The limp that became a crawl

The queer case of a political leadership stuck with inverted priorities and lopsided ambitions

In the entire comity of nations, it would be well-nigh impossible to find a comparable example of a leadership consciously creating grave distortions and suffering from grandiose delusions that impact decision making processes as one routinely witnesses in Pakistan. It would also be difficult to think of another set of political leaders who continually advocate inverted priorities and lopsided ambitions as part of their purported agenda.

The hype that surrounded the prime minister’s visit to the United States at a time when he needed to be in the country was assiduously created to sneak in non-issues into formal agenda items to score some brownie points. It all came crashing down during the course of his meeting with Barak Obama reflected in the joint statement issued at the conclusion of the trip.

The visit was ambitiously built around the centre-point of the need for bringing an end to the drone strikes to facilitate the impending dialogue with the militants. That effort, per se, is tantamount to surrendering before the writ of the barbarous bands of murderers who have inflicted grievous damage on the state of Pakistan and its people. In a damaging story published immediately after the conclusion of the prime minister’s visit to the US, The Washington Post claimed that it was in possession of top-secret CIA documents and Pakistani diplomatic memos according to which “despite repeatedly denouncing the CIA’s drone campaign, top officials in Pakistan’s government have for years secretly endorsed the programme and routinely received classified briefings on strikes and casualty counts”. The alleged documents “describe dozens of drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal region and include maps as well as before- and after-aerial photos of the targeted compounds over a four-year stretch from late 2007 to late 2011”. Several documents refer to a “direct Pakistani role in the selection of targets”. These targets were either outlined by the Pakistan side or the result of a joint CIA-ISI effort.

When you are fighting a dreaded enemy, you have to make use of all weapons that may be at your disposal exclusively or jointly with your partners in the war. The problem arises when that enemy is suddenly perceived as a prospect fit for initiating a dialogue with. This is when these weapons that were previously being used to fight the enemy become obstacles in the path of negotiations. This changed worldview may not necessarily be shared by your partners. That is the issue underlining the divergence of opinion between Pakistan and the US regarding the use of the drones. The collateral damage among the civilians is the rallying cry to highlight the legitimacy of the demand, but cite me one example of a war that does not result in civilian casualties including the one unleashed by the militants against the state of Pakistan that has so far resulted in the deaths of over 40,000 civilians? Why don’t the people who talk of the collateral deaths as a result of the drone attacks also condemn the indescribable brutality of the attacks of these militants? It is this duality that has gravely compromised the writ of the state forcing it to initiate a process of dialogue with the militant bands from a position of utter weakness.

In a detailed analysis of the visit, Stratfor, a leading global intelligence and analysis agency, has commented that the prime minister’s Washington trip was “a net failure”. The report goes on to state: “the Pakistani prime minister had hoped that Obama would respond with a statement to the effect that Washington would work with Islamabad to eventually get to the point where the United States would not have to conduct the strikes. Not only did Obama say nothing of the sort, the leak to The Washington Post was meant as a signal to Islamabad to back off from the issue”.

There is another issue concerning the drone strikes: their reported unpopularity with the people, particularly among those residing in the tribal belt. In a report, The Christian Science Monitor of October 23 has nullified that contention. The report says: “the locals in Waziristan where most of the strikes happen actually see them as the only thing saving them from the terrorists since the government has not been taking any action against the elements operating there”. Quoting its source, the report goes on to state that “while the negative psychological impact of the drones flying above one’s head may be true, but I have witnessed that whenever I visit the area, people are more concerned about terrorist attacks and the military bombardments since they know that the (drone) strikes are quite precise and target only those linked with the Taliban”. Referring to the residents of the tribal belt, the report says: “But they cannot talk about that since they live among the Taliban”. The report concludes that “the narrative that drone strikes are immensely unpopular in Pakistan is a controlled one”.

Understandably, the issue of the drone strikes was raised by the prime minister, but there is no mention of this in the joint statement. Instead, it speaks of a mutual condemnation of terrorism “in all its forms and manifestations”. The statement further notes: “extremism and terrorism represent a common challenge for humanity and that the solution lies in collaboration and joint efforts by the international community”. Will these efforts encompass laying down weapons before the enemy and beseeching them for initiating a dialogue – understandably on their terms and conditions – as the government of Pakistan and other servile proponents of peace with militants seem to be advocating?

A similar paradox is also reflected in the registration of a murder case against Gen Musharraf for ordering the assault on Lal Masjid which had been effectively declared as a state within a state. What is the government for? Tolerate this and similar other rebellions, thus allowing the establishment of mini-fiefdoms within the state and precipitating its ultimate liquidation? One may have an issue with the manner the operation was conducted, or with having delayed it for over eight months, but there is no issue with the need for using the multiple instruments of the state authority to curb rebellion.

The other non-issue which reports claim was raised at the meeting with the US president was the release of Afia Siddiqui. This was reportedly countered by a demand for Pakistan to release Shakil Afridi, the person who facilitated the US effort to locate the hideout of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad leading to the May 2 operation to eliminate him. There is no mention of this either in the joint statement, so it may actually be another point in the wish-list of the prime minister. A formal statement issued by the White House reiterated the demand for the release of Shakil Afridi. The US appears right in contending that locating the leading terrorist of the world was in the common stated interest of both the countries and anyone assisting in this regard can hardly be blamed or held up. On the other hand, the Pakistani position is riddled with an inherent contradiction. It agrees that Osama bin Laden needed to be eliminated, but it simultaneously is not willing to acknowledge the contribution made in that regard by Shakil Afridi who has been interned instead for the very same role.

The visit of the prime minister was also studded with both humorous and depressing anecdotes. Reportedly, on two separate occasions, he referred to the host as ‘President Clinton’ and did not even bother to correct himself. Then the body language said a lot. The prime minister, almost throughout the meeting and after it, seemed visibly uneasy over his presence in the White House, while the US president was seen patting him along patronisingly. After all, it was the prime minister’s call to visit the US! Then, in a depressing departure from routine, the prime minister insisted on reading from his notes which came out as cumbersome and unconvincing. There was also the queer case of the Foreign Minister Nawaz Sharif calling on the US Foreign Secretary. This possibly would be a first-timer in diplomatic echelons and even the Americans may have suffered blushes of sorts.

Helped along by an excessively corrupt and incompetent leadership, Pakistan seems stuck with its traditional regressive narrative. It has not helped the country in the past, and is not likely to in the future either. There is a dire need for replacing it with a narrative that is more in consonance with the genuine aspirations of the people of Pakistan. This narrative should not be rooted in religiosity, or promote a degenerate militant agenda. Instead, this narrative should uphold the enlightened model that the Quaid had outlined in his maiden address to the constituent assembly on August 11, 1947 – three days before the birth of the country. The effort to impose an alien narrative has damaged Pakistan’s national ethos and its potential to emerge as a progressive state for the rest of the world to follow. There may still be time, after all!

Raoof Hasan is a political analyst and the Executive Director of the Regional Peace Institute. He can be reached at[email protected].