A Pakistani view of Kerry, Obama , and the Davis case

[karynnj]

My impression after reading it is that Davis must really be important to the US as this really has taken a toll on our relationship and it has enormous possible consequences for a fragile government, that we need not to fail.

The Nation suggests,

A senior diplomat, while talking to TheNation, questioned why the drone attacks and suicide bombings have come to a sudden halt since the arrest of Raymond Davis. “Should one understand that Raymond Davis was a kingpin in all such activities,” he asked, adding that Senator Kerry must be complimented for the polite expression that he used during his press conference in Lahore as compared to President Obama’s abrasive speech in Washington.

This paragraph was kind of hard to read - as it showed, I think both respect and disappointment.

What Sen Kerry said in the hurriedly-called select conference, barring the Nawa-i-Waqt Group, at this crucial juncture has not made anyone in Pakistan wiser. He embarked on a mellow expression from the start. But what he said has been heard a dozen times right from the mouth of top American leaders and diplomats. He argued ‘Raymond Davis is a diplomat’, knowing in his heart he is not.

(It seems whether he is a diplomat or not is complex.)

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/16-Feb-2011/Kerry-to-carry-Davis-to-US/

[Mass]

1. The problem is that there is no good solution.

1/ On one side, if Davis came as a diplomat, I can understand the insistence of the US government to keep diplomatic immunity. It would be a precedent that would put diplomats all over the world in danger.

2/ On the other side, this story has a hard time passing the smell test. Either this guy was something else or he was a total idiot, if, as has been reported, he ventured in some dark quarters of Lahore.

It is also clear that there is an internal Pakistani story there, which may be at the origin of the tone of this article, in a country where Kerry is usually respected. Earlier this week, the Taliban have announced a major attack if Davis was released, and the government is not particularly liked.

From what I understood from all the articles I read, Kerry went there to salvage the relationships between Pakistan and the US more than to free Davis. Of course, it is clear that, on the US side, it will take Davis being free for this to advance (which may be why Kerry promised Davis would be judged in the US), but it is hard to see how this is going to be solved.

It is also clear, from the articles in many papers in Asia and in the US that it is an important story beyond the US and Pakistan (may be because of the first point I made).

[karynnj]

2. All you stated makes sense

and I agree that there is no good solution. I wonder if the US can initiate charges - there seems a lot of justification - before he is released, which might make it seem that an investigation and trial will happen.

[Mass]

3. Already, an unnamed official says that charges will not be brought.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021506165.html

...
A U.S. official familiar with the Justice Department plan said that the pledge of a criminal probe "was intended to signal that the U.S. government takes this seriously," but that it should not be interpreted as an indication that officials in the United States believe Davis broke any laws.



"It's not intended to signal that this guy is going to be charged and tried here," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. U.S. officials have maintained that the evidence indicates Davis fired in self-defense.

Even if there were evidence to the contrary, bringing charges against Davis in the United States "would be almost impossible," the U.S. official said, because of jurisdictional barriers and other complications surrounding the actions of a U.S. government representative operating under diplomatic immunity overseas.
...

[karynnj]

5. Politico has an article that explains what Kerry actually said on trial - which matches this

"I shouldn't comment on the overall picture here because those are the facts that have to be part of this investigation. I promise you our department will investigate it thoroughly and appropriately. We in the Congress will obviously want to look at it, have oversight over that. So, it's not something that's done underneath the table or quietly. It has accountability....Let justice speak here in the end," Kerry said.
<snip>
(I watched part of Kerry's press conference on satellite TV and found a couple videos of it on the web and I never heard Kerry commit to Davis being charged, nor would it be appropriate for anyone to do that at this stage.)
<snip>
Lawyers familiar with so-called extraterritorial jurisdiction said that in most cases U.S. courts would not have jurisdiction over a crime allegedly committed by a diplomat on a public street overseas. However, crimes by military contractors can be prosecuted in U.S. courts under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act.

That might apply to Davis, according to information obtained by the Associated Press. The AP reported that Davis, a former Special Forces soldier, was carrying identification that described him as a Defense Department contractor. The U.S. government has not confirmed his precise status or what government agency he was employed by.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0211/Kerry_vows_Justice_Deptprobe_of_Pakistan_shooting_but_jurisdiction_uncertain.html

This suggests that at minimum the SFRC will investigate this - and that is under Kerry's control.

Here is the link to Kerry video - http://www.punjabrang.com/forum/content/john-kerry-press-conference-raymond-davis-case-966/

(I am watching now - One immediate reaction was a reminder of how big an issue this is in Pakistan.

[wisteria]

4. There is a good reason why Obama sent Senator Kerry, he is well respected and viewed as honorable

among the Pakistani leadership. This looks like a situation where Kerry plays good cop to Obama's bad cop. I believe Davis should have diplomatic immunity, and I also agree that the incident should be investigated by American authorities. I think the Taliban are stirring the pot so to speak, trying to interfere with the already precarious relations we have with Pakistan. Both the President and Senator Kerry hit the right notes with different comments today.
I was going to post something myself on this, but you beat me to it, so I will add this additional piece here.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49571.html#replyform


I thought this comment coming from a Conservative was very interesting,


"Their nuclear stockpile pretty much mandates that we cannot totally abandon their fate to the Taliban that is becoming stronger there all the time. But the doctrine of Diplomatic immunity must be affirmed as inviolable.
The world is watching Kerry here. If they lose Davis or even come away with anything that weakens diplomatic immunity, the Administration will have a huge failure on its hands. Hope Kerry's up to it...the stakes are very high."

[karynnj]

6. That is an insightful comment

What I wonder is whether the US upped the stakes by declaring that Davis had diplomatic immunity. Given his actions and the reluctance of the US to define his functions, I wonder if this was a case of the embassy giving cover to the CIA and its contractors. If so, you could make the case that it is that practice, which has happened for decades - and maybe centuries, which really puts real diplomats at risk.

What I can't figure out is a solution that does not leave the Pakistani leaders weaker, our relationship with Pakistan imperiled, AND which doesn't "lose" Davis. I wonder at this point whether raising Davis' release to the level of the other two was good strategy by the Obama administration. In retrospect, could admitting he was a spy (if he was) and trading him have done less damage?

[karynnj]

7. It looks like he will be released per many very recent articles (last 10 minutes)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pakistan-set-to-release-accused-american/story-e6frg6so-1226007182585

The key is that Pakistan agreed on the diplomatic immunity.

Here is an Australian article - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pakistan-set-to-release-accused-american/story-e6frg6so-1226007182585

[karynnj]

8. This article suggests that the PML-N party was agreed as well

To a question, Nawaz Sharif said if the accused was issued a certificate of immunity by the federal government, it would be produced before the court for further proceedings, adding that Pakistan had independent judiciary and the nation was proud of it.

"We respect John Kerry's grief which he expressed with members of the victims' families. Had the US government conveyed this earlier, the situation would have been different?" he added.

Responding to another question, he said Pakistan suffered a lot due to dictatorial regimes in the past, but now it was a collective responsibility of all the political parties not to welcome any martial law in future.

Nawaz said he had also expressed concern with John Kerry that why the US Consulate's vehicle and driver, who crushed a passer-by, have yet not been handed over to the police.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=11255

I think this is the party that people were concerned would lead protests - so Kerry's meeting with them may have been important.

But, this article from Lahore shows there is a huge amount of anger. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/us-pakistan-usa-scene-idUSTRE71F5FY20110216

[wisteria]

9. I have read and seen blog posts on the anger over this issue in Pakistan.

I don't understand what is entirely driving the huge amount of anger, but from my perspective, they may feel the US does not repect the lives of Pakistani citizens.

[karynnj]

10. I completely understand the anger

The story that they are hearing is NOT the US version that he fired in self defense. One of the stories that they hear is that he shot two men who were following him because he was taking pictures in sensitive areas - and he shot then through his windshield and then got out of the car and shot again - including at one of them fleeing. Even if these men were - as the US said - robbers, they question why he continued shooting after they were disabled - ensuring he killed them. (Note - I am not saying which story I think true but what they are likely hearing.)

In addition, read the link from the opposition politician. He is saying that had the US expressed its regret and sympathy earlier - who knows? I take this as him feeling that the US NOT doing that indicated that they did not value Pakistani lives. Notice he also says that the embassy has not given them info on the car that killed the other person.

One thing I read pointed out that the US asked Georgia to waive diplomatic immunity for a diplomat killed someone in a DUI. Obviously that was due to some anger here. (I don't remember this, but found this: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/601594/Georgian-envoy-gets-7-to-21-years-in-DUI-death.html ) This is actually more complex - as it is likely he was not a "diplomat", but was either CIA or a Blackwater type contractor and he likely was doing US ordered things that were not legal.

[karynnj]

11. Interesting summary of John Kerry's "case"

Interesting article that describes Kerry's role as making the legal case for releasing Davis to the US. While impressed, the writer ends the article with other questions - especially arguing that someone in Pakistan oked this diplomatic visa and could there be more "Davises". I wonder if either Pakistan or the US will deal with that issue.

It also looks like there will be no quick decision to release Davis - the court has given the government 3 weeks to decide on the immunity issue. The article does end with the speculation that he will be deported and that time is needed to deal with public opinion. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0217/Raymond-Davis-Pakistan-delays-ruling-on-jailed-American

Excellent BBC summary of many of this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12491288

[Mass]

12. An interesting editorial in the Nation

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/19-Feb-2011/Some-diplomacy-finally

Obviously, when reading this editorial, we should remember that The Nation has its own point of view and its own interest (just like an editorial in the Washington Post or the Washington Times), but the editorial also emphasizes the importance of establishing relationships of respect. Nearly all the Pakistani articles I read were quoting the fact that Kerry was the first to show some remorse for the loss of human life, for example.