Sauv-Raay-Nitty

[muse]

National sovereignty
Yasser Latif Hamdani


The tool of manipulation every ultra right-wing fascist in our country prefers is this so called ‘national sovereignty’ or as our shrieking anchors call it ‘sauv-raay-nitty’.

First of all, this term is entirely misapplied and used by people who are clueless about what it means. When a people are sovereign, it refers in main to their ability to make their decisions on their own through a democratic process. On a purely legal plane, Pakistan’s constitution vests sovereignty over the entire universe in Allah Almighty. Therefore, the question of national sovereignty becomes redundant constitutionally in Pakistan’s context. Since people — i.e. the people of Pakistan who form the Pakistani nation — are not sovereign, surely they must then be subject to the will of the Almighty who according to our constitution is sovereign. After all, this may soon be the cornerstone of our theo-democracy after the Supreme Court gets done with the 18th Amendment.

This issue is however only incidental. Our anchors do not tire quoting as an example of a ‘proud sovereign nation’ the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has stood on its feet (forget that it is one of the largest oil producers in the world) and told the Americans to go to hell. That last bit tickles the fantasy of not just our right-wingers and Zaidonists but also our leftists and socialists who still dream of a great red revolution transforming Pakistan into the vanguard of the global anti-imperialist movement.

We must however consider what kind of country the Islamic Republic of Iran is and whether it can be considered, by any stretch of imagination, a model for Pakistan or any Muslim majority country. Iran has on its statute books a law that calls for the stoning to death of fornicators through rocks that are neither big enough to kill the sinner immediately nor small enough to qualify as stones and pebbles. What is more, Iran routinely carries out such punishments.

This is its expression of national sovereignty.

Pakistan too has — during dictator Zia’s time — put this punishment on the statute books. Zia did so against the better advice of the Council Of Islamic Ideology and the Federal Shariat Court, which claimed quite rightly that no such punishment was prescribed by the Holy Quran and the practice of rajm (stoning to death) was a borrowed practice. In any event the standard of evidence is so stringent that hardly anyone can attract the punishment of rajm under law. Therefore, no one has been stoned to death by law in Pakistan. There is also another reason. Pakistan by virtue of being part of the UN is signatory to various treaties and conventions that call for respect for human life and freedom. As a major aid recipient from the US, Pakistan has to tread pragmatically and carefully. It has to check elements who want to wage war against our neighbours and kill off minorities. This is the new reality or at least one would hope so. It also means that Pakistan has to tax its landed class. Agricultural tax is the easiest route to land reforms in Pakistan. In a proud and sovereign Pakistan, agricultural tax would remain a distant dream.

God forbid that Pakistan was sovereign like Iran! Our sovereign nation would have a wild time bringing back lynching and witch-burning in fashion. In the process we would disparage Islam even more than we have done. I suppose in such a Pakistan Aafia Siddiqui would be much safer because women would be denied a right to education in the name of national sovereignty. As they like to say in our part of the world, ‘naa rahega baans, naa bajegi baansuri’ (no flute when there is no bamboo).

As a patriot I for one believe such ‘sovereignty’ would be a curse. It is a question of priorities. The Pakistan I want is a tolerant, egalitarian and progressive nation that is respected in the comity of nations and not feared. This business of chest thumping is the exclusive preserve of pauper nations and it is time we realised that we owe our poor much more than some fake and fleeting sense of ‘national sovereignty’. The rich and privileged have a responsibility to their less privileged compatriots to secure for them those irreducible minimums that have been promised to them in the name of a social welfare state, which incidentally is a constitutional obligation, though one that is subject to the provision of requisite funds.

The alternative is not as attractive as our national sovereignty-mongers tell us. Those who are familiar with the Monty Python series will appreciate that a proud and sovereign Pakistan would be much like the Black Knight. Then again our nation has perfected masochism into a national passion and pastime, albeit unwittingly, so maybe this is what they want. In that case please ignore this scribe’s ramblings with the contempt they deserve.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at Pak Tea House and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

 

[muse]

Playing the bogus card of ‘sovereignty’
M Husain Sadar



Since its birth as an independent state, the Pakistani military establishment has focused exclusively on projecting India as our most dangerous and eternal enemy. A constantly repeated argument in support of this assumption is that India has never reconciled itself with the creation of Pakistan and will swallow it quickly if and when the Pakistani defence forces are not strong enough to defend it.

It is no secret that the Pakistani people have never experienced a truly democratic and publicly accountable government during their entire turbulent history. The country has been ruled by an unholy alliance, which has always been led by the top military brass with key memberships from powerful landlords and wealthy business class.

Consequently, the survival of any government in Islamabad or even in any provincial capital depends upon its ability and willingness to deliver whatever the military needs or demands. No central government, including that of today, has ever dared to deny or question the need and the justification for annually budgeting outrageously huge defence allocations.

As a result, Pakistani politics at every level has been and still is a helpless hostage to the ‘men’ in uniform. Pakistan may be a unique country in the world; it designs and implements all its national policies, goals and objectives for the exclusive benefit of its military and security establishment.

Most often, other important sectors such as economy, education, health, research and development, modern infrastructure, etc, which are crucial for creating a civil, stable and healthy society have never received proper attention and adequate funding. Consequently, the country is unable to progress rapidly in order to become self-sufficient and avoid its perennial dependence on foreign aid.

Soon after becoming independent, India chose to adopt a ‘neutral’ foreign policy and became a founding member of the non-aligned group of countries. On the other hand, Pakistan quickly became a close ally of the west and joined two military pacts. Both the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) were designed and controlled jointly by the US and British defence experts for containing the military advances of the emerging communist power, the former Soviet Union. This meant that Pakistan decided to take sides in the Cold War between the so-called west and the east.

The Pakistani ruling elite thought — and wrongly so — that becoming a member of such alliances was essential for further strengthening Pakistan’s defences by sheltering under the safety net provided by advanced and very powerful members of these pacts but more specifically, the US. Moreover, the US could provide adequate financial support, better training for the military and supply modern equipment for its armed forces. However, the west, especially the US, valued Pakistan’s ideal location for building and operating military bases in order to spy on the Soviet military installations and their operations.

Unfortunately, Pakistan turned out to be the loser in this game. As we know neither the US nor any other member of these pacts came to fight along with Pakistan during various bloody and costly border skirmishes with India. Since Pakistan is a much smaller country and has a weaker economy as compared to India, the outcome of any fight between these two countries was easily predictable. Even after losing one half of the country and after the demise of both CENTO and SEATO, successive Pakistani governments got even closer and economically and militarily more dependent on the US. Obviously, in return the US has continued to use Pakistani territory and its military for achieving its strategic goals and objectives. The U-2 spy plane incident, which happened almost half a century ago, had already proved that the US was using Pakistani territory and its airspace for clandestine flights.

Recently, the US discovered that bin Laden was living comfortably for many years among the Pakistani military elite. The US also knew that the Pakistan Army was playing a double game so they killed Osama Bin Laden without informing anybody in Pakistan.

The question is: why did the military brass in Pakistan become angry and suddenly aware of Pakistan’s ‘national sovereignty’? Obviously, the Pakistani ruling elite is using the bogus card of ‘sovereignty’ as a cover to hide its total failure and impotence in safeguarding the territorial integrity of Pakistan.

During its strong hold on power for more than half a century, the military establishment has also spread its power and influence in private enterprises, airports and other infrastructure, universities and even the mass media. By promoting its daily ‘peacock-like’ dance ceremonies on the Indian border at Wagah, publicising its ceremonial functions and parades and air shows on important occasions, the Pakistani military elite has firmly established itself as the ‘sole guardian and defender’ of the land in the eyes of the ordinary Pakistanis.

However, the death of Osama bin Laden and the total inability of the Pakistani security forces to defend even its own headquarters and sensitive defence installations have exposed the naked truth. After having spent major part of their earnings, the Pakistani people now realise that their military and security forces are involved in every business except doing their primary job, which is to protect the people and their country.

As the saying goes, “The higher they go, the harder they fall.” By inviting Saudi Arabia to join the US and Pakistan in driving the Soviet army out of Afghanistan, late military dictator General Ziaul Haq let in an alien but very cruel and ruthless species called the Saudis into Pakistan. They brought in constant supply of petro-dollars, attractive titles such as “the custodians of Islam’s two holiest places” and their rigid, discriminatory and violent version of Islam.

This continuous flood of money is being used to buy politicians, military brass and in building religious schools, training imams, providing funds for building and operating mosques and madrassas. In addition, the Saudis as well as their Gulf Arab cousins are arming the Taliban. This influx of foreign money and religious ideology is causing irreparable damage to the national identity and integrity as well as the centuries old cultural heritage of Pakistan.

Obviously, the Saudis have also created more dangerous fronts for both the politicians and their ‘controllers’, the Pakistani military brass. Now, in addition to the Pakistani military and political elite, there is a third establishment that is very resourceful, fanatic and extremely violent. It is composed of religious groups, which are funded, controlled and directed by the Saudis and other Arab royals.

Judging from the uncontrolled daily mass murders and killings in Pakistan, it can be safely assumed that the Pakistan Army has neither the needed capacity nor the determination to stop this carnage.

However, this time their failure cannot be covered by a ‘sovereignty’ blanket. Hopefully, the Pakistani people will finally wake up and demand a complete and effective civilian control over the entire defence establishment.

It is time to send all soldiers back to their barracks.

The writer is a Canadian of Pakistani ancestry. He has taught Environmental Sciences at several Canadian and foreign universities

 

[muse]

Published: July 26, 2011 01:04 IST | Updated: July 26, 2011 01:13 IST
Blowing hot, blowing cold, the norm in U.S.-Pakistan relations
Anita Joshua

AP The drone attacks are another issue, the focus of this protest rally in Quetta.


Just as Islamabad and Washington were coming out of yet another one of their very many transcontinental spats, came the arrest of Kashmiri American Council (KAC) Director Ghulam Nabi Fai in the U.S. for violating American laws which prohibit people from working for foreign governments without authorisation.

As Dr. Fai had apparently been facing questions about the KAC's relationship with the Pakistan Government since 2007, the timing of his arrest – right in the middle of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to India – has made Islamabad extremely suspicious of American intent.

Since Dr. Fai is alleged to have received funds from the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), his arrest is also being seen as part of the prolonged flexing of muscles between Pakistan's spy agency and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) though things were said to be on the mend after a high-level meeting earlier in the month in Washington.

That ISI Director General Shuja Pasha travelled to Langley for a meeting was in itself billed as an indication of Pakistan's willingness to work with the U.S. after relations dipped to an all-time low following the unilateral raid by the Americans in Abbottabad to take out al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. Lt. Gen. Pasha was the first senior level Pakistani to visit the U.S. after May 2 though half of the U.S. top military and civilian leadership has been trooping in and out of Islamabad all the while.

Lt. Gen. Pasha left for the U.S. two days after the White House spoke about $800-million cut in military aid to Pakistan and in the 10 days between that statement and Dr. Fai's arrest, both sides did some give and take. As is always the case with this relationship, no details were officially forthcoming but the buzz is that Washington may not withhold the green bucks and Islamabad has agreed to allowing 87 CIA operatives to return.

Slander campaign

Both sides seemed to stop for air. Even the selective leaks to the American media — showing Pakistan's armed services in poor light — that had become a major irritant for Islamabad dried up for a while. But the pause in the constant sniping at each other's heels through the media was short-lived as Dr. Fai was picked up. Islamabad remained quiet for two days after his arrest and — by default or design — broke its silence just hours after the U.S. Congress rejected an amendment to cut off all assistance to Pakistan.

A demarche was made to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to register Pakistan's concerns; particularly the slander campaign against the country. Though no mention was made of Dr. Fai's co-accused, Zaheer Ahmad, the possibility of his presence in Pakistan could open another round of sparring if U.S. insists that Islamabad hand him over. Already, linkages are being drawn of how this case could also be a bid by the U.S. to get Pakistan to release a native doctor who is alleged to have helped the CIA ascertain al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad.

Blow hot, blow cold has always been the norm in U.S.-Pakistan relations but now it has become almost a weekly feature of this rather curious relationship; plagued by myopia on both sides. Though the timeline of bilateral relations has seen a fair share of ups and downs since the 1950s — including sanctions and total cut in U.S. military assistance — there has never been the kind of anti-Americanism that there is today. And, by extension to anyone who looks Western.

Drone attacks

Partly driven by the media, there has been a lot of show of bravado with suggestions like “let us do away with American aid” and “shoot down the drones,” which, according to Pakistan, is counterproductive as they kill innocent people and turn some of their family members into terrorists.

Addressing this narrative in his analysis on Pakistan's internal dynamics and external challenges, former Foreign Minister Inam-ul-Haque asked if Pakistan could afford to confront the U.S. and deal with the isolation that is bound to follow. No, was his answer; adding that even the Islamic world would not stand with Pakistan.

While Washington has made it amply clear that the drone attacks will continue with or without Islamabad's support, Pakistan's leverage because of the transit route it provides for movement of supplies to U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan is also weakening as a bulk of this is being shifted to the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). The NDN is a series of commercially based logistical arrangements connecting the Baltic and Caspian ports with Afghanistan through Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Barring weapons — which are mostly flown in — much of the supplies and fuel for the ISAF in Afghanistan used to be taken over land through Pakistan after they arrived by ship in Karachi. But an increasing number of attacks on these supply trucks has forced the U.S. and its allies to shift to the NDN. From nearly 70 per cent last year, only 35 per cent of supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan goes through Pakistan now and this is expected to go down further before the year is through.

As for the larger issue of U.S. aid, the general view is that — all the bravado notwithstanding — Pakistan is not in a position at present to wean itself away from its dependence on American dollars. “If the aid spigot is suddenly stopped — as many U.S. legislators are threatening and some hawks in Pakistan are eager to court — Pakistan's worst macroeconomic fears may soon become a reality,” wrote S.M. Naseem, former professor of Economics at the Quaid-i-Azam University, in The Dawn recently.

The elite

Elaborating on why Pakistan is still aid-dependent, Prof. Naseem told The Hindu: “The economic managers saw the marginal costs of raising foreign aid — presenting Pakistan's case for its needs to the international community — far lower than the cost of mobilising domestic resources, which required bold and painstaking land reforms, educational and taxation reforms and prevention of leakages (including corruption). The ruling elite had a vested interest in not undertaking, or at least deferring them until they became inevitable – and even then without sufficient seriousness or political will.”

And, this ruling elite across all segments of society does not bat an eyelid criticising the U.S. while digging into a burger at the American joint, Hardee's. The irony could not have been more stark. Just the week before the U.S. threatened to cut military aid, Hardee's opened its outlet in Islamabad and people have been queuing up in the fortnight since. Even at 2 a.m., finding a place to sit inside the large three-outlet is like a game of musical chairs.

No one even suggested a token boycott since Hardee's is as American as it can get. In fact, recalls defence analyst, Ayesha Siddiqa: “Even when we attempted to organise a boycott some years ago against U.S. brand names in reaction to the Iraq war, there were few takers.” Mecca-Cola — an alternative inspired by Iran's Zam Zam Cola to American cola brands — did enter the Pakistani market in 2003 but is hardly ever seen in a market flooded with Coke and Pepsi. Even, a locally manufactured cola — Pakola with all the variants — is seldom found.

Even otherwise, the American dream continues to be pursued by youngsters coming from families with some means despite the difficulties in getting a visa. Most well-to-do children are the products of schools following the British ‘O' level and ‘A' level systems of education. The duality is amazing and widespread, said one academic; faced with students, with American or British accents, spewing venom at the West while applying for college admissions in these very countries; not once bothered by the contradiction.

While on the one hand the Pakistani elite has internalised the Western way of life with all its trappings — copied even by the middle class as best they can with their limited resources — there is no equal appreciation for America's adherence to democracy, free speech, freedom of religion.

The U.S., too, while pumping in a lot of money into this country, has failed to invest effort in understanding Pakistani society as was evident from the Embassy's decision to host the first ever “Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender Pride Celebration” last month in pursuit “of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

This move surprised not just the Pakistanis but the sizable international community present in Islamabad as nothing could have been more out of sync with the prevalent mood in the country and the U.S. of all countries — with its large presence here — should have seen the writing on the wall. The celebration earned the Americans the accusation of spreading “cultural terrorism” and caused further suspicion about the U.S. agenda in Pakistan.