Diplomatic duplicity
By C. Christine Fair, February 18, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011 - 2:55 PM
Share
LAHORE -- This much is clear about the latest convulsion in U.S.-Pakistan relations: an American man, operating under the name of Raymond Davis, shot and killed two men in Lahore in the populous province of the Punjab. After the event, an "emergency vehicle," presumably from the U.S. consulate, rushed to rescue Davis and careened into a crowd. The as yet unidentified driver of the rescue vehicle killed a third person. Davis is currently being held in Pakistani custody in Lahore. He has been added to Pakistan's exit control list while his status is being determined in Pakistan's courts, which precludes his exit from the country.
The U.S. government maintains a simple account: he was an employee of the U.S. consulate in Lahore who shot two men in self defense. Since he has "diplomatic immunity," he should be released under the Vienna Convention immediately. President Obama has himself argued that he should be released for these reasons. Concurrent with Obama's appeals for the man's diplomatic immunity, U.S. Senator John Kerry travelled to Pakistan this week to resolve the ever more complicated row. With such high-level demands, the very credibility of the U.S. presidency is at stake. This is not lost upon Pakistan or its citizens.
Pakistan has its own stylized, yet starkly divergent, account from that heard in the United States. Whereas Raymond Davis is a niche topic of the chattering classes in Washington D.C. in the United States, he is the mainstay of conversation across all stratum of Pakistani society and has become a national obsession in Pakistan's print and television media. Pakistanis have called for the hanging of Davis in public rallies.
From the Pakistani viewpoint, the "facts" are far less clear. Davis was first described in peculiar, ambiguous terms as a "U.S. consulate employee." He was driving his own unarmored vehicle and carrying a gun. Most diplomats in Pakistan -- American or otherwise -- now travel in armored cars. They certainly do not drive their own cars, and they generally don't carry guns.
Despite Pakistanis' assertions that he is a spy, he does not have the profile of a bona fide operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. CIA case managers are well-trained and are unlikely to conduct themselves as Davis did. However, some U.S. officials concede that he is likely a security contractor with ties to the American intelligence apparatus. This is consistent with his resume.
Speculation is rife in both countries that this dispute over Davis may come down to a showdown between Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, and American intelligence agencies. Both Pakistani and American analysts have told me that the two men shot likely were Davis's Pakistani intelligence detail or perhaps informants or operatives gone sour.
The view from Pakistan: "Raymond Davis kaun hai?" Who are you?
The Pakistani press raises different issues that generally are not raised in the United States and reflect the conspiracy theories that grip many Pakistanis. First, Pakistani officials doubt that Raymond Davis is the true name of the man in question. A Pakistani barrister, Iqbal Jafree, suggested that Davis came to Pakistan using a fake name. If this is the case, he has argued that another legal case may also be registered against him. He further asserted that "...the U.S. authorities also have acknowledged Davis is not his real name." My examination of the U.S. press has not revealed that this possibility has been suggested.
Second, while some diplomats may be authorized to carry legal firearms, Pakistani observers claim that Davis's possession and use of a firearm was illegal under Pakistani laws. This reinforces Pakistan's vexation with what they perceive as U.S. impunity and further outrages Pakistanis who embrace various conspiracy theories about Blackwater/Xe Services and its ilk running around Pakistan, whose activities are shrouded in complete opacity. These conspiracy theories are given ballast by the actual presence of people like Raymond Davis: an ostensible "security contractor" of some variety adds "ghee" to this fire.
Third, the Pakistani media -- as well as some international media -- dilate upon the reports that he got out of his vehicle and shot his victims in the back. U.S. courts would likely reject claims of self defense if an alleged victim shot his purported assailants in the back. However, U.S. officials privately note that the individuals fled after the first shot was fired from a frontal position, thus negating the claims that Davis first fired into their backs.
Fourth, further fuelling Pakistan's deepest suspicions are the reports in the Pakistani media that a camera was recovered from Davis upon his arrest. His camera reportedly contained "photos of the strategic Balahisar Fort, the headquarters of the paramilitary Frontier Corps in Peshawar and of Pakistan army bunkers on the eastern border with India were found in the camera." Pakistani media outlets have made these photos available to the public. It remains to be confirmed that these videos and photos were actually recovered from Davis's camera, much less what his intentions were in taking these images if he actually did so. However, many Pakistanis accept the authenticity of the footage and its worrisome implications as a matter of fact.
Fifth, the U.S.'s central claim that Mr. Davis has diplomatic immunity is fundamentally contested in Pakistan. Some of my contacts here in Lahore claim that he was not issued a visa on a diplomatic passport and thus the ex post facto claims to diplomatic immunity is a legal, not diplomatic affair.
However, these interpretations are flawed even if they are widely believed. As one thoughtful Pakistani commentator, Raza Rumi, recently explained
If the sending state declares someone a diplomat and the receiving state accepts him, that's the end of the matter. Those who rant that Davis' visa mentions ‘Official Business' and he's a mere contractor need to get their facts right. Pakistan's diplomatic visa does not carry the words ‘Diplomatic Visa' imprinted on it. When Pakistani authorities endorse a visa saying ‘Official Business' on a diplomatic passport, they recognize that the person is travelling to our country under diplomatic immunity. If he stays here on assignment, he gets a diplomatic ID card with his immunity status printed on its back.
Rumi rightly asks how it is possible that Davis could be in Pakistan for three years if his status were ambiguous. He could have been declared "persona non grata" for his suspicious activities long before the current encounter. These questions have a simple answer: this is an orchestrated media frenzy galvanized by an inflammatory ambiguity deliberately fostered by the Pakistani government.
Finally, if the media spectacle were not provocative enough, the suicide of the widow of one of the slain, Mohammad Faheem, has further inflamed Pakistani sentiments about the case and strengthened their resolve to try Davis as a cold-blooded murderer.
The end game
The Raymond Davis issue is iconic of the challenges of U.S.-Pakistani relations.
In some sense, the Pakistani public has made Davis a public catharsis. He is not the first individual to push the envelope of transparency, much less the legal status of diplomatic immunity. Last summer while I was in Pakistan, a U.S. embassy employee crushed a Pakistani citizen to death in his vehicle. It was reportedly the third such incident over week. In 2009, an allegedly drunk U.S. diplomat, ignored a red light and careened his Prado jeep (LG-1) into a fire-brigade vehicle, causing Rs 2.5 million loss (some $29,000) in damages.
Pakistani anger over Davis is also layered upon simmering anger over the inaccurately maligned U.S. drone program. Pakistanis prefer to characterize the program as trampling Pakistani sovereignty and are loathe to acknowledge that the program operates with precision, with the Pakistani government's permission, from Pakistani soil and with Pakistani intelligence input.
Davis also outrages Pakistanis because he is not the first "defense" contractor to vex Pakistanis and raise suspicions about their varied activities in the country. The U.S. use of Blackwater/Xe Services to protect Dyncorp's construction of a Frontier Corps training facility near Peshawar discomfited residents of the frontier city. Absurdly, the Pakistani Taliban have been able to exploit these suspicions to blame the firm for terrorist attacks in Peshawar.
Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari's party, the PPP, has had internal rifts about how best to deal with the imbroglio. Given Zardari's weak government, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Sharif (Zardari's Punjab-based political opponents) is taking maximal advantage of his predicament. It can do so safely as the party has no responsibility for actually contending with the explosive bilateral fiasco. The Zardari government, for now, appears to have outsourced resolution of the awkward situation to Pakistan's activist courts despite the fact that this is a Foreign Office issue -- not that of the courts.
However, Pakistan's activist courts are increasingly making policy rather than merely interpreting Pakistan's laws. More troubling is the potential likelihood that underneath the justice's cloaks is the color of the army's khakis. Indeed, Pakistani observers note that Pakistan's judiciary may have expanded its influence under the protective umbrella of the army's support.
Pakistani author and analyst, Ahmed Rashid, recently noted the "extraordinary cooperation" between the army and justices in recent years. Rashid also observed that the courts are less inclined to pursue the army's alleged human-rights violations. In contrast, cases that undermine and weaken the government occupy prime time at the bench. If the army has some influence behind the courts, the fate of Raymond Davis is ambiguous at best given the Pakistani Army's fraught views towards Washington and its intelligence agencies.
Given the legal clarity of the matter, a bothersome question persists: what elements of the Pakistani government are stoking these dangerous, populist sentiments and to what end? Is this yet another signal that Islamabad does not want to the strategic relationship that Washington continues to peddle with naïve optimism?
In the end, despite the questionable positioning of Pakistan's judiciary on Pakistan's democratic fabric and the likelihood that Davis' diplomatic status is not a judicial matter, there may be some marginal benefit from this absurd drama.
It is unprecedented that the U.S. government has been compelled to present evidence about the activities of its mission and personnel in Pakistan. The U.S. government will have to present evidence about the nature of the position of Raymond Davis in Pakistan's courts. While this is a tedious and gratuitous predicament, it may be a long overdue occasion to cast much-needed transparency upon the activities of the U.S. government in Pakistan and the nature of its ties to various Pakistani agencies, which may have some complicity in this tragic affair. This may be good for Americans and Pakistanis alike, even if it threatens to further undermine the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
C. Christine Fair is an assistant professor at Georgetown University, Center for Peace and Security Studies and the author of the political cookbook, Cuisines of the Axis of Evil and Other Irritating States and Pakistan's Madrassah Challenge: Militancy and Religious Education in Pakistan.
Arif Ali/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFPAK, AFGHANISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL, CORRUPTION, DIPLOMACY, INDIA, INTELLIGENCE, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, PAKISTAN, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
How are U.S. diplomats expected to do their Job?
It seems likely that Mr Davis was part of a security detail and the SUV contained the principal. When Mr Davis saw two teenagers on a motorbike stop in front of him in heavy traffic and suspected that one of them was armed what was he supposed to do? He did what he was trained to do, shoot 10 times through the windshield of the car. Maybe he murder a couple of innocent Pakistanis, but maybe he neutralised a threat. The SUV with it's important cargo jumped the median and traveling at high speed crushed and killed a Pakistani bicyclist. What were they suppose to do? Just hang around in traffic and wait for the bad guys, or if there were no bad guys angry Pakistani bystanders, to attack them? If U.S. security contractors cannot shoot dead any Pakistani citizen who might even remotely pose a threat and if U.S. Consulate vehicles cannot drive at high speed in the wrong lane against traffic and run over and kill any one, man, women or child who gets in their way, how can they possible do their critical job of diplomacy?
well, SOCAL55, you're wrong...
really no other way to put it. your description of events is wrong, your ignorance to security procedures is evident, and your sarcasm regarding diplomacy in what is by FAR AND AWAY the worlds most dangerous/ volatile country, places in evidence your overall foolishness and lack of deep thought on the matter.
That is all...
Mr Davis and the U.S State Department seem to be making it more dangerous and more volatile so.....Hows that security procedure thing I don't know anything about working out for you scout?
I say that not to roil feathers or claim greater insight than others on this string, but his wit is apt in regards to a US-Pak partnership that, by all reasonable consensus, is a mixed bag at best, rife with Machiavellian motives mutually, and of very debatable benefit to either country. What's the point of criticizing his (supposed) lack of sensitivity or decorum or detailed knowledge of intricacies when there is hardly any trust or signficant synergy as it stands anyway - meaning what does he have to lose by saying it, or what do we have to lose by chuckling ?
It's pretty clear that Socal doesn't think our security apparatus has the right to run amuck there - true, Socal ?
We have some discussion on our blog:
http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/02/18/the-myopia-continues-dawn-com/
http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/02/16/raymond-davis-strategic-corporal/#comment-4177
Get your boy out, because Moslem street justice
Not to say that Mr. Davis should escape justice. Deliberately killing 2 foreign nationals on their own soil is about as stupid as it gets. He couldn't shake the surveillance, making him ineffective, so he decides to eliminate his 'minders'. He may say he thought they were Al Qaeda or Taliban, but there are indications he knew otherwise.
Diplomatic immunity may save Mr. Davis's life, but the entire US covert and diplomatic community in Pakistan is now a target for revenge. The payoffs to everyone will be enormous, but the Pakistani's have suffered American 'mistakes' since the beginning of the war, and given what is going on in the rest of the region....expect American casualties.
The land route to the Afghan War is through Pakistan. Of course, we now refer to the war as AfPak in acknowledgement that the border is just a mechanism for changing the rules of engagement(ROE). Mr. Davis's misadventure may have resulted in new rules that will not be favorable to Washington.
Duplicitous Pakistan has US over the barrel
Clearly Pakistani government is expecting to secure far bigger concessions and even more aid from US as it decided to backtrack from its earlier announcement of Davis having diplomatic immunity and now wants to study the matter for three more weeks.
Dysfunctional Pakistan has poor U. S. over the barrel. US can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who kill US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.
Sooner or later U. S. has to stop tolerating Pakistan’s duplicity - on the one hand it allows US to ferry supplies to US troops in Afghanistan over its soil since it pays billions to Pakistan and on the other hand it shelters, nurtures and supports the very groups who kill those very US troops in Afghanistan day in and day out.
This charade has been going on since 2001 when the Bush administration allowed Musharraf to spirit away by airlift hundreds, if not thousands, of Taliban operatives cornered by the advancing Northern Alliance in Kunduz in November, 2001. Pakistan relocated those Taliban cadres including Mullah Mohammed Omar in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan and Haqqani network (HQN) in North Waziristan from where Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN have been planning raids in Afghanistan ever since.
Only solution is what Richard Armitage threatened Pakistan with in 2001 - invade and occupy Pakistan to root out the terrorists operating from there since Pakistani government owned by Pakistani army is unwilling to do so.
But after ten long years of war, US has neither the desire nor the resources to save Pakistan from itself.
So this Pakistani drama of ’running with the hares while hunting with the hounds’ and US drama of ’fighting the terrorists and supporting the state that shelters the terrorists’ will continue until US looses the face and withdraws from Afghanistan in disgrace.
For having deliberately ignored Pakistan's terrorist connections, US deserves to be duped by Pakistan.
Iraq has about 30m people. Pakistan has about 190m people. Do you honestly think that invading Pakistan would make the situation better? Do you actually think we could pull it off? If you think the Iraq occupation was bad, Pakistan would very likely be much worse. But you're okay with that? You're okay with the likelihood of more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? Because that would be one result of an invasion.
This is not to say that I disagree with the duplicity of Pakistan - I don't. Their hugely duplicitous, and we're in the middle of a huge, complicated mess. But your proposed "solution" would be to invite a level of chaos into the world that we have not yet seen. Didn't the Iraq War prove the limits of U.S. military effectiveness? Sorry, but I think you're sense of what military action can achieve is greatly inflated.
Finally, the U.S. isn't being duped. We know what's going on - I mean seriously - if you and I know what's going on, you think the CIA doesn't? Point being - it's much easier to say what should be done, than actually do it.
No, no, no to more military incursions - please
Marty, I appreciate much of your input and recognize you that ultimately declined the merits of invading Pakistan. Admittedly, many of us are still reeling from the recent military fiascos and bracing ourselves and our kids for the economic and security fallout and are, thus, gun shy about starting any more fights regardless of prospects of success. That being said, there's still no way that an invasion could ever be considered as an option or good idea, even if we weren't in a quagmires elsewhere. When was the last time a proactive military effort in the name of security panned out ?
I do agree, though, with the lack of return on our investment in Pakistan and the value of trying something else, rather than see continued billions being poured into this misadventure.
Please, no more calls for war haphazardly
professor you do a good job of highlighting and dismissing conspiracy theories espoused and propogated by various PAkistani quarters. Perhaps you should also not indulge in the same game when you talk about seeing khaki underneath black robes. dont get me wrong i wish it was so and Mr Rashids analysis correct because that way the judges rebellion wouldnt have taken place against Musharraf in 2007 and Pakistan wouldnt be in the soup it was in as a result..
Take this for ex.
"U.S. courts would likely reject claims of self
defense if an alleged victim shot his purported assailants in the back. However,
U.S. officials privately note that the individuals fled after the first shot
was fired from a frontal position, thus negating the claims that Davis first
fired into their backs."
He is claiming that if you shot ppl while they are running from you it s still regarded as self defense ! That is not true , and it was not the case here, this American bond shot 2 ppl at ppl because he thought that his life in danger and kept shooting while his poor victims are running 4 their lifes , it s a very typical Black Water employee behavior. We saw the same in Iraq and Afghanistan many times and they got away with it.
Well, while I agree that Pakistanis are prone to conspiracy - a trait they have in common with many Americans on the Left and the Right - I won't say that they don't have some good reason to be concerned. I wouldn't want these Blackwater thugs waltzing around my back yard either.
What really disturbs me is the fact that the U.S. - my government - is increasingly relying upon these private security forces, for serious intel work. Don't we have enough intelligence agencies to rely on?
And maybe it is absurd to think that Blackwater personnel would be the cause of terrorist attacks within Pakistan, but here's the problem I have with this assumption on the part of the writer: Blackwater is a for profit corporation. So, at the end of the day, these guys' primary motivation is what benefits THEIR bottom line. Not necessarily what benefits the United States.
They derive their profits from chaos in the world. Remove the chaos and profits go down. Increase the chaos, and profits go up. So, who can say for sure what these guys are up to? I completely object to this practice, which btw, bilks American taxpayers.
So, these guys can wax poetic all day about freedom. But what they really want is money. Lots and lots of taxpayer money. And if it turns out that he works for Blackwater, then I say, take a page from the Wild West mentality that Blackwater subscribes too - hang'em high.
Pakistan's inability to change for the better
This may not be too relevant to the topic in hand but while the Egyptian revolution was reaching its end, someone asked me to comment on the US policy during the crisis.
Also, the fact that the next steps are up to the Egyptians and their string sense of history and independence. Is that the missing element in Pakistan, where it seems to be stuck in an endless round of military rulers and weak political leaders?
Here’s my response: it appears to me that Egypt will get through these rather rough waters, eventually. It’s not going to be easy though - it'll be damn complicated! However, here's what will put them on the road to success - their proud history and the cognizance of their glorious past, the will to make success happen.
I understand that this change in Egypt came out of nowhere - there were no leaders of this revolution. It's an extraordinary situation whereby there's no real contender for the president's office at this time. This was a scattered phenomenon; an 'electronically orchestrated social networking' situation that ended up bringing about a massive turnaround of fortunes.
Having said that, the people will have to let go of this revolution, put behind them the fond memories of these exhilarating days/weeks, stop reliving the time and move on to create an environment that literally justifies this 'people action'; the revolution was a great achievement, they need to start ‘achieving afresh’.
Amidst all this I sincerely hope that the change brings about a long-lasting, democratic relief for the people. Historically speaking, I recall two major 'revolutions' going bad for the masses in the past century; one the Bolshevik revolution that made people suffer for 74 years under the oppressive Communist rule and, second, the mullah takeover of Iran in 1979 that continues till this day. Ironically, the Iranian government that has tried to draw parallels between the Egyptian revolution and their revolution in the recent days ( perhaps an overdosed mullah came up with the 'idea' that this was an 'Islamic revolution' ), is hell bent upon suppressing yet another protest effort by its people this Monday.
As they say, passion speaks the language that reason does not follow, what happens once the euphoria of the revolution is done and over with and reality kicks in, will be intriguingly interesting. Being that there is an absence of an organized political cultural and ethos, it’s going to be an uphill battle to create one and make the people work with the evolving mechanistic dynamics. It may turn out to be a story of 'great expectations'; it is all contingent upon how the people of Egypt carry on in a sustained manner to show their will to the powers that be to introduce a just and fair set up, truly based upon the principles of a government by, for and of the people.
As far as the White House stance on the situation is concerned, the President did right vis-a-vis Egypt. Yes, the United States does have integral interests tied to the Middle East and Egypt is a big-time role-player in the paradigm, yet, Washington could not have blatantly expressed it 'preferences' or desires with respect to the fast changing circumstances and ground realities in the past few weeks.
The fact that Ambassador Wisner was sent out earlier to nudge and push Mubarak to do the right thing ( until Wisner’s declaration that Mubarak should stay on until September ), the President’s subsequent statements, especially the one last Thursday, showed that he was willing and content to tow the middle line ( at least at the White House level since I heard that the Pentagon did talk to the military command in Cairo that day Mubarak gave his final speech), follow a moderate path that did not make it too obvious that the US was trying to orchestrate and maneuver affairs of a sovereign nation ( despite the fact that our dollars literally hold that country together ).
I see the US, just like any other country in the world, having a structured foreign policy that defines the expectations and objectives of the country's role in global affairs. The Egyptian unrest, had it gone out of control, could have severely jeopardized the US interests in the Middle East, especially given the fact that Egypt borders Israel. It is indeed a relief to learn that the new leadership in Cairo has pledged to honor the Peace Treaty of 1979.
The other point of concern was, of course, the Suez Canal as a major trade route. We would have been faced with a catastrophic crisis had there been issues or a shutdown of the canal.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, Con Coughlin of ‘Telegraph’ wrote on August 25, 2010: “The government in Islamabad is floundering and ripe for a coup – if anyone wanted to launch one”.
I think what makes countries like Egypt and Iran different from Pakistan is the far superior nationalistic values of the people of those nations coupled with a strong sense of history and the pride associated with it.
Pakistan is a cloned nation with a relatively new and highly unstable polity. Whereas I hear peoples calls for a ‘revolution’, the will to bring about a change from within is a constantly lacking factor. The army remains the only other option every now and then and hence we see the people urging that institution to takeover so very often.
Pakistan is a seriously a failed and a de-capacitated state. I remember when the late Paul Kriesburg compiled/edited ‘Pakistan – a failed state’ back in the middle/late 90s, the Pakistanis raised a great hue and cry. What has transpired in the recent years is an utter, monstrous, and ‘real’ chaos, a breakdown of all possible systems ( if that rickety setup was ever to be regarded as a ‘system’ ), a violent shock to the life and liberty of people. The state, it seems, has not priorities; human issues, such a health, education, the basic rights of the people, are non issues.
Pakistan does not have the ‘germs’ to improve. Countries evolve into better nations not only on account of strong, driven and motivated leaderships but also because the people collectively want betterment and uplifting of their fortunes. India is a classic case in hand. The sacrifices of its people, living with all the financial and social restrictions imposed by the state in the past, and the strong initiative to be a force to be reckoned with, has turned India into an admirable success story of modern times. From day one, the military stayed in the barracks and the civilian leaders were allowed to run the affairs of the government. There are still plenty of glitches in their system, including a horribly corrupt bureaucracy, yet, things seem to have steadied and stabilized from the international standpoint.
The US may have to re-think ( the sooner the better ) its policy toward Pakistan. It may not be worth a while to invest too much time and effort, in the long run, on a country that survives and thrives on the distorted ideals of a faith that are politically motivated and stands dire need of an ‘update’ and reformation.
How about, going forward, giving aid to Pakistan that is based on religious reforms – get rid of the inhuman, notorious, blasphemy laws, introduce minority friendly regulations, remove barbarian punishments from the Penal Code?
Another issue that needs to be kept in mind is that Pakistan, unlike Egypt, is a feudal society. Egyptians are, for the most part, ‘functional’, mostly working class people; Pakistanis, on the other hand, are literally ruled by landlords and thugs who neither pay taxes nor have any ideological inclinations or commitment to basic human rights and freedoms.
In the main, Egypt and it people, despite being ruled by the military for almost 60 years now, are miles ahead of Pakistan when it comes to political awareness and the courage to bring about a powerful change for the general good of the masses.
Furthermore, whereas Egypt has several states in the region that are friendly toward the country, Pakistan is constantly at daggers drawn with its neighbors. Its standing as an honorable polity is jeopardized by its intelligence agencies, the army and its volatile political leadership.
Another interesting aspect of this is whether the news media failed its readers when it initially withheld information about Davis's CIA connection. http://mediapoliticsinperspective.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/should-the-media-out-a-cia-agent/
(15)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE