BIG PLAYERS & HUMAN RIGHTS VALUES

BY ANUM RAZA HASAN

Acknowledging its structural loopholes, even if the international human rights regime were to be reformed to make it more applicable in the current political situation, the question remains if it will ever be able to enforce itself against a superpower like the US

The deterioration of the human rights situation in much of Asia can be termed as the most imminent outcome of the war on terror. Uncontested in truth and undeniable through evidence, human rights violations perpetuated by the US foreign policy stand as the central characteristic of the post-9/11 world order, which has further highlighted the need to question the credibility, efficacy and influence of the universal human rights regime. The blatant abuse of human rights can be seen through the widely reported incidents in the Bagram prison camp in Afghanistan, used as a torture facility by the US, which reflects not only the US hegemony and unilateral stance over international affairs but the inability of the universal human rights regime to serve under the current world order. It is, in effect, constrained by the notion of state sovereignty and the lack of an enforcement mechanism. Other dilemmas hindering the capacity of the international regime to function as per its original claims include the flexibility of choice to ratify crucial international conventions as well as the fact that the UN Security Council gives the most powerful states the veto power against decisions pertaining to the world.According to estimates by human rights organisations, the US is holding at the Bagram Air Force Base north of Kabul in Afghanistan more than twice the number of prisoners held at Guantánamo. The prisoners are compacted into wire cages, forced to sleep on the floor and only given plastic buckets for latrines.

According to Human Rights Watch, prisoners held at Bagram, which is being expanded to hold up to 1,000 detainees, have no right to a lawyer, no access to the courts and barely any right to challenge the grounds for their detention. The mistreatment of detainees violates the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which the US has ratified. Moreover, according to article five and nine of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights respectively, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” and “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

In the wake of 9/11, dominant voices in the Bush administration’s inner circles subscribed to the idea that if ‘coercively interrogating’ prisoners could provide intelligence to save American lives and win the war on terror, then ‘quaint’ laws should be no obstacle. The top advocates for torture and other extra legal policies were Vice President Dick Cheney and his brain trust. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) produced a series of secret memos stating that the president, as commander in chief, has unrestrained powers to wage war; any efforts to subject executive discretion over interrogation and detention policies to federal, military or treaty laws would be ‘unconstitutional’; prisoners designated as terrorists by presidential fiat (rather than status review by a tribunal) should have no habeas corpus right to contest their detention and no right not to be maltreated. Hence, making the world safe from terrorism quickly came to be seen as antithetical to strong international human rights institutions. It would be worthwhile to question whether human rights have irretrievably lost their status in international affairs and national policy making in the wake of the war on terrorism.

The Bush regime termed Afghanistan an ‘exceptional state’, under which circumstances the nature of its intervention and actions were justified, as if giving them the license to act independently and chart Afghanistan’s destiny. The US was thus able to chart its own path through a unilateralist policy with little regard to other states’ — even the United Nations’ — discontent over its intentions. It should be understood that international law has often been moulded more by the structural demands of the US than by the latter’s outright retreat. This is reflected in US reluctance to accept strong mechanisms which have been part of a general tendency to maintain international law in its traditional state, meaning in a primitive state, characterised by indeterminate primary rules, few and weak institutions for lawmaking and enforcement and a strong fragmentation without a defining centre. The most convincing example of maintaining the flexibility of international law is the US reluctance to subscribe to supervisory mechanisms or to accede to treaties that have such mechanisms at their core, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The US not only indulges in liberties and privileges in establishing a legal order it is not entitled to, enforcing law without having to conform to it, on several occasions it only considered accepting treaties if they mirror US domestic law. In other words, in the US view, international law is subject to US governmental powers and subject specifically to the US constitution. To this end, the US has been able to secure inequality in international law and retain flexibility to perpetuate US national interests. These characteristics have rendered international law as a tool for the powerful in their self-interest, who then take advantage of the lack of clarity in laws that should be equally applicable to all.

There is a precarious law and order, political and security situation in Afghanistan and the inability of the international human rights regime to deliver, coupled with the US’s hegemonic ambitions and unilateral foreign policy decisions, has further aggravated the situation. This has had made the grave human rights implications of the war on terror pretty much inevitable in Asia and beyond. Bush’s legacy of unilateralism and disregard for human rights is being closely followed by Obama, despite grand promises of positive ‘change’.

Even though Guantanamo Bay has been partially closed — even Bagram has become part of a handover plan to local authorities — but regular reports of US army abuse in foreign territories, be it Afghanistan or Iraq, are increasingly receiving condemnation from human rights organisations the world over, reaffirming global scepticism over the US desire to reverse its regime of abuse. It needs to be understood that upholding human rights values as defined in international conventions will serve the long-term interests of the US as well. Acknowledging its structural loopholes, even if the international human rights regime were to be reformed to make it more applicable in the current political situation, the question remains if it will ever be able to enforce itself against a superpower like the US. Would big power players ever feel compelled to uphold universal values at the cost of political self-interest?

Anum Raza Hasan is a freelance journalist and human rights activist with an academic background in International Development. She can be reached at anumhasan@dailytimes.com.pk

Courtesy DAILY TIMES April 30

IT'S MORE ABOUT MORALITY MR. PRIME MINISTER

Thank you Mr Gilani for enlightening us
BY SAEED MINHAS

ISLAMABAD: At last Premier Gilani has chosen to speak on the issue that currently dogs political discussions around the country, namely that fielding and supporting a convicted cheat like Jamshed Dasti in a by-election in Muzaffargarh is bringing a bad name not only to the prime minister, but his party as well. The PM broke his silence by telling the House on Thursday that there was nothing wrong in him supporting Dasti, since two wrongs can make a right in our polity.

Well, thank you Mr Gilani for enlightening us on the fact that qualification has nothing to do with one’s political acumen, but sir you seem to have missed the whole point of the criticism, its not only about pitching an under-grad or eighth grader in the election foray, but its rather about picking up a person who has just been proven to be a con. It’s more about morality than obeying or disregarding the orders of the Supreme Court. Let us hope that next time His Excellency explains whether morality has anything to do with holding a public office or if it too is just another making of the establishment to give a bad name to our pious politicians.

Wise-babus and Bajis, ranging from 17 to 21 grades, surrounding the premier all the time were of the opinion that it is the responsibility of the Election Commission to look after the qualification clauses and since Mr Dasti had been cleared by the EC, then why blame the innocent premier who had not even been the one to decide on handing a party ticket to J Dasti. Rather, one should be appreciative of the magnanimity of the premier, who went to address Dasti’s campaign rally despite getting a no from the party’s core committee for his own brother on the same seat. It proves how respectful he is towards the decisions taken by the party’s co-chairperson and his party cabinet.

However, another thing that the clarification of these babus implies is that the premier is bound by the core committee of the party, which is working as a parallel cabinet these days. Issues ranging from sorting out the mess on Value Added Tax (VAT) implementation of General Sales Tax (GST) collection, strategic responses to the enraged judiciary, bubbling Obama-Clinton duo or contemplative khakis, decision of retreating against MQM’s solidarity on the Hyderabad issue or nomination of candidates for by-elections now fall under the preview of the core committee of the party, where the premier is just another participant, revealed the officials privy to these developments.

It shows the democratic principles adhered to the fullest by the largest political party of the country where even a premier is not above party discipline. Certainly there is nothing wrong with that because it is better than those days when a five-member kitchen cabinet used to guide, groom and sometime even broom the two-time premier throughout the 1980s and 1990s, or even better than sole-wolf-shows of Zia and Musharraf.

Since the premier believes in this whole set up and plans to live happily ever after the 18th Amendment, then the perplexity is on why he rides on the explanatory voyage every now and then. We all know how supreme and wise our current parliament is, because with its collective wisdom it directed the government to follow a path on the Swat situation, then took a firm stand on Drone attacks and the list goes on and on. It remains an anomaly why none of those recommendations matched the ground realities.

The reason might be too much work that all these wise men have to carry out by attending the sessions of parliament. Even on this pretext, facts bely all logic and one cannot lend them any support because throughout this session, and even the ones held in the past two years, there has hardly been a day when more than 30 members were seen at the start of the session, while an equal number were seen present towards the closing bell.

Returning to the core committee issue, neither the premier nor the babus mentioned that all the burning issues are decided by the party’s core committee or the central executive committee because for all those grumpy characters out there, even this minute thing is an issue. Since we don’t want to get into this debate on how those boastful 6-As of the small screen gang up, saddle their horses and announce the opening of the flood gates of sensationalism, despotism and of course, criticism, therefore just leave it for our babus/bajis and instead look towards the EC matter.

Again the paucity of space has left us with only a few lines to tell you about the grade 66 officer who is still enjoying a high profile office in the federal secretariat. Like many others he has been the blue-eyed guy of Zia and then of course Sharifs, but like some others he is still a linchpin in the ongoing war on terror and a vital source for all internal and external players for that matter. Hopefully, one day Bilawal or Bakhtawar might know how to play and stay in the house of cards or maybe the core committee is aware of this already and working on it, whispered some concerned party sources.

Courtesy Daily Times, May 14

FACTS & FICTION

BY GULMINA BILAL AHMED

The man himself certainly does not fit the textbook, conventional profile of a bomber. His looks and persona, as reflected in the pictures, is more of a model than an alleged bomber

Another week and another challenge for Pakistan. The week has been filled with reports about the New York City suspect bomber, Faisal Shahzad. Faisal has perplexed political analysts and psychologists alike. Faisal is what is termed to be a member of the social-political elite of Pakistan. He is a member of, in the words of Mohsin Hamid, the writer of Moth Smoke and The Reluctant Fundamentalist, part of the ‘air-conditioned’ section of Pakistani society. Members of this AC Club, according to Mohsin Hamid, are cushioned from the harsh realities of not only the Pakistani summer but also factors like economic and social poverty. Having a father who was an officer of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and then worked for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) after retirement, a paternal uncle who retired from the army as a general and among his many positions, also served as the inspector general of the Frontier Corps (FC). A father-in-law who was well settled in Karachi and a wife who studied in the US, has an accounting degree, is active on online social networking sites, posts beautiful pictures of herself and her husband, professing openly her love for him by stating “he is my everything” and says that her passions in life are, “fashion, shoes, bags, shopping and of course Faisal”. Not the profile of the wife of a man desirous of bombing New York.

The man himself certainly does not fit the textbook, conventional profile of a bomber. His looks and persona, as reflected in the pictures, is more of a model than an alleged bomber. He left the country at the age of 18, has studied in the US and worked on Wall Street. His house was up for foreclosure by J P Morgan, but during the present times of recession this is the challenge that a number of families are facing. He buys a licensed weapon legally and leaves a paper trail a mile long. The material that he bought consisted of six to eight boxes of 36 Silver Salute M88 fireworks, which according to firework experts “would not damage a watermelon. Thank goodness he used that”. However, the point is not what he used. His choice of material may reflect lack of technical knowledge, not lack of intent. Faisal has apparently made a full confession and has waived his right to a lawyer.

Given Faisal’s and his family’s profile and, most importantly, his circumstances, it is perplexing why he did it. This is not to say that such violent actions are undertaken by only a certain economic or educational section of society. The man who masterminded the failed rocket attacks on the Army House during the time of Musharraf was the son of an army brigadier. His accomplices were also retired personnel from the PAF. The ‘Shoe Bomber’ was also considerably educated and economically comfortable. The spokesperson of one faction of the Pakistani Taliban at one time used to be a converted Muslim American. However, there is one common factor in the profiles of all the above-mentioned cases. All of these individuals deliberately and clearly, at some point in their lives, underwent a shift in their mindsets and thinking. This does not appear to be true in Faisal Shahzad’s case. Yet, he himself has confessed to the crime.

Every attempted and successful act of terror is terrifying in itself. It paralyses reason and is aimed at creating a fear psychosis in society. The acts of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, the Asian Tigers and al Qaeda are all aimed at paralysing society and imposing their own viewpoints and mindsets. What Faisal was trying to impose is unknown presently, but perhaps will be known at a later stage. Presently, we are dealing with an additional challenge. The challenge of the conspiracy theorists.

One has written about Taliban apologists in the past. These are individuals who, in varying degrees, depending on the space that they have, try to make a case for the Taliban on the grounds that while their actions are incorrect, their stated cause is correct. That is the cause of political Islam. These people are present across Pakistani society. As mentioned earlier, these individuals advocate their cause with various intensities. If they have public space, they utilise that. However, there is also a small section of society that subscribed to a paranoia theory of Us vs Them, i.e. Pakistan vs the Western world. Any and every action of the Western world is considered to be designed to persecute Pakistan and they see in every political act of various governments a conspiracy to alienate Pakistan.

This is prevalent even in the matter of the analysis of the causes of Faisal Shahzad’s alleged act. The theory of Faisal Shahzad’s alleged bombing as a fabrication by the US to “pressurise Pakistan to agree to their demands” is being put forth by some quarters. Would the proponents of this theory bother to share what are those ‘demands’ of the US? Pakistan has been a US ally on this war for peace since 2001. This partnership has had some tough spots and readers would recall calls on the Pakistani government and its security agencies “to do more”. However, for a year now, this urging of doing more has quieted down and people like Holbrooke and Hilary Clinton have acknowledged that Pakistan was pulling its weight in the partnership. The recent Pak-US Strategic Dialogue is a case in point. Thus, what ‘demands’ is the US allegedly using to promote hype and stir not just among its own citizens but around the world?

Also, I am amused that this same lobby that is putting forth this theory is self-contradictory. On the one hand, this lobby/section of society declares that Pakistan is at the beck and call of the Western world and that they are calling the shots. This is the main argument behind the anti-American, in fact anti-Western sentiment that this lobby propagates. However, if this were true, then why would the big bad Western world create this drama of defaming Faisal Shahzad?

We have to distinguish between fact and fiction. This difference is very fuzzy presently. Let us accept it as such instead of making it even fuzzier by clumsy conspiracy theories.

The writer is an Islamabad-based consultant. She can be reached at contact@individualland.com

SAY SORRY TO YOUR WIFE

Sorry may be the hardest word - but scientists claim it could be one of the healthiest.

Researchers have discovered that women who receive an apology for hurtful behaviour suffer less stress and potential damage to their heart than those who don't.

It may be of little comfort to Tiger Woods' wife Elin, who received several fulsome apologies from the golfer for his serial infidelity, but it is claimed that the pulse of a wronged woman returns to normal 20 per cent quicker after a well-timed 'sorry' than without it.

Unfortunately for men, a male heartbeat takes longer to recover after an apology than without, according to the research, suggesting that men become irritated when there is an admission of guilt.

The research was undertaken by American scientists using 29 men and 59 women whose diastolic blood pressure was measured throughout an experiment.

Diastolic blood pressure is a measure of pressure in the blood vessels between heartbeats - if it is persistantly high it can increase the chances of stroke or heart attacks.

The men and women were asked individually to undertake a mathematical task. They were told they had five minutes to complete it but were interrupted after two minutes and told harshly to carry out the arithmetic more quickly.

They were interrupted twice more before five minutes had elapsed and told to speed up.

Finally they were told: 'You're obviously not good enough.'

Two minutes later half of the men and women were given full apologies.

The researchers found that, on average, the women's diastolic blood pressure returned to normal 20 per cent quicker if they received an apology, while the men's took 20 per cent longer to return to normal after a sorry.

One of the researchers said: 'Results indicate that there are potentially healthy benefits to forgiveness and apology'.

Courtesy MAIL

THE PRICE OF TRUE LOVE

They say you have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince. And according to a new survey, there is actually some truth in the fairytale phrase.

Research shows that the average woman will date 24 different men, and spend more than £2,000 before finding 'Mr Right'.

The average date costs a woman £85.38, taking into account the money spent on money spent on hair, new clothes, travel and drinks.

This includes £2.48 on fake tan, £2.55 on a new outfit and £12.86 on their hair.

And despite most women preferring chivalrous men with manners, it seems most women like to go Dutch on a date, splitting the bill to spend £12.20 on food, £9.60 on drinks and £7.64 on entertainment.

Over the average 24 dates, a woman will spend over £2,049.12.

A spokesman for UKDating.com, which polled 2,173 of its members, said: 'Although you cannot put the price on true love, it seems you can certainly put a price on finding it.

'While men are still traditionally footing the bill of the date on the night, this shows how much women are prepared to pay behind the scenes to make each date successful.

'This shows that even in these credit crunch times, women are prepared to invest a significant amount of money to bag their perfect man.'

The study found that seven per cent of women have been on between 41 and 60 dates before finding someone to share their life with.

And one per cent women said they had been on between 61 and 80 dates before finding someone suitable.

The UKDating spokesman added: 'Men traditionally don't expect gifts, but this new trend for women to bring a gift certainly wins points with their date.'

The research also revealed that despite the amount spent on each date, a third of women have left halfway through after realising they had met with 'Mr Wrong'.

One in four women will meet a man just once before deciding whether or not he is 'the one'.
Thirty-five per cent will give a man two dates, and 16 per cent make their decision after three dates.

Coutresy MAIL

LIGHT US UP, PLEASE!

By Farrukh Khan Pitafi

Politicians sitting together in airconditioned rooms and mulling over the proposals submitted by WAPDA bureaucrats can hardly solve anything. If it at all could, it would have helped solve quite a lot already

Moving back to Islamabad has proved to be quite an experience. The city has grown more expensive by the day, not that it was more affordable in the past. But the most remarkable thing about it is the developmental change. Underpasses and flyovers have been built, which were only being thought of when I left. And I did not leave decades ago. Things have been built in not more than three and a half years. Another interesting feature of the city is the compartments in which it has been divided; most galling of all, of course, is the red zone. The name sounds as if we are living in Iraq.

It would not be indulging in hearsay to state that the city has stayed divided for quite some time, even if not for the sake of security. We used to say that between Sector G and F exists an invisible Durand Line, which keeps the have-nots away from the haves. But now something quite different is happening. The haves have been interned in a prison of their own devices. Fear, the mother of all compromises, has done it again.

And this is the place where the 17th Amendment was passed and has now been superseded by the 18th. This is the place where the current chief justice was deposed by a dictator who called himself the most democratic one. It was, of course, somewhere nearby that Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, and decades ago her father hanged by her own country’s army upon the orders of its apex court. Now this city is swarming with the political leadership of the country to mull over the solution for our electricity disaster. At least the leaders sound committed today. But is there any real solution in the offing? I do not doubt that the issue of the electricity shortage, consequently the power outages, is a political problem too. I will come to the political part later. But primarily it is a technical matter. Only a committee comprising true professionals can do justice to it. All that the politicians can do is issue accurate data on the state of affairs concerning the electricity issue. The circular debt, the actual shortfall, the real installed capacity, the major bottlenecks, the best options available and the impact of international inflationary pressures and IMF terms on power generation, all can be published on the internet and in the papers within a day or two.

Once that is done, a convention can be called of all of the country’s leading electrical, nuclear and other relevant engineers. For even better measure, leading economists can be called in too. All can sit together to develop a set of proposals that the politicians can later implement. Otherwise, politicians sitting together in airconditioned rooms and mulling over the proposals submitted by WAPDA bureaucrats can hardly solve anything. If it at all could, it would have helped solve quite a lot already.

I know a lot is being said about conservation. We are told not to marry after dark, not to keep our shops open after that and make Saturdays a holiday as well. But with due respect, these are quite foolish suggestions. The only hope of a failing economy’s recovery lies in generating ample economic activity and, in a country where manufacturing industry has hardly ever flourished, functions like weddings and small businesses like shops are generating the actual activity. And now you want to shut them down. Actual conservation can come through putting an end to line losses and power theft. Why will people not steal electricity when wires hang naked on poles in front of their houses? In decent parts of the world, most of the cables are buried underground. It is an open fact that the country’s power authorities have failed miserably to modernise the power distribution system. No matter how much additional electricity you produce, it is bound to be lost in the labyrinth of this sordid system. The actual solution lies somewhere else. Why has WAPDA not improved its distribution system? Because there is no competition! How can we bring about change? By introducing competition, plain and simple. And it should not be an artificial competition. In Karachi, they did privatise KESC but still there is no competitor in terms of distribution.

Private, competing distributors certainly will initially sell electricity at more expensive rates and only the richer part of the population will buy it from them. But this will still lift pressure from the public sector, helping it to reach out to the underprivileged segments of society and perhaps also revamp its own distribution system.

Now comes the political bit. It is good that, finally, the politicians are at least showing active interest in solving this problem. Mian Shahbaz Sharif has even presented a nine-point paper on this. Many of these points are good, some brilliant. But, as I have said earlier, this country produces a good number of world-class technocrats per annum. It is time to consult them.

The prime minister should also be complimented for bringing all provincial heads and influential politicians to one table. This show of solidarity is impressive. But have you wondered why it took our politicians two years to sit together on this very critical issue? Because the country’s political culture was lacking consensus. Thanks to the 18th Amendment there is some consensus now. The government and other influentials need to work on it further.

Pakistan needs to renegotiate its terms of reference with Pakistan. This was a proposal that was actually presented by Mian Nawaz Sharif. His party boasts of a man of experience who could help in this situation because he has stayed free of Pervez Musharraf’s corroding shadows. I am talking about, as you must have guessed, Ishaq Dar. While everyone is complimenting Raza Rabbani, a man I have respected regardless of the 18th Amendment, we often forget the contribution of Ishaq Dar. The amendment would not have been possible without his contribution either. He is important also because he tailored the current term’s first budget. The PML-N needs to come back to the cabinet and we all need to convince it to do so. You will see a marked difference immediately, for democratic consensus and synergy is an absolute sine qua non. The Islamabad I knew could at least accomplish this much.

The writer is an independent columnist and a talk show host. He can be reached at farrukh.khan@pitafi.com

Courtesy DAILY TIMES April 22, 2010

UN COMMISSION'S COMMAND PERFORMANCE

By Syed Talat Hussain

The commission, from the very word go, builds up its argument of ‘rogue establishment’. This dimension of the report makes it arguably the most important document to have been produced in recent times. A document that is likely to become an international reference point against Pakistan’s ‘establishment’

Washington has tried to do it, but has failed. Delhi has attempted it several times, but without much luck. However, a three-member commission with a small staff, and funded ironically by the Pakistani taxpayers’ money and endorsed by the country’s president, has finally pulled it off: Pakistan’s army, the entire range of intelligence agencies, the ISI, the MI and the IB, and the much-maligned shadow government comprising retired officials and members of the police department, have been formally declared to be part of a rogue set-up. A set-up that not only creates mayhem internationally, but also does not baulk at killing its leaders.

This devastating indictment runs through the entire report of the UN Commission of Inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination of the former Pakistani prime minister, Ms Benazir Bhutto. While the commission’s press conference last week, where the report was released, took extra pains to state their neutrality, focused reading of the fine print of the report makes it abundantly clear that there is nothing neutral or ‘apolitical’ about the report’s message. This is so especially when it comes to narrating the linkages between the decisions such as official security plans and Ms Bhutto’s murder and also events after the assassination, like the hosing down of the scene of the crime and the latter-day official stance that the former prime minister had been killed by Baitullah Mehsud’s murderous gang.

The commission, even though fact-finding in nature, becomes exceptionally generous in apportioning blame and drawing conclusions which, while seemingly are directed at individuals in high places, in fact implicate in the murder plot the institutional set-up of both the army and the intelligence agencies. With the skill of consummate researchers, the writers of the report contextualise their findings (read judgements) by referring to past cases of unsolved murders. In this choice selection, they make it a point to include the controversial killing of Baloch nationalist leaders, which though an important domestic issue, has little or no relevance to Ms Bhutto’s murder. The only reason one can think of for putting these names in the list is that Pakistan’s intelligence operatives’ names have been associated with these killings, particularly by Baloch nationalist circles.

Thus the commission, from the very word go, builds up its argument of ‘rogue establishment’, augmenting it all the way to the last page, with a plethora of suggestions, insinuations and clever juxtaposition of known facts. The commission’s fundamental premise in the report is that the murders of the past and that of Ms Bhutto’s were all ‘political assassinations’, which, by inference, means that those in power had a hand in it. (The section is titled ‘Political assassinations and impunity in Pakistan’.)

This inference does tally with popular wisdom in Pakistan. It also echoes the country’s drawing-room whispers and street chatter, which are not always wrong in their assessments. From that standpoint, blaming the then wielders of power like General Pervez Musharraf and his co-sharers of political authority is nothing extraordinary. But the commission’s report does not train the guns of suspicion and findings towards a limited set of individuals at the top. Its narrative includes threads of an elaborate plot, which, according to its findings, could only have been hatched by institutional connivance and conspiracy. In hurling the blame at General Musharraf, the commission indicts his entire team: former DG ISI and at present the Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, his predecessor and at present corps commander Gujranwala, Lieutenant General Nadeem Taj, the then DG MI, Major General Nadeem Ijaz, who is at present Log Area Commander Gujranwala, and also a score of other high-ranking officials representing army-related or army-dominated institutions.

The commission’s depiction of these individuals’ deeds is mostly in dark colours; their actions are shown to be part of a well planned but hastily handled murder plot. Page 30, para 120, illustrates this point well. Major General Nusrat Naeem, then ISI deputy director general, is shown to be a shaky liar. The commission says that he had initially denied making any calls to the hospital to confirm Ms Bhutto’s death, but when “pressed further”, he acknowledged he had made the call, “before reporting to his superiors, to hear directly from Professor Musadiq that Ms Bhutto had died.”

Similarly, on page 33, para 133, another hugely controversial point is quoted as fair fact. Citing anonymous sources, the report suggests that city police chief Saud Aziz did not act independently in deciding to hose down the crime scene, but had received a call from Army Headquarters (General Kayani’s command centre) to order the hosing down of the crime scene. The report quotes yet another unnamed source that attributes the decision to General Nadeem Ijaz. In the same para, it cites police officials saying “everyone knows” who had issued the orders.

These elements of the report, when read with the section on “threats and possible culpabilities regarding the assassination”, make an international case against Pakistan’s military and the intelligence set-up. In para 201, page 47, the commission’s report reads like a page from quarterly assessments issued by bodies like the International Crisis Group. The commission, going beyond its declared mandate, goes on to postulate that the jihadi groups have developed a nexus with elements in Pakistan’s establishment and that sufficiently explains Ms Bhutto’s assassination since these partners in crime were threatened by her return to power. Amazingly, the commission does not qualify its judgment by directing its accusatory finger to some “elements” alone. On the next page, the commission defines the establishment in most comprehensive terms: “the military high command and the intelligence agencies form the core of the Establishment and are most permanent and influential components (of the term)”.

This dimension of the report makes it arguably the most important document to have been produced in recent times. A document that is likely to become an international reference point against Pakistan’s ‘establishment’ in present and future domestic and international campaigns.

The writer is a leading Pakistani journalist

Courtesy DAILY TIMES, April 22, 2010