[As this piece was written, a serious incident broke on the national scene involving intrusion into our territory by American helicopters, which fired at our military check posts and killed two dozen army men and officers. Caught between fear of the Superpower and wrath of the people, our weak government, reacting to the aggression, announced some retaliatory steps. But doubts persist about its ability and willingness to go beyond a few eyewash measures. It promises to be an incident with far-reaching consequence].
Nawaz Sharif and the army
Nawaz Sharif cannot live down the bitter memories of Musharraf's highhandedness in embarking on the dangerous Kargil adventure without an okay from the Prime Minister and then, in refusing to obey his legitimate order, sacking him and going on to overthrow an elected government whose head (PM Nawaz Sharif) commanded two-thirds majority in the Parliament at the time. To that extent, we could sympathise and support Nawaz's dislike of army intervention in government affairs. But Nawaz's phobia (that is what it appears to amount to) has become part of his political posturing, which goes beyond reason. His criticism of the army throwing its weight around (albeit discreetly) in influencing decisions which are a prerogative of the civilian authority under normal circumstances, fails to take cognisance of ground realities.
The ground reality
If we were ruled by a civilian government perceived as doing a good job, looking after and working in the interest of the people who voted it into power and in line with the constitution of the country and civilised norms, then Nawaz's sensitivity to the army's or anyone else's "meddling" in civilian affairs (and that of some of his party's leaders, notably Nisar Ali Khan) would be fully justified. But look at the record of the PPP government during the nearly four years it has been in office. By all accounts, it has turned out to be the most corrupt government in Pakistan ever, with a record of corrupt practices not only permitted but even nurtured month after month and year after year, a record of completely ignoring problems faced by the people and putting into high offices people not only with poor qualification or experience vis-à-vis responsibilities being entrusted to them, but also with a history of corruption. So if the Establishment has thrown its weight around now and then, in keeping the Civilian government out of mischief then their action can be condoned under the circumstances as the lesser evil.
ISI under Rehman Malik?
Take the example of the ill-fated but fortunately transient placement of the ISI under Rehman Malik. Under Rehman Malik!? An alleged army growl led to a hasty withdrawal of the unfortunate move. Then there was the Kerry-Lugar bill through which Husain Haqqani then (but fortunately no more) our man in America presumably sought to impose his known pet ideas regarding the civil-military relationship. The bill was highly unpopular in the country and again the alleged role of the establishment in opposing it found favour with the people. In yet another example of the same kind, the government of Asif Zardari was hell bent on preventing the restoration of the (illegitimately made dysfunctional) Judiciary despite overwhelming public support for it. Finally when it appeared that a blood bath was imminent if the confrontation was not resolved in line with the aspirations of the people, good sense prevailed and the PM made an early morning announcement, meeting popular demand. The "good sense" was traced to the alleged last-minute "suggestion" from the people in uniform, again, something which had popular support. Let us wait for the present or a future civilian government to begin doing a proper job, Nawaz Sharif, before we start lambasting the top brass for interfering in civilian matters.
The change of guard
Our new man (sorry, woman) in America, Sherry Rehman, may be new to diplomacy in the strict sense but is well-versed in political give and take and foreign relations of an informal, non-political kind. An offshoot of a highly educated and eminent family, Sherry can boast of a wide-ranging career to date as a journalist (at national and international levels), magazine editor, anchor person, and of course politician and legislator. In PPP she has worked and contributed in various capacities including Member of the National Assembly, Minister for Information & Broadcasting and (lest we forget) political activist (remember 5 May 2007 on the streets of Karachi). She piloted several bills in the Parliament of special interest to status of women and working journalists. She has personal strengths unlike most PPP people in the government who are content with towing the line however unsavoury. She has proved herself capable of standing up to her party boss on principle, an unusual phenomenon in the PPP.
Expect no handholding!
So far so good, but for one thing, somewhat disturbing is the fact that this is a crucial assignment considering our close and (may I add) risky relationship with the United States. For another, the relationship is now embroiled in a tense situation with misgivings about the unwelcome role of the super power in our internal affairs, the brazen intrusion in our territory to capture and kill UBL and continued drone attacks taking a toll of thousands of uninvolved civilians. (The intrusion by American helicopters into our territory late in the weekend resulting in the death of two dozen army men and officers has added a new dimension to this as we write these lines). For a third, and most important, at a time like this we have a sitting Foreign Minister with hardly any experience worth the name in foreign affairs. She heads a ministry, which is headed in most countries by people with substantial experience in dealing with other countries. The long and short of this preamble is that Sherry Rehman in her challenging assignment cannot look forward to firm, sure-footed support and guidance from her Foreign Minister.
The dual nationality agreements
Following the recent MullenMemo episode - a developing story - a reader has suggested that the dual nationality phenomenon needs critical appraisal and the need to bring about changes in it. Originally, holding of dual citizenship was not permitted under the law in Pakistan. Over a period a number of amendments to the constitution allowed it in respect of a number of countries including the United Kingdom, United States, Switzerland, Canada and Egypt, a total of 16 countries, at the last count as far as I know. Was there a rationale to it? With the number of Pakistanis working in various countries growing it was perhaps considered that citizenship of those countries would add to the facilities enjoyed by them as expatriates. Exactly what difference this makes in terms of employment opportunities or in other ways, I do not know.
Obvious contradiction and possible hazard
I am also not aware what benefit the countries entering into dual citizenship agreements see for themselves in it. One obvious contradiction I see in dual citizenship is the fact that individuals taking advantage of the facility would be swearing allegiance to upholding and supporting two different countries, two different systems and two different constitutions. What happens when there is a conflict of interest between the two countries involved? The question assumes importance when the persons holding dual nationality are political persons and even more so when they occupy high political or diplomatic positions. This is not a hypothetical question as several Pakistani holders of dual citizenship occupy prominent positions in political and diplomatic areas. The question requires serious consideration, say, by a panel including members of the parliament, constitutional experts and jurists among maybe others. (owajid@yahoo.com)