By Shireen M Mazari



Somehow it did not come as a surprise to find yet another outburst against Pakistan by an American military man in Afghanistan who reasserted the US's right to violate Pakistan's sovereignty through hot pursuit and bombings, all in the name of "self-defence".

The Foreign Office spokesperson stated she was "surprised" that so much fuss was being made over a statement "by a colonel-level official." However, the surprise is that Pakistan has placed itself in a position where a low ranking official can make such a provocative statement in the first place. Clearly, Pakistan's verbal rejections of these US claims have been paid no heed to by its allies in Afghanistan, with the result that within Pakistan no one is convinced of the government's resolve not to allow these challenges to its sovereignty. Now, such verbal rejoinders, when they are not followed by punitive action against the offending forces that challenge Pakistan's sovereignty, have lost all meaning. The growing perception is that the writ of the government in terms of safeguarding our territorial sovereignty can be challenged at will by US and NATO forces and our citizens can be taken into custody by these forces with no regard for Pakistan's laws or sovereignty -- and certainly no regard for international law, but that has never been an issue for the Bush Administration.

There is now a pattern to such events. First, we have the wrongful action, then its defence by the wrongdoers and finally someone rushes over to try and appease the leadership of Pakistan -- as happened this time round with the hurried visit of Robert Gates. But Gates himself revealed the condescending and abrasive approach the US has towards Pakistan when, having arrived early, he refused to wait for his Pakistani counterpart and instead simply took off to meet the President. Obviously Gates was not concerned about diplomatic niceties regarding Pakistanis!

There are those in Pakistan who actually feel that the Pakistan government should continue making these verbal rejoinders even as the US and NATO continue to violate our sovereignty with impunity, as this is the only way to keep the tribals under pressure and that in any case there is little Pakistan can do in terms of concrete action to stop these incursions. This is dangerous logic because it also sends a message to the Pakistani citizens of the tribal belt that their government can do nothing to protect them from foreign military action on Pakistani soil. This can hardly be conducive to bolstering the writ of the state in these areas -- just when the Pakistani state is trying to open up the area and bring it into the mainstream!

The Pakistan military has to move beyond mere rhetoric and demonstrate its will to defend its territorial integrity in the face of a challenge by US/NATO forces as also by locals seeking to defy the law of the land. So some punitive action has to be undertaken to restore the government's credibility within the domestic polity.

This issue of credibility is very central, especially these days, to ensuring that the writ of the state is not challenged at will through violent means by anyone -- no allied states and no subnational groups. The credibility of the state to ensure that the law of the land is enforced and that our territorial integrity will not be compromised is being seriously eroded not just by the actions of the US and NATO but also by events unfolding domestically.

Take the case of the occupation of the Children's library by students of the Jamia Hafsa. Here was a situation where the law had been clearly violated on two counts at least: One, by the illegal construction of the Madrassah and, two, by the occupation of the library. Yet the state showed a growing temerity in dealing with the law breakers and eventually the latter won a negotiated settlement whereby the state backtracked on its policy of ridding the capital of illegal construction including of mosques and Madrassahs -- a decision supported by the Council of Islamic Ideology which declared such illegally constructed mosques as "un-Islamic." Yet, wielding sticks and probably stashing more lethal weapons, those who sought to challenge the law and the state seemed to have held sway.

From this compromise by the state, what message has gone out to the majority of civil society? That if you can show an ability to threaten to use violence to get your way, you can break the law and have the state negotiate a compromise with you, regardless of the weakness of your case. Contrast this with the way the protest by teachers of the OPF is being ignored by all and sundry. With the state showing no respect to this profession, how can we expect our educational standards to improve? The relevant minister, according to press reports, refused to come out of Parliament to talk to these teachers. Should they also have undertaken a similar occupation a la Jamia Hafsa style to get the state to give them serious attention? And what of the young girl from Sindh and her family who are seeking public redress, to the gang rape inflicted on this minor, in terms of arrests of the rapists? How have the offenders managed to get bail for what is a non-bailable offence? As this poor, grief stricken family mounts a public protest in Karachi, who will pay heed to their legitimate grievance, given that they wield no physical or political power -- only a moral high ground?

The President has correctly stated that idealism cannot prevail in a non-ideal environment and as we know the political-military environment that prevails at any given time in any part of the world is not ideal. But it is in these environments that states have to assert their writ to ensure the safety of civil society and to send a clear cut message to all its citizenry that it will not allow anyone to break the law with impunity and that it will protect the rights of all its citizens and the territorial integrity of the country.

There is a discomfiting similarity between the US/NATO incursions into our territory and their defiant statements, and the actions and statements of the lawbreakers in the Jamia Hafsa incident. Both are challenging and seeking to undermine the writ of the state of Pakistan and in both instances, the state seems to have cowed under -- despite rhetoric to the contrary. Could it be that there is an unholy alliance of aims between the two diverse groups of challengers to the writ of the Pakistani state in order to weaken the state from within?

The religious extremists wish to weaken the state in the hope of establishing their vision of an "Islamic" state -- and the Jamia Hafsa incident has certainly had a negative impact on the standing of the mainstream, moderate religious parties like the Jamaat, within civil society at large -- while the US intent of targeting our nuclear assets indirectly has never been hidden; but both know they must first undermine the authority of the state. Ironically, at one time both these two groups were allies in fighting a jihad against the Soviets and Communism! Is there a covert and unholy alliance once again? After all, stranger things have been known to happen in our world.



The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

__________________
ஜ иστнιπg ιš ιмթΘรรιвlε тσ α ωιℓℓιиg нєαят ஜ