The controversy generated over the release of the US citizen cum CIA operative Raymond Davis is both unnecessary and misplaced. It is unnecessary because it is a court of law that has ordered his release in which everyone had reposed trust. It is also misplaced because the release has been ordered in accordance with the provisions of the prevalent law and there has been no apparent breach thereof.
The insinuation that the whole drama was stage-managed may be correct, but such are the ways of governments which have yet to learn the democratic culture. Nevertheless, it should also be recognised that a settlement based on blood money hinged solely on the voluntary consent of the heirs of the deceased. On March 16, all eighteen of them were present in the court room and each one of them stated separately that he/she had agreed to pardon Raymond Davis without any pressure and signed on the dotted line. An amount of Rs. 200 million is said to have been paid as blood money. Thereafter, the heirs did not return to their places of residence. The concerned judge has since proceeded on long leave.
Ever since the brutal murders committed by Raymond Davis, the calls demanding for his blood have been vociferous. The wife of one of the deceased committed suicide fearing that justice would not be done. She demanded blood for blood in remarks from her death bed. There have also been questions raised with regard to a sell-out of national sovereignty and dignity which, according to wide-spread protestations, mostly spearheaded by the religious parties, could only be negated through the death of the CIA operative. These are predominantly false pretensions which are out of sync with contemporary realities and need to be remedied forthwith.
Understandably, the feelings in the matter have been further incensed because of two factors. One pertains to the ambivalent stance of the federal government regarding the provision of diplomatic immunity to the accused and the other reflects the deep-set societal dislike for the US on account of its policies throughout the world including Pakistan. More specifically, there were also fears expressed about the nature and the expanse of the activities of the CIA operatives of the ilk of Raymond Davis in the country who were issued visas by Pakistani ambassador sitting in Washington vide special powers granted allegedly with due authorisation from the highest functionaries of the federal government.
This scribe, in a previous column, had stated that Raymond Davis would be released sooner rather than later and the path of payment of blood money presented the most convenient and acceptable option for the parties concerned. The continued incarceration of Raymond Davis was an untenable affair and the government, more because of its lackadaisical dependence on the US support in numerous sectors including economy and defence, could not afford to sustain it indefinitely. The legal provision based on blood money for securing the release of an accused could also not be applied discriminately. The court would not accept applicability of law on the basis of the accused persons colour, nationality, creed or the extent of dislike that pervaded the society regarding him or his country of descent. So, strictly speaking, the release of Raymond Davis is according to the established provisions of law. The formulation of legal judgements is based solely on an unemotional and pragmatic understanding of jurisprudence. The matters of emotions fall strictly outside such realm.
Where is it, then, that we went wrong? We did so, and on numerous counts. By withholding a clear and candid statement regarding the admissibility of diplomatic immunity to Raymond Davis, the federal government displayed jitters in the face of unremitting pressure from the US government going all the way up to President Obama. The manner in which the court room drama was enacted on March 16 leading to the hasty release of the accused also created misgivings about the conduct of the federal and the provincial administrations. The report that a US plane had been waiting at Lahore airport since the previous day to whisk Raymond away proves, inter alia, the complicity of the administrations in facilitating the operation. Its sensitivity notwithstanding, legal matters should have been handled in a transparent manner for all concerned to see. After the verdict, the US Foreign Secretary claimed that America had not paid the blood money. If the government of Pakistan paid it, ostensibly to safeguard national honour, it makes for a case worthy of a court room. In view of unmistakable evidence that Raymond Davis was a CIA operative engaged in espionage activities in the country, why a case was not registered against him as it would have been against a spy who is caught? Food for thought!
More specifically, the matter had touched some thorny security issues. The outline of a solution and its attendant provisos were possibly finalised during a spate of meetings between the security agencies of the two countries held in Pakistan and elsewhere. It is understood that a demand for withdrawal of under-cover CIA operatives was forcefully mooted and, according to reliable reports, some of them may already have been withdrawn from Pakistan. Whether the incident leads to a complete clean-up of the national frontiers from the presence of the likes of Raymond Davis ala courtesies allegedly extended by the Pakistani ambassador in the US remains to be seen, but, in the least, there is enhanced awareness of the nefarious network that the US has been able to build in this country with the support of our people occupying positions of power and authority. More than the Americans, they deserve to be brought to justice.
The relations between the US and Pakistan need to be re-modelled along pragmatic lines. This should happen without the fear factor playing a disproportionate role. We need to move away from the master-slave syndrome. It is the mutuality of interests that makes a relationship self-sustaining. If, however, there is a lack of legitimacy on the part of one side as, indeed, there is regarding the NRO-beneficiary government in the country, there would be serious impediments to securing parity in bilateral relations. The government needs to address the issue urgently before we land up with another Raymond Davis.
The writer is a media consultant to the Chief Minister, Punjab.
