The emphasis from Pakistans establishment on the dishonour of sovereignty is intriguing
Written by The Indian Express
3 min read
Whatsapp
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
The deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers in fire from NATO helicopters early on Saturday morning has once again brought to the fore the simmering tension between the United States and Pakistan. The office of Pakistans prime minister,Yousuf Raza Gilani,stated that the entire US-Pakistan relationship would be reviewed. Pakistan has already used one of its strongest levers against NATO and the US-led forces in Afghanistan by blocking off access for the coalitions convoys to the landlocked country. It last closed off the border to NATO in September 2010,after 10 Pakistani soldiers were killed by the alliances helicopters,and didnt reopen it till a formal apology. NATO has so far issued regret but not an apology.
Unsurprisingly,the deaths have caused outrage in Pakistan. There is one strand of the establishment response,however,that is worth teasing out and looking at more closely,for it is becoming an increasingly familiar position. No one would be allowed to cast an evil eye on Pakistans security and sovereignty, said Gilani. The main opposition PML-N called it a broad daylight attempt to dishonour the sovereignty of Pakistan. And the Chinese foreign ministrys response was that Pakistans independence,sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected. This emphasis on sovereignty was heard too in the aftermath of the raid in which Osama bin Laden was killed,and in the outcry that followed the USs Kerry-Lugar aid bill in 2009.
You’ve Read Your Free Stories For Now
Sign up and keep reading more stories that matter to you.
To students of Pakistans history,the forwarding of the dishonour of sovereignty by the countrys powers that be is intriguing. After all,in many ways Pakistans powerful establishment has for decades approached the question of sovereignty in a manner that is unusual,even perhaps unique. It has consistently leveraged its geographical position to receive geostrategic rent,in effect treating its sovereignty as a bankable asset used to preserve and improve the position of its elites. This asset is sometimes drawn upon to ensure backing from the US,sometimes from China,and sometimes from assorted Saudi Arabia-funded actors. In the process,we have come to expect a considerably more fluid approach to the doctrine of sovereignty from precisely those interest groups using the word again today. When seen in that context,the question that should be asked is somewhat more nuanced than whether Pakistans establishment is merely outraged by what it insists is a violation of international law. And that question is: is sovereignty again being used as backing by those that hold real power in Pakistan to shore up their power?
