Civ-mil largely on same page
PML-Z is an ally of PM Nawaz Sharif. Ijaz was tipped to be sworn in as federal minister twice but has been ignored despite repeated commitments by the PM. And he remains close enough to people close to power to know and understands the goings on in Islamabad.
In an exclusive interview with DNA, he explained the situation resulting from the Panama mess, the functioning of our particular democracy, and the road ahead.
Question: How do you see the response from the CJP to government’s request to form a Panama probe commission? Do you believe it’s a charge sheet against the PM and his government?
Ijazul Haq: I don’t think the rejoinder from the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) is a charge-sheet against the federal government.
Rather, such a response was being expected. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali has pointed out in his letter that the proposed terms of reference (ToRs) for the Panama probe were wide open and with such ToRs the commission would have become a mini NAB (National Accountability Authority) to conduct a widespread probe, which was beyond its scope. Moreover, it would eat away many years and the court would have to suspend its routine proceedings to go into the entire investigation.
The commission under the proposed TORs would not have the legal jurisdiction to investigate the matter outside Pakistan. The court also would not have any access to the data involving the Panama scam.
This is only possible if the federal government reaches out to the Panama government under the United Nations Convention against Corruption seeking relevant data. Moreover, Pakistan’s government could also be approached if any money trail reflected that it had been used in some terrorist activities.
But under the proposed terms, the court has no jurisdiction to access the data.
So the best possible way out would be that the federal government and opposition sit together and agree on consensus ToRs for a meaningful commission. This would help the matter to be amicably sorted out.
Q: Being a senior politician, well versed in the intricacies of civil-military relations, do you believe that the recent meeting of COAS with PM Nawaz Sharif has really provided a sigh of relief to the civilian regime? Or you think this period is a lull before the storm?
IH: Though I am not privy to the details of the discussion between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif, but based on my personal analysis, I understand that the military leadership is fully focused on its professional obligations.
There are no differences between the army and the civilian government on political issues. Rather, the conflicts always developed on geopolitical and strategic issues — mostly on Kashmir and nuclear policies in 1980s and 1990s and lately divergence in policy framework has been on India, Kashmir and Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has been a new factor where differences have emerged recently while nukes are no more an issue between the civil and military establishments as control and command has been settled.
But let me also tell you that it is wrong to blame the army for intervention in foreign policy framework. The truth of the matter is that all countries, whether developed or underdeveloped, develop their respective foreign policy after taking input from their military establishments.
There is a good omen now that the army chief is more interested in taking operations Zarb-e-Azb and Karachi Operation to their logical conclusion. Yes, the military leadership is concerned about the linkages proved recently between certain politicians and terrorists.
Moreover, the connection between target killers and politicians in Karachi has shocked the entire nation.
Especially, after the arrest of Dr Asim Hussain and Uzair Baloch, the terrorist-politicians connection has come to the surface and after credence of the illicit linkage, the army is committed to going after all politicians who have such connections.
So the army leadership is committed to pursuing all the facilitators and abettors of target killers or those politicians who have connections with the terrorist elements.
Having said that, I don’t think that there would be any storm as military and civilian leadership are mostly on the same page on majority of issues. Yes, there are some differences over security-related issues which would easily be sorted out.
What the federal governments needs to do is that it should initiate an immediate action against those politicians involved in corrupt practices. For the purpose, the government may push NAB to go after corrupt politicians. Especially, after the arrest of Baluchistan’s finance secretary and recover of a huge amount from his possession, action against corrupt politicians and bureaucrats has become a major challenge for the government.
But it is not the sole responsibility of the government to act against the corrupt. The parliament also needs to play its due role in pushing the state institutions to act against corrupt elements.
Moreover, the anti-corruption institutions like NAB, FIA and other provincial anti-graft bodies, must be proactive also need to act before a snub.
Q: Being a keen observer of international relations, especially involving the US, please enlighten us about what has convinced the US state department to issue a public statement reflecting a gulf between US and Pak on Panama leaks and F-16 issues? Do you think PM Nawaz Sharif has failed to deliver the goods to the US?
IH: This is a very relevant question. The matter of the widening gulf between the US and Pakistan in general and the change in the US policy on F-16s reflects our failures and weaknesses in diplomacy and priorities in foreign policy.
Unfortunately, Pakistan’s lobbying abroad has always been a weak link in our foreign policy paradigm. Especially in the US, our lobbying has been less than required and faulty too. The Jewish lobby is the most active and influential in shaping the political and military paradigm of the US. Jewish lobbyists are instrumental in shaping opinions in the US Congress too. The Jewish lobby is closely followed by the Indian lobbyists while Pakistani activists lag far behind in this field.
I remember exactly that the budget for Indian lobbyists in US was US$90 million back in early 1990s while Pakistan’s budget for the same job was a mere US$0.5 million. Another flaw in the policy was that the Pakistan government used to hire lobbyists for individuals while Indian lobbyists were tasked to work for the state of India.
Just take the example of Mark Siegel who used to lobby for Benazir Bhutto and not for Pakistan. Same is the case with Husain Haqqani who is now lobbying against the state of Pakistan and in favour of India. Especially, Haqqani is lobbying against the armed forces of Pakistan in the US Congress and for India in specific. This reflects how badly we have messed up with our case in the US Congress.
There is also a dire need to reactivate the Pakistani caucus in the US Congress. Pakistani parliamentarians also have failed to focus our national interests. I remember we had worked a lot some ten years back to set off the Pakistani caucus some 15 years back.
Now the US policymakers assume that the Pakistani army was responsible for the defeat of the US army in Afghanistan. So under immense influence of Jewish and Indian lobbyists, the US wants Pakistan to do more for their success in the war against terrorism. This hypothesis however has no legs to stand as Pakistan army has given more sacrifices in war against terrorism than any other nation. We have lost our 65,000 valuable citizens while over 7,000 army-men have embraced martyrdom in quest against the terrorists. Yet, we are being blamed for terrorism. This reflects how bad we are in terms of our foreign policy and image handling.
Q: Having served with a military dictator and civilian PM, how do you rate the performance of Nawaz Sharif this time around? Do you think the PM is facing international isolation in wake of Panama allegations?
IH: The performance of the government is good in many sectors. And there is a need for the prime minister to review some of the government’s policies. However, he has been very lucky in terms of the downward slide in petroleum prices, improvement in law and order situation after Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the huge investment in shape of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which are huge successes. But the Panama scam has hit the government hard.
The government is making all-out efforts to resolve the matter as soon as possible. I hope that once the probe commission is formed, the pressure on the government would diminish.
Q: What would be your sincere advice to the PM as an ally, keeping in view the legal battle involving the offshore companies owned by him, his children?
IH: My sincere advice for the prime minister would be to resolve the Panama issue as soon as possible. The prime minister, during his meeting with the heads of the allied parties, had offered willingness for present himself and his family for accountability if and when required. This is a welcome sign and I also support it.
Moreover, the prime minister needs to replace the reactive policies with a proactive approach. Also, since the Panama affair is more of a political matter than a legal issue, the government should be represented by its senior parliamentarians rather than the junior MPs. There is a need for the government to pitch its politically experienced MPs rather than juvenile ones.
Q: Do you believe PM Nawaz Sharif would sail through this crisis? Any comment on the possibility of another showdown of Sharif with SC, especially after CJP’s refusal to form a ‘toothless’ commission?
IH: If the government amicably forms a consensus on ToRs for the commission, taking the opposition parties’ on board, the prime minister would sail through this crisis too. Once the probe commission is formed and a probe is launched into the Panama scam, the pressure on the government would decrease.
The prime minister, during his (Monday’s) speech tomorrow, at the parliament floor, may announce a committee for holding talks with the opposition for a consensus. Later, both sides may legislate for the judicial commission. Once the commission starts a probe, the matter would subside and the government would again be able to focus its welfare agenda.
I also would urge the opposition parties to forge consensus on the ToRs issue as the opposition also stands divided and confusing statements are issued by leaders of the opposition parties.
Q: Can the CJP’s rebuke against PM be called a charge-sheet against PM in Panama leaks? Can it trigger another tussle between Sharifs and judiciary? Do you believe the performance of the parliament is up to the mark?
IH: The response from the CJP is not a charge-sheet against the government. Rather, it only reflected that the ToRs proposed by the government did not enable the commission a jurisdiction to carry out a probe into Panama affair.
As far as your question about possibility of another showdown between the prime minister and judiciary is concerned, I believe there is no such possibility on the cards.
With such a vibrant and active media, there is no chance of a confrontation with the judiciary. Moreover, I hope lessons have been learnt from past experiences. So I don’t see any confrontation between the executive and judiciary like what happened in 1998.
