The writer is former executive editor of The News and a senior journalist with Geo TV.
Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif was right on the money when he said condemnation was too small a word in response to the US drone attack. This attack didn’t just take out a Taliban leader, it struck our territory and tore holes in our land and aerial sovereignty. Simple condemnation does not underline the seriousness of the event, which basically is an act of war.
The diplomatic thesaurus offers many harder variants of ‘condemnation’, which could have been pressed into service to express the depth of our anger. We could have laced our response with an additional layer of threats and issued a last warning to the Americans to desist from this disastrous course of illegality or else – something Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan tried to do in his belated presser.
But how much do words – strong or weak – make a difference in our situation?
This was the 392nd drone hit since 2004 in our land, covering pretty much the entire length of our border with Afghanistan. On different occasions, we have formed our responses along different lines of sternness. At times we have roared like lions and at times we have remained content with mere meowing. Sometimes we have pretended that drones have not struck at all. And at other times we have summoned the American ambassador and registered our protest. While drones have rained on Pakistan consistently – according to the need felt by the American president – we have treated each case differently accordingly to the compulsion of our circumstances.
This has been the case not just with the drones but with other incursions as well. When the Salala check-posts were attacked and our soldiers were martyred, the reaction was a broad sweep of measures: US trainers were chucked out, airbases in US use were vacated and all cooperation and contact was snapped including an immediate halt to Nato supply routes. Parliament and assemblies sprang into action and there was a heart-warming and soul-satisfying resolutions galore.
On at least two other occasions US supplies to Afghanistan were stopped for days when our border posts were attacked involving US helicopters. Appeals from US commanders were ignored and for days a ‘this-is-it’ spirit prevailed.
However, we were quite ambivalent when the OBL raid took place. After coming out of our policy daze, we made some noises and spoke of US betrayal at various forums. Military contact with the US was cooled down to the point of a one-sided freeze and was revived at the highest level only after the command changed. But clearly that incursion went without much sustained reaction and in the end things settled down to their usual routine.
The curious case of US spy Raymond Davis, however, was treated differently. The man had killed our citizens in broad daylight. He had violated at least two dozen laws and was caught red-handed. His accomplices had run over another citizen and were directly involved in a brazen attempt to rescue the criminal with a smoking gun in his hand.
But the entire state, government, judicial and administrative machinery then connived at his hasty release under a deal that was directly sealed by General Shuja Pasha, that lippy lecturer on national honour and pride.
Our take on US intelligence operations inside our land too has been wavy, to the say the least. From claiming that Washington has more spies working for them than people working for our intelligence agencies to turning our faces away from the presence of Blackwater in our midst in Islamabad and Peshawar, we have flip-flopped on this crucial dimension of our security, bringing it up when we need to, shoving it under the carpet when we need to.
In the realm of civilian authority, our conduct has been even more hypocritical. We remember the WikiLeaks citing Yusuf Raza Gilani, the then prime minister, suggesting to the Americans to continue with the drone strikes while parliament would carry out pro-forma protests. Asif Ali Zardari was even more cooperative and consistently compliant – a fact documented in various intelligence reports.
The Sharifs have been totally detached from such matters of national security because of their strange and self-serving theory that since these are all issues where the army holds, they should best left to the General Headquarters. They have conveniently excused themselves from taking any stand on any matter that requires taking a stand, keeping their lips tight and tongues in check.
Others like the PTI have been vocal but there is hardly any consistency in their articulation of anguish or anger. From launching anti-drone demonstrations to going quiet for months as drones strike various parts of national territory, Imran Khan’s zigzagging is legendary. There was a time when he had installed party camps along the route to Nato supplies; now that his party is in power in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa the supply lines run freely without any let or hindrance. After his chief of staff Naeemul Haq’s official endorsement of Mullah Mansur as a martyr, it is anybody’s guess where the party is going with its internal debate on defence issues.
The general public’s discourse around instances involving national security is just as confusing; it ebbs and flows along lines of extreme emotions and total disinterest. Even the most vocal critic of American actions has no problem in pulling all stops to get a visa to visit the land of plenty. The chattering classes decry US actions but would not miss dinners at the American embassy. At the policy level, we say no to US drones but are anxious to receive US F-16s. We bristle with hate and brim with love at the same time.
This is why in bad circumstances, US officials both formally and informally immediately point to the good side of their ties to Pakistan. They speak of Washington’s aid, its military cooperation, its engagement in the social sector, (some of our local bodies representatives are being trained with USAID money), and how closely tied Pakistan’s top elite is with the apron-strings of the US system. As proof they point to the children and businesses of our ruling elite who have deep roots in the US, thereby providing that vital and unreported leverage that Washington has over the conduct and actions of the decision-makers in Islamabad. And this is one long list, starring practically everybody.
In such circumstances it is difficult to imagine how the harshest of words can make the slightest of difference to what the US does in Pakistan. Our system is in a state of classic dependency, personal and national, on the US. Or at least this is how we continue to perceive it. Moreover, we have been selective in applying principles of international law on our sovereignty. We have conceded space and then have tried to reclaim it hypocritically protesting and bemoaning, meekly raising the national flag to draw a red line that we know we have no intent of holding.
We have compromised on core cannons of national interest and have tried to build false national pride through occasional outbursts. We are no match for the US – we know that. We cannot afford to have an extended row with Washington; we can even accept that. But when red lines are crossed, some action must follow. And if there is no action, merely shouting strong slogans is meaningless.
It is well understood that in the field of diplomacy words speak louder than actions. It is a legitimate concern that we have often failed to choose our words of protest carefully and have been found wanting in formulating appropriate sentences. This is, however, as much as we can say about words because the real challenge is not to find the right words.
The real challenge is to find the right policy. A policy that is consistent, well-thought out and is neither designed to play to the gallery of cheap populism nor so week and shallow that it collapses upon the first test. Words can come easy when the head and the heart are clear. Compromised and conflicted decision-making systems may say the strongest words in the dictionary, but they will change nothing in reality. http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/125601-Words-and-deeds
Comments are closed.