Is Pakistan a sovereign country?

Sovereignty is the absolute power to govern a country. In Islamic jurisprudence, sovereignty belongs to Almighty Allah and during the early years of Islam, the caliphs used to denote Allah’s representative on earth. Democracy has its roots in the belief that all men are born equal and the people collectively, as a nation, form a democratic system through procedural systems and institutions in place. As per the classical theory of democracy on the other hand, the people are sovereign and delegate the elected representatives the right to exercise powers on their behalf. The concept is justified in part on the analogy that since the people who form a nation should not be bothered with the day to day running of the state and instead their representatives do this on their behalf and the citizens pay taxes for example as their obligation to the state and may for example enjoy the benefits (often called rights) of protection of their property.

Pakistan’s sovereignty means in essence therefore, the complete hold of the state over its affairs. The conduct of state business should reflect the will of the people and the affairs of the state should not be such so as to negate sovereignty or give the impression that our government is unable or unwilling to exercise complete control over its affairs. Unfortunately, the revelation by Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee of the United States revealed how close Pakistan was from becoming a proxy state or a satellite of the United States of America and how alienated the present government is from the will of the sovereign people of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Senator Feinstein disclosed during testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee by U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair that the drone attacks that were being carried out inside Pakistan’s sovereign soil were not conducted by drones originating from the neighboring Afghanistan (as was being speculated before), but from Pakistan itself. She made these disclosures whilst commenting on the protests lodged by the Pakistani government against these attacks to the visiting newly appointed U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke. She expressed her surprise at the fact that the Pakistani government had protested at the drone attacks, when in fact Pakistan had actively permitted the U.S. to operate a base for such drones. These drones regularly carry out sorties killing many innocent civilians along with a handful top Al-Qaeda leadership.

While the Pakistan government rejected the allegation and amongst others, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi denied the presence of the bases inside Pakistan used for the operation of these drones. On the other hand, top U.S. officials have confirmed that what Senator Feinstein had stated was true. While satellite images taken in 2006 on Google, have been released in the media showing the presence of three drones at the Shamsi airbase which is less than 200 miles southwest of Quetta, the Pakistani government remain in a state of denial. However, the matter does not rest here as I would have honestly wanted to believe that the government was right since the images were dated prior to the present government’s accession to power. On top of this however, unnamed top officials of the U.S. as well as its counterterrorism officials have spoken to the western media (Fox News for example) and confirmed Pakistan’s explicit approval for the ‘project to kill’ as well as provision of infrastructure, including airstrips, to execute citizens on the basis of U.S. intelligence. A former CIA official familiar with the Predator (a drone having the capability to create massive destruction) operations said Pakistan’s government secretly approves of the flights because of the growing militant threat. An investigation by The Times, a U.K. daily, revealed that the CIA was secretly using Shamsi to launch the Predator drones that observe and attack al-Qaeda and Taleban militants around Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

According to a senior NATO military official, Pakistan, the US, and other NATO member countries have had an ‘unwritten agreement’ for the past three to five years to allow the CIA to fly unmanned drones out of airstrips in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. Moreover, the NATO official while speaking to CBS news increased the level of anxiety of Pakistanis when he stated that the Shamsi base is not the only one used for the purpose.

The present government had broken from the practice of the Musharraf policy of staying quiet whenever drone strikes took place and occasionally claiming that the strikes were being conducted by the Pakistani forces. However the present government started condemning the strikes in a bid to win popular support. What has emerged however has now clarified that the government has refused to repudiate the agreement with the U.S. and NATO to allow such bases to be present in Pakistan. By protesting at the official level, it tried to win over domestic support as well as tried to create a false impression that the strikes were being conducted against Pakistan’s will. To this extent the government followed a policy of deceit and hypocrisy.

Whilst the Kyrgyz parliament voted this week to close a U.S. airbase over growing public hostility towards the base, the Pakistani government seems bent upon befooling its own people rather admit the presence of such bases and its acquiescence in the drone attacks and take remedial steps. It is also pertinent that U.S. had refused to pay more for the base which Kyrgyzstan had demanded. Additionally, another cogent reason for the closure of the base is that a U.S. soldier had fatally shot dead a Kyrgyz truck driver during a security check and the U.S. had refused to revoke the soldier’s immunity to prosecute him. In sharp contrast to the high price the U.S. had to pay for the killing of a single innocent citizen, Pakistan is willing to acquiesce in the killing of hundreds of innocents. We have been unable to even get reimbursed for the coalition support for the so called “war on terror” which have increased to more than 1.5 billion dollars as per Finance Adviser Shaukat Tareen, what to speak about negotiating for a better deal (keeping aside the arguments against being a U.S. partner for a moment). Up to 75 percent of U.S. supplies to Afghanistan travel through Pakistan yet the government had to beg to the IMF for loans (what to speak of write-off of previous ones) to keep the economy from crashing.

The good news is that it is still not too late. The government must restore its credibility as well as sovereignty of Pakistan by repudiating all secret agreements made with the U.S. and NATO for conducting the drone attacks. Sovereignty may be undermined for a time period. It can however be restored provided the will and the courage like a small country such as Kyrgyzstan having a population of just over 5 million and area of 200 thousand square kilometers exists. Having a far greater population of over 170 million and area of more than 800 thousand square kilometers, we need to have a greater fervor and apt leadership which values our sovereignty on top of anything else. To achieve that, the leadership must be more sensitive to the public sentiment since at the end of the day, in a democracy, the people are sovereign and in a sovereign country, there is no “collateral damage”. It is the loss of innocent lives that matter.

Pakistan admits its soil used for Mumbai carnage

Interior Adviser, Mr. Rehman Malik has accepted the use of Pakistan’s soil in the planning of the Mumbai terror attacks. He has also disclosed that a case was registered on Thursday against eight suspects. Significantly, he has posed questions on behalf of the Government of Pakistan to India which would allow further investigation into the incident as well as help uncover other actors who may have facilitated the attacks.

It is important to note that some of the questions that were drafted are regarding details of other incidents of terrorism that have occurred in the past in the region. The role of Indian officials in the Samjhota Express blasts in which Indian Muslims were targeted as well as the Malay village blasts are amongst the issues that Islamabad has raised in these questions. Quite evidently, this implies that these and other acts of terror and killing of civilians in the past were interlinked and may have provided the impetus for the planning and execution of the Mumbai attacks.

The ball is in India’s court now and it must reciprocate in the same manner as Islamabad has by coming out openly and in a transparent manner and not irrationally as it has in the past. It must not try to evade the questions, which seems probable, given that it has in the past tried to dissociate other acts of terrorism in its soil from the Mumbai attacks and blamed Pakistan solely by branding it as a ‘safe haven for terrorists’.

It is noteworthy that the disclosure comes following Islamabad’s continued denial into the whole affair in the past which had endangered its credibility as well as international prestige and repute and it looked like it stood alone over the issue at one point. The disclosure however is a positive omen for the region as well as Pakistan itself since it shows its willingness and resolve to bring the perpetrators of such crimes against humanity to justice. It is also foreseeable now that the tensions in the region would lower following the inclination of the government to pursue the matter earnestly.

The visit of the FBI team from the United States of America following the Mumbai attacks and Pakistan’s denial emphasized the importance attached to the issue by the United States following the raised tensions amongst the nuclear armed countries. Instead of sharing the dossier or evidence with Pakistan, India had succeeded in isolating Pakistan internationally and had presented its version of the evidence to the United States who then led the pressure on the Islamabad government after being satisfied that the attacks did emanate in some manner from Pakistan. The findings of FBI, which included details of tracking through GPS of the phones used by the culprits were irrefutable evidence and Pakistan had to go through a review of its active denial policy and first the nationality of Ajmal Kasab was recognized as a Pakistani and now the planning has been also partially been accepted as having been conducted from this country. It is regrettable that previously, statements from the highest officials of this country, the Prime Minister being no exception had one way or the other suggested otherwise. It was said by Mr. Gillani earlier that India had merely provided information and not evidence and similarly it was stated that the planning of the attacks bore the footprints of the foreign country.

Perhaps the decision makers of this country were confident that like they have so often done so in the past in national politics, they can play the game of cat and mouse and hide and seek vis-à-vis India. International relations and international diplomacy is a totally different arena from national politics and the conduct of state actors through non-professional tactics and power play can significantly alter the role of that nation for many years to come. It is hard to see how our decision-makers overlooked the fact that the terrorists of 9/11 belonged to countries which were not blamed for the terrorist activities themselves. Similarly, the fact that they received training in Western piloting schools did not indict the Western countries themselves. We could have seized the opportunity in a different manner and our credibility level would have been that of a cooperating state and not one where only international isolation and threat of war coerces us into submission. Unfortunately, many pundits are writing us off like this now.

One hopes however that following Pakistan’s disclosure some damage control has been done and we must endeavor now to offset some of the pressure that was put on us through our own misdoings and restore our credibility. The Western media, controlled in large part by the Zionist influence as well as the Indian media and their respective leaderships had even prior to this incident painted a dangerous, yet far from reality, picture of Pakistan as a country on the edge of falling into the hands of extremists who would be the next breed of terrorists possessing ready-to-use nuclear weapons. We must not, through our reckless statements, which have to be subsequently ‘clarified’ play into their hands and make their task easier.

Dr. Qadeer is free at last

After a prolonged period of placement under house arrest, for five years, Mr. Abdul Qadeer Khan who is considered to be one of the pioneers of Pakistan’s nuclear program, has been freed by virtue of an order of the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court, Mr. Justice Sardar Akram. He is allowed to roam freely within the country but his movements outside are expected to be barred by the Government.

Dr. A. Q. Khan had acquired an international repute, for good and some controversial reasons subsequently, when Pakistan’s nuclear program got publicized. His international fame, in the Islamic world particularly, reached its high water mark when Pakistan successfully detonated six nuclear tests in response to India’s five in a quest to acquire a minimum deterrent level vis a vis India. Whether Pakistan’s security was enhanced as a result has been the subject of various debates but one thing which is clear is that Indian leader’s threatening mood after India conducted its own nuclear test subsided somewhat and the high spirits of the extremist Hindu leaders who had repeated their calls for assimilations of Pakistan into “greater-India” through force were subdued.

In Pakistan itself, Mr. A. Q. Khan’s stature and personality was acclaimed nationally and he was viewed as a national hero. Pakistanis knew that the country’s nuclear program had survived despite serious efforts by the U.S. to derail it and we were penalized through sanctions and rumours surfaced, about possible pre-emptive strike by Israel similar to “Operation Opera” during which a surprise Israel air strike had destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor, Osirak in 1981. According to U.S. intelligence services, in the three months leading up to the 1981 Israel air strike, at least three Iraqi nuclear scientists died under mysterious circumstances. What pressures, inducements and intimidations Pakistan and its nuclear scientists may have had to live up with during Pakistan’s nuclear program and its completion has not been known but it is clear that Israel and U.S. have never been comfortable with any Islamic country possessing nuclear weapons.

Dr. A.Q. Khan enjoyed deep respect in the Muslim world and remains one of the most iconic figures alive today who are models for Muslims all over the world. Muslims generally, lack scientific expertise and knowledge in comparison to their western counterparts and spend heavily on hard foreign currency to purchase expensive weapons systems as well as other technological devices. Being largely indigenous in nature, Pakistan’s nuclear program is therefore looked at by many western countries as an Islamic bomb although our nuclear and missile program is directed to match the ambitions of our biggest adversary, India, which threatens our eastern border and has acquiesced and encouraged the break up of Pakistan in 1971.

These are some of the various reasons which led to Dr. A.Q.Khans detention under U.S. pressure by former General Mushrraf who had merely received some briefings and some blueprints of centrifuges plants from the U.S. to establish his role in allegedly providing nuclear technology to Iran, N.Korea and Libya to succumb to their demand of playing Dr. Khan under house arrest. He was coerced into accepting sole responsibility for allegedly transferring nuclear technology to these countries and had been under detention since 2004. It is preposterous that the transfer of nuclear weapons system technology to Israel by the U.S. and the west remained unquestioned and is a topic which is sidelined by both the western media and the western governments, while the founder of nuclear Pakistan has to suffer miserably in his own home country.

The confession that Mr. Khan made, which he subsequently retracted from, is also seriously questionable since such transfer of technology is virtually impossible without the assistance of state apparatus and the armed forces and intelligence agencies of Pakistan, who have retained control over the nuclear program under a rigid and strict control system. One should be surprised if such alleged sole proliferation by Dr. A.Q. Khan went unnoticed by them and surely their role or the role of their agents, if such proliferation did indeed take place, was not investigated and even people who seriously believe that the proliferation did indeed take place have dismissed the idea that Dr.Khan could have done this on his own. Moreover, if our missile technology was acquired from N.Korea in partial exchange for our nuclear technology, it is implicit that strategic decision markers in Pakistan knew about it.

It is a good sign nevertheless that Dr.Khan has been released by a democratic government, which can be seen as a break from the authoritarian past of Pakistan where fundamental rights were under attack, Since now even a Swiss suspect, Mr. Urs Tinner, who was suspected of being part of the international network of Dr.Khan, was released by Swiss authorities last December after 4 years in prison without trial, to keep Dr. Khan under detention without only legal justification was undesirable. The incarceration of Mr.Tinner was described by his lawyer in a complaint with the European Courts of Human Rights as "worthy of Guantanamo". It is only natural that when the condemned Guantanamo prison itself is being closed by the new Democratic President of the United States, all governments worldwide denounce and restrain from the practice of captivity without trial. The Swiss and the Pakistani governments are no exceptions. What seems even more absurd and stupid in Pakistan is that one such man who was held under such captivity was no one but a national hero, not just for this country but Muslims all over the world.

It is a pity that as per Dr. A. Q. Khan it was only through the intervention of Mr. Rehman Malik, Advisor to the Prime Minister on Interior, that his release orders were announced. This speaks volumes about the defects inherent in our legal system.

India would try to potray Pakistan as a terrorist state with even grater vigour it has already reacted to the release by claiming that the scientist is a threat to world pea. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the new secretary of state of U.S. has indicated U.S’s reservations over the release and the British Foreign Office has reiterated the demand to allow IAEA to question him. We must seek new diplomatic overtures to prevent our isolation in this matter. Consensus building between friendly countries over the issue is necessary. Dr. A. Q. Khan must also refrain in the national interest from speaking about the details of the proliferation or technology exchange in future.

The absence of reaction of Muslim leaders to the detention by Pakistani government in the past speaks volumes about the western influence that encapsulates their autocratic and corrupt leadership. Dr. A.Q. Khan, although much older now, suffering from cancer and bearing strains of captivity can perhaps still work to provide the Muslim Ummah what is needed the most-unity and a sense of brotherhood which revives the days of reign of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto when he was the Prime Minister. In those days for the first time in modern history, when a Muslim soul suffered, the whole Muslim world cried in pain. Perhaps such days would come again, hopefully in the writer’s life.

Is the "lawyers' movement" just the lawyers' movement?

As one of the longest and most popular movement in the history of this country continues amidst calls for a long march and ‘dharna’ on March 9, 2009, a frequent number of questions have been asked by my readers. I would try to answer some of the most frequent questions with reference to past actions of the pre-November 3 judiciary and the significance of such actions in the lives of those who feel that the issue is not paramount to them. It is clear that the present government is unwilling to reverse the actions of a usurper, Mr. Musharraf, and his illegal martial law. This is a dangerous message by our democratically elected government to those who may seek to subvert the constitution for their own interest in the future.

Some of the questions that I was referring to earlier are regarding the veracity of the claim of the present government as well as the incumbent regime led by Mr. Musharraf that the lawyers’ movement means little for ordinary citizens of this country, who allegedly have other priorities that do not seem to co-exist with the lawyers' movement and its agenda which calls for reinstatement of the judiciary as it existed on November 2, 2007 as well as supremacy of rule of law and independence of the judiciary.

I have always impressed upon such fellow citizens the significance of an independent judiciary which touches upon every problem that they have, whether it is economic in nature or relating to the law and order situation or to the freedom that they are entitled to enjoy under the Constitution.

We seem to forget that during Mr. Musharraf's reign, at a time when the administrative limb of the government was obnoxious and indifferent to the sufferings of people, it was the judiciary which took it upon itself to address their grievances and those who were holding power by virtue of their office felt accountable and hence vigilant since the judiciary was insistent that rule of law as opposed to rule of men should be the order of the day. The government was completely oblivious of its task to provide security to ordinary citizens and instances of corruption and nepotism had reached a record level. For the first time, the judiciary was trying to reassert old established legal principles as well as the constitutional safeguards which for example prevent a person from being held in prison or detained indefinitely without any charges. Moreover, the personal benefits that Mr. Musharraf and his cronies, aided by intelligence agencies, accrued upon themselves by extraditing people to the United States, many of who were held in Guantanamo prison, were being reprimanded by the judiciary. Time has proved that the stance of the judiciary in Pakistan was correct as now in the United States itself, Mr. Barack Obama, the new President has underlined the inherent violations of laws that took place by such a process and almost all Guantanamo prisoners are expected to be released.

It is also a fact that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani was also handed over to the Americans aided by the Pakistani intelligence agencies and had the same judiciary been in place today, the government would have been under pressure to explain the actions of its predecessor as well as bring them to a court of law, including former President Musharraf, who cannot deny his involvement in the whole process since he has admitted agreeing to extradite innocent fellow citizens of his country to the United States for money in his book. Such people have subsequently been tortured illegally. Not only this, all those who aided in her extradition from Pakistan would have been facing the music in a court of law as their action was illegal.

However, this was not to be so. On the other hand, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, amongst many other Pakistanis are stranded in foreign prisons without any pressure on the government by the judiciary to ensure her return or at least attempt to relay the concern of us all to the United States forcefully. Mr. Musharraf and his friends continue to enjoy the millions that they made by ‘selling’ these people like ordinary commodities to the United States. They roam freely while their sisters and brothers are trying to figure out what sin they had committed to deserve such agony and pain. What if, anyone of us, was in her place?

How then can we neglect the importance of an independent judiciary which, without being concerned about the ‘class’ or ‘influence’ of people, who sell people like animals, brings them to justice?

Some questions are also asked as to how the economic woes of people can be resolved by the reinstatement of an independent judiciary. Some people have asked me whether the need to improve the economy of the country, as well as the plight of the poor, should not be the priority of all of us, including the lawyers? Some also ask how reinstatement of a few judges would ensure an independent judiciary and supplant this question with the argument that the majority of the judges have already been restored so the lawyers should not persist with their demand for a full reinstatement. My answer to them is that an independent judiciary goes beyond the matter of reinstatement of certain judges and ouster of others. It is the institution which has to be looked at collectively and if any single judge is retired prematurely or barred from performing the functions of a judge, the sanctity of the whole institution does not remain above board. The only way to restore the sanctity of the institution is to restore the position as it stood as it were prior to the unlawful act of removal of the judge or judges at the earliest.

We forget the significance and implications of the infamous case when billions of worth of Pakistan Steel Mills was being sold at a throwaway price. Surely if this attempt had succeeded, the national exchequer, which is the collective wealth of all of us as Pakistanis, would have been literally looted. In macro economic terms, it would mean deprivation of billions of rupees which if in our national exchequer, would perhaps enable us to retire some of our debt or not seek new ones and which would in turn decrease the inflation for ordinary people when the benefits trickle down (the direct connection may some how seem remote to some economists). How then can we disassociate the economic plight of this country, be that poverty alleviation, employment generation from an independent judiciary?

Similarly there are other instances where the country's national exchequer was stopped from being looted and plundered. The housing project planned by the PML (Q) top leadership in Murree, which was stayed by the Supreme Court is another case in point. Besides other misappropriations, the project was believed to be an environmental disaster in waiting which would have led to severe deforestation. There are many other examples which will not be cited here to avoid repetition as they have been reported numerously in the newspapers and columns. I ask all my respected questioners to think about these questions before they even start thinking that the lawyers' movement is not their own. To the contrary, the lawyers' movement is more the movement of all Pakistanis as the cause of the lawyers of this country is greater their own cause. Is it not true that lawyers have suffered economically as a result of this movement? Would it then be just to say that this movement is for their own benefit? Apart from those who choose to defect and were accommodated by this government and its predecessors, are not the lawyers the biggest losers in material terms as their boycott has resulted in tremendous economic slump in their conditions and many are not even in a position to live a decent life?

We should also not forget how the independent judiciary ensured the independence of the media and allowed masses to view the criticisms of the government and know where the money they pay through taxes was being spent. Had an independent judiciary existed between the martial law imposed by Musharraf and the elections, the millions of rupees spent illegally from the national exchequer to support the electoral campaign of the PML (Q) would have also been checked by that judiciary. It is pertinent to mention that there was video evidence how state officials had supported the PML (Q) campaign and the post-martial law judiciary had chosen to neglect such irregularities. In the hypothetical event that the pre November 3 judiciary been present it would have saved our precious national wealth from being spent to support a campaign of the political power closest to Mr. Musharraf and our country would have certainly been better off. Consequently, the poor and the ordinary would have suffered less since the depletion of resources of the state means the decreased ability of the state to intervene for their interest as well as decreased economic strength which in turn leads to lesser resources being devoted for developmental projects and investments.

To illustrate this point, for example, would we not have been in a better situation to pay off the Independent Power Producers and decrease the electricity deficit and power shortage in the country? It is worth noting that the non-payment to the private power companies was one of the reasons why we faced prolonged power shortages even when the new government took power. Would an independent judiciary not ensure transparency in the new contracts being granted to new power generators to overcome the present energy crises and avoid the repetition of the previously bad contracts with power companies which also patently resulted in a long, expensive and embattled legal battle with Hubco in the past, increased electricity cost for us as consumers as well as the industry, and which also harmed foreign investment amongst the disadvantages already outlined?

To summarize, the plight of a nation, in every sphere of life, improves if strong institutions exist. The importance of the judiciary, being one of the institutions, cannot be understated. An independent judiciary, directly and indirectly, helps establish good governance as well as ensures that rule of law as opposed to rule of men exists. Rule of law ensures transparency, accountability and a sense of participation Rule of men is the pillar stone of corruption, misappropriation and leads to irregularities which in turn burdens the ordinary people of the country. So lets join the lawyers like myself, who seek to preserve and restore the sanctity of the judiciary which is only possible when the assault on it by a usurper like Mr. Musharraf is undone by reinstatement of the judiciary as it stood on November 2, 2007. By supporting March 9, 2009, physically by our participation in the long march, or morally if for one reason or the other the participation is not possible, we should give a message that we as a society have not degenerated and would struggle to establish our rights and the principles the founding fathers laid for us. If we do not stand up collectively, who will?