Glacial nonsense

Suggesting that the floods were a direct result of human activity on the Siachen glacier is ludicrous.

Suggesting that the recent devastating floods were a direct result of human activity on the heavily militarised Siachen glacier is about as ludicrous as you can get. And one doesn’t expect such things to be said by a Pakistani ambassador in the process of briefing the US House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming but, our very own Hussain Haqqani, did just that. Our ambassador must have raised more than one pair of eyebrows when he dropped this utterance in the midst of people far better informed about global warming issues and climate abberations.

The ambassador played the flood card to the hilt, specifically in relation to the badly-conceived war on terror. According to him, this would suffer badly as a result of army personnel being engaged in flood relief. However, this sidesteps the fact that who else but the army would assist in flood relief. Harping on about “insurgents and extremist groups” taking advantage of current circumstances for their own nefarious ends, Haqqani was resurrecting a figment of collective imagination which has largely, at least so far, proven untrue in that mass recruiting of disposed peasants has failed to materialise. The big bad Taliban and their brothers in arms appear to have limited themselves to simply helping their fellow countrymen in a time of dire need. Organising themselves far more efficiently and effectively than many in government were capable of doing, the baddies quickly distributed shelter, food, clothing, drinking water and were even able to offer qualified medical assistance to those so desperately in need. They, in fact, got their act together and were up and running way before the government haphazardly rallied to the call. Yet now, after accepting their help when it was needed, Haqqani is egging the Americans on in their misplaced goal of wiping anyone and everyone sporting a turban and a beard off the face of the earth.

The ambassador further pointed out that “we have a potential for unrest which has security implications”. Adding, “all of those factors have security implications to the extent that the United States’ own security is directly linked to security in our region. This is something that the American public and decision-makers need to consider”. Is the ambassador perchance suggesting that unless the US coughs up massive amounts of cash with which to ‘secure’ Pakistan, that the millions of flood-affected people, accompanied by controlling ‘insurgents’, are going to hijack flights across the Atlantic and attack innocent American citizens in their own homes as is obviously not the case?

Surely the role of an ambassador is to broker peace, promote his country in the best light possible and, above all, to be fully cognisant of the facts before even thinking of spouting them?

Published in The Express Tribune, December 5^th, 2010.