ISLAMABAD — A claim by the Pakistani government this week that 67 civilians died in drone strikes over the last five years, a surprisingly low number given previous casualty estimates, has sparked controversy, skepticism and speculation that American pressure may be behind the figure.

Adding to the debate, a drone strike early Thursday in North Waziristan near the border with Afghanistan — the first in a month — killed three people. Their identity was not immediately known. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry condemned the attack. “There is an across-the-board consensus that drone attacks must end,” it said in a statement.

Drones are a politically charged issue, viewed by many Pakistanis as inaccurate and a sign of the nation’s inability to safeguard its borders.

Islamabad regularly criticizes the attacks in public, even though it’s believed to have supported and even provided targeting data for some past strikes.

On Wednesday, the Ministry of Defense told parliament that only 3 percent of the 2,227 people killed in 317 drone attacks since 2008 were civilians — far lower than the 16 percent to 25 percent some international groups have estimated. In a written statement, the ministry also said no civilians were killed in such attacks since January 2012.

The areas along the border with Afghanistan where drones most commonly operate are off limits to journalists and aid groups, making it difficult to verify the identities or numbers of those killed.

“These figures are ridiculous,” said Mansur Khan Mahsud, director of the FATA Research Center, an Islamabad-based think tank researching militancy in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

“Forty people were killed in one drone strike alone in March 2011 in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan,” he said. “Of those, only five were militants.”

In June 2009, he added, drones attacked a funeral in South Waziristan, killing another 60 civilians.

The 67 figure undermines the government’s own argument that drone strikes must end because popular anger over civilian deaths fuels radicalization, militancy and more recruits for the insurgents, some analysts said.

Ultimately the biggest beneficiary of this week’s questionable disclosure may be the Taliban and other militant groups, analysts said, by supporting their argument that the Pakistani government is working with the Americans to target and deploy drones and can’t be trusted.

It also could undermine proposed talks between the government and the Taliban aimed at stemming the violence, they added.

“Now, they would blame Pakistan and its security agencies for being complicit in the drone program,” said Rahimullah Yusufzia, a defense analyst and journalist based in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.

A survey released in September by Gilani Research Foundation of 2,626 men and women in rural and urban areas found 71 percent of respondents believed Pakistan should not cooperate with the United States in fighting terrorism compared with 27 percent in favor and 2 percent who didn’t answer.

Washington views the drone program in Pakistan as a vital weapon against al-Qaida and Taliban militants who take refuge in the lawless northeast to mount cross-border attacks on American troops in neighboring Afghanistan. President Barack Obama has said the program is kept on a “very tight leash” and that without it, the U.S. would have had to resort to more intrusive military action.

But the view is not universal. Some residents of the tribal areas say drones are an effective way to kill militants without costly or disruptive military operations.

In response to the controversy, Pakistani Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid said the government had not changed its opposition to drones and remains hopeful their use will end soon.