Imtiaz Gul

An historic eleven hour-long in-camera session of the two houses of Pakistan parliament resulted in a consensus ‘Resolution on Unilateral U.S. Forces Action in Abbottabad on 2nd May 2011.” The session had begun in the afternoon on May 13, and continued into the wee hours of May 14, 2011.

For the first time, Pakistan military top-brass¶including the army, air force, and naval chiefs¶sat by, while the head of the mighty Inter-Services– Intelligence (ISI) spoke to explain how and why the entire military establishment was ¿caught napping– when four U.S. helicopters flew into the Pakistani territory, without informing the government, raided a compound in Abbottabad to kill Osama bin Laden, and fly back unchallenged with the dead body of the world most wanted person.

This ‘unauthorized incursion’ kicked up a storm and eventually led to the in-camera session for the 442 members of the parliament.

After a marathon presentation and question-answer session, and hectic consultations, all members agreed on a resolution which, inter alia, called upon the government to appoint an independent commission on the Abbottabad operation, fix responsibility, and recommend necessary measures to ensure that such an incident does not recur in the future. It was one of those rare occasions of consensus not only among all the parliamentarians but also the political leadership and the civil-military decision-making establishment.

The parliament demanded in unison that the government ‘revisit and review its terms of engagement with the United States, which through its ‘unilateral action’ in Abbottabad violated Pakistan’s sovereignty. It also decried the CIA-led drone attacks, terming them at variance with the ‘principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and humanitarian norms’ and said that they be halted forthwith, ‘failing which the Government will be constrained to consider taking necessary steps, including withdrawal of transit facility allowed to NATO/ISAF [NATO / International Security Assistance Force] forces.

The consensus opposition to drone strikes and the threat to use withdrawal of transit facility for food and fuel supplies through Pakistan as leverage, in fact, reflected the simmering national discourse on the issue¶thus far considered the public exclusivity of politicians such as Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan or the religious political parties. But now all had spoken through the resolution, thereby signaling the hardening of Pakistani posturing in discussions with American interlocutors on the eve of Senator Kerry firefighting visit. Another bumpy phase in Pakistan relationship with the U.S. in such a situation would not be a surprise for most of the observers.

In addition to the message that the parliamentary resolution sends across to the U.S., it might unleash a new dynamic in Pakistan, marking the first step toward improving the civil-military relations to the advantage of the former. The ¿establishment– of Pakistan now has the backing of the parliament, which is probably a new chapter in Pakistani politics. With all the stakeholders singing in unison through the resolution, it is hoped that it would also help in restoring trust between General Kayani, and President Zardari. Relations between Zardari, constitutionally the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and Kayani, the subordinate chief of army staff, had been icy cold since the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November 2008.

While the American intrusion unified most of the political forces on issues such as the U.S. intervention and intervention in their affairs, it also provided them with a whip to wave at the hitherto ‘unaccountable, all-powerful’ military establishment. More evidently, it came as a boon for former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, who had scoffed at the military-led investigation of the failure of intelligence in detecting the American intrusion. He had, in fact, given the government a three-day deadline on May 11, to set up a judicial commission to probe the security failures and punish those responsible for having ‘slept over’ while the American raiders came and got bin Laden. The consensus on the proposed independent commission became possible only after Sharif party¶the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N)¶gave up on its original demand of a purely judicial commission.

Sharif, still bitter about his removal through a coup by the then chief General Pervez Musharraf in October 1999, said that the Commission must investigate the role of intelligence agencies in political matters as well. Though not a member of the parliament, he not only had his party press on the creation of an independent commission for investigating the circumstances around the death of bin Laden; he was the major force behind the demand for a halt to the U.S. drone strikes.

Situation arising out of the American raid to get bin Laden seems to have provided an edge to the civilian leadership in Pakistan. The joint resolution of the parliament also seems to have pushed the civil-military leadership closer than ever, ensuring, thereby, unanimity of thought as far as relations with the United States are concerned. Until recently, the Pakistani civil and military leaders were divided, a division that the U.S. exploited so far. It probably would be difficult for Washington to deal with the new power matrix inside Pakistan. While Islamabad has spoken through the parliamentary resolution, the United States shall also have to recalibrate its view on Pakistan¶a challenge that is likely to add more acrimony and tension into the bilateral relationship and thereby could potentially also upset President Obama applecart i.e., the plans to begin phased U.S. troops– draw-down in Afghanistan. Tough times ahead, it seems.