In an unusual move the US State Department announced over the weekend on its website that in view of the political changes in Pakistan and after consultations with the Afghan and Pakistani representatives in Washington it had been decided to postpone the trilateral talks that were scheduled for the 23rd and 24th February. The announcement was at pains to emphasise that this was merely a postponement and that “We remain committed to robust engagement between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States, as we share many issues of mutual concern and benefit from being at the same table.”
There was no doubt however in anyone’s mind in Pakistan that the postponement was the first concrete manifestation of the American threat to suspend all high level engagement with Pakistan until the case of Raymond Davis – an American national associated with either the American embassy in Islamabad or the American consulate General in Lahore – had been resolved to America’s satisfaction.Raymond Davis – whether this is really his name has been cast in doubt by State Department statements -admittedly shot fatally two Pakistani on a busy street of Lahore – the capital of Pakistan’s largest province – and claimed that he did so in self defence since they were trying to rob him at the point of a gun. The American Embassy claimed that he was on the technical and administrative staff of the embassy and was entitled to full diplomatic immunity and should therefore be released into the custody of the embassy immediately.
The case for diplomatic immunity has of course to be seen in the light of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations of 1961 or if it transpires that Davis was in fact working for the Consulate General in Lahore in the light of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 both of which Conventions were incorporated in Pakistan law through an act adopted in 1972. This facet of the case has been analysed in two articles I wrote for the Express Tribune of Pakistan, (http://tribune.com.pk/story/115417/the-curious-case-of-raymond-davis& http://tribune.com.pk/story/117011/the-raymond-davis-case-options-for-the-government/) and interested readers may wish to access them to read my interpretation of the legal position.
There is no doubt that the American approach on this issue has been extremely heavy handed – perhaps prompted in part by a legitimate fear that if the claim to diplomatic immunity is given up Davis will not get a fair hearing nor will the investigation of his claim of self defence be unbiased. It is also however a reflection of the attitude of “exceptionalism” that the Americans have traditionally adopted with regard to their nationals in foreign countries.
Perhaps this is best illustrated by the manner in which American commanders have allowed the application of local laws to those of the more than 50,000 American servicemen based in Okinawa who have committed crimes on Japanese soil. It was only in 2001 that for the first time in Okinawa a US service man was handed over to the local authorities for trial for raping a woman. Up till then all those accused of crimes were usually whisked away from Japan (according to figures compiled by the Okinawa prefecture U.S. servicemen on Okinawa between 1972 and 2000, committed 5,006 documented crimes, which averages out to roughly one every other day and of these 527 were heinous crimes such as murder and arson, and 949 were violent crimes involving injuries).
Even now no serviceman is handed over to the local authorities until he has been formally indicted. While the Japanese example is not in truth strictly analogous to the situation in Pakistan there is no doubt that in the eyes of many Pakistanis, the presence of operatives from CIA employed contractors going around heavily armed and not being subject to local laws is a source of irritation almost as great a that felt by the residents of Okinawa.
In these circumstances the American pressure has only fed the resentment already felt in Pakistan where many polls suggest that more than 80% of the people are against the American Government and the policies it follows in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The NY Times has published on the 13th February a poll of Pakistani journalists according to which these moulders of Pakistan’s public opinion have a favourable view of the American people – 76% – but are opposed to American foreign policy – 77% – believe that America is unjustly meddling in Pakistan politics – 84% – and do not want American forces to operate on Pakistani soil – 87%. The American people too have tired of Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to another poll conducted by Gallup recently in the United States only 18% of Americans view Pakistan favourably while Afghanistan is viewed favourably by only 14%. This is in contrast to the position before 2005 where more than 40% viewed the two countries favourably.
This is a remarkable situation since in the many years over which the US-Pak relationship has extended one can say that at least on the surface the two countries have for the first time genuinely converging interests – the bringing of stability to Afghanistan and the elimination of terrorist safe havens in Pakistan that pose a threat not only to the integrity of Pakistan but also to the United States and its western allies.
Pakistanhas at considerable cost to itself provided transit facilities for the non-lethal odds required to maintain the NATO forces in Afghanistan. It has waged war against the extremists and terrorists on its soil suffering greater number of casualties than all the NATO forces in Afghanistan and having the terror network take revenge by launching suicide and other terror attacks in Pakistan’s main population centres. Its over extended army is even now conducting operations in the tribal areas and once these are completed may well be able to muster the resources needed to take out the terrorist havens in North Waziristan.
The USA on the other hand has been the principal donor of assistance in cash and kind to help Pakistan cope with the deadly earthquake of 2005 and the even more devastating flood of 2010. It provides weaponry and cash to support the Pak army’s offensive against the militants. It is the principal donor of economic assistance at $1.5 billion a year and its influence has been helpful in ensuring the continuation of the IMF programme for which Pakistan has not fulfilled all the required conditions. Pakistan’s dire economic straits and its seemingly dysfunctional governance make this assistance a vital crutch without which there could be an economic collapse with predictably awful consequences for the county and for the region.
Just as the Americans are fed up with Afghanistan and by extension with Pakistan holding these two countries responsible for the US military’s failures in Afghanistan so too the Pakistanis hold the Americans responsible for the losses suffered in the war on terror and the killing of Pakistanis by Pakistanis. Public recrimination on the Davis issue only exacerbates the degree of frustration in both countries. If the relationship is to be sustained public opinion in both countries needs to be made fully aware of the vital stakes involved and of the common interests that the relationship serves. Episodes such as the Davis Affair are no help. Neither country needed this additional burden but this does not detract from the fact that it must be handled delicately and with as few public noises as possible.
