Questions of sovereignty
April 07, 2001
Poor George W Bush. If he is going to have Daddy's friends: General Colin Powell as his Secretary of State, and Donald Rumsfeld as his Secretary of Defence, he should expect many more incidents such as the spy-plane fiasco on his plate before too long. The General, before we forget, is the victor of Desert Storm when thousands of stunned Iraqi troops, most of them young conscripts, were buried alive in their trenches by armoured tank-dozers, Geneva Convention or no Geneva Convention. He is the victor too, of the Iraqi "crack" (!) Republican Guard soldiers who did not even know how to march properly, but were anointed "crack" by CNN. A General who presided over the massacre of retreating Iraqis both military and civilian, many of them women and children, along what the Americans themselves named the Highway of Death, through the completely unmilitary and uncivil and ungentlemanly and unforgivable actions of the 124th Infantry Division, Major General Barry McCaffrey commanding. Donald Rumsfeld, of course, still thinks there is a Cold War going on, ala the time when Daddy was running Noriega in Panama. It is no wonder, then, that we are suddenly seeing US aggression across the seas once again. More fun soon, I'll bet.
It was quite pitiful, seeing the State Department spokesman trying to defend the indefensible. Imagine trotting out Conventions dating back to 1917 to justify demands to the Chinese to immediately return the E-P3 Aries aircraft. 1917, when all the world knew about flying, and aircraft, and the rules of war in those days of chivalry, was that a stricken airplane (single-engined, something like, at best, a flying Model T Ford motor-car!) could land wherever, and the (one) pilot would be treated like an officer and a gentleman, and returned to his side of the lines as soon as possible. This inane argument was made, despite the fact that the present incident involved a high-tech, super-spy plane. This was an aircraft picking out the movements of the Chinese armed forces through intercepting wireless messages; this was a state-of-the-art laboratory in the air, observing Chinese troop movements using sophisticated computer-enhanced satellite imaging; this was an aircraft snooping on secure telephone calls in the Chinese language. This was an aircraft rigged out to monitor mobile phone conversations, to boot. Add to that the loss of a Chinese fighter and its pilot in the incident. I daresay, that if a Chinese spy-plane were flying along the California coast, it would have been shot down, no questions asked. And justified on the grounds of the "territorial waters" argument. It was quite pathetic.
What I should specially like to ask, however, is whether we have taken a position on the matter. Whilst the old Punjabi adage of fighting elephants trampling little animals holds good in the present instance, have our brilliant "core-professionals" taken a position, howsoever meek, on the matter? Have we even dared to send our condolences on the loss of the Chinese plane and pilot? Or does the next IMF tranche supersede all and everything? Do please remember the Higher than the Himalayas argument, boys. Go on get someone to ask a question at the next FO briefing. Let the spokesman just say that we are sorry over the Chinese loss, that we are concerned that two of our friends find themselves embroiled in this tragic affair, and that we wish it is resolved soon, to the satisfaction of all.
But, why do I keep hoping that we will do the right thing? Why do I keep hoping that one day, one blessed day, we will stand tall? I just do not know. The following story more than proves the point that I am only an incorrigible, silly old optimist. According to a news item published in this paper of Wednesday, April 4, 2001, titled "Romance ends on a sad note", Nasir Mohammad of village Darsamand, Hangu, was incarcerated without charge in Police Station Saddar of Kohat; his Nikahnamah was confiscated by the police; and his young wife was spirited back to Al Ain by the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates. He has appealed to General Musharraf to order his release, and to take cognisance of the fact that his "legal wife" has been taken away from him.
The story: Nasir Mohammad was employed by the family of a young lady, Rakhma Saif Khalifa Almurfat, as a chauffeur in Al Ain, one of the federating Principalities of the United Arab Emirates, during which employment the girl fell in love with Nasir, or as he put it, "began to take an interest in me". The long and the short of it is that she followed him to Pakistan when he fled Al Ain for fear of being arrested once her interest in him had become known to her family, and married him here. A few days after the event, according to Nasir, the police raided his house at the behest of the ambassador of the UAE, arrested him, took away the Nikahnamah and handed his legally wedded wife to a UAE diplomat. Nasir has been produced before the Sessions Judge, Kohat, and he knows not what his fate will be. Curiously, the Inspector General of the Frontier police is quoted as saying that he had already ordered Nasir's release on the personal surety of two persons. Suggesting that the sole purpose of imprisoning him was to "recover" his wife, so that she could be sent back to her parents.
Several problems here. Under what law was Nasir locked up in the police station in the first instance? Under what law was his "legal" wife taken away from him and whisked off to the UAE? Under what law and through which channel did the Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates ask the Frontier police to take the action that it did? What, indeed impelled the Frontier police to take the action that it did? We do of course, have a fair idea about what must have happened when Ms Almurfat's family (who we must presume to be very, very wealthy; and therefore very, very influential) approached the Government of the UAE. That government must have then approached the Government of the Islamic Republic through their Ambassador in Islamabad the Beautiful whose Embassy, according to colourful reports in the Pakistani press and even more colourful gossip, holds swinging parties every so often, thronged by the beautiful people of Islamabad the Beautiful. He must have then mounted a very slight effort on behalf of the Almurfat family. Upon which the Government of the Islamic Republic must have bowed and scraped, instructing the Frontier government to do likewise. But, under what law? What have the human rights organisations in the country done about this quite appalling affair? After all, the superior Judiciary of the country, particularly the Lahore High Court has handed down several landmark judgments on the matter, holding consent of the parties to be the highest consideration in cases of marriage.
Not too long ago, when General Musharraf threw out the extremely worthless Nawaz Sharif's extremely worthless government, he gave us much heart when he said that he would endeavour to give back some of the respect that our country and us, its citizens, had lost because of the wrong and iniquitous behaviour of governments past. That we would once again hold our heads up high when we walked among the other peoples of the world. We were thrilled to little bits when we heard that it was his opinion too that we had hit rock bottom. And that much effort would now be made to lift Pakistan out of the mire into which the country had been thrust by leaders who were not only self-serving, but were inept too. We thanked the heavens then, not too long ago. And now this. I can only say to the General: No sir, we haven't hit anywhere near rock bottom yet. There are many depths we are yet to plumb.
The author is a former press attache and was press secretary of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto