 |
| |
WEEKLY
SECTIONS |
 |
|
 |
| Greater transparency in policymakingRemediation |
|
|
|
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Huma Yusuf
Writing today after a two-month hiatus, I am moved to think about solutions rather than problems. Perhaps this burst of positivism can be attributed to the fact that the weather in Boston is finally pleasant, after a long, bitterly cold winter and a short, stifling heat wave. Perhaps the prospect of seeing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign together at the end of this week in a bid to unify a divided Democratic party is making me optimistic and foolhardy enough to think that under extenuating circumstances (like a tense presidential race) even enemies can find something in common. Perhaps seeing Pakistan splashed across international newspaper headlines in the past few weeks – rarely in a positive context – is making me feel desperate enough to think outside the box. Whatever the reason, I'm going to use the following paragraphs to suggest that Dr A Q Khan might help diffuse mounting tensions between Pakistan and the US as well as Afghanistan.
The fact is, the diplomatic crisis brewing along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border shows no signs of improving. As NATO strikes continue, the behind-the-scenes showdown between the US and the Pakistan government on how best to tackle the Taliban presence in Pakistan is escalating. Enough has already been written about the diverging approaches of the two sides: Pakistan's new government – preoccupied by the restoration of the judiciary, Musharraf's persistent unpopularity, soaring inflation, and its own fragility – prefers negotiating with the militants. US and Afghan forces, on the other hand, have made their preference for Predator attacks against militant outposts quite clear.
The consequence of these divergent positions is evident in the fallout of the June 10 American strike that killed 11 paramilitary soldiers and has yet to be fully processed by each side. It doesn't help matters that Bush's last-ditch attempt to capture Osama bin Laden before he leaves the White House continues unabated: British Special Forces are operating across the Afghan border on a regular basis. Meanwhile, in the most recent NATO strike that occurred on Tuesday on Afghan soil – in the eastern province of Paktia that lies along the border – Pakistani nationals were implicated. According to terrorists who survived the attack only to be arrested, most of the 26 militants killed were Pakistani. No doubt, this episode – given all the fingers it provides for pointing at Pakistan – will worsen tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
As it brews, the situation in the border region will require better communication and more transparency on the part of the US, Afghan, and Pakistani governments, both amongst each other and with their respective citizenries. Most Pakistanis are still confused as to what happened on June 10: while Pakistan slaps the US on the wrist for targeting soldiers and civilians, the US insists that the Pakistani military was aware that the strike was to occur. Rather than find themselves wondering just what their government might be up to, Pakistanis deserve full disclosure. They should be clearly told exactly what the government's policy regarding Taliban presence in the frontier is, who the government is allying with, who is transgressing by conducting military operations on Pakistani soil, and what measures will be put in place to ensure that any unfortunate civilian deaths will be properly investigated and compensated while the perpetrator of the deaths is severely punished.
Engaging Pakistanis in the thinking behind any action along the Pakistani-Afghan border is necessary because, left out of the conversation, fated to observe this he-said, she-said tussle, Pakistanis are beginning to get frustrated. They're tired of the political wrangling that leads to civilian deaths and confusion, but not much else. They have no interest in seeing the government wave the flag of national sovereignty since they are not being respected as nationals. Some are wondering what all the fuss is about, given that the end goal of thwarting the Taliban is shared by all three parties involved. Yet others are beginning to tire of conspiracy theories.
Rather than sit back and allow the government to ply them with an official version of what is unfolding along the frontier, some Pakistanis are inserting themselves in the difficult conversation between Pakistan and the US in unusual ways. Take, for example, Samad Khurram, whose much-buzzed-about snub of the US ambassador can as easily be read as a demand for transparency, the free flow of information from the region, and well-professed collaborations with international forces. In short, people want to know where they – and their government – stand with regards to a particular contentious issue.
So how does Dr A Q Khan fit in? This week, the world is engaged in a conversation about nukes: inspections are underway at the bombed out site in Syria, a nuclear declaration from North Korea is expected, and concerns about Iran's weapons programme are, as ever, increasing. The time is thus ripe for the Pakistani government to enter into a parallel discussion with the US about nuclear proliferation. That discussion can be used as a way for the Pakistani and US governments to set a precedent for clearer communication and the setting of boundaries.
Rather than merely respond with outrage at the US request to keep Dr Khan under house arrest and make him available for questioning by the US, the Pakistani government should use this opportunity to learn how to engage in a productive conversation with the US. Speaking hypothetically, the Pakistani government might use an offer of limited access to Dr Khan as a way to test the waters and re-establish a transparent, collaborative relationship with the US that can then be extended into the realm of the war against terror in a way that retains Pakistan's dignity as a sovereign state. By participating in conversations surrounding US access to Dr Khan, the government can learn how to dictate limits while being cooperative and privilege its own citizens while acknowledging that they are also members of an international community. Of course, I am not advocating that we hand Dr Khan over to the US for interrogation purposes. I am merely suggesting that the Pakistani government needs a little practice in transparency as well as the opportunity to hone its ability to be both assertive and cooperative when it comes to difficult questions about national sovereignty and international security.
By entering the global conversation about nuclear weapons and by opening the conversation up to the Pakistani citizenry, by remaining transparent and retaining national dignity, the Pakistani government can earn the trust of the international community as well as its citizens as it navigates the diplomatically complex situation unfolding along the border. Practice, after all, makes perfect.
The writer is a media analyst who recently completed a master's degree at MIT's Comparative Media Studies programme. She was previously features editor at an English monthly. Email: huma.yusuf@gmail.com
|
|
|
| Back
| Send
this story to Friend | Print
Version |
|
|
|
ISSN 1563-9479 
