Qui bono?

amina.jilani@tribune.com.pk

Of late, events have piled up in almost one fell swoop. We have what has come to be known as memogate, the sudden rise of Imran Khan, the NRO decision and the Salala attack. Would it take a particularly convoluted mind to work out a connection, a common linking thread? Or is all just an amazing coincidence?

Some factors are puzzling. In the case of the mystery memo, one must factor in the question of stupidity. Now, none of the main players can be termed stupid, certainly not Husain Haqqani or the Americans. What idiot would think that anyone in the US government would pay heed to an unsigned, one-page, poorly-drafted memo? As for our boys of the spook brigade, the possibility of their involvement has lately been mooted by several commentators and to some, theirs was the first name that sprang to mind when the story broke. They have been known in the past to have had fleeting moments of madness.

The most sinister character of the show is Mansoor Ijaz, who should not be stupid since he has made his millions (as he dubbed himself, he is ‘ultra rich’) and is revelling in them as they have allowed him to buy his way into his numerous high-powered contacts. Was he used by the boys?

So, in the memo matter, qui bono? Who profits? Well, if it was the heads of Haqqani and Asif Zardari that were wanted, there would seemingly be only one taker, as the Americans were extremely happy with the former and seem happy with the latter. That superior thing known as the establishment would be the sole profiteer — and they now have one head (if not potentially both).

Imran Khan is, of course, the main benefactor of his meteoric rise, as are those who were with him and the undesirables who have since flocked to him. But he could not have done it all on his own, so again we have the establishment possibly at play in the hope that he can serve a purpose.

In the matter of the NRO decision, both the judiciary and yes, again, the establishment have an interest. If its heads they want, this route could be fruitful if put to proper use.

Moving on to Salala and the tragic losses: well, in a war it is known that many fatal errors do occur, wars cannot be fought without spawning dead bodies and no force is infallible. How would it benefit the Americans to have acted deliberately? What gains have they made by the attack and the killings? The puzzle here is that if indeed it was done in error, why the hesitation to apologise? One loses little by saying sorry for a genuine mistake.

How does it benefit the US to antagonise Pakistan more than it has already done during this all-round unhappy year? Obviously not, since on the US’s own admission it ‘needs’ Pakistan in the present and more so in the future, of course very differently from the manner in which Pakistan desperately ‘needs’ the US and the funds and armaments it provides to the mighty army and the aid it gives to the government, which it more than helped to install through its dealing and wheeling with the former president general and the general who now heads the army.

The man who has been put in as prime minister has joined the ghairat lot and is thundering on about sovereignty, self-respect, honour, integrity etc, to no avail at all internationally, only to inflame anti-Americanism at home.

Then we come to the attitude of the US. From the Washington Post of December 5 :“Regardless of who was at fault in the border clash, ‘this whole sovereignty thing is so strong because we do precisely what we want in their territory and this drives them crazy,’ said another State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ‘Knowing they can’t do anything about it drives them even more crazy. When we get in a hurry, we don’t even bother to fake it.’”

Published in The Express Tribune, December 10^th, 2011.