Haqqani’s sketchy re­but­tal to Sar­taj

Pakistan Observer - - EDITORIALS AND COMMENTS -

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan

© PressReader. All rights reserved.