoing. The Senate Committee also withheld 250 million in military aid until supply routes are opened.

The U.S. clearly has not the slightest concern for the difficulties that it is causing to the Pakistani government. Its sole concern is domestic politics where Pakistan is a convenient whipping boy. Even though the Pakistani government has passed three motions demanding that drone attacks stop they continue. Everyone should realize who is boss.

The talks that have been cancelled were scheduled for this week in Washington and would have been the first U.S. visit of chief of Pakistani Intelligence Lt. Gen. Zaheer ul-Islam. The general was to discuss national security concerns of both countries with David Petraeus now CIA head.. General ul-Islam cancelled due to pressing commitments at home he claimed. He did not rub the disagreement in the face of the U.S. government as the Senate did to Pakistan.

Obama's top military adviser Gen. Martin Dempsey said that the Senate made the right choice in trimming aid to Pakistan. He said:“I think . . . choices should result in consequences. And I think the Senate acted appropriately,” Of course Pakistan could also say the same thing that there must be consequences for continuing drone strikes in the face of several motions demanding they stop and that there must be consequences for not sending military aid.

Given that it is impossible for the U.S. to directly occupy Pakistan as has been done in Afghanistan the only way that the U.S. can obtain cooperation to meet their goals is through massive injections of cash in military and other aid. Withdrawing the aid may be regarded as a stick to whip Pakistan back into shape but it may result eventually in a far less cooperative government in Pakistan next elections. For more see this article... In spite of the spat the U.S. and Pakistan are working to reschedule the meeting of Petraeus with General ul-Islam.

U.S. will carry on with drone strikes in spite of Pakistani objections: Leon Panetta

Just to make sure that Pakistan understands that the U.S. will not agree to Pakistani demands that drone strikes cease Leon Panetta U.S. Defense Secretary has again stated that the U.S. will continue the strikes. This makes the Pakistani government's position politically difficult if not impossible. There have been no less than three parliamentary motions demanding the strikes cease. The latest demand makes cessation of drone strikes a condition for re-opening NATO supply routes through Pakistan,

  Meanwhile the Pakistani government reports that the U.S. and the Pakistanis are negotiating solutions to outstanding issues. Yet the U.S. through Panetta is announcing that the drone strikes are not negotiable but will continue. As usual the Pakistani government has fudged on the matter. In a recent article Pakistan while at the same rhetorically denouncing the attacks as violations of sovereignty and counter-productive claims that there are negotiations with the U.S. on alternatives to the drone strikes.

Foreign Office spokesperson Moazzam Khan claims that the two sides are discussing alternatives to drone attacks. Really? Then why is Panetta saying that they will continue? Khan said: "We have raised drone attacks issue with the US at various levels. We are trying to resolve this issue on a priority basis. There is a need to resolve all issues with the US."

Panetta says that the drone attacks defend the U.S. against terrorists. Most of the terrorists being killed however have little interest in attacking the U.S. but of course every intention of driving the U.S. out of Afghanistan. Added to this is the fact that many who are killed may not be terrorists at all. For more see this article.

New Agreement with Afghanistan would still allow U.S. led night raids and drone attacks on Pakistan.

   The wording of the new Strategic Partnership Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan governing relations between the two countries after 2014 has deceptive wording. When deciphered in spite of what the Karzai government claims the U.S. could conduct its own night raids without Afghan supervision and also drone raids could be continued against Pakistan.
  For drone raids see this article.  The MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)  prohibits offensive drone raids against another country after 2014 when the agreement comes into effect. However this not prohibit offensive or defensive raids within Afghanistan. Defensive raids in Pakistan would also be allowed. All the U.S. need do is claim that the raids in Pakistan are defensive and hence continues the raids as it has up to now.
  For night raids see this article. The night raids covered under the MOU are just those reported by the U.S. to an Afghan co-ordination group. This allows the U.S. to still carry on independent night raids on its own. The practice has been to have more Afghan led raids and the agreement simply codifies the present practice and makes them subject to Afghan judicial oversight. For much more detail see this article.

Shahzad Akbar on Pakistan drone strikes

Amy Goodman interviews Shahzad Akbar a Pakistani lawyer on Democracy Now. The video is appended. Akbar represents families of people killed in U..S. drone strikes in the tribal areas.

At first Akbar was denied a visa to enter the U.S. to speak at the recent Drone Summit in Washington D.C.. However he did get one at the last minute and so was available to attend.

The summit was organized by several human rights groups to discuss the steep rise in drone attacks during the Obama administration and other issues. One human rights group Reprieve estimates up to 2,283 people altogether have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since they began way back in 2004.

Just as the summit was set to meet Obama announced a new widening of targets in Yemen. The new so-called signature strikes do not rely on identification of a target listed on an approved list but relies upon suspicious behavioral patterns to pick out targets.

Akbar discusses how such signature strikes often are based upon faulty intelligence and end up killing innocents. Medea Benjamin of Codepink also is in the video. For more see this site.

U.S. ignores Pakistani demands and resumes drone attacks

The Pakistani parliament has passed at least three motions demanding the cessation of drone attacks. The most recent motion makes cessation of the attacks one of the conditions for normalizing relations with the U.S. and reopening transit routes through Pakistan to Afghanistan.

In every case the U.S. has simply ignored the motions. However this time there may be serious repercussions. The supply routes may remain closed causing huge extra costs to ship materials through alternate routes.

Reports claim that the recent drone strike killed four al-Qaeda linked fighters in a former girls' school in the North Waziristan tribal area. Of course this account is from security officials. Confirmation of what happened is often not possible or conflicting accounts emerge.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the attacks. However such statements ring hollow after being constantly repeated but no attempts made to stop the attacks. The U.S. has failed to meet the demand that drone attacks stop or the demand that there be an unconditional apology for the killing of 24 Pakistani troops. The U.S. has said it regrets the incident but claims both sides were to blame.

A recent meeting between U.S.special envoy Marc Grossman and Pakistani officials was not able to work out some of the main stumbling blocks in relations. Nevertheless officials from both governments say they are committed to continue the talks. The Pentagon team has ten negotiators.

Pakistan's problem is that it is dependent upon U.S. aid to such an extent that it is difficult to deny the U.S. what it wants. The U.S. has already held back more than a billion dollar in coalition support funds. These funds are to reimburse Pakistan for costs incurred in fighting militants.The U.S. has made no payments since 2010. The Pakistanis claim also that the U.S. owes more than 3 billion. If the Pakistanis ever want to see their money they must play nice with the U.S. However, if they play nice with the U.S. and their demands are ignored the Pakistani people may rise up against the government or defeat them at the polls. For more see this article.

U.S. envoy in talks to mend relations with Pakistan

U.S. Ambassador Marc Grossman will meet with key Pakistani officials. There will be two days of meetings to try and work out disputes between the two countries.

There will also be meetings with a core group of both Pakistani and Afghan officials to try and restart peace talks with the Taliban. The meetings take place after the Pakistani parliament made a series of demands including the cessation of drone attacks and an apology for an attack that killed 24 Pakistani troops.

A spokesperson for the U.S. State Dept. said:"We've begun our process of re-engaging with the Pakistani government to work through the issues that have come up during the review, so this will be an effort to really take up those issues one at a time and see how we work through them," Grossman is special envoy for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has been on a tour of Europe, Turkey and the Gulf nations mainly talking about Afghanistan after 2014. No doubt it is partly a fund raising tour to help pay for Afghan security.

The State Dept. spokesperson said:."We want to hear the Pakistani government's presentation of where it thinks the bilateral relationship needs to go, and then we will present our views and work through issues as partners do," The spokesperson had no comment on whether Grossman was prepared to discuss drone attacks. The U.S. has said a number of times that it is not prepared to stop the attacks. The attacks have continued even after the Pakistani parliaments has passed several motions demanding that they cease. For more see this article.

Pakistani parliament unaminously demands end to drone strikes as condition of opening Afghan supply routes

The parliament also set other conditions for restoring relations with the U.S. and opening NATO supply routes through Pakistan to Afghanistan. Another significant condition was an unconditional apology for the air strike in November that killed two dozen Pakistani troops.

Chair of the committee that presented the 14 point recommendations Raza Rabbani said that all U.S. military incursions into Pakistan must cease including drone attacks. He said:“The U.S. footprint in Pakistan must be reviewed. This means, one, an immediate cessation of drone attacks inside the territory and borders of Pakistan," "Two, the cessation of infiltration into Pakistani territory on any pretext including hot pursuit. Three, Pakistani territory, including its airspace, shall not be used for transportation of arms and ammunition to Afghanistan.”

The recommendations go even further and demand an end to covert operations in Pakistan and demands that no private security contractors or intelligence operatives be allowed in the country. No doubt this is a reaction to the killing of an Afghan by a CIA operative.

While Pakistan may get an apology, it is highly unlikely that drone attacks will cease. In fact the U.S. has said they will not. The parliament has previously passed motions demanding drone attacks cease but they carry on anyway. In the past at least the attacks have been tacitly endorsed or allowed by government officials and targets have been set using Pakistani intelligence in all likelihood.

Prime Minister Raza Gilani said:“Madame Speaker, we are making history today. This parliament has proven time and time again that when it comes to matters of national interest we can and do come together,” The government has not delivered on such resolutions in the past and is unlikely to do in the future either. For more see this Voice of America article.

Meanwhile the Pakistani military continues trying to clear militants from border areas with Afghanistan causing a continuing humanitarian disaster as families flee the fighting to overcrowded refugee camps. An official from the UN refugee agency said that more than 200,000 people have fled the fighting in the Khyber district since January. See this article.

Pakistani lawyer denied U.S. visa to speak at drone conference

Shahzad Akbar represents civilian victims of drone strikes in a case filed in Pakistan. Akbar was invited to speak at an international conference on drone strikes in Washington D.C. on April 28. However the U.S. government has not so far granted him a visa.

Akbar is a co-founder of the Pakistan-based Foundation for Fundamental Rights. Akbar would have provided information about providing legal aid to civilian victims of the CIA operated strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Akbar has traveled to the U.S. in the past. However, this is not the first time the U.S. simply refused even to answer his application for a visa. Columbia University invited him to speak there about drone strikes. Akbar filed an application in May 2011 but has yet to hear anything back. He has asked the U.S. embassy in Pakistan why his application is being held up. He has received no answer.

Come on Akbar. Don't you get the message? The U.S. does not want you in the U.S. criticizing drone strikes! For more see the full article here.

Pakistani legislators tie opening of Pakistan supply routes to stopping drone attacks

The Pakistan parliament passed a resolution demanding drone attacks cease some time ago. Just lately the Parliamentary Committee on National Security also recommended that the attacks cease.

Now the parliament is urging the government to tie reopening supply lines to Afghanistan with stopping the drone attacks. The U.S. has made it clear that it will not cease the attacks. In fact the latest attack was today. The attacks mounted by the CIA continue and Pakistani parliamentary demands have been ignored.

There have also been demands in parliament that supplies transferred through Afghanistan should not involve munitions. Senator Mushahid Hussain said: “Permitting weaponry in the NATO supplies means that we want to keep the conflict in Afghanistan continued,” He went on:“This is for the first time that USA has taken Pakistani parliament seriously after 9/11. President Obama also suggested that they are waiting for Pakistani parliament’s decision,” There is no sign that the U.S. is taking Pakistan seriously on drone attacks at least no sign that they will stop at any rate! For more see this article.

Pakistan demands end to drone strikes as a condition of renewing U.S. relations

A parliamentary committee in Pakistan's parliament has demanded an end to U.S, drone strikes as a condition for renewal of relations between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Some time ago the parliament had demanded an end to the strikes to no effect it would seem. Pakistan's parliament is discussing how to mend U.S. Pakistan relations. Relations have been particularly bad since a U.S. attack killed 24 soldiers near the Afghan border in November.

Razza Rabbani who chaired the committee making the recommendations also insisted that the U.S. should unconditionally apologize for the killings. Neither this nor the ceasing of drone attacks are likely I expect.

The U.S. seems quite willing to pay the price of having to use alternate routes as Pakistan has closed the Afghan border to supply convoys. Pakistan also forced the U.S. to close an air base in Pakistan.

Pakistan indicated recently that the issues may soon be resolved. The U.S. may pay higher transit fees for goods passing through Pakistan. On the drone issue it seems as if Pakistan might agree to the attacks if they were coordinated with the Pakistanis and they received notice of when and where they would occur. The U.S. may not be willing to grant this because militants might be notified of pending attacks. There is no trust between the two sides it seems.

A report last month by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism put the civilian death toll from the attacks at between 282 and 535. This includes 60 children. These are figures since Obama came to power. Obama has greatly increased attacks from the Bush era. For more see this article.