The Pakistani Spectator

As an Ambassador, Mahmud Ali Durrani gave his last press conference in the Pakistani embassy before he leaves for Islamabad to work there as a National Security Advisor (NSA).

This position was created by Asif Zardari, the husband of the late Benizir Bhutto, who desired a liaison between the army and his civilian administration. Importantly, he sought someone with first hand experience in the States. Moreover, ambassador Durrani is a retired general, so, making him a national security advisor seems to be a good fit.

However, he would have nothing to do with the current National Security Council (NSC), the Ambassador said.

Being a relatively newly active journalist among Pakistani journalists, I keenly observe these Pakistani meetings and am disappointed by the often-jocular sports talk, and avoidance of real questions that detract from the opportunity to seek important information. It is interesting to observe, for example, that when one journalist asks a question, often some other journalists often jump in with the apparent intent of discouraging the questioner by trying to respond in sound bites, or possibly, to demonstrate their leadership, seniority, or even, their superior knowledge.

Above all, those who interrupt also demonstrate, perhaps, their loyalty to the respondent, which in this case was Ambassador Durrani.

Most Pakistani journalists, except some senior journalists like Dr. Manzoor Ijaz and Takeeber ‘s journalist, Mian Shakeel, ask softball questions.

Obviously, people have their personal styles and there is nothing wrong in asking questions not very critical of the performance of these government officials. Asking easy questions, keeps the environment cordial and it also ensures that the future invitations to the embassy events are open for these softball journalists.  Yet, few journalists interrupt these questions, of but lament the soul who does ask the hard questions.

Do not these hard questions refine the behavior, conduct and efficiency of these government officials? Are questions of substance the real mirrors to these leaders, reflecting back their success, competency or effectiveness?

At the end of the ambassador’s speech, when some journalists had already asked some of the questions during the questions-answer session, I commented to Ambassador Durrani about the reputation of Tariq Aziz, the current Secretary of NSC. To insiders, Aziz is a wheeler-dealer, known for productive negotiations, completed behind the scenes with politicians, on behalf of his boss, President Musharraf.

Since being a civilian man Aziz does not have military experience, he maximizes the utilization of his job by doing his best to keep Musharraf in the game as long as it’s possible.  Since  Ambassador Durrani’s military experience make NSA position more suitable and prestigious for him than for Aziz, the Ambassador could stay focused on security issues. As a matter of fact, his ambassadorial assignment in Washington was kind of liability for Pakistan – a retied general Durrani was defending another power hungry general (Musharraf in Islamabad) in the heart of the most free society in the world, an extremely awkward act.

Keeping Pakistani politics in perspective, I asked Ambassador Durrani if he has concerns that he too could be perceived, by some, as merely Musharraf or Zardari’s contact person to deal with the politicians, in which case his real role of NSA could be diminished.

Since Ambassador Durrani had already answered some journalists’ questions very nicely, I too was expecting a smooth answer from him, especially because I have found him as a very professional, polite, and accommodating accessible man. I especially like him – despite the fact we have very different views on politics — because being a son of a Kashmiri mother he publicly agreed with me that we have same maternal great grand mother.

However, in response to my question instead of giving some kind of answer Ambassador Durrani snubbed me. Clearly, he was offended that I called Tariq Aziz a wheeler-dealer.

I explained to the Ambassador that to me this word has some good connotation as well. It means the Wheeler-dealer is good in finding the solution and getting the job done.

While both of us was trying aggressively to find the true meaning the word wheeler-dealer,     some journalists came to help Ambassador as if he were a kid being taken over by a bully. Those journalists’ attempted rescue is condescending to the Ambassador himself. During our
Reasoning, journalist Mian Shakeel tried to calm the situation by suggesting that we could describe Aziz’s role as a trouble-shooter rather than a wheeler-dealer. I have no problem with that, I said.

Then at another point, I asked Ambassador Durrani about the bad image of Pakistan in Washington DC.

I stated to him that a major part of the U.S payments to Pakistan are provided for the services of almost hundred thousand Pakistani troops stationed around the border area with Afghanistan. However, the media erroneously described these payments as aid to Pakistan.

It sounded like the Ambassador’s anger at my first question lingered.

Upset with the question, Ambassador Durrani said the way I framed my statement implied that Pakistan was performing some inferior task just for some material matters. He explained that Pakistan is not doing any dirty deeds and getting paid for it. Instead, he said, Pakistan and America are cooperating with each other for something that is mutually beneficial for the both countries.

By the way, its not a secret that our dear National Security Agency (NSA) has bugged every embassy in Washington, including the Israeli one. Let’s hope Ambassador Durrani’s mutually beneficial statement get to the right people in Washington. If it does, he would be our next Man in Islamabad when Zardari and Sharif brothers get tired of that city.

More power to the Ambassador, if he really holds such views, by the way. Most Pakistanis, however, seem to believe that President Musharraf was trying to fight someone else’s ‘War on Terror,’ by getting Pakistani troops killed cheaply, so in return, he could keep himself in power. The results of the recent Pakistani election, confirmed this perspective of Pakistani people, I believe, contrary to what the Ambassador said.

But for the sake of probing the Pakistani Ambassador further, I reminded him of his words on the Diane Reem Show, a Washington DC radio program most often featured on NPR, the National Public Radio, which featured a discussion on US aid funds to Pakistan. On the show, Durrani said that Pakistan could do with that money whatever she wants. He said, the country could buy the weapons it needs or it could buy potatoes.

The statement was like touching a hot flame, the room rather exploded and the journalists tried to stop me.  This time I had to hinder their interference by asking them to let me complete my statement.  I asked the Ambassador why it was wrong for me to quote some of his words — said on a program listened to by public audience — among a couple of dozen Pakistani journalists. Instead of answering, the Ambassador avoided my question.

I also met Durrani’s snub by reminding him that he had avoided answering a tough question at a John Hopkins University Press meeting. At that meeting I asked him who is equipping Balouch rebels in Balouchstan, Pakistan. Because those at this current press meeting are Pakistani or Pakistani-American, I asked Durrani if he would like to shed some light on either of my questions. Once again, he declined by saying not to touch that subject here, as well.

Besides avoiding answering difficult questions, Ambassador Durrani has another good quality.  He seems to be extremely loyal to his boss, Musharraf.

For example, on February 28, 2006, in a conference on Kashmir on Capitol Hill on the House side, I first introduced myself to him as one of his fans. At that point, I told him that right after September 11, Pakistan earned huge American good will by reversing its foreign policy toward the Taliban government.

Then I asked him that how he would counter some people’s perceptions that Musharraf used Bush’s administration faith in him to keep clinging with power rather than using U.S. good will to influence India to resolve the difficult issue of Kashmir.

Considering my question as a personal attack on Musharraf, Ambassador Durrani lost his temper. Then this retired general showed his anger by cautioning that the gathering was about educating the audience on the violation of Kashmiri people’s human rights but we guys were trying to hijack it by making it a stage for Musharraf bashing.

The Ambassador seemed to be giving me a sermon in return of my every question when I was sitting in his territory, the Pakistani embassy.  If these guys are capable of carrying atomic bombs closer to Pakistani-Indian borders during the kargil crisis, it’s not a big deal for them to throw me out of the embassy any moment.  I just shut my mouth.

Shutting the mouth in this instance is simply a play over of what millions of Pakistani people must do during the martial laws in Pakistan. They are expected to be jocular and insincere, so that, those in power can at least pretend that the poor Pakistanis do not see the reality of their military dictators decisions and their diplomatic ties.

Lastly, Zahid Hussein of ‘Dunia’ a Urdu newspaper, asked about the Pakistani-American community’s deficient access to passport and visa services, which is only open to the public between 9 AM to 1 PM. Because most Pakistani-Americans arrive at the embassy after driving great distances, Zahid suggested extending the hours from 9 AM to 4 or 5 PM.

Keeping persistent, Zahid asked a second and third question on the public access to the embassy. He again suggested a time extension of the visa and passport services.

Obviously, with Zahid’s stature, I expected full cooperation with his questions, but was mildly surprised by the rooms twitter over Zahid’s persistent questioning. And obviously, his questions had nothing to do with politics, or with scoring some personal points or, trying to come under the good graces of Ambassador Durrani, who is going to hold another powerful position in Islamabad.

While at first, I racked the other journalists’ protest to feelings of inferiority to Zahid, I realized much later that Zahid was politically astute. To him, probably, control access to embassy services is to have power over the daily lives of Pakistani people who sometimes have to stand in lines for hours just to pay their electric utility bills. Limiting access is another carry over of a power structure the people felt in Pakistan every day, and why should not Pakistani-American experience it here in the States.

Rightfully, Zahid shot back at the selfish attitude of the journalists’. With anger, Zahid reminded them that it was not a problem for you guys because you could always meet embassy staffers even after official hours and get your job done. “I am talking about the difficulties of the average Pakistani-American who does not know some body personally in the embassy and they can’t make it here during the hours of 9 AM to 1 PM.” Zahid said.

Once again, as usual, Ambassador Durrani responded to Zahid’s questions in a very kind manner by explaining in detail, that besides the public dealings the embassy staff has to do a lot of background work between the hours of 2 to 5 PM on the paper work they receive from the community between the hours of 9 AM to 1 PM.
After this rather ‘high court’ attitude of the other journalists’, I wondered why my questions made Durrani uptight? Knowing that I have nothing personal against the Ambassador I felt strongly to find some justification for his rejection of my questions.
Then, I recalled one of my articles named ‘Pakistani Diplomatic Debacle In Washington’.

So, upon my return to home I looked at that article and realized the possible reason of Ambassador Durrani’s annoyance with me.

I shoot the following emails to the journalists present in that meeting.

Thu, May 01, 2008 08:03 PM

Dear fellows,
Please look at the write up at the bottom.  Most probably Amb. Durrani was upset with me this evening in the embassy because of his helplessness reflected in this article. Last Friday, I talked with DCM Aslam Khan about this article in his office.

Its very normal for Amb. Durrani to feel real guilt about how badly the army rule in Pakistan was perceived in Washington, especially because of country’s Islamic identity.  Kami Butt

http://www.pakspectator.com/pakistani-diplomatic-debacle-in-washington/

The merit of the above write up could be discussed in another piece in near future.