DAWN 1-12-2011


SUPRISING are the ways of the state. With a `final` countdown under way for the American presence at Shamsi airbase in Balochistan to be brought to an end, Pakistanis are still none the wiser about how the base came to be under the control of foreigners. At a broader level, despite much public agitation over drone strikes here, the public at large has been given no real understanding of exactly what role the state plays in the strikes, even if in the unlikely scenario the role is limited to just approving the use of Pakistani airspace for drones. Perhaps there was once an era in which Pakistan`s engagement with outside powers could be conducted in absolute secrecy. But as times have changed, as information has become that much harder to suppress and, perhaps most importantly, as relations with the US continue to deteriorate, the skeletons in the Pakistani state`s closet will keep tumbling out.

Several questions need to be asked. Who authorises the transfer of Pakistani property, whether privately or publicly held, to a third country? Under what law is this transfer arranged? Has parliament been taken into confidence? Is there a need for special legislation to approve of such transfers? In the case of the Shamsi airbase, can Pakistan legally lease the property out to another country, in this case the UAE, which can then in turn lease it out to another country? And if the airbase itself can be leased out, what about the airspace over and around the base? Does Pakistan not have control of its own airspace? If armed drones are buzzing around Pakistani airspace, who has authorised weapons of war to be used inside Pakistan by a third country and under what law was this authorisation given?

Outside the world of espionage and covert wars, there are still important questions. From the leasing out of land, such as in Rahim Yar Khan and Jhal Magsi, for hunting purposes to talk of agricultural land being under the control of foreign countries which can then export the produce for their own use, the state here has flirted with novel uses of its own territory. This is all the more surprising given how frequently the `sovereignty` argument is invoked when these covert deals go awry or a foreign power becomes more assertive of its `rights` over Pakistani territory. In the half-truths and half-lies over the Shamsi airbase, there is an important lesson: the truth will eventually come out, so it would be better for the state to find more transparent ways of conducting foreign policy.


THE All Pakistan Cable Operators Association announced on Tuesday that it would stop relaying the broadcast of a number of international news channels. The `ban` went into effect the same night in many areas. While the primary target appears to be the BBC, other channels` transmissions have also been sporadically interrupted in different areas. The APCOA has said it plans the phase-wise curtailment of access to other foreign news channels too. Through such tactics, it hopes to force them to stop “maligning the country”. This is precisely the sort of narrow-minded nationalism that results in making the country a laughing stock. The APCOA is not just censoring access to information — which cable operators are committed to providing to their viewers — it is also depriving citizens of their right to know what is being said about them in the rest of the world, and amounts to censoring the global discourse on Pakistan.

Secondly, blocking channels can set a dangerous precedent. There have been a number of occasions where attempts have been made by the state as well as by non-state actors to stop certain information from reaching the public or to influence journalistic output. The APCOA`s move opens the window for other, more coercive tactics. The next target could be local news organisations. Meanwhile, the `ban` appears to have been triggered in part by a documentary being aired on the BBC which, the APCOA feels, is “negative propaganda” against Pakistan`s state institutions. Blocking the channel, though, amounts to trying to wish it away. Any journalistic work can easily be countered by providing evidence that it is based on erroneous assumptions. There is also the disturbing possibility that the APCOA`s hand may have been forced. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority should step in at this stage. The need is to open up Pakistan`s information and media landscape, not restrict it further. The APCOA has called upon Pemra to cancel the landing rights of “channels maligning the country”. In fact, landing rights to news networks ought to be granted across the board so that Pakistanis have access to various shades of opinion.


THE mob attack on the British embassy in Tehran on Tuesday and the `law` passed to expel the UK ambassador a day earlier give an astonishing picture of the situation in Iran. Here is a country that is home to one of the world`s oldest civilisations allowing a mob to ravage an embassy. Not surprisingly, Britain has reacted by expelling Iranian diplomats on its soil. The Iranian foreign ministry regretted the attack on the embassy and on the diplomatic compound where British diplomats had been `sequestered`, but Tehran will have to do a lot to convince the world that the government did not have a hand in it. The taking of American hostages during the early days of the revolution, when the US was closely identified with the ousted monarchy, was understandable, though not condonable, given the circumstances. But that a similar drama, though on a lower scale, should be enacted more than three decades after the revolution casts the present set of Iranian rulers in a bad light.

The mob attacked the embassy over Britain`s decision to slap new sanctions on Iran. While we have pointed out in these columns the futility of the sanctions, it should be noted that an oil-producing country like Iran is quite capable of withstanding the sanctions. The country has means at its disposal to engage Britain diplomatically and adopt policies that help Iran economically and politically. But by letting the mob violate diplomatic norms, the Iranian government hasn`t earned any friends. While the UN and western powers have condemned the attack, even Iran`s friends will find it difficult to applaud the mob action. The diplomatic police came after the protesters had done their job. That will only add to the suspicion that a government which is increasingly dependent on religious leaders had a hand in the violence.