Winning but Not Winning in Pakistan and Elsewhere

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Raymond Davis is safely out of Pakistan, but at what cost?  If ever there was a lose-lose proposition, this was it.   

Here’s the scenario: U.S. citizen and sorta quasi pseudo diplomat cum CIA contractor Raymond Davis kills two guys on a motorcycle in Lahore, Pakistan.  He claims they’re robbers and he shot in self-defense.  Yet the cops in Lahore say the men were shot in the back, which means they were fleeing not attacking.  So what does Davis do next?  He jumps out of the car to photograph the bodies.  More abnormal behavior. Next Davis himself attempts to flee, which can be interpreted as sensible or sinister, sensible considering that most Americans would flinch from being the target of an angry crowd in today’s Pakistan, sinister if the killing was actually an assassination as claimed in an al Jazeera report.  Al Jaezeera also happens to have run the best summary of the Davis affair that I have read so far. 

Sorry New York Times.  Not only did you truly pathetically cover up for the Obama administration when the truth was already out, you’ve also heeded the government’s request not to speculate.  Two strikes against you. 

So here’s the al Jazeera version (and why, please tell me, can’t I get al Jazeera on my TV set along with Faux—er Fox News—dare we call it censorship?): Davis, tasked by the U.S. with uncovering ISI connections to Lashkar-e-Taiba, was being tailed by ISI agents who (my speculation now) might very well have been interested not only in knowing what he was doing but in silencing him.  Fortunately for the Americans, unfortunately for the Pakistanis, Davis shot first. (Since when do diplomats carry guns?)  Thereafter, popular clamor nothwithanding, ISI would have had zero interest in a murder trial, which would have revealed its unsavory role in what should have been a quick and simple drive by shooting.  The U.S., of course, wanted Davis whisked instantly out of the country. Why?  Same argument. The less said the better.  But two murders plus an accidental homicide stoked a fury running the gamut from Islamists to secular liberals, so the Pakistani government had to do something to save face.  It had to appear to stand up to the Americans.  As luck and irony would have it, traditional and Islamic law provided the out: blood money.  Payment for pardon. Murder wiped away by cold cash.

So the charade runs its course.  Davis is arrested, jailed, brought to court—and released.  Honor is satisfied.  The U.S. is happy. The Islamists can’t complain.  The bereaved are millionaires.  In dollars, not rupees.  What’s more they’re whisked out of sight (maybe on the same plane as Davis!) before they can confirm rumors that they were pressured (threatened?) into taking the money.  They got visas to the U.S., too, if some reports are to be believed, which sets in motion another chain of delicious ironies. 

And now comes another bit of waffling and duplicity on the part of all parties.  The U.S. says it hasn’t paid any money to the bereaved.  Islamabad declares the payment didn’t come from the Pakistani treasury.  And maybe both are telling another “truth” that’s anything but, although I didn’t find this speculation in the New York Times.  I found it in the Pakistani press, a report of another disclaimer of responsibility, this one warning analysts to stop speculating about a Saudi role in all this.  Eureka!  A Saudi pass through.  If that story wasn’t a don’t-throw-me-in-the-briar-patch story, I don’t know what would be. 

And it makes perfect sense.  How else can we explain Washington’s astonishingly mild reaction when Saudi tanks rolled into Manama to give the local monarchy the clout it needed to quell the uprising there?  All Washington said was: Do it nicely now!  And did our erstwhile friends listen compliantly and make nice to the demonstrators?  Hardly.  Live ammunition was used.  Opposition leaders were arrested.  The streets were cleared and martial law was declared.  So the Saudis got their quid pro quo.  The lesson is: presidents are fair game, but don't mess with kings.  Democracy anyone?

No doubt Iran is cheering.  If Bahrain’s Shia demonstrators weren’t in cahoots with the mullahs of Iran, which they probably weren’t in any serious way, they might look for assistance from that direction the next time around.

Sigh! Like Israel, the Saudis are always in the background, pulling strings.  The revolution in Tunisia happened so fast, most outsiders were behind the curve, but the long drawn out departure of Hosni Mubarak gave the Obama administration plenty of opportunities to temporize. Israel didn’t want its familiar, reliable devil to leave.  Riyadh disapproved of popular uprisings.  How could Washington show sympathy for the democracy-hungry demonstrators in Cairo without alienating such status quo allies?  Call it tightrope walking.  Call it fence sitting.  And now there’s more—shall we call it more temporizing or diplomacy?  How to maintain good relations with the Egyptian army while urging the military to concede at least something to satisfy the people’s demand for democracy. 

In many ways, Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been like much of his domestic policy.  Jump on the right horse as it edges ahead.  Meanwhile, an old saw, slightly modified, seems like the going motto :  speak softly and carry a forked stick.  Unfortunately, playing it safe isn’t always a winning proposition.  Who wants lukewarm friends?