Wajid Naeemuddin
ARTICLE (September 18 2008): Quite forgotten for the moment was the awesome fact that our army was engaged in a full-scale, no-holds-barred confrontation with our own people in the tribal areas and outside it. People forgot for the moment that scores of "miscreants" were getting killed in our North-West every day and the army jawans and officers were suffering significant (undisclosed) casualties as well.
Out of sight for the moment was the grim fact that we were creating a class of enemies for the country, from among our people who were otherwise considered to be our first line of defence on a sensitive border. Forgotten too, for the moment was the rising tide of internal refugees now approaching the best part of a million and disturbing life in a large area of the country.
All this was forgotten briefly in a moment of universal euphoria generated by General Kiyani's statement that coalition (read American) forces were not allowed to conduct any operation inside Pakistan which was the sole responsibility of Pakistan armed forces and that the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended "at all costs".
This statement came within hours of the American Chief of the General Staff Mullen's statement in his briefing to the American Congress which threatened Pakistan with more attacks inside its territory. The very next day ISPR Chief Major General Athar Abbas declared even more categorically that if US forces in Afghanistan continued to carry out attacks inside Pakistan, they would be retaliated against.
It was thus left to our Army Chief on Wednesday and ISPR Chief on Friday to come up with the first authoritative statements telling US where to stop in the war against terror. Earlier on, in the very first reaction to American intrusions from the Armed forces, the Air Force Chief had stated that his force had the ability to effectively thwart American forays into Pakistan but also that orders for such action had to come from civilian authority.
During the last few days, weak, half-hearted and ambiguous statements, from our Prime Minister down, protesting against American intrusions into our territory, had not had any effect and civilian deaths inside Pakistan from American missiles kept multiplying as if nothing had happened to deter or discourage them.
For example, Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar's first reaction appeared to be actually defending American aggression when he said "there must be some reason for it"! He appeared as unmoved when saying this as if he were talking of some minor union problem in one of his work places.
The President himself, in answering a question on the subject soon after taking oath, said Pakistan had been protesting against American intrusions. But, in the same breath he asked for more money (from guess who?), in the shape of a fund to compensate Pakistan for the damage it was suffering in the "war against terror".
Thus the impact of the protest, for what it was worth in the first place, was diluted by being mixed with request for money. Begging and protesting don't go together. To add to the confusion Condoleezza Rice had claimed immediately after the first two American attacks in early September that America was in touch with Pakistan's civilian leaders, implying that there was an "understanding".
We still await a rebuttal or confirmation of this from our civilian leaders. Despite all the brave talk from our side, as if to call (what America must have thought was) Pakistan's bluff, American forces launched the very next day (after Kiyani's statement), a missile attack in North Waziristan which destroyed a building and killed twelve people.
Despite all the talk of retaliatory action, which appears to have been unnecessary in retrospect, there was no action from our side except for our President's plans to "talk about the situation" with England's Prime Minister during his current "private" visit to that country.
In other related events, New York Times ran a story disclosing that President Bush had given secret orders way back in July 2008, authorising ground assault in Pakistan "without seeking approval from Pakistan's government". Nato reacted very sensibly, stating clearly that their mandate was only to operate within Afghanistan's borders and that they would not crossover into Pakistan with American forces.
Europe thus stood apart from America on this issue except for England which under Gordon Brown appears to lean towards the American stance. What are Pakistan's options, short of total capitulation in the face of American aggression? Given the many weaknesses our government suffers from, stoppage of supplies to American and Nato forces from Pakistan and a slowing down of the Army action against the tribal "miscreants", were two of the options being talked about.
But as time passes doubts are being confirmed that the PPP government is edging closer to capitulation than any thing else. As for America, its election compulsions appear to be propelling it on a short-sighted course which will harm American interests by increasing manifold the number of people who have begun to hate its hypocritical policies and actions.
It is now operating more freely into Pakistan than it did in Musharraf's time. Does it think it can "manage" President Zardari more easily than it could "manage" former President Musharraf. To use the words of a well-known analyst to ask a question, is Zardari a "softer target" in American eyes than Musharraf was Lawyers' movement.
The lawyers' movement has had to suffer several blows in the shape of about a dozen judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court taking oath under the Government's reappointment offer. Latif Khosa, the new Attorney General and Law Minister Naek are busy overtime to prevent reinstatement of deposed CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry in an environment of doublespeak which has characterised the PPP style of governance to date.
An effort has been made to create cracks in the movement by some lawyers of the PPP. However, the vast majority of lawyers, despite setbacks and discouraging developments, are solidly behind Aitzaz Ahsan and their cause which remains the reinstatement of the judiciary to its 2 November 2007 status.
The PPP government should not make the mistake of thinking it will come out unscathed from the blows it has managed to deal to the movement. Its actions have had the effect of hardening towards it and towards the PPP, the attitude of an overwhelming majority of lawyers who would not want to see their marathon, historical movement end in a fiasco.
In the present fluid situation, at a critical point in the politics of the country, PPP could suddenly find to its sorrow that the balance of power may have been decisively tilted against it by the peeved and angry lawyers. Punjab tussle PPP continues to blow hot and cold in the familiar doublespeak.
After Nawaz Sharif's complaint about the attitude and utterances of the Punjab Governor Salmaan Taser, Zardari's meeting with the latter was supposed to deter him from the course he was pursuing. Quite the opposite happened and the Governor appears to have redoubled his efforts towards forming a PPP-ML(Q) government to replace the ML(N) in the province. The consequences could be disastrous. (yawajid@yahoo.com)
