Pakistanis
insist that they wanted CIA-operative Raymond
prosecuted
for murder, but if they had, some commentators
worry
that the consequences would have been far worse.
Pak Tribune, Pakistan
Raymond Davis and the American 'Indo-Zionists'
"It
is well known that the U.S. Indo-Zionists (commonly but wrongly called neocons)
have been arguing that the Iraq invasion and plans to invade Iran miss the
mark. It is Pakistan, they say, which already has nuclear weapons. India never
misses a chance to assert that America must devastate Pakistan the way it
devastated Iraq before it is forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. Raymond Davis
was instructed by those who hold that view."
There are several centers of
power in the United States, each with separate roles and policy inclinations.
But their work is complementary. The diversity of the U.S. system make policy
changes possible and allows outside forces to combine with domestic pressure groups to
accelerate change. Since the U.S. is still the sole superpower, it's vitally
important for other governments and to have the capacity to deal with different centers
of power and media to understand how the American system operates.
When Raymond Davis shot and
killed two Lahore motorcyclists in broad daylight and the vehicle sent to rescue
him struck and killed another, it was not only Pakistanis but people across the
world who were shocked.
Why should a White American pursuing
espionage and clandestine operations under contract with the CIA in Pakistan be
so crudely "showing off"? Ordinarily, a U.S. State Department apology
should have come within hours. But no apology came. Instead, what came were
threats of dire consequences if Raymond Davis wasn't promptly released.
America insisted, wrongly as
it turned out, that he was a diplomat who enjoyed immunity from prosecution
under the Vienna
Conventions. Once again the question arose: why? The Pakistani press
rightly focused on two issues:
1) Was Raymond Davis an
accredited diplomat? - and:
2) If not; why shouldn't he
be tried and punished like any other foreigner who commits a crime in Pakistan?
Crude efforts by the Zardari Administration to hush up the
outcry notwithstanding, the Pakistan media won
that round, and it was established that Davis was not an accredited diplomat
and that he was rightly being tried by a Pakistan court for murder.
But the politicians lost the
plot. They began focusing on who was to blame for allegedly mishandling the
case - the provincial government of Punjab or the federal government? Thus, this
non-issue became the center of the political debate and the federal government
- the main practitioner of appeasing India and America - was off the hook.
The media's success in
staying on message came to nothing. But the questions remain: who benefited and
why was it so important to the U.S. that a murderer not be punished?
To understand who benefited,
one must identify the objectives of the parties involved. There are several
views on U.S. objectives, but it's hard to know for certain because there are
so many centers of American power. The U.S. Congress and president are the two recognized
centers of power in the American presidential system. The U.S. Constitution is based
on the principle of the "separation of powers. Unlike in a parliamentary
system, members of the president's cabinet are not members of parliament (or
Congress, in the case of the United States).
There is no party line or
party whip; every member of the Senate and Congress is free to vote according
to the interests of his constituency or his own prejudices and inclinations
[Editor's Note: Actually, there are party whips and party lines - although in
practice, lawmakers are not bound to obey them]. The president supports or
opposes bills, but the Congress often ignores his views and it is up to the president
to broker compromises to get a bill through. On domestic policy, the U.S.
Congress is a genuine center of power.
But on really vital issues,
particularly in foreign policy, the president and Congress back the same "official
line." The Raymond Davis case, quite surprisingly, came to be one such
issue, where the president and Congress read from the same hymn sheet. Why was
he so important? I don't believe this was due to his person or his mission. What
was important was concern about revelations of the true purpose of those who
instructed Raymond Davis.
It is well known that the
U.S. Indo-Zionists (commonly but wrongly called neocons) have been arguing that
the Iraq invasion and plans to invade Iran miss the mark since neither country
has nuclear weapons. It is Pakistan, they say, which already has nuclear
weapons. India never misses a chance to assert that America must devastate
Pakistan the way it devastated Iraq before it is forced to withdraw from
Afghanistan. Raymond Davis was instructed by those who hold that view.
Within the U.S. government,
the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA are independent centers of
power. They all operate under the U.S. president, but enjoy great operational
flexibility because they have statutory roles and responsibilities for which
they require no permission from the president.
Take for example the CIA: its
work is not subject to presidential or Congressional scrutiny until some
sinister aspect of its work becomes public. It's almost certain that the
conduct of Raymond Davis was duly authorized - but his mission was of a
sinister nature. I agree with Commodore
Tariq Majid that Davis' role was to create so much hatred and anger against
the United States, that it would become easy to justify to the American public "appropriate
actions" against Pakistan.
What is so difficult to
divine is what that "appropriate action" might be. The U.S. supplies
its troops in Afghanistan with a long supply line through Pakistan. It has been
trying to find alternatives but no viable one has been found. Pakistan has been
careful to keep the supply route open; but difficulties persist when supplies
pass through the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas and Afghanistan. Any "action" against
Pakistan would certainly close that supply route; therefore, one can assume
that the Pentagon would disapprove of any adventure that would close it.
Even though the U.S. State
Department hesitatingly and the CIA enthusiastically supported Raymond Davis' mission
and many like him who operate in Pakistan, the Pentagon was opposed and the
president lukewarm. The leading lights of the U.S. establishment favored
the line of the Indo-Zionists, and it is quite likely that if the Raymond Davis
case had dragged on, as many idiots in Pakistani politics and the media wanted,
American public opinion may well have turned: "forget Iran, let's deal
with Pakistan first."
Pakistan's media made the
point that Raymond Davis was not a diplomat and that he could and should be
tried in a Pakistani court. But then the focus was blurred. Prosecuting and
convicting an American to send the U.S. the massage: "don't trifle
Pakistan," became the focal point of media debate. Those who argued for
leniency were easily sidelined as American agents.
Eventually, wise heads
prevailed. I suspect that the source of that wisdom was U.S. Ambassador to
Pakistan Mentor. He persuaded the U.S. State Department to support his line, which
was to meet the requirements of Pakistan law as well as that of the ISI, [Inter-Services Intelligence], the
role of which had been grossly undermined by operatives like Raymond Davis and the
many others like him.
The ISI wanted and I believe
secured the identification of all people like Raymond Davis and an agreement to
have them removed from Pakistani soil. This was the right action and was in the
best interests of the United States as well as Pakistan.
It is in the American interest
that the CIA call off the most sinister clandestine operation mounted against
Pakistan, and thus save itself from complete loss of credibility in south and central
Asia as well as the Middle East and North Africa. If the Raymond Davis case was
still in the headlines, the tsunami of hatred for the U.S. in countries ruled
by American puppets would have been much more devastating.
Since Pakistan, too, is ruled
by American puppets, the wave of hatred would have risen even higher in
Pakistan - and the Indo-Zionists would have been gleefully congratulating
themselves at destabilizing Pakistan. But the crisis isn't yet over. The
military establishment saw an opportunity in the Raymond Davis case to end America's
most serious clandestine operation against Pakistan, but as the media rightly showed
us, there several other CIA operations still in progress that deserve
attention. So the task is far from finished.
Raymond Davis and scores like
him were permitted by our ambassador to the U.S., Hussain Haqqani and with the
concurrence of President Zardari, to infiltrate into Pakistan - bypassing ISI
scrutiny. And Pakistan's ambassador to the UAE issued visas to operatives of India's
Research and Analysis Wing without clearance from Islamabad - again with the blessing of the president.
The media should not let up
on the way our country's senior leaders co-operate with the enemy to facilitate
clandestine operations against Pakistan. We should recognize that the Raymond
Davis operation came to an end because the ISI wouldn’t let CIA operatives off
the hook, despite the president and the interior minister being on the side of
the enemy. In the end, the U.S. State Department came aboard to "modify"
this dangerous policy of destabilizing Pakistan.
But the Indian operation
against Pakistan continues. Sabotage in Baluchistan and attacks by
Pakistani Taliban, both of which are clandestine operations of RAW, are
continuing. CIA-operated drone attacks on Pakistan have not ceased. RAW and CIA
operations will end only when those who gave them authorization in the first
place and are facilitating them now are removed from power.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Pakistan politicians often
talk of the "supremacy of Parliament," but they have no idea what that
really means. They are familiar with Great Britain's constitutional history,
where it means that Parliament and its leader, the Prime Minister, not the
sovereign, i.e. the King, Queen or Emir, is the repository of executive and
legislative power.
It is only in a presidential system
like that of the U.S., which is founded on the separation of powers, where Congress
(or parliament) is supreme. In Pakistan, Parliament has no role. Pakistan is
not a democracy: it is not ruled by a despotic monarch or a military dictator.
Pakistan is much worse. It is a plutocracy. Perhaps "mafia rule" is a
more fitting description of Pakistan's present system.
The Raymond Davis case once
again underlines that mafia leaders can circumvent public anger and outsmart the
establishment. But Pakistan, too, has multiple centers of power: the executive, the judiciary
and the military. If the executive branch has come under control of Mafiosi, it
is for the other two institutions to act and establish a government that
operates according to and under the law.
