A provocative address
BENJAMIN Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of the US Congress on Tuesday is a prime example of how international diplomacy should not be conducted. It was a strange situation: the leader of a foreign nation was challenging the policies of the US president in America’s national legislature. This bizarre event clearly shows the power Israel yields over a large section of the US political establishment. Mr Netanyahu had a largely one-dimensional message: there should be no nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1. Not only was this political stunt — legislative elections are due shortly in Israel — a clumsy attempt to sabotage the nuclear negotiations, it was also blatant interference in America’s domestic affairs. Barack Obama’s dislike of the episode was illustrated by his total snub of the Israeli leader, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi described the speech as an “insult” to American intelligence. Tehran, understandably, termed the address “Iranophobic”. The speech was little more than scare-mongering, using such a distinguished platform to make sweeping statements about a “nuclear nightmare” should Iran develop the bomb.
Moreover, Mr Netanyahu has made misleading statements about the alleged Iranian bomb earlier, most notably before the UN. The address also illustrated a clear division within the US political establishment as over 50 Democrats boycotted the speech; this is a rare departure from the usual bipartisan support Tel Aviv gets in Washington. Yet despite the dissent Mr Netanyahu received several ovations from the representatives of the American people. While Benjamin Netanyahu’s compulsions may have been to show Israeli voters and Tel Aviv’s friends in Washington that he wants to appear tough on Iran, such theatrics must not affect the nuclear negotiations. Tehran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear power while the prospect of more nuclear weapons in the Middle East would be an unwelcome addition to a volatile region. Hence diplomacy should be the only channel pursued to ensure Iran gets a fair deal and that the concerns of its neighbours and the West are sufficiently addressed.
Strange disappearance
THE prime accused in multiple murder cases as well as a key suspect in the Baldia Town factory fire case has disappeared under circumstances described as ‘mysterious’ by the Rangers. Rizwan Qureshi was arrested on five counts of murder and one count of possession of illicit weapons in June 2013, and interrogated by a Joint Interrogation Team a week later. He was indicted by a sessions court — where the trial was being conducted — in all six cases based on the recorded testimony of eyewitnesses as well as a confession he gave to the police, which has no weight before a court. By October 2014, he was granted bail in all cases due to delays in recording the testimony of key eyewitnesses before the court. Then in early February the JIT report was made public when it was placed before the Sindh High Court in a case totally unconnected with the six counts on which Qureshi was being tried in the sessions court.
The report’s contents regarding the Baldia Town factory fire sparked a fierce political controversy, even though they were based entirely on hearsay. When the sessions court hearing the original six cases summoned Qureshi for a hearing on Feb 25, 2015, he failed to appear and has since been missing. How could somebody accused of five counts of murder be granted bail? The clear answer is that the investigating authorities did a poor job of building a case for the court. For one, his confession was never recorded before a judicial magistrate, which would make it legally admissible as evidence in court and might have been enough to secure his conviction. Trying to convict someone accused of crimes as dangerous as the ones Qureshi was accused of on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone is very poor prosecution because eyewitnesses are easily intimidated.
Additionally, why was the JIT report not shared with police investigators or the prosecution in the trial under way in the sessions court, especially considering its recommendation that Qureshi “may be Challan [sic] in the cases in which he has disclosed his involvement” was signed by the SSP South, Karachi Police? It almost seems as if trying Qureshi was a lesser priority to using his disclosures before the JIT for creating a political firestorm. Given these weaknesses in our prosecution and investigative capacities, perhaps it is not all that ‘mysterious’ that the prime accused in such heinous crimes has ‘disappeared’.
More of the same
IT is perhaps a testament to the hopes and dreams of many in the region that an overnight stopover in Pakistan, squeezed between visits to Dhaka and Kabul, by a senior Indian bureaucrat can still generate so much interest. Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar’s visit to Islamabad may have been billed by the Indian government as part of a so-called Saarc yatra, but it was always going to be bilateral issues that dominated the agenda in Islamabad. The real question — given that few anticipated any kind of breakthrough on Tuesday — was what kind of tone the foreign secretaries would set in their interaction. Now, the answer is known: a cautious, bureaucratic tone meant to avoid controversies and which gave neither cause for much hope nor great sorrow. In the jargon of the times, Mr Jaishankar and his Pakistani counterpart, Aizaz Chaudhry, played up modest convergences and downplayed significant divergences.
On display, then, was an old, gentle game: India mentioned Mumbai, Pakistan referred to the Samjhota Express; Pakistan mentioned alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan and Fata, India pointed to alleged Pakistan-based anti-India militancy. Both sides brought up violence along the LoC and Working Boundary. As host, Pakistan mooted the softest of CBMs (people-to-people contact, religious tourism, media and sporting ties, etc) while, as the guest, India graciously promised to dwell on the suggestions. As is the norm, the more meaningful communications — getting down to brass tacks, as it were — would have taken place behind closed doors and in confidence. For the Pakistani side, the main interest was likely to try and determine how the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is planning to address the bilateral relationship in the immediate future. Is the approach to remain wrapped up in the broader Saarc context, a sign that Mr Modi is content to let ties remain frozen, or is the Saarc emphasis really to provide domestic political cover while Mr Modi engages Pakistan and seeks some genuine progress on the major issues?
For New Delhi, the main interest was likely to determine whether the military-dominated, but civilian-fronted Pakistani policy on India is willing to address its concerns about regional terrorism and India-centric militants tolerated by Pakistan. What is discussed behind closed doors though will eventually be reflected in the public positions. If the resumption of full-spectrum talks is the goal, then this hesitant dance dubbed as ‘talks for talks’ is well worth the effort. In truth, on some issues there is really little of substance left to negotiate — Sir Creek and Siachen in particular. And much depends on political will. So how the talks are structured may in fact determine what the outcomes are. Mr Modi has already shown his petulant side by cancelling foreign secretary-level talks last year and the state here has shown its intransigence over the Mumbai attacks-related trials. Political leadership is what’s needed, but will it materialise?
Published in Dawn March 5th , 2015