Catastrophe? What catastrophe? By Kamran Shafi

FIRST things first then, and straight to two statements that came out of the Pakistan Army within the past week, the first by the COAS himself who said that the Pakistan Army was “committed to the Kashmir cause in line with the aspirations of Pakistani [sic] nation”.

What was that please? How would GHQ know by itself what the aspirations of the Pakistani nation are, regarding anything at all? What mechanism does GHQ have to ascertain the aspirations of the Pakistani nation other than to follow in letter and spirit the directions and orders of the properly constituted Government of Pakistan?

For is it not a fact that the Pakistani nation has just last month gone to the polls and elected its representatives who will sit in parliament, throw up a government from amongst themselves, and get on with the business of governance? Should the Pakistan Army as just another department of the Government of Pakistan not hold itself at the disposal of the properly constituted government in which the Pakistani nation has reposed confidence and which therefore is the only arbiter of the people’s will and aspirations, no more no less?

The other statement was by the DG of the ISPR who said: “We have lodged a very strong protest with the coalition forces across the border” when asked about the death of two women and two children in an artillery/missile strike on the Pakistani village of Kangrai, North Waziristan.

Who is the “we”, please? Excuse me, but has the Pakistan Army now formally taken over running the country’s foreign relations? Is it not absolutely inappropriate for the army to be doing the protesting to a foreign entity, when the recognised convention is that the country’s government, in its foreign ministry, handles matters of state which have to do with other states?

Who are “coalition forces” anyway if not the US Army and the British Army augmented by barely token participation of some NATO countries? So why weren’t the ambassador of the United States and the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom summoned to the FO and a protest handed over to them?

Indeed, if the mere thought of summoning the American ambassador gives heart attacks to the ‘core-professionals’ who loll about in the Hotel Scheherezade, a third secretary of the American embassy could have been summoned to the FO. The point should have been made. The ‘coalition’, in its turn, should have apologised for the loss of innocent life.

But no; all Major Chris Belcher, its spokesman, had to say was: “We can confirm a precision-guided ammunition strike on March 12 on a compound connected with [the] Haqqani network 1.5 kilometres across the border in Pakistan…. I do not have any information on any casualties that may have occurred … the information I have is that the Government of Pakistan was notified immediately following the strike.” Full stop.

Clinical, cold, arrogant. But why doesn’t the ‘coalition’ understand that this kind of behaviour only makes America more enemies? How, indeed, does contriteness for a wrong committed in America’s name take anything away from it? Does one have to be an Einstein to understand that the Commando is today a much-reviled man for precisely this sort of behaviour?

And now to catastrophe. The Commando said in an interview with The Washington Times, again during the last week, which should go down in the history of the country as a week in which some of the most ludicrous statements were made: “Can you imagine what the effect would be on the business community, both foreign and domestic, or in the capitals of nations allied with us in the war on terror if the first thing they saw after this election was a political war between the presidency and the government? I think it would be catastrophic.”

Strong words, what!? Catastrophic for whom? For the Commando if parliament impeaches him? Or for the country if the Commando dismisses the assemblies if they attempt to impeach him? Does he even know the meaning of the word catastrophic?

Variously: disaster; calamity; upheaval; devastation; ruin; misfortune; tragedy; cataclysm! Is the Commando in such desperate straits that he will lead the country to ruin and misfortune if he is impeached? That he will devastate it? And bring tragedy upon our heads? Well, what about his oft-repeated mantra of ‘Pakistan First’? Or was that a load of nonsense as we always thought it was?

No sirs; if you simply refuse to read the writing on the wall, please look into your Turkish coffee cups more intently. Or read your tea leaves more carefully. Time is up, sirs, surely and truly. Anything you do hence-forwards: try and break up the People’s Party by activating your not so sleepy sleeper cells within it; try to bad-mouth the Sharifs to the Americans; use 58-2(b), nothing’s going to work.

This brings me to the matter of the Americans again, and their quite foolish leaks to the effect that they don’t really trust Nawaz Sharif when it comes to battling terror. Indeed, media organs allied to them are insidiously leaking stories to the effect that Osama bin Laden was known to Nawaz, etcetera.

Well, the bin Ladens were also known to the Bushes, enough for tens of them to be spirited out of the United States just one day after 9/11 despite there being a complete ban on air traffic all across the country. Osama himself was known to every CIA and ISI chief worth his salt. So where’s the problem?

And who was trying to cosy up to the Lal Mosque cleric just prior to the election to solicit his support? Not Nawaz Sharif but Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the Commando’s fellow traveller who, hand in glove with him, misruled this country for well on six very long years during which terrorism went through the roof.

It is also known that they are going about trying to find out what others opposed to the Commando, Aitzaz Ahsan for one, think about the war on terror. Is this a silly question or is it a silly question! What else would any Pakistani think about the need to uproot terrorism from our country but that it should be uprooted yesterday? But not in the foolish and self-defeating ways adopted by the Commando and his tight buddies, the American administration. Terrorism will only be defeated when tackled in an intelligent way, as humanely as possible.

In the end may I ask that the March 23 parade be cancelled? What is the point of holding it, cowering in fear, inside the Sports Complex where last year’s tamasha was also held and held badly? It was a joke, actually, as this one will be, with just some armed forces officers and their families attending. In any case this is a time fraught with suspense and fear and suspicion as the Commando’s dark shadow looms over and out of the President’s Lodge, Rawalpindi Cantt, (once Army House), the Lord only knowing how his knee will jerk the next time round.

Bushism of the Decade: “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda” — President George W. Bush; 2004.

Stop Press: A detailed Pentagon study, reported in the press on March 13, 2008: “confirms there was no direct link between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda network, debunking a claim President George W Bush’s administration used to justify invading Iraq”. So there! This is our Commando’s ‘tight’ buddy! A liar, through and through.

kshafi1@yahoo.co.uk