Sovereignty and Pakistan's plethora of contradictions
Imtiaz Gul
January 31, 2006-The News
Look at the following before expecting other nations to treat Pakistan and its citizens with respect. On January 22, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told CNN: "We had no idea that this would take place ... there [was] no evidence until half-an-hour ago that there were any other people there. This area does see the movement of people from across the border but we have not found one body or one shred of evidence that Qaeda operatives were there."
On January 24, President Pervez Musharraf gave his version in the Norwegian capital Oslo. "Now that we have started investigating the reality on the ground, yes, we have found that there are foreigners there ... That is for sure... there is [some] indication that there were some people, also al-Qaeda, who have got killed."
On January 25, Shaukat Aziz went back on his earlier statement. "Our intelligence had the reports of the presence of foreign militants in Bajaur" (Online news agency).
As if these contradictions were not enough, The Washington Post, in a stinging January 25 editorial captioned 'The War in Pakistan', roundly criticised Musharraf: "this meretricious military ruler has tried to be counted as a US ally while avoiding an all-out campaign against the Islamic extremists in his country, who almost surely include Osama Bin Laden and his top deputies. Despite mounting costs in American lives and resources, he has gotten away with it ... Gen Musharraf has never directed his forces against the Taliban who use Pakistan as a base to wage war against American and Afghan forces across the border."
This editorial appeared a day after Premier Aziz met with President George W Bush who called Pakistan a 'friend'' in the war against terrorism. "We consider this friendship to be a vital friendship for keeping the peace," Bush told media men after two-hours of talks with Aziz. Bush, declined, however, to answer questions or publicly comment on the US missile strike at Damadola. Even secretary of state Condoleezza Rice had earlier refused to comment, saying only that the war on terror knew no borders.
Musharraf finally expressed disappointment over the US attitude. Talking to the media in Davos, the president said that despite good cooperation between the two countries, the Unites States never sought permission for the attack and thus broke the understanding.
And now, some two weeks after the media was hoodwinked and given the impression by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the US Ambassador Ryan C Crocker had been summoned to the Foreign Office on January 14, a day after the strike in Bajaur Agency, it has now been established that he was not (as reported on January 28). The latest spin on the story is that Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan raised the matter with the US ambassador at the Prime Minister's house, on the margins of a meeting. The ministry spokesperson had earlier even denied that Pakistan had ever sought a US apology for the attack.
So you don't protest, don't have the courage to (under the protocol) summon the ambassador or his deputy, and hand him a protest, and you lack the courage to ask for an apology over what President Musharraf finally conceded was a "violation of Pakistan's territorial integrity."
What does a common Pakistani make of all this contradictory and apologetic posturing by the top leaders? It certainly evokes rage and resentment as well as disillusionment for several reasons, particularly when they see Pakistanis being maltreated (the search at Washington DC of the PM's entourage which included Sharifuddin Pirzada and Foreign Secretary Riaz Khan). People at large question, for instance, the rationale of all-out cooperation with the US in the war on terror, when even the country's luminaries like Pirzada, Riaz Khan, Imran Khan and so many others are subjected to elaborate security checks at US airports.
Another reason why common Pakistanis are incensed is the American lack of trust in Pakistanis. Musharraf, for instance, has angered thousands of hard-line militants by mounting a crackdown against them, thereby endangering his own life. Why then does the United States indulge in Bajaur-like actions that will only undermine General Musharraf's authority?
The impression at home is that the general went an extra mile to address US concerns and facilitate their strategy in Afghanistan. But even if that fails to win over the Americans, and the administration in Washington continues to treat Pakistan and its people with arrogance and disdain, even more venom will enter the public perception of the United States.
Adding fuel to the anti-US sentiment is the impression that Pakistani leaders continue to play pliant and docile, ignoring the social ground realities, particularly in regions like Balochistan and the NWFP. Little did the government, guided by General Musharraf, realise the sensitivities involved in dealing with the tribals. Whether it is the supreme commander or the local commanders, the attitude towards the tribals, whom the army itself nudged into jihad and support for the Taliban in the 1990s, has been seen as insulting. Former corps commander General Safdar Hussain earned quite a name for his propensity to hurl abuse at tribal people, who for long had been hailed as the backbone of Pakistan's defence on the western borders.
Attacking the traditions and culture of the ultra-conservative, largely illiterate tribesmen by ostracising and clubbing them with al-Qaeda and Taliban, has only driven them away from the state and revived their chauvinism.
Before expecting others to respect our integrity, we shall have to demonstrate our own commitment to our traditions, culture and act with grace, rather than submission and docility.
The writer is a freelance columnist. Email: vogul1960@yahoo.com