A piece of paper?

 A pi

Is memo just ‘a piece of paper’ as ascribed by the government, its allies, ‘likeminded’ journalists and anchorpersons or there is more to it? To find an answer, we need to take into consideration the foreign factor, as well as, domestic political environment, including the stakes of different power centres.

In the foreign factor, USA takes the cake as there is nothing more its Administration would want but to convert Pakistan into a pliant state, see her nuclear program rolled-back, her Armed Forces undermined and the government bowing in subservience to US dictates so that their agenda in the region could be fulfilled. Does not the ‘piece of paper’ offer just that, though, I am sure, the  USA Administration did doubt the capacity of its architects to fulfil their ‘offers’ and, as such, apparently, no tangible headway was made. The contention that Mike Mullen did not take any notice of the ‘memo’, does not hold ground because his well known parting testimony to the Congressional Committee was based on the ‘admissions’ contained in this ‘paper’.

Known for his slippery character, full of ambition  and ‘intellect’, Mr Haqqani was described in mid-November 2011 by The Atlantic Magazine, USA, as the only ‘credible Pakistani official left’. It also stated, “Haqqani has been battling Pakistani Military and ISI – two organizations whose influence in Washington he has fought to weaken”. Isn’t the ‘memo’ about weakening these two institutions? And if it is just ‘a piece of paper’, why Admiral Mike Mullen initially denied its existence and when it became clear that truth could not be hidden, he admitted it? Why James Jones submitted a self-contradictory affidavit in support of Haqqani and now declines to face the commission? Why US senators, media and, most significantly, Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst, advisor to four US Presidents and a known Jewish lobbyist, have been so active in Haqqani’s support? Why the State Department is going out of the way to support Haqqani and has adopted a threatening posture, even causing aspersions on Pakistan’s Judiciary, against all norms of diplomacy? And finally, why the USA Administration has come out so strongly to back the Pakistan government on ‘memo-gate’? Should a ‘piece of paper’ generate all such foreign reactions? 

The government rests its case on perceived dubious credentials of Mr Mansoor Ijaz and terming the ‘memo’ as a conspiracy to undermine the democracy. Isn’t he the same man whom President Zardari met in 2009 and Haqqani continued to maintain contact regularly till disclosure about the ‘memo’. Secondly, if Mansoor Ijaz is a dicey character, why not expose him, and the conspiracy, through a judicial process? Why is the government afraid of ‘a piece of paper’ and creating hurdles in investigations being conducted by the Commission appointed by the Apex Court?

Anybody who is familiar with Pakistan’s polity understands that each government must nurture the desire to rein-in the military establishment. Though legitimate, this desire can only be fulfilled if the government achieves moral ascendancy by delivering as per the given mandate and not by conniving with a foreign power. Apparently, the government chose to adopt the latter course, as manifested in its undertakings starting with President Zardari’s initial statements inimical to Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence, followed by attempts to place ISI under Ministry of Interior, the offer of sending DG ISI to India after Mumbai attacks, contents of Kerry-Lugar Bill (in a way similar to the ‘Memo’), attempts to permit Indian ingress into Afghanistan through Afghan Transit Trade, announcement of grant of MFN status to India without the Parliament’s approval, ongoing impasse with USA in which apparently the military establishment has taken a hard stance as compared to the ruling hierarchy, and hence, a stumbling block in government-USA complicity, and so on. Is not the alleged contents contained in the ‘piece of paper’, a reflection of government’s desire to gain total control over the military establishment?     

Though the Pakistani media has, no doubt, become a potent force to safeguard our national interests, yet this strength also makes it vulnerable to exploitation for furtherance of personal agendas. Coverage of memo-gate is a manifestation of both. There are diehard journalists and anchorpersons pursuing the truth about the ‘piece of paper’, even staking their lives, while there are others who have exposed themselves by partial coverage managed through invitation of selected panellists known for their pro-government stance on memo-gate or by running programs in duos for the purpose. A few journalists even cross the limits to get themselves branded as ‘more loyal than the king’, their writings proudly displaying ‘souls for sale’. One wonders whether such anchorpersons and journalists themselves understand the consequences of their undertakings. The alleged ‘piece of paper’ has, thus, exposed so many in so short a time.

And finally, what the government ascribes as ‘a piece of paper’ has jolted the military establishment as the offers made therein directly impinge on its ability to safeguard the territorial integrity of Pakistan, besides a threat to National Security. As such, the military leadership has no option but to ensure that the truth about the ‘memo’ is revealed, if nothing else, for clearing the mistrust that has crept in between the government and different institutions. Any laxity on the issue would mean betrayal to the cause of their existence.

Thus, today, ‘a piece of paper’ is threatening National Security, has jolted government machinery and the military establishment, is causing acrimony between various state institutions, has generated worst kind of political polarization and has become instrumental in dividing the nation and, thus warrants in-depth and impartial investigations about its existence, veracity, contents and perpetrators involved, if any. The same is necessary to bring the nation back on track and, as such, it is incumbent upon the government to assist the judicial commission assigned with the task in all possible ways to ensure that the investigations are completed in time, instead of causing delays and interruptions.  

Sell-off (My article published in THE NEWS on 1 Feb 2012)

With the refusal of Mansoor Ijaz to come to Pakistan for reasons known to the entire nation, the Government camp is sensing victory and, has already commenced celebrations. ‘Loyal’ journalists and anchorpersons are branding their colleagues, still fighting for the peoples’ right to know the truth about memogate, as ‘idiots’. Ayaz Amir’s article titled ‘Clowns and red faces: comedy Pakistan style’ (THE NEWS dated 27 January 2012) is a manifestation of this mindset (to me, however, such articles present spectre of a sell-off Pakistani style). To find an answer to the apparent drop scene to the ‘memogate scandal’, irrespective of it being a reality, we need to understand the role, capacity and undertakings of each player to influence events.      

The USA; The Americans have learnt the hard way that honeymoon with Pakistan Army has always proven short-lived due to wide divergence of interests and, therefore, as a strategy they are now providing all out support to the civilian dispensation, albeit a pliant one. In its editorial of 26th January 2012, The Washington Post states, “what the past two years have demonstrated — again — is that an enduring partnership between Pakistan and the United States will be possible only if moderate civilians establish control over the military”. The editorial ends with the remarks “But the administration (US) should be hoping that Mr. Haqqani’s side wins — or at least survives”. The editorial is a clear reflection on the American stance about memogate. That be the case, would they let an American citizen of Pakistani origin to destabilize a ‘friendly’ government and, hence, his intimidation by CIA, resulting into the drop scene?  Here, one should not even rule out the possibility of CIA using Mansoor Ijaz in a sting operation to trap Haqqani, or even Zardari, into agreeing on preparation of a ‘memo’ containing ‘offers’ inimical to Pakistan’s sovereignty so as to blackmail the Pakistan Government at an opportune time into making certain ‘commitments’. In such an eventuality, the drop scene would imply that the government has acceded to US demands - a very dangerous proposition, warranting in-depth investigations into the matter. 

The Government; After the 18th Amendment, a party head has become so strong that he can even unseat a sitting PM of his party and if he is also the President, enjoying immunity, as is the case these days in Pakistan, the system can be termed anything but democracy. In the present dispensation, Pakistan, in my view, is gradually becoming a dynastical monarchy with only one difference – in older days the monarchs used brute force to overcome opposition, our President uses his ‘charm and skills’ to buy off the opposition. No matter how damaging this dispensation is for the Pakistani nation, it suits the Americans as they have to ‘deal’ with one man, the pattern they follow in most of the Middle-Eastern countries, and hence their all out support. Moreover, the power that now rests with our President cum party head, anybody who dares to get on his left side may face retribution and those on the right side would surely be rewarded, as in the olden days by the monarchs. No wonder, Mr Nawaz Sharif has disappeared in the oblivion after taking the memogate to the SC.

The military establishment; General Musharraf’s failure to deliver, blunders at the fag-end of his tenure, emergence of other power-centres, performance related issues and other weaknesses have adversely affected military establishment’s ability to influence events and,  since relevance and ability are inter-related, the military establishment is losing relevance, at home, as well as, amongst international players. Besides, a deliberate attempt is being made by the US Administration to undermine Pakistan’s military establishment because of its stance on relations with India and future dispensation in Afghanistan so that they could directly deal with the Pakistan Government. Memogate has been effectively used by the vested parties, using media as an instrument, to tarnish Army’s image, forcing it to take the backseat on the issue.

The Judiciary; To quote the same Washington Post editorial mentioned above, “Besides the military and Mr. Zardari’s government, the third party to the dispute is the court, which seems to have embraced the generals’ cause of ousting the civilian government. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry has had outsize political ambitions ever since he helped depose former president Pervez Musharraf. The good news in this complex struggle is that the case against Mr. Haqqani appears to be crumbling — as it should be — for lack of evidence. Mr. Gilani has pushed back the military by firing the defence secretary. And Mr. Chaudhry’s overweening actions have divided a legal community that once supported him overwhelmingly”. These few sentences actually represent what the USA Administration feels about Pakistan’s government, military and judiciary. While love for the government and animosity with military are understandable, why treat our judiciary with contempt unless motivated by self-interest? Notwithstanding what USA’s stance is about our judiciary, as a matter of fact it is gradually losing relevance because of ‘reluctance’ to get some of its decisions on important cases implemented.

And finally the media, both electronic and print; It is unfortunate, but barring a very few, most of the journalists and anchorpersons, whether because of their perceived support for democracy, or other motivations, continue to demonstrate complicity with USA and the government on memogate issue. Instead of striving for truth, the ‘loyal’ anchorpersons and journalists have been vehemently trying to prove themselves ‘more loyal than the king’, thus seriously undermining the investigations.

No matter what the outcome of memogate investigations, I am sure, the event will be quoted in the history as a tale of sell-offs, compromises and betrayal, with each stake-holder accruing benefits, or protecting self-interests, as per its capacity to influence things.