Daily Times editorial Nov 4, 2013

Talks strategy in tatters? After the killing of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Hakeemullah Mehsud in a drone attack, the government’s talks strategy appears to be in tatters. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar had claimed in his press conference the other day that the first steps toward s a dialogue were in the works when the drone struck. Such a claim can only be taken as the government’s start of concrete steps to bring the TTP to the negotiating table. It cannot be claimed, as Chaudhry Nisar asserted, to be the actual beginning of negotiations. How can one say with certainty that the TTP would have accepted the invitation for a dialogue? And if they did, would they resile from their demands to impose sharia according to their interpretation (implying throwing away the constitution), release all their prisoners and withdraw the army from FATA? All this is in the realm of the unknown. Categorical assertions such as those of Chaudhry Nisar and Imran Khan that the ‘peace process’ has been deliberately sabotaged by the US therefore remain more subjective opinion than unassailable objective fact. It is being speculated in the British press that the answer to the question why Hakeemullah was targeted now and not earlier lies in the fact that his travel to his house flushed him out of hiding and gave the drone warriors their best opportunity ever. While Chaudhry Nisar is trying desperately to distance the government from any complicity or approval of the drone strike, given the past record of cooperation by Pakistan in this endeavour while retaining deniability by protests, some level of cooperation may not be ruled out. Of course, if true, and even if not, the death of Hakeemullah will prove extremely awkward for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his government to handle, since they now appear sandwiched between the body of domestic opinion, led by Imran Khan, that interprets the drone strike as sabotage of what they view as a peace process poised to proceed, and the US and its clout over Pakistan’s strategic, diplomatic, economic, etc, future. Angry as some people may be in and outside government on the drone strike, Islamabad is not in a position to annoy Washington beyond a point. It remains to be seen what the emergency cabinet meeting the prime minister has called today decides after being briefed on the developments. Stopping NATO supply lines, as Imran Khan insists, may not stop the drone strikes, as Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid argues. And the proposed step suffers from no clear idea of the timeline for such stoppage and what would be the next move if drone strikes did not stop. Can Pakistan sustain the pressure that will inevitably follow an indefinite stoppage, indefinitely? We should be cognizant of our vulnerabilities, especially on the economic front, and not get carried away by angry rhetoric. Meanwhile the TTP has it seems been unable to agree on a permanent chief and has chosen instead to go for what appears to be a compromise choice as interim leader. Vowing revenge, the TTP seems set to turn its back on the talks offer, prompting a high security alert in all the major cities of the country. In this space we have consistently argued that the talks proposal is not feasible for reasons that have nothing to do with drones. It represents the inherent weakness on display by the state against the terrorists by offering talks when the latter are stubbornly sticking to maximalist demands that amount to a virtual surrender by the state. The US’s drone strike on Hakeemullah Mehsud may well have driven the final nail into the coffin of the hopes for a negotiated settlement with the TTP, but the whole proposal and its chances of ‘success’ on terms acceptable to the state were always highly uncertain. The government has now, with the help of input from the security forces, to come up with the missing Plan B to tackle a dangerous, slippery enemy wedded to nothing less than the destruction of the democratic system of Pakistan