DAWN 6-12-2011


SUNDAY`S phone call from President Obama to President Zardari sent another signal that the US is actively trying to defuse tensions after last month`s Nato strike. It follows other high-level communications, including a call from the secretary of state to Prime Minister Gilani. These have been `condolence` calls, without apolo gies. And President Obama hasn`t, likely for domestic compulsions having to do with the Pentagon and US elections, followed reported State Department advice to offer a videotaped statement. That said, his reaching out, including a commitment to a full investigation, should be acknowledged as an effort to lower the temperature. US officials` attempts to convince Pakistan to attend the Bonn conference should also be welcomed as recognition of the country`s importance in brokering an Afghan settlement. Registering loud and quick protest against the Nato strike was the right move, but at this point some reciprocity would be the constructive way forward. Pakistan may have refused to formally join the investigation, but it should at least cooperate to the full extent it can.

Another positive signal was the White House`s denial of Mansoor Ijaz`s latest claim that the Pakistani president and prime minister were aware of the Osama bin Laden raid before it took place. The US government did not need to respond to an allegation made by some one who is neither a security official nor a well-regarded analyst but simply a well-connected Pakistani-American businessman. In fact, it is known for its reluctance to comment on sensitive matters, or at least for taking time before responding. The quick response in this case was a clear signal of support for Pakistan`s civilian administration.

And the context that cannot be forgotten in any evaluation of recent Pakistani or US moves is that both governments are facing severe political opposition in the run-up to elections. Republican candidates for the presidency are in attack mode as their primaries inch closer, and President Obama`s calculations will inevitably include domestic political risk through this stage and over the next year as he fights the chosen Republican contender. At home, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has joined his party officials in the fray, with his complaint to the Supreme Court over Mr Ijaz`s memo being only the latest display of his political intentions. Meanwhile, Imran Khan`s PTI makes quick use of any perceived kowtowing to the US. The next year, then, is going to be qualitatively different for US-Pakistan ties than the last three years have been. Both administrations will have to strike a delicate balance between being sufficiently nationalist for domestic audiences and cooperative and sympathetic enough to save whatever alliance remains.


THERE seems to be no end to the human rights abuses committed by various state and non-state actors in the ongoing `war on terror`. As a story in the monthly Herald shows, among the gravest of these abuses is the detention of thousands of people who have not been formally charged. Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan`s Bagram prison have been termed the “twin pillars of American human rights abuse” by rights activists. According to the US Joint Task Force 435 that is in charge of the jail, over 2,400 people have been detained in Bagram for the last decade. Most are there without due process having been followed. In fact, some 400 detainees recommended for release in 2009 remain incarcerated. Human rights activists believe that many of them were ordinary villagers swept up in night-time raids and who have no potentially useful information. The point here, though, is not whether the detained are guilty of a criminal act but of the absence of due process. Holding people without formally charging them or producing them in a court of law cannot be defended. While human rights groups have highlighted the issue, the US has made no move to improve the situation.

Our government, too, has seemingly forgotten the estimated 30 Pakistanis being held in Bagram. It seems that most were picked up in the border areas. Often their families had no clue as to their whereabouts until contacted by human rights activists. Moves to have these detainees charged or repatriated have been few and far between. As a result of a petition filed by the UK-based charity Reprieve last year, the Lahore High Court ordered in October that a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs visit Bagram and file a report within a month. But the counsel for the government did not attend court on the appointed day. The Pakistan embassy in Kabul officially identified Pakistani prisoners at Bagram last year, but the detainees` predicament remains unchanged. It is essential that Pakistan pursue the issue more vigorously. Furthermore, the practice of detention without due process must cease forthwith.


THE killing is set to continue this winter. The houbara bustard is an internationally protected species that has seen an alarming fall in numbers in recent years. It is estimated that just about 50,000 houbaras, which nest in arid areas, remain today across the globe, mainly in South and Central Asia. In Pakistan, at least 25 ‘special permits’ have been issued, once again, to hunt down these endangered and highly shy, harmless birds that migrate to this country in winter from Central Asian nations such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The beneficiaries are dignitaries from Arab countries including the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. For many years now, Arab royals have turned their attention to Pakistan because they have hunted the houbara bustard almost to the point of extinction in their own lands. Myths and fallacies abound, such as the belief that the meat of these unassuming birds serves as an aphrodisiac. The result: the senseless slaughter of houbara bustards at the hands of foreigners whose deep pockets and influence in the corridors of power allows them to get away with the near decimation of an endangered species.

These special permits bring no additional revenue to the Pakistani authorities, for they are free of cost. The argument usually employed is based on the concept of ‘goodwill’, as if the hunting of birds is somehow in the national interest. It is argued by some that employment opportunities in the Arab states may be hurt if we deny special hunting rights to foreign dignitaries.

This is a short-sighted take on the ecosystem. It is well known Arab hunters often do not adhere to their allotted bag limits — ostensibly acquired only through falconry — and that local wildlife authorities do not have the courage to confront powerful visitors. Such practices must be stopped at the highest level.