Haqqani’s sketchy rebuttal to Sartaj
WNational INDING up debate on cut motions relating to his Ministry in the
Assembly on Tuesday, Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz lamented that a former Pakistani envoy to Washington was working against the country in the United States. The Advisor, who touched upon different issues including Pak-US relations, regretted that the former ambassador was lobbying against Pakistan.
As Mr. Sartaj Aziz is perceived to be a mature and responsible leader, therefore, his disclosure created a stir not only in the House but also across the country. Though the Advisor did not name any one but assuming that he was referring about him, Hussain Haqqani has come out with a two-liner rebuttal, which is not convincing at all and instead raises more doubts about his activities in the United States. Haqqani was a seasoned journalist and analyst, held important post of Secretary Information to the Government of Pakistan and carved out a position of prominence for him. However, with the passage of time, people started raising accusing fingers towards him particularly after Memogate. It has repeatedly been stated even at the highest level that he lavishly granted visas to dubious characters, which amounted to compromising the national security interests. He is also alleged to have exaggerated things while counselling the Government of Pakistan on issues relating to Pak-US relations, forcing the authorities concerned to make decisions under pressure on vital issues. All these allegations have eroded his patriotic credentials as there is an unfortunate impression that he is more loyal to the US than Pakistan. Of course, Haqqani is well settled in the United States and has no intent to come back to homeland but after all he is a Pakistani and the position and facilities he enjoyed, and is enjoying, were bestowed upon him by the country. Therefore, he owes a detailed and convincing explanation to clear his position and this paper would be willing to publish it if he deems it appropriate.
THE legitimate authority of in ternational law lies in its abil ity to generate moral moorings/ duties of obedience for its subjects whether states, international organisations or individuals. Individuals may also be bound by international law, with or without their own state. Given that both ‘individual and state actions’ are equally accountable under international law, the case—of Indian spy Yadav Kulbashan held by the Pakistani government on 3 March from Balochistan— clearly falls under the premise of India’s ‘state sponsored terrorism’ in Pakistan. The arrested Indian citizen personifies Ajit Kumar Doval, India’s National Security Advisor (NSA) and a proud spymaster.
Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism “committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived threats”, which can be directed against both domestic and foreign targets. Noam Chomsky defines state terrorism as “terrorism practiced by states (or governments) and their agents and allies”. The Indian RAW has a well-organised ‘espionage system’ in Pakistan. The evidence strongly suggests that there exists an ‘inseparable connection’ between Raw’sespionage and ‘separatist and religious terrorism’ in Pakistan.
On March 25, in a statement, India’s External Affairs Ministry, while admitting the RAW agent, captured by the Pakistani security forces