Gut reaction
Lubna Jerar Naqvi ·
Two Pakistanis were shot dead by Raymond Davis, a US consulate employee who claims that he did so because he feared the youths were “chasing” him to rob him. A number of questions arise from Davis’ statement. But, basically, how did he know that the men were “chasing” him, with intentions of “robbing” him? If Davis’ display of “self-defence” was caused by the security situation in Pakistan, he should have brought a security guard along for his protection, if not a convoy, since he was allegedly a diplomat.
Again, how could Davis be so sure he actually saw the men handling weapons when his full concentration must have been on driving, since he was so desperate to escape robbers chasing him? And whether or not they did have weapons, was he not a little trigger-happy, anyway?
Legal experts in Pakistan are of the view that Davis cannot claim diplomatic immunity. “There is no diplomatic immunity for the American ‘killer,’ “ Barrister Farogh Naseem was quoted as saying in The News on Sunday. “But if immunity is claimed by the US embassy, or even the Pakistan government, a court will have to decide to grant it or not,” said Mr Naseem, who is a former advocate general of Sindh.
Technically, Davis was not a diplomat under the Vienna Conventions, he added, and that even a diplomat can claim immunity only in a situation where he/she is performing diplomatic duties. The US Embassy insists that since Davis is a member of its “technical and administrative staff,” he “should” be given diplomatic immunity.
The Lahore killings, in which three Pakistanis died – including the man killed by a speeding American diplomatic vehicle during the incident – have sent shockwaves across Pakistan, and people expect justice. If anything, consideration for the grieving families of the deceased requires that the process of law take its due course in Davis’ case. That’s only fair if Davis is not a diplomat, as the barrister has stated, and he did not carry out the shooting in his line of duty.
The London-based Association of Pakistani Lawyers (APL) has described the shooting as an extrajudicial killing. It has emphasised that justice cannot differentiate between a “Pakistani” criminal and a “US” criminal, particularly in an arguably capital offence.
If the Americans adopt a more reasonable position in the Raymond Davis case, it would be an opportunity for them to stem the growing tide of anti-US sentiments in Pakistan, as well as to prove that America is the land of justice, as it presents itself. Meanwhile, it is an occasion for the Pakistani government to assert the country’s sovereignty.
It is essential for the United States to allow rule of law to prevail and help in the revelation of the truth, whatever it may be. If requested by the Pakistanis, they should agree to the calling in of neutral foreign experts to help in the investigation.
There is no point repeating the Nisour Square incident way, in which 17 people, including a ten-year-old boy, were shot on Sept 16, 2007, by a convoy protected by the US mercenary outfit Blackwater – since renamed XE Services.
But let’s reverse roles and suppose that two American, and proven robbers, at that, had been shot dead in self-defence by a Pakistani on American soil. One can only imagine how the authorities would have dealt with the shooter.
|