The capture, abduction, and spiriting away of Aimal Kansi to the US from a hotel in DG Khan by a combined Pakistani/American raiding team, says as much about us as it does about the Americans. First the Americans. Since the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union and socialist states in Eastern Europe, the US has increasingly been flexing its muscles globally. The overcoming of communism by a combination of external pressure, military and economic, and internal mistakes and weaknesses of the socialist states themselves, has cleared the way for the US to expand into its self-appointed role of the only superpower in the world. It has now arrogated to itself the right to abduct and bring back to the US for trial any person wanted for a crime in the US from any part of the world, with or without the consent of the country concerned.

According to the Washington Post, this is the precedent set by a US court ruling in the case of a Mexican physician, Humberto Alvarez Machain, abducted from his country in a secret US government operation in 1990 and flown to the US to stand trial. The circumstances and manner of his arrest, the court ruled, were no impediment to his trial in the US. The US has an unenviable record of transgressing other countries' sovereignty and flouting international law, wherever these conflict with its own perceived interests. In Latin America in particular, the US writ has held sway for most of the 20th century. Countries in what the US likes to refer to as its 'backyard' have been subjected to enslavement by American economic interests, backed by the US' military might as the ultimate guarantor of the investments and profits of its multinational corporations, some of which continue to enjoy monopolies and cartels in crucial sectors of Latin America's economy. That is one reason, amongst others, why Cuba and Fidel Castro have been such a canker in Washington's side all these years, because they have refused to kow-tow before US bullying, embargoes, and even US-backed invasions by Castro's opponents in exile.

The US has, in blatant fashion, supported dictatorships all over the world with aid where possible, military might where necessary. Its last great military adventure was in Viet Nam, where it subjected the people of that brave country to untold suffering, but was eventually defeated ignominiously. Since then, Washington has been more circumspect, preferring 'proxy' wars to direct intervention. And of late it has hypocritically donned the robes of human rights and the universally applicable principles of democracy in pursuit of its naked global hegemony. It had become established illegal practice by the US over many decades to overthrow recalcitrant regimes not to Washington's liking, abduct former rulers who had grown too big for their boots (Noriega of Panama, once a CIA collaborator, who later fell out over his 'independent' drug business), removing potential or actual opponents of American interests through assassinations, etc. But now, it seems, the US penchant for tracking down, abducting, and bringing back to the US for trial, any citizen of any country, has acquired legal sanction for Washington through the US court ruling. Where the governments of the countries in question cooperate and play along with the US' purposes, operations such as the Kansi abduction become possible. Where such governments do not play ball, cooperation is to be 'induced', according to the current thinking in Washington.

Although there is a report in the Pakistani papers that the US had threatened Pakistan with across the board sanctions unless it complied with Washington's wishes on Kansi, this hardly seems credible, given that successive governments in Pakistan have not just played ball with the Americans, they have bent over backwards to please them. Take the case of Ramzi Yousuf, the main accused in the World Trade Centre bombing. Although carrying a Pakistani passport at the time of his arrest in Islamabad in a similar secret 'commando' operation in which the Americans were also allegedly involved, it is still not known what citizenship Ramzi Yousuf genuinely carried. However, despite not being a Pakistani citizen, he was entitled, under the laws of the land, to due process before being whisked off to the US. The government in power at the time was Benazir Bhutto's. The former Prime Minister has supported the operation against Kansi and compared it with approval with her own decision on Ramzi Yousuf. Due process, in the absence of an extradition treaty between Pakistan and the US, consists of, amongst other restrictions, producing the accused before a magistrate to assess the charge, whether prima facie it is a fit case for extradition. Article 11 of the Extradition Act, which holds the field in Pakistan, says the accused shall not be delivered until after the expiry of 15 days from the date of his arrest. He also has the right to appeal against the finding of the magistrate. Initially when the story about Kansi's arrest broke, all sorts of 'red herrings' were put out to both the Pakistani and American media (or is it the other way round?).

It was claimed that Kansi had been picked up 'somewhere in Afghanistan'. Then that was changed to 'somewhere near the Pak-Afghan border'. Later it transpired that he was actually picked up in DG Khan, many many miles from Afghanistan. The initial report that some Afghans or the Taliban, who were harbouring him or knew of his whereabouts, collaborated in his arrest, have not been confirmed, and in fact the Taliban have denied a hand in the affair. However, it is still a mystery what he was doing in a hotel in DG Khan, knowing that the US was after him with a single-minded desperation for the last four years. That part of the story has still to unfold. It may be that the source who gave information that led to Kansi's arrest, and in all likelihood collected most of the $ 3.5 million reportedly spent on the operation, is being protected.

Why was the US so desperate to get hold of Kansi? And what was Kansi's motivation in killing and wounding CIA operatives outside the Agency's headquarters in Langley, Virginia? So far the speculation in this regard has centred round the allegation that Kansi's father had been helping the CIA funnel arms and aid to Afghan guerillas during the anti-Soviet resistance. It is not clear what advantages Kansi senior may have gained from the relationship. The family of the late Kansi senior denies any link with the CIA. But that does not explain why Aimal Kansi targeted CIA operatives. This is a murky business indeed. Its roots lie in that period of the Afghan war when Pakistan had lent itself to the role of a 'front-line state' and prostrated itself before American wishes. This unequal relationship between the US and Pakistan in the holy war against the Soviets, had the undeniable side benefit of propping up General Ziaul Haq's politically isolated dictatorship for far longer than it, or Pakistanis, deserved. But the relationship also opened doors for CIA operatives to function freely on and from Pakistani soil. Ostensibly, these operations were geared to the anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan. But they had a spill-over in terms of the CIA setting up a bigger than ever network in Pakistan, overseen by what was reported at the time to be the biggest CIA operational headquarters, in Islamabad. Those old ties have obviously stood the Americans in good stead in operations in recent years such as Ramzi Yousuf and Aimal Kansi's capture. The US has a serious drugs problem on its hands domestically. Its Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has been given the sacred task of 'selectively' tracking down and cracking open drug smuggling gangs worldwide. Since the Afghan war, our region has overtaken the 'Golden Triangle' of Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Laos as the prime source for drugs. As any visitor to Afghanistan will witness, poppy fields are to be found in abundance.

Some of these fields are in areas today controlled by the Taliban. The 'holy warriors' see no contradiction between tolerating (and perhaps benefiting from?) the drug trade, while preaching strict adherence to Sharia. The DEA has in the past managed to get drug smugglers extradited from Pakistan, without much legal hitch or hindrance. But perhaps the Taliban are beyond its 'reach'. The DEA, CIA, FBI are now working closely globally to track down and 'bring 'em back alive' those the US wants. Pakistani governments tend to collaborate in all such efforts. So far so good. However, what is inexplicable, and which no government, including this one, has been satisfactorily able to explain is why our laws are so blatantly being violated by our own governments. Drug smugglers, Ramzi Yousuf, Aimal Kansi are unlikely heroes. It is not their protection enraged public opinion in Pakistan is seeking, but the protection of our national sovereignty. Is there anyone seriously arguing that following the legal procedures under Pakistani law would have ended up differently in its final result? Why then are such operations conducted with such secrecy and an attempt made to mislead and make a fool of the public?

One possible explanation could be that in some cases, and Aimal Kansi's case may fit the bill, the Americans do not want embarrassing possible exposure of dark secrets and hidden skeletons from the past if such cases went through even nominal judicial scrutiny here. The circumstantial evidence in Kansi's case definitely points towards a CIA connection. His relatively young age indicates a relationship going back to his father or other elders. What does the CIA seek to hide? And how far are governments in Pakistan prepared to go to pull such chestnuts out of the fire for the CIA? The Pakistan government at first denied all knowledge of the Kansi operation, and only reluctantly, and bit by bit as the reports hit the media, admitted to partial knowledge. Their case seems to rest on the following: Kansi is no hero, only a fugitive from justice (American, presumably). Pakistan is not responsible for Kansi's activities in the US (thereby implying Pakistan is also not responsible for the fact that he is a Pakistani citizen). Pakistan has signed an extradition treaty with the US (this is news to everyone, since even in the Ramzi Yousuf case, then Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar promised to produce such a treaty in the National Assembly but never did. Perhaps by the 'treaty', the government means the 'extraordinary diplomatic agreement signed in recent days for handling the Kansi affair, whose details of course are unknown). We are not about to give protection to a person said to have indulged in terrorism as it will hurt Pakistan's interests (every violent crime of late has come to be described as 'terrorism', thereby depriving the term of its specific meaning). It is a 'sensitive' issue, therefore no details can be divulged, but there has been no 'deal' (i.e. quid pro quo). It is a minefield which should not be exploited for political purposes. Pakistan's honour, dignity and national interests have been protected. A state which violates its own laws to butter up to a great power like the US, does not even begin to know what its interests are, let alone protect them. Only banana republics behave and talk like that. What do these events tell us about ourselves? What do they say about us? 

Phone: + 92 42 6666404 - 6687827
 

 

 
E-mail: jrc@syberwurx.com