Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has once again expressed his concerns over the U.S. drone strikes in his country's tribal regions. 

 

In a meeting with U.S. Special Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Marc Grossman on Friday, Zardari said Pakistan has always maintained that U.S. drone attacks are highly “counter-productive” in the war against militants since they inflame public sentiments due to the civilian casualties they cause. 

 

Zardari added that both Washington and Islamabad should consider setting up a framework for a mechanism to find a mutually acceptable alternative to America's drone strikes. 

 

To further discuss the issue, Press TV talks with Gareth Porter, investigative journalist in Washington. What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview. 

 

Press TV: Mr. Porter, the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari says he is concerned about civilian casualties and that altogether the drone strikes have been counterproductive. Is it the case that his words do not have any strength to say a big NO to the U.S. to stop the strikes or is it just a case of PR for himself? 

 

Porter: The words of President Zardari really in this case are less important than the underlined reality that of the Pakistani political system writ large has spoken with great force on this issue. 

 

The Pakistani parliament has reached agreement with the government supporting a demand that the United States and the drone strikes and basically putting the entire U.S. access to the logistical routes into Afghanistan on the table as a bargaining chip, saying that if this demand for an end to the drone strikes is not met by the United States, those logistical routes will never reopen again. 

 

And the interesting thing, of course, is that the U.S. government has chosen not just to put its access to those routes into Afghanistan at risk by continuing the drone strikes in Pakistan, but of course have chosen to alienate the political system of Pakistan and the population of Pakistan quite profoundly by its decision to continue those drone strikes. 

 

And to me, what this demonstrates is a fundamental reality of U.S. national security policy which is that what is supposed to be a means to an end, the drone strike program, has in fact become an end in itself. And I think that is really a very revealing fact about U.S. policy. 

 

Press TV: Let’s speak about the legality of the drones. How legal are they, especially according to international law? 

 

Porter: It is very difficult to defend these strikes under the international law and of course the United Nations’ Repertoire on Human Rights and international law has really pointed this out that these sorts of targeted strikes against human beings are really without any kind of judicial or other legal proceeding and that they cannot be defended under international law. 

 

So clearly, this is not something that is being done because it is considered to be legal and as I have suggested, also it is not being done because it is serving the broader political and security interest of the United States. It is really a perfect illustration of how bureaucratic interests are self-propelling and really govern the policy itself. 

 

Press TV: What lies ahead for Pakistan and other countries experiencing drone strikes like Yemen, because it seems the drone strikes has become a strategy to replace ‘the boots on the ground strategy’? 

 

Porter: Yes, U.S. national security policy in the Middle East now has become a policy of relying almost exclusively on drone strikes and special operations forces to target people who are considered to be adversaries of the United States. 

 

And I think that what we are seeing in the case of Yemen of course is another case where you have a policy in search of more markets, if you will, a policy of using drone strikes which takes advantage of any opportunity to increase the number of strikes whether it is in Pakistan or in Yemen regardless of, I think, the long term consequences. 

 

(Source: Press TV)