Inexplicable
Commissions and Omissions
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
It must always be
an ego-boosting experience for American officials
to visit Pakistan after New Delhi. After all, in
India they meet only their equivalent Indian officials
and political leaders. Hence we saw Undersecretary
of State Nicholas Burns meet with Indian Foreign
Secretary Shyam Saran. On arrival in Pakistan, in
the wake of the Bajaur missile attacks that killed
innocent Pakistani civilians and in the face of
an arrogant American refusal to even express regret,
forget about apologizing, Burns had access to all
tiers of Pakistani officialdom and leadership.
No one bothered to recall Mr. Burns's defense of
the Indo-US nuclear agreement in terms of India's
so-called 'impeccable' non-proliferation record.
Conveniently suffering from amnesia, Burns chose
to forget India's nuclear and other military dealings
with the Saddam regime and with Iran. And it is
now abundantly clear that one of our major failings
is our excessive politeness and accommodation when
it comes to foreigners, especially from the West.
So of course we were not about to correct Burns's
politically correct amnesia.
However, what was truly astounding to learn was
that many Pakistani politicians who had been taking
on the government on the Bajaur issue adopted silence
at a meeting the US ambassador had arranged at his
residence, on January 21, for select to meet with
Burns. Yet another meeting was held a day or so
later, which was reported in some sections of the
press. Of course one would have thought that, as
a protest against Bajaur, the Pakistanis would have
refused the invite. After all, so many in the opposition
were wanting the government to take a strong stand
on the issue and some politicians were advocating
cancellation of the prime minister's visit to the
US. But there they all were, at the US ambassador's
residence, greeting Mr. Burns and - barring the
MQM representative - maintaining a deafening silence
on Bajaur (at least in the Saturday meeting).
Worse still, instead of discussing US policies in
this region and the unacceptable efforts of the
US to delink India's nuclear status from that of
Pakistan's, the Pakistanis present chose to embark
on a harangue against the state of affairs within
the country and the terrible acts of commission
and omission by the present government. Now what
was the purpose of discussing Pakistan's internal
issues with a US official? Are we seeking US intervention
on an even greater level within our domestic affairs?
It is no wonder then that while the US discusses
security and foreign policy issues and cooperation
with India, in Pakistan they make pronouncements
on our democratic dispensation and other internal
problems.
This is truly our national tragedy: we cannot decide
whether we want to assert our sovereignty and keep
foreign powers like the US from meddling in our
internal affairs, or if we want them to listen to
us vent against the state and intervene. After all,
there is no point in ranting and raving to a US
official unless we are seeking his country's intervention
in our domestic affairs. Is this what our opposition
is seeking? If that be the case, they can hardly
complain about the government's seeming compliance
with US policies. One wonders where our national
self-respect and circumspection is when we come
into contact with US officials?
We now have our Foreign Office spokesperson declaring
that Pakistan has not sought an apology from the
US. Why? Do we hold our citizens lives in such contempt
that we can simply accept their deaths as so much
acceptable 'collateral damage'? What is extremely
disturbing is a report in the US weekly Time magazine
stating that Islamabad has an understanding with
Washington that the US can conduct military attacks
within Pakistan's border regions following which
Pakistan will conduct formal protests to deflect
domestic criticism. One hopes this report will be
strongly contradicted by the Government of Pakistan
for it totally undermines the country's basic sovereignty.
Meanwhile, as a member of the Human Rights Commission
of Pakistan (HRCP), I am disturbed by the latest
HRCP Report on Balochistan - not only by what is
included but also by what has been ignored or merely
mentioned in passing. I have always held the HRCP
and its chairperson in the highest esteem and admired
the latter's indomitable courage in the face of
extreme personal dangers. While we may disagree
on many issues, there is never any doubt as to her
commitment to the upholding of human rights. That
is why the new report on Balochistan is a surprise,
because it focuses on only one side of the story.
It documents abuses by the state but does not examine
the root causes that have militarized the situation.
It merely touches on the tribal system and the tribal
leaders who continue to maintain private armies,
massive armaments and their own system of justice.
It condemns the state's use of military action but
does not recommend how the state should deal with
the landmines laid by 'militants' and rockets launched
by unknown groups and individuals against not only
military personnel but also the head of state. The
militarized response of the state has not come about
in a vacuum and rocket fire cannot be countered
simply with political dialogue.
Interestingly, the report does accept the existence
of 'militants' and expresses concern "over
the fact that militants had placed land mines along
roads". However, in its recommendations, it
merely requests these militants to de-mine these
areas! But how should the state deal with those
who indulge in such militarized activities?
The report is also unwilling to recommend ways to
bring tribal leaders into the mainstream of national
laws, even though it admits that "Balochistan
is awash with arms". The report does recommend
that "all steps" be taken to end penal
sanctions, jirgas and private prisons, but how does
the state compel the tribal leaders to disband their
private militias, jails and hand over their large
arsenals? The report also mentions inter-tribal
feuds but again does not focus on these as one major
source of human rights abuse. As for tribal norms,
these are also not examined and condemned for their
multiple human rights abuses.
In terms of disappearances and the deaths of innocent
citizens, the report gives a harrowing account which
cannot be condoned by anyone. But it is interesting
that the report especially notes that "the
dead included some Hindus", as if that makes
the killings worse. The report talks of "alarming
accounts of summary executions, some allegedly carried
out by paramilitary forces." Who are the other
parties who may have allegedly carried out these
executions? Why have these not been mentioned? Elaboration
on this count would give a clearer picture of the
brutal tribal system. If the people fear the state,
they also fear the wrath of the tribal chiefs.
The recommendations should be heeded but there are
some noticeable omissions. Why a crucial recommendation
to deweaponize the province has been left out is
inexplicable. After all, unless there is deweaponization,
violence will always remain endemic. Of course,
it is a weakness of the state that the tribal system
continues to follow its own writ. But it is also
easier to condemn the state while ignoring the ground
realities of the violence and abuse of human rights,
especially of women, that are part of the tribal
system. If a rational assessment is to be made of
the present situation in Balochistan, all aspects
of the ground realities have to be examined fully
and the fault lines exposed across the board. This
is where the HRCP's latest Report on Balochistan
is found wanting.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
