The Contractor: So Quick to Shoot, So Slow to Get Away

“If you’re going to send a Jason Bourne character to Pakistan, he should have the skills of a Jason Bourne to get away,” Pakistan's Ambassador Haqqani told CIA Director Leon Panetta, according to the New York Times. Touché, Ambassador Haqqani. You put your finger on the first and biggest problem with the Raymond Davis incident: it wouldn't have happened at all if Davis had simply shot the two Lahore street thugs who had pointed pistols at him, and then driven off. But he didn't. He hung around the scene until a crowd formed and he couldn't drive away, and then he surrendered himself to Lahore police officers. He stayed in prison while the CIA, it's Pakistani counterpart, and our respective Ambassadors eventually cut a deal for his release.

In his book, Davis boasts about how quickly he can draw a pistol and hit a target, only 1.1 seconds on average. So the shooting part didn't take much time, but, then he spent the next seven weeks in prison while his fate was decided by others. Davis doesn't seem the reflective type, but should he reflect on it, he would probably agree with me that he ought to have done a little more training on putting a car into reverse and departing at high speed. 

The NYT's video embedded above of an interview with Davis is short - just six minutes - and superficial. Back in 2014, the NYT had a very good article about the Davis incident and how it was finally resolved after doing a great deal of damage to U.S.-Pakistani relations: How a Single Spy Helped Turn Pakistan Against the United States. I'd read that for context before reading Davis' own, more limited, account.

The damage Davis caused to our relations with a necessary ally isn't over yet, by the way, since Davis' book is currently feeding Pakistan's appetite for conspiracy theories. Did you know his book was secretly cooked up by India's intelligence agency as a means to slander Pakistan's Army and democratic institutions? Yeah, it's true, according to today's Pakistani press, to take just one random example of Pakistani media reaction.

On a personal level I have to feel sorry for Davis. He was a personal services contractor who by all accounts provided useful service for a long time in Pakistan, not just in Lahore but also in the far more dangerous city of Peshawar. I've heard it suggested that a career employee in his same situation would have had the good sense to get away after the shooting, because he'd know that his career would be over if he caused a public spectacle, whereas a short-term contractor like Davis didn't have the same long-term interest. That could be. Another part of the problem may be that Davis believed he was operating under wartime rules - during the interview he repeatedly refers to Lahore, or Pakistan, as "a war zone" - but of course, we are not at war with Pakistan. If Davis came to confuse discreet personal protection work in Pakistan with military service across the border in Afghanistan, then that was the fault of his employer and supervisors.

One last thought: why has everyone on the U.S. side of the incident forgotten the innocent victim, the third Pakistani killed that day, a bicyclist who was run over and killed by some of Davis's fellow contractors who were driving against traffic in an attempt to extract him from the scene of the shooting? Unlike the two armed criminals Davis shot, that guy was just a plain victim. Yet, the U.S. never even expressed regret for his death, so far as I recall. 

All in all, not a good showing by our side.

Raymond Davis Is Released A Second Time

First, the CIA employee by that name was released. Now, it's Raymond Davis the video, as popular Pakistani singer Shehzad Roy makes his musical comment on the Davis incident.



You know that a book and movie deal will be along any day now. And somebody just has to be pitching a script for Law and Order. For all I know, they might have already done a Davis episode.

If I knew how to write in screenplay format, I'd do an L&O treatment myself. It's perfect for one of those 'ripped from the headlines' stories they specialize in. Of course, I'd have to change enough facts to get past the NBC legal department, so I'd make it about a Pakistani Consulate employee in New York City who shoots two muggers while doing close protection for some smarmy ISI types [doink-doink!].

There isn't much whodunit factor there, so this would be a story for the back half of the show, with lots of discussion of social issues. All about when self-defense is legitimate, how the public is outraged over diplomatic immunity, and what happens when political influence is brought to bear on the legal system [doink-doink!].

Tensions would build, diplomatic relations would be endangered, and there would be much maneuvering in New York, Washington, and Islamabad. The Manhattan South District Attorney would agonize over how to balance the interests of criminal law against U.S. national security interests in having continued Pakistani cooperation with drone strikes on al-Qaeda strongholds [doink-doink!].

Finally, right before a trial is to begin, the CIA and ISI would cut a deal. The District Attorney gets a phone call from the Riker's Island jail complex informing her that the defendant has been taken into U.S. Marshal's custody. She turns on the television and sees the defendant getting out of a Pakistani Consulate limo and being escorted into Kennedy Airport [doink-doink!].

Not a bad story, actually. Does anyone know of a good how-to book on screenplay format?

[ Download ]

[ Download ]

[ Download ]

[ Download ]

[ Download ]

Cui Bono? Cui Cares?

I'm surprised by all the media interest about who paid the blood money to set Raymond Davis free.

U.S. citizen and CIA contractor Raymond Davis was released from a Pakistani prison on Wednesday after $2.3 million was paid to the families of the two Pakistani men he shot and killed and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said repeatedly on Wednesday that the United States had not paid any "blood money" to win his release.

But that's not the whole story. The truth is that the Pakistani government paid the victims' families the $2.3 million and the U.S. promised to reimburse them in the future, according to a senior Pakistani official.

Clinton's interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep was only one of many where Clinton refused to say how the money got into the hands of the Pakistani victims' families.

-- snp --

In several other interviews, Clinton told reporters to ask the families -- or anyone else other than the U.S. government -- how the reported $2.3 million appeared. Obama administration officials want to focus on the fact that Davis is now returning home, not the quid pro quo that made it happen.

"Quid pro quo." I like that Latin phrase. I also like this one: cui bono?

There is no big mystery here. I think we can figure out what party, or parties, had an interest in making the payments. Likewise, we can figure out who brought the families to the courthouse, isolated them from their - suddenly former - lawyer, and then relocated them immediately after they accepted the payment.

Considering that the USG provides Pakistan around $3.5 billion a year in civilian and military aid, a mere two or three million amounts to lunch money for either country.

The deal was cut, and all parties to it must have felt they benefited. Trying to tease out an admission from U.S. officials serves no purpose, and might just further rile up the already riled up Pakistani masses.

Raymond Davis Released, But The Round Ended 'Advantage ISI'

Foreign Policy's AF/PAK blog goes behind the scenes of Raymond Davis's release today:

Retired General Talat Masood, a defence analyst, told me that that Davis's release is a consequence of the smoothing over of relations between the CIA's and the ISI. "It's a good development, it demonstrates that both have come to an understanding about how they will operate with each other, and co-operate in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The ISI has also determined certain boundaries about how the CIA will operate in the country." Masood says that this was a difficult decision for Pakistan for many reasons, which include changing the Pakistan-U.S. relationship from co-operative to confrontational, and then dealing with the right-wing and religious parties' aggressive stance on Raymond Davis.

A senior security official in Pakistan, speaking under condition of anonymity, told me that, "The Americans had been working on this, they thought that this (the diyat law) was the only way out." And ISI and CIA relations? "The ISI has laid down their terms for reengagement of certain areas where they felt they'd been bypassed, and the other side realized that they needed them. Both agencies need each other."

While rumours and more conspiracy theories continue to swirl in the air, it is evident that Pakistan has emerged as the biggest winner from Davis's strange and sordid case. While the religious parties may cry themselves hoarse over sovereignty of the country and rule of law, the ISI in particular has the upper hand here, and has impressed upon the CIA to make it clear that they cannot run a network under the noses of the powerful spy agency. To use tennis lingo: Advantage: ISI. What happens in the next round is anyone's guess.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad has issued an updated Warden Message annoucing a precautionary shut-down of all embassy and consulate routine business throughout Pakistan for tomorrow, Friday.

This Warden Notice is to update the notice sent earlier today. The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad and the U.S. Consulates General in Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar will be closed on Friday, March 18, 2011. The Embassy will issue an updated Warden Message when the Embassy and the Consulates General reopen for routine business.

The Embassy reiterates its advice to all U.S. citizens to take measures for their safety and security at all times. These measures include maintaining good situational awareness, avoiding crowds and demonstrations, and keeping a low profile. U.S. citizens should avoid setting patterns by varying times and routes for all required travel. U.S. citizens should ensure that their travel documents and visas are valid at all times. In addition, over the next several days, we advise U.S. citizens to avoid areas where foreigners are known to congregate.

Notice that "the Embassy will issue an updated Warden Message when the Embassy and the Consulates General reopen for routine business." It sounds as if they aren't taking it for granted that civil unrest over Davis's release will have quieted down enough to allow reopening on the next business day.

Raymond Davis Case A Symptom Of Deeper Pakistani-American Tensions

Foreign Affairs has a longish article today by C. Christine Fair, assistant professor at Georgetown University, Center for Peace and Security Studies, about the tangled relationship between the United Sates and the CIA, on one side, and Pakistan and the ISI on the other. She points out that the greatest consequence of the Raymond Davis affair has been to bring the deep structural problems in that relationship to a crisis point.

Read it here.

Some key points:

The United States and Pakistan are bound by mutual if asymmetric dependence, which generates considerable resentment among our peoples and governments alike. The Pakistan-U.S. relationship sometimes feels more like an arranged marriage than a love match: both stay in it because of larger considerations, and begrudgingly acknowledge or even outright deride the other's concerns and priorities.

This is not new: it has been the case since the partnership was renewed in the wake of the events of 9/11. The Raymond Davis affair -- in which a CIA contractor shot and killed two Pakistani men he said were trying to rob him in Lahore in late January, causing a national outcry from Pakistanis worried about armies of American spies ravaging the country -- has again brought these long-standing bilateral troubles to fore. The crisis has revealed the apprehensions, recriminations, and anger that are rife on both sides. But Raymond Davis is a symptom, not the cause, of deep tensions between America and Pakistan.

-- snip --

Both Pakistan and the United States are struggling to discern whether the other is a bothersome partner with important benefits or an enemy to be resisted and thwarted. What Islamabad and Rawalpindi, on the one hand, and Washington D.C. and Langley, on the other, decide will profoundly affect the security of both states. Should this troubled and suboptimal relationship end as it did in 1990, both countries will soon re-learn the unpleasant lessons of the past. (In 1990, the United States applied nuclear nonproliferation sanctions to Pakistan, precipitating a decade-long hiatus in bilateral ties.)

The Raymond Davis affair is symptomatic of the underlying malaise of this partnership and brings up the contrasting and conflicting strategic priorities of the United States and Pakistan. At the crux of the challenge is the simple fact that both Pakistan and the United States have divergent strategic interests. The art of sustaining this increasingly fraught geostrategic partnership amidst such stark differences is currently proving beyond the capabilities of the politicians, diplomats, and defense and intelligence leadership in both countries.

These strategic differences are most clear when it comes to Islamist militant groups, which American policymakers and citizens alike see as terrorist groups.

-- snip --

The United States, with heroic optimism, had hoped that Pakistan could be persuaded to permanently abandon using Islamist militants as tools of foreign policy through a combination of profitable inducements and rehabilitating Pakistan, coaxing it back into the comity of nations after it had been reviled as a nuclear proliferator, a supporter of terrorism, and a state teetering on the brink of failure.

However, Pakistan sees India as an existential threat in the same way that the United States sees al-Qaeda and its murderous minions as its most menacing nemeses. Pakistan relies upon the most feared and loathed of U.S. adversaries to manage its competition with India, while the United States wants to extinguish them.

Before the Raymond Davis affair publicly exposed these differences, both sides tried to paper over them as they sought to extract as many marginal benefits from the other as possible. Neither side directly confronted how one forges a strategic partnership when both parties have divergent strategic priorities. After the Davis shooting, obfuscating these differences is no longer possible.

-- snip --

Which brings us back to the Raymond Davis affair. The United States intelligence community understands full well the political fallout that it will endure should Lashkar-e-Taiba commit or attempt to commit a Mumbai-like attack in the United States. After such an attack, the United States Congress will spare no agency or its leadership, given that unlike al-Qaeda's 9/11 attack, the capabilities and intentions of Lashkar-e-Taiba have long been well known.

Pakistan's refusal to do anything to take down the organization appears to have motivated the United States to take the issue into its own hands: setting up a cell in an obscure part of Punjab's populous city of Lahore to track and perhaps eliminate associates of Lashkar-e-Taiba. Davis reportedly did security and surveillance activities for the case managers of that cell.

-- snip --

Whatever the truth may be about Davis's victims, there can be little doubt that, at its core, it is a showdown between the countries' intelligence agencies: the ISI and the CIA. Moreover, the tragedy has allowed the ISI to regain the initiative over the CIA in Pakistan.

-- snip --

At best, the two organizations can seek to reset their operational relationship to the status quo ex ante before the confrontation over Davis. But this rift was long in the making. Last year, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced in Pakistan that Lashkar-e-Taiba was "a very dangerous organization and a significant regional and global threat."

Such a pronouncement by a high-ranking U.S. official against Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan was unprecedented and should have signaled to Pakistan that Washington would be less indulgent of the ISI's savage acolytes. If the ISI failed to get that message, the swollen piles of delayed visa applications from Pakistanis with obscure job titles may have been a likely clue that something was brewing.

However, the ISI needs the CIA as much as the CIA needs the ISI. Pakistan is increasingly beset by militant groups and the state seems both insouciant about the nature of some of the threats to Pakistan and its citizenry and less than capable of dealing with those threats it has acknowledged and taken on.

Unless these two spy organizations can find a workable peace that acknowledges and begrudgingly accommodates the other's concerns, the security of both of our countries will be at risk. And if the recent past is any guide, Pakistanis will bear the brunt of the terrorist rampages.

Shakespeare called the murder of Christopher Marlowe by an Elizabethan state agent, which was another murky affair that got written off as self-defense, "a great reckoning in a little room."

And that's where we are with the Davis incident. A fairly small case of self-defense against a street robbery in Lahore (not to minimize the gravity of any use of lethal force, however, it is a small matter compared to international affairs) has brought about a great crisis in Pakistani-American relations.

Hopes For Improvement In U.S.-Pakistani Relations

The New York Times just ran a story that suggests Spring might come soon to the frozen relations between the U.S. government and the Pakistani military and intelligence communities. Maybe.

But first, Pakistan Demands Data on C.I.A. Contractors:

Pakistan’s chief spy agency has demanded an accounting by the Central Intelligence Agency of all its contractors working in Pakistan, a fallout from the arrest last month of an American involved in surveillance of militant groups, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said Friday.

Angered that the American, Raymond A. Davis, worked as a contractor in Pakistan on covert C.I.A. operations without the knowledge of the Pakistanis, the spy agency estimated that there were “scores” more such contractors “working behind our backs,” said the official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about a delicate matter between the two countries.

In a slight softening of the Pakistani stance since Mr. Davis’s arrest, the official said that the American and Pakistani intelligence agencies needed to continue cooperation, and that Pakistan was prepared to put the episode in the past if the C.I.A. stopped treating its Pakistani counterparts as inferior.

-- snip --

The top American and Pakistani military leaders, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and the leader of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, met this week in Oman, where the Davis case was discussed.

According to a report by a former head of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Jehangir Karamat, who runs a research and analysis center based in Lahore, both sides agreed to try to “arrest the downhill descent.”

-- snip --

In another sign that the two spy services were trying to patch up their differences, Leon E. Panetta, the director of the C.I.A. spoke on Wednesday with Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the ISI director, about resolving Mr. Davis’s case, American and Pakistani officials said on Friday. Mr. Davis, who appeared in handcuffs on Friday for a hearing in a closed courtroom at the jail where he is being held in Lahore, faces possible murder charges.

-- snip --

The demand for the C.I.A. to acknowledge the number of contractors in Pakistan was driven by the suspicion that the American spy service had slipped many such secret operatives into Pakistan in the past six months, the senior ISI official said.

The increase occurred after a directive last July by the Pakistani civilian government, which is often at odds with the ISI, to its Washington embassy to expedite visas without supervision from the ISI or the Ministry of Interior, the senior ISI official said.

On the other hand, Pakistan has just arrested another U.S. citizen, this one a non-official American who lives and works in Peshawar.

The clampdown on American contractors by the Pakistani authorities appeared to be under way Friday with the arrest of an American citizen, Aaron Mark DeHaven, in the northwestern city of Peshawar.

The Peshawar police said Mr. DeHaven was detained because he had overstayed his business visa after his request for an extension last October was turned down.

There was no immediate accusation that Mr. DeHaven worked for the American government, a security official in Peshawar said. But the arrest of Mr. DeHaven, who is married to a Pakistani woman, appears to be a signal that the Pakistani authorities have decided to expel Americans they have doubts about.

The security official said Mr. DeHaven owned a firm, Catalyst Services in Peshawar, that rented houses for Americans in the city.

The American Embassy in Islamabad said in a statement that it did not have details about Mr. DeHaven but that it was arranging consular access for him through the Pakistani government.

During his first months in Pakistan in early 2010, Mr. Davis, the contractor for the C.I.A., was attached to the American Consulate in Peshawar and lived in a house with other Americans in an upscale neighborhood, according to Pakistani officials.

All of the U.S. Consulate personnel in Peshawar live in the same "upscale neighborhood," an area known as University Town. Apparently Mr. DeHaven works for a company that provides logistical support of some kind to one or more of the landlords we rent from. I suppose that association, plus his U.S. citizenship, was more than enough to put him under ISI scrutiny.

A Senior Administration Official Briefs The Press On Diplomatic Immunity

Yesterday, the British press broke an embargo on details of Raymond Davis's employment and assignment. Like Captain Renault they were shocked, shocked, to find out the CIA is working in Pakistan.

Today, Assistant Secretary Crowley held a teleconference for the press to brief them on diplomatic immunity:

MR. CROWLEY: Hey, thanks very much, everybody. Happy President’s Day to you. This morning, Prime Minister Gilani spoke to the Pakistan parliament and he indicated that in the Pakistani view there are differences of opinion between Pakistan and the United States in the case of Mr. Davis on the issues of interpretation and applicability of international and national laws. We thought in light of that, it would be useful just to go through some of the basics on diplomatic immunity and how we, as the United States, see this case.

We still believe earnestly that Mr. Davis is a member of the administrative and technical staff of the Embassy in Islamabad and is entitled to full immunity from criminal prosecution and should not be arrested or detained. And we will continue to work with Pakistan to resolve any differences that we have on this issue.

With that, I thought we’d bring in one of our foremost experts in international law just to kind of go through this issue with you. It is a background call attributable to a Senior Administration Official. For your knowledge, it’s [Senior Administration Office]. At this point, [Senior Administration Official] will make some brief opening comments, and then we’ll open it up for questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, P.J. As P.J. said, I’m going to stick to the legal position, which I think is very clear. In fact, under international law, there are very few areas where the law is so clear. And it basically comes down to three uncontested facts.

First, on January 20th, 2010, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad notified Mr. Davis as a member of the administrative and technical staff under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. That’s a treaty to which both the U.S. and Pakistan are parties without reservation, along with 185 other countries. From that point, he enjoyed the status as a member of the staff of the mission. He enjoyed privileges and immunities against local criminal law, including inviolability of person, inviolability from arrest and detention, immunity from criminal jurisdiction. He has those privileges and immunities, and he continues to enjoy them.

The second point is that once he enjoys those immunities, as a matter of law, the only remedy if the Pakistanis are not satisfied is for them to declare him not acceptable and to ask him to leave the country at the earliest possible moment. They have not done that. If they were to do that, they would need to assist him in doing so. Any other form of action, including a judicial proceeding or any other action, is inconsistent with his status as a member of a diplomatic mission and would only compound the violations of international law. And they are, under the treaty, unconditionally obligated to respect, protect, and facilitate his departure.

The third point is that there is no difference in the obligations under international and domestic law. The legal obligations are clear. The only rules that matter here are the international legal rules. As I said, 187 countries have ratified this treaty. It represents 500 years of consistent practice. The U.S. follows this practice with regard toward all diplomats who are similarly accredited or all members of diplomatic missions, including those from Pakistan. Under the international law, local law cannot be invoked as an obstacle to fulfillment of a country’s international obligations. But even if it could be, the Pakistani law is consistent with international law. The 1972 privileges and – Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act of Pakistan says that they will respect these rules. And their own Ministry of Foreign Affairs manual states that they will follow these protocols with respect to individuals in Mr. Davis’s situation.

So the current state of affairs is that Mr. Davis enjoys these international privileges and immunities; the Government of Pakistan is unconditionally obligated to respect, protect, and facilitate his departure on his request; and that the legal obligations are clear under both domestic and international law.

I could say more, but at this point I’m happy to turn it over for questions.

OPERATOR: Once again, if you would like to ask a question at this time, please press *1 on your touchtone phone and clearly record your name when prompted. One moment for the first question, please. The first question comes from Matthew Lee, the Associated Press. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, [Senior Administration Official], can you hear me?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. Hi, Matt, how are you?

QUESTION: I’m doing well. Listen, just one thing for P.J. P.J., are your opening comments on background or are they on the record as well?

MR. CROWLEY: They’re on the record.

QUESTION: On the record, okay. So it’s just [Senior Administration Official] who’s on background?

MR. CROWLEY: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay, and just a technical point. On the date you said that you notified the Government of Pakistan on January 27th?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: January 20th, 2010.

QUESTION: 20th of 2010, okay. Are they required to – do they have to affirm or respond to you and say that they accept him as a member of the technical and administrative staff of the Embassy and affirmatively say that he has immunity?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, it’s well-established – the diplomatic note, I think, is publicly available – the status of the member of the mission is determined by what the sending state does, namely the United States.

QUESTION: But they don’t have to you and say --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And Pakistan (inaudible) --

QUESTION: -- yes, okay, Person X is – we recognize Person X as --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. Once we notify, end of story.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just on his – given his – the revelations of his employment yesterday and today, I assume that makes no difference?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The whole point of the law is that you don’t look behind the notification. If – once someone has been notified and they assume these privileges and immunities, if the receiving state is unhappy for some reason, they can declare the person not acceptable and they can leave, but they have no other remedies.

QUESTION: Okay. And just – when you say unacceptable, is that basically PNG them, PNGing them?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, because he’s a member of the diplomatic mission staff, the term is “not acceptable.” They can say he’s not acceptable. They have not done that.

QUESTION: Okay, all right. Thank you.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Arshad Mohammed with Reuters. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, [Senior Administration Official]. Thanks very much for doing this. Can they state that he is not acceptable at any point subsequent to the notification?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.

QUESTION: And then just to make sure I understood it right, their only recourse at that point is to ask him to leave the country and to facilitate his departure?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, under Article 44 of the treaty, and it makes clear that they have to facilitate that departure. And both the United States and Pakistan are signatories to the treaty; they have ratified the treaty, so they have signed and their legislatures have given the necessary approval or, in our case, advice and consent without reservation.

QUESTION: And do you have any recourse given that your position is that he has diplomatic immunity and therefore he should be released and not charged or tried and so on? Is there any higher authority to which the U.S. Government can apply to seek relief here?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the treaty envisions a number of routes, but the primary route is the one that we are pursuing here, which is bilateral conversation with the party that has originally acknowledged that his status as a member of the diplomatic mission. This happens virtually all the time. It rarely goes to a court. In virtually no cases does it go to any other body.

QUESTION: What are the other routes of appeal?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I would say that there’s a long diplomatic history of 99 percent of the cases are resolved through diplomatic negotiation. You can also refer the case to the International Court of Justice, as was done in the Iranian hostages case in 1979.

QUESTION: Have you done so?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have not done so.

QUESTION: And why not? Because you believe that this can be resolved diplomatically?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. I think the positions are clear and we can work out these differences with the Government of Pakistan, with whom we have numerous ongoing diplomatic relations.

QUESTION: And then one last question. Do you have particular concerns about his safety, given that he is accused of – and I don’t think anybody is denying – that he killed two Pakistani citizens, whatever were the circumstances?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m going to stick to the legal briefing, let P.J. speak to any facts. But the point is that, as a matter of law, they are unconditionally obligated to protect him and to facilitate his departure and to respect his privileges and immunities, given the accreditation he’s already received.

MR. CROWLEY: Let me jump in. Obviously, we are concerned about his safety. We have had multiple conversations with the Government of Pakistan regarding his current surroundings. They have told us that he is in the safest possible location in Lahore. And clearly, we hold the Government of Pakistan fully responsible for his safety.

I mean, we are very mindful of the difficulty that the Government of Pakistan faces in terms of public opinion in this case. It’s why we have, on an ongoing basis for the past month, engaged them constructively and forthrightly. But we remain concerned about him, and our message to Pakistan remains he should be released as soon as possible.

QUESTION: One last one, if I may, P.J. Are you – well, two things. One, was that answer on the record or was that also on background?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s fine.

QUESTION: On the record?

MR. CROWLEY: Yep.

QUESTION: And then second, also on the record, is the U.S. Government – since Pakistan seems to be digging in in its position here, is the U.S. Government considering curtailing any of its military or economic assistance to Pakistan as a way of manifesting your unhappiness at Mr. Davis’s continued incarceration?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we’re building a strategic partnership with Pakistan. It’s important to the future of the region. It’s also important to the security of the United States. We are engaging Pakistan in good faith. We want to see this resolved as soon as possible so it does not become an impediment in our relationship and it does not measurably interfere with the work we are doing together in fighting extremism that threatens Pakistan and threatens us.

QUESTION: Does that mean no?

MR. CROWLEY: That – so at this point, we’re not contemplating any actions along those lines.

QUESTION: We’re not contemplating any actions along those lines?

MR. CROWLEY: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Hello?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Sorry, I didn’t hear the last bit of your --

MR. CROWLEY: We are not contemplating any actions along those lines.

QUESTION: Excellent, thank you.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Jill Dougherty, CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify exactly what the Pakistanis are saying, because there has been bandied about this concept of partial immunity. But it looks as if you are saying that they are – they’re saying that local law can trump international law. Could you explain that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I’m not sure that that’s what they’re saying, but if they were saying that, in fact, their local law doesn’t trump and the local law is consistent with international law. The question here is whether he was properly notified as a member of the diplomatic – the staff of the diplomatic mission under the treaty, and he was. And so there are – under the treaty, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, those who are the ambassador or head of the mission are diplomatic staff, and then those who are members of the staff of the diplomatic mission, including administrative and technical staff. And once you are notified in one of those categories, you acquire unequivocally the privileges and immunities under the treaty. And I don’t think there is any dispute that that’s exactly what happened. And those include inviolability of person, inviolability from arrest and detention, and immunity from criminal jurisdiction. So he acquired all of those.

QUESTION: Okay. And just to make sure, when you – you phrase it in kind of a unique way, whether he was properly notified. Do you mean they were properly notified of his presence as a diplomat; is that correct?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, it happens all the time. When people come into post, we send them a diplomatic note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and we describe someone as head of mission, a member of the diplomatic staff, or a member of the staff of the diplomatic mission. And he was notified as a member of the administrative and technical staff of American Embassy Islamabad. That was on January 20th, 2010.

QUESTION: Oh, so the American Embassy Islamabad, as opposed to the consulate in Lahore?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: His notification was given by the American Embassy in Islamabad, and that’s the controlling fact.

QUESTION: Okay, because there was a question too that because he was in the consulate at a – not at the main Embassy, that that might have played a role. You’re saying that that’s – that does not play any role?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: People in country can move around, but their status is determined by how they are originally notified under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as he was. I mean, if Ambassador Munter went to the consulate, his status would not change.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from David Martin, CBS News.

QUESTION: I’m still confused as to what the Pakistanis are saying to claim that this is not as clear-cut as you’re making it to be. What is their legal argument?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t – I’m not sure I understand their legal argument. As you say, it’s extremely clear. It turns on these three facts, and I haven’t heard anything to make me think that there is a different argument that’s credible under international law.

QUESTION: So what are they saying? Are they just saying – are they just denying the validity of your argument, or do they have a counter-argument?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think their counter-argument is that he’s not properly listed under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. And we’ve given a diplomatic note which notifies him to the Foreign Ministry as a member of the administrative and technical staff under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. So I haven’t seen the counter-argument.

QUESTION: But I thought you said that there was no dispute that they had been properly notified.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t think they dispute that they were properly notified.

QUESTION: So – but they’re still saying he’s not properly listed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t think they’re saying he’s not properly listed. I think they’re questioning whether the status that is – seems crystal clear has, in fact, stayed with him. And I don’t think they have suggested why it shouldn’t. Their diplomats and members of the diplomatic staff who come into the United States, once they are notified by diplomatic note of the exact same kind, that’s the end of the story. And the same applies here.

QUESTION: So they’re saying that his immunity somehow lapsed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They have not made that argument.

QUESTION: Well, first I thought you said that they had – were claiming that he was not properly listed, but you then said they say he is properly listed? Then I thought you --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I didn’t make any claims about what they said. All I said was what we did. And they have received that notification and that was sufficient to establish it and he enjoys those privileges and immunities since. I think you have to go to the Pakistanis to see whether they have a different claim, but I don’t think they have denied the receipt of this note as of January 20th, 2010.

QUESTION: Okay.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me go back. I said that his – this is about as clear as it gets under international law. And there are very few areas where the law is as clear as this, but in this case, it is extremely clear.

QUESTION: Okay.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Yashwant Raj with Hindustan Times. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. P.J., this question is to you. NYT has – the New York Times has said Mr. Davis is working for the CIA. Could you confirm that, please?

MR. CROWLEY: We will not comment on his particular activity in Pakistan other than to say he’s a member of the administrative and technical staff of the Embassy and has diplomatic immunity.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Tray McGuire, Upfront News. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. Thanks for doing this call. P.J., can you tell me what exactly is the responsibilities of the administrative and technical staff?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not going to go further than that description.

QUESTION: Okay. My other question to you is do you – is it the State Department’s (inaudible) that at some point diplomatic immunity isn’t – should be lifted for some diplomats in the case of Mr. Davis, such as murder?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll go back to our Senior Administration Official, but the issue here is with diplomatic immunity he is –[Senior Administration Official], if you can describe what that means.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. So, first of all, all of these things are determined when someone enters the country and when the notification is sent. They can be the head of the mission, the ambassador. They can be a member of the diplomatic staff, a diplomatic agent, or they can be a member of the staff of the diplomatic mission, the administrative and technical staff. And each of those categories has privileges and immunities under the treaty. So when they are notified, they enjoy those privileges and immunities, and under the treaty, people who are listed as administrative and technical staff enjoy a set of privileges and immunities under Articles 29 to 35 of the treaty, which – not to get technical – are inviolability of person, inviolability of your private residence, inviolability of your papers, and immunity from arrest and detention, and immunity from criminal jurisdiction, including requirements to testify. There’s no requirement to look behind that, and you don’t look behind that. The whole point of it is to make it crystal clear up front. And once that’s done, it’s the end of the story.

QUESTION: If these reports are emerging from the New York Times and Washington Post are true that he was a member of the CIA. Does diplomatic immunity become void then?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The only relevant question is: Was he notified as a member of the administrative and technical staff upon entry to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? And the answer to that question was yes. At that point, he acquired privileges and immunities.

When someone enters our country, if that person is notified as a member of the administrative and technical staff of a diplomatic mission that's the end of the story on that side.

Our options then become to either declare the person not acceptable and facilitate their departure or to work with them in their capacity as administrative and technical staff.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: We'll take a couple more and then we'll wrap this up.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Raghubir Goyal with India globe and Asia Today. Your line is open.

QUESTION: P.J. and all of you, thank you for holding this on this holiday. God bless you all. My quick question is that despite Secretary’s and President’s call to the highest level of the Pakistani officials to release Mr. Davis immediately under the Vienna Convention, and they have not done? Second, how do you feel the U.S.-Pakistan relations, because of this? And finally, there was some call from the Pakistani community or from the religious community that there is a rule under the Islamic law if Mr. Davis or somebody paid some ransom, ransom or some money, then he could be forgiven by the victims’ families, if this deal is underway? And of course, Americans are worried that he should be released immediately. Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, Goyal, let me say that we will continue to work with the Government of Pakistan to resolve this as soon as possible, befitting the relationship that we have and the partnership that we are building. That said, what is commanding here is international law; and as we’ve explained through this call, he has diplomatic immunity and needs to be released as soon as possible. But we will – as many of our leaders have said, we’ll work to resolve this with the Government of Pakistan as soon as possible.

QUESTION: And if ransom money is anything --

MR. CROWLEY: Again, Goyal, we’ll just leave it there.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Laura Rosen with Politico. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thanks for doing this. I’m sorry, I got on late, but did you guys say whether he – which diplomatic mission or consulate he was described as being affiliated with?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: U.S. Embassy Islamabad.

QUESTION: Because I thought that other earlier reports had said it was to the consulate in – I’ve seen the consulate in Lahore or the mission in Peshawar.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, the relevant notification is the one shortly after he arrived, January 20th, 2010, a diplomatic note, which I think has been shown to the press, which says we have the honor to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the assignment of Mr. Davis, administrative and technical staff, American Embassy Islamabad.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks. And then secondly, there were reports a couple days ago that the two men described as trying to rob him – there have been allegations that they’re affiliated with Pakistani security services. Do you have any sense if that’s why the Pakistanis seem --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m only here to comment on the legal status of Mr. Davis.

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll pick up that, Laura. We – many elements of this are still being investigated, but we believe he acted in self-defense. And we haven’t changed our view that these were individuals who had accosted him at, I believe, a stoplight; they brandished weapons, they have a criminal history. And we believe he acted in self-defense. That said, as we’ve said throughout the call, he has diplomatic immunity and should be released.

QUESTION: Thank you. And then also on the person who went to – the Pakistani request for the – access to the person who went to try to help him after the incident – I’m sorry, I missed if you had comment on --

MR. CROWLEY: That aspect of it is still under investigation.

QUESTION: Okay.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: But just to clarify, although the position is that he acted in self-defense, the prior question is: Do the Pakistani courts have any legal authority under their own law to determine whether he acted in self-defense? And when he has immunity from criminal jurisdiction, they have no jurisdiction; they can’t get into the questions of defenses or claims. And it’s designed to be clear and unequivocal to make these cases quickly resolved based on a simple showing of whether someone was notified as a member of the administrative and technical staff, which he was.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, thanks, everybody. We’ll wrap up at this point and hopefully these details help you fully understand the position of the United States as we continue to work with the Government of Pakistan to resolve this case.

OPERATOR: Thank you for your participation in today’s conference call. The call has concluded. You may go ahead and disconnect at this time.

What Sort of Diplomat Doesn't Carry A Gun? The Sort in Mexico.

Some news media, especially those in Pakistan and the UK, have asked regarding Raymond Davis: "what sort of diplomat carries a gun?"

To which the answer seems to be: the sort who doesn't want to be helpless if he is ambushed while driving through a lawless land.

Kudos for Kerry

Senator Kerry has really stepped up to the plate with his relationship-mending trip to Pakistan. Even though he isn't my favorite politician (not that I have favorite politicians in the first place, but if I did, he wouldn't be one, if that makes sense) this is impressive stuff:

Behind the scenes, a high-level government source familiar with the discussions said that Kerry crafted the trip and his message on his own. President Obama asked Kerry to travel to Pakistan to deal with the Davis crisis, which has put elements of U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on hold. But after conferring with senior foreign policy aides and Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani over the weekend, Kerry decided to travel to Pakistan for a "relationship saving" mission, not a "rescue" mission, the source explained.

For example, Kerry decided to travel first to Lahore, rather than Islamabad where the Pakistani government resides. Although he will meet with Pakistani government officials at the highest levels, including President Asif Ali Zardari, he wanted first to deliver a message to the Pakistani people directly in the town where the incident took place and tell them directly that the United States wasn't only interested in Davis's release.

-- snip --

The reaction in Pakistan to Kerry's opening press conference among officials supportive of the relationship was overwhelmingly positive.

"He said all the right things on Pakistan," a senior Pakistani official told The Cable. "John Kerry is recognized by most Pakistanis as a friend of Pakistan. By sending him, President Obama has really helped what could have become a bigger diplomatic problem down the road."

The trip comes after a severe downturn in U.S.-Pakistan relations following Davis's arrest. Davis, a former Special Forces operative who speaks fluent Urdu, was being tailed by two suspected agents of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence organization on motorcycles [TSB note: the ISI connection is completely specious, and the two weren't "tailing" Davis, rather, they had parked their motorcycle in front of his car to block it at a traffic light] when he shot and killed them through the windshield of his car. Davis claimed they brandished guns. A third Pakistani man was run over and killed by a U.S. embassy vehicle accidentally as it rushed to the scene.

[A Pakistani government] source told The Cable that the region around Lahore is run by the brother of Nawaz Sharif, the top political opponent to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, and the authorities there might have sought to take political advantage of the situation. By claiming that Davis had committed murder and pushing the story out to Pakistani media, Zardari was placed in the unenviable position of having to choose whether to defend an American murderer or risk the wrath of his countrymen.

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi happened to be out of the country at the time. A Foreign Ministry official named Salman Bashir was left to make the decide whether to grant Davis immunity right away but decided it would be politically prudent to make no decision at all and let Davis remain in jail, the Pakistani government source said. Unclear messages from the U.S. side exacerbated the confusion.

"The political tragedy was that it was almost three days before the U.S. government claimed immunity, by which time the tensions had already been inflamed," the source explained.

-- snip --

The most probable outcome will be a face-saving deal whereby the Pakistani courts agree to release Davis, the U.S. government promises to investigate the incident as a criminal matter, and the U.S. pays some compensation to the families of the Pakistani victims.

In the end, the incident illustrates that the U.S. and Pakistani governments still have a ways to go in terms of working together to build stability into the relationship.

Either way, our Pakistani source said that there is plenty of blame to go around.

"[Davis] was wrong in carrying the gun. He was wrong in shooting the people. There definitely was some craziness in what he was doing," the source said. "But it's a clear and gross violation of international law to hold a diplomat."

It's nice to hear that agreement with our position regarding international law. As for the source's other statements, well, opinions differ.

Davis was wrong in carrying the gun - Maybe, maybe not. But when he found himself confronted by two armed robbers, it was lucky for him that he had his own pistol.

He was wrong in shooting the people - I wouldn't say so. More like the two armed dacoits were wrong in their choice of victim.

There definitely was some craziness in what he was doing - OK. Davis would probably agree with that one.

Obama Weighs In On Raymond Davis Case

An Incredibly Calm and Measured Commentary on the Lahore Shooting Incident

This call for resolution of the diplomatic crisis surrounding Raymond Davis appears today (actually Monday, local time) in Pakistan. In my dreams, the writer was influenced by our embassy's Machiavellian public diplomacy team. Well, I can dream.

Cut the Gordian knot

S Iftikhar Murshed

Monday, February 14, 2011

There has been stern criticism as well as exaggerated approbation on my article of February 7 in this newspaper on the Raymond Davis incident. The criticism was more instructive than the appreciation in as much as it demonstrated that unbridled emotion, no matter how sincere and spontaneous, impedes rational discourse. The reality is that the situation has rapidly deteriorated into a full blown diplomatic crisis which is becoming more serious by the day.

This is evident from reports in the American print media, aired as breaking news by almost all Pakistani television channels, that if Davis is not released by February 11, Washington would close its consulates in Pakistan, ask Ambassador Haqqani to leave the US, and cancel President Zardari’s visit to Washington. Though this was denied by the US Embassy in Islamabad, it highlights the escalating tension between the two countries.

Under dispute is whether or not Raymond Davis is entitled to diplomatic immunity after shooting dead two allegedly armed men, Muhammad Faheem and Faizan Haider, in Lahore, on the presumption that they were about to do him harm. A third fatality was that of a man crushed by a US Consulate vehicle speeding helter-skelter down the wrong end of a one-way road in a desperate attempt to reach Davis.

The Shakespearian soliloquy “when sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions,” proved depressingly true with yet another related death. In desperation, Faheem’s grief-stricken 18-year-old widow, Shumaila Kanwal, committed suicide on February 6. As she breathed her last, she lamented that she did not “expect any justice from this government” and pleaded: “I want blood for blood. The way my husband was shot, the killer should be shot in the same fashion”. This heart rending tragedy has further inflamed public anger and is fraught with serious consequences.

It is possible that Shumaila might not have taken her own life had the federal government, and more specifically, the foreign office, come forth with the facts. She did not “expect any justice from this government” because she was unaware of the whole truth which was drowned by her overpowering grief and the din of the popular outcry against the killings. No person in authority dared to state publicly that: (i) Raymond Davis had no apparent motive to kill her husband and his companion other than the claim that he perceived a threat to his life from them and had acted in self-defence; (ii) the right of self-defence is conceded by the Pakistan Penal Code; (iii) the argument advanced by some commentators that the response to a perceived life threat should be proportionate is nebulous, vague, and cannot be quantified, and; (iv) if Davis is a member of the technical staff of the US Embassy as claimed by the Americans, he has diplomatic immunity under article 37 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Silence on the part of the government fuelled sensational media reports as a result of which emotions soared sky high. The tragedy has been exploited with abandon by politicians, retired bureaucrats and military officials, commentators and intellectuals alike mostly for no higher motive than self-projection. The refrain that has been reiterated time and again in television talk shows is that Pakistan is a sovereign country, it must therefore stand up to US pressure and enforce its laws. This is as it should be, but the ground realities are somewhat different. The state has surrendered territorial sovereignty to terrorist groups in parts of the tribal areas, ideological and perhaps even political sovereignty to the religious right, and economic sovereignty to external donors.

Excessive caution and prevarication have generated a diplomatic crisis which could have been avoided had the government come out openly on whether or not Davis has diplomatic immunity. Its Hamlet-like indecision has placed it in a situation where it has to navigate through treacherous waters and the options available are not only limited but also difficult. If Davis is released under American pressure, the government may not be able to withstand the tidal wave of protests particularly after the Shumaila Kanwal suicide. The beneficiaries would be the extremist elements who would unleash a reign of nationwide terror. There would be more violence, more suicide bombings, more target killings and the ongoing military operations against terrorist outfits would receive a severe setback.

Should the government stand firm and proceed with Davis’ trial, the consequences would be equally disastrous. The bitter truth is that Pakistan, which spends a trillion rupees more than it earns and has one of the lowest tax to GDP ratios in the world, is dependent for its survival on external assistance by far the biggest portion of which comes either directly from the United States or through American-controlled international financial institutions. According to Christine Fair of the Georgetown University, it is a pity that Pakistan, which has sufficient resources of its own, “must grovel at the table of the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral and bilateral donors.” If Washington were to terminate, or even curtail, economic and military aid, not only would the government collapse but the country would hurtle towards chaos and anarchy. In such an eventuality, the only winners would again be the terrorist groups.

There is however a possible face-saving way out of this situation. The Gordian Knot can still be cut but it entails initial compromise by Pakistan which can always be followed by decisive action to assert its sovereignty. The compromise lies in conceding diplomatic immunity to Raymond Davis as per article 37 (2) of the Vienna Convention. Islamabad would have fulfilled its obligations under international law because of the official notification by the US government that Davis is a member of the technical staff at its embassy in Islamabad.

The firm course of action would involve promptly declaring Raymond Davis persona non grata. Under article 9 of the Convention: “The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision notify the sending State that the head of mission or any member of the diplomatic staff is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.” If the sending state does not comply with this demand, the receiving state is not obliged to recognise the person as a member of the mission and may therefore initiate legal proceedings against him.

For such an outcome, Washington would also have to make concessions. Since it has claimed that Davis is a member of the technical staff at the US Embassy in Islamabad, it should apologise for the deaths its officials have caused. Second, it should give a public assurance that Davis and the persons in the speeding vehicle, if they are American nationals, will face trial in the US. If they are locally recruited, then they should be handed over to the Pakistani government so they can be brought to justice.

These measures have to be taken quickly. The longer the delay, the more intense the popular outrage is likely to become. Procrastination is not only the thief of time, but it also eliminates opportunities which usually exist only for a brief moment.

Having a trial for Davis in the U.S. is unwarranted, however, I see no reason why we could not have a face-saving judicial review of some sort, one that would no doubt find he acted in self-defense. (A Pakistani court would probably come to the same conclusion itself, absent the political pressures they would face if they tried Davis).

This strikes me as workable. The Pakistani government sends Davis home with a great harrumphing and a wag of its finger, the embassy sincerely apologizes for the loss of four lives, a review board in the U.S. finds that Davis was justifiably in fear for his life, and both governments tactfully avoid the subject of the driver of the second car.

It's got to work better than what we're doing now.

Pakistan: Hearts and Minds Campaign a Casualty of Lahore Shooting Incident

The senior anchor at DawnNews, a television station associated with Pakistan's most influential English language newspaper, described the damage the Davis case has done to the U.S. image there in an opinion piece at Dawn.com today. You don't have to agree with all of his premises to accept his main point, which is that our public diplomacy efforts in Pakistan are pretty much dead.

Hearts & minds campaign?

The time to evaluate the impact of this issue on the vital strategic relationship between the two countries will come later. But at least in one significant respect, Pakistan-US ties are already badly damaged. And this relates to the nature and direction of public discourse in Pakistan about the United States.

The Davis issue has disfigured the environment in which the strategic partnership with the US was being nurtured. Raymond Davis endorses the typical Pakistani image of the US as a trigger-happy bully. In popular perception, Davis is the personification of a policy conduct Washington has displayed all around since 9/11 at a much larger scale — from the sands of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan and in the Fata region.

-- snip --

This nationwide welling up of anti-US emotion pushes further down the already declining US ratings in Pakistan. This is major damage to the ‘hearts and minds’ outreach programme that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been spearheading to fashion a better image for her country in Pakistan.

The policy worked at three levels: promotion of goods and services that the US brings to Pakistan; dilution of criticism of Washington’s policies by a robust media policy of rebuttals, denials and counter-charges; and isolation of those organisations and individuals whose sense of reality did not conform to Washington’s interest in Pakistan.

Admittedly, this policy worked rather well. The voice of America in Pakistan got considerably amplified, thanks primarily, though not only, to well-planned vigorous pro-US media activity carried out by known native advocates of Washington’s interests.

To change negative publicity into a positive profile, Washington carried out vast and constant diplomatic engagement with the politicians and the military top brass alike. Statistics show that in the last year and a half, Pakistan has been the US officials’ most ‘visited’ country in the world.

-- snip --

How many hearts and minds exactly turned in Washington’s favour, we don’t know. Perhaps not many. But something did change. Thorny controversies that once defined public discourse on the US disappeared into thin air. Towards the end of 2010 and on the eve of 2011 not a whisper was heard about the presence of Blackwater in Pakistan, expansion of US embassy premises, unauthorised and suspicious movement of US diplomats and embassy personnel. Even the matter of granting visas to US officials became a non-issue. The Kerry Lugar Bill’s preconditions for getting aid were totally forgotten.

But then came Mr Davis with his Glock handgun taking Pakistani lives and shooting through the heart the hearts and minds campaign. Since then Washington’s public profile has been completely defiled.

The strategic communication regime Washington’s spin doctors had put in place to create an enabling environment for successful diplomacy — called propaganda in old times — is completely dysfunctional. The trust deficit in the realm of public diplomacy is as wide as never before.

This is long-term damage recovering from which would take much longer than settling the issue of diplomatic immunity.

We do not know what Davis’s real mission was, but he certainly performed one task of strategic scale: ruining whatever little hope public diplomacy campaigners might have had of convincing the simple folk of Pakistan that the US was just a friendly giant they had no reason to run away from.

Raymond Davis Remanded for 14 More Days; U.S./Af/PakTrilateral Meeting Postponed

A heavy police deployment guarded the court premises as Raymond Davis was presented in court. –Photo by AP

Yesterday, on the day Davis's remand to police custody for investigation of the charges against him expired, the Lahore High Court placed him on a 14-day judicial remand. Presumably, the next step after judicial remand is to bring him to trial, unless the Pakistani federal government finds that he has diplomatic immunity.

“He has been remanded in judicial custody for 14 days. The next hearing will be on February 25,” Punjab government prosecutor Abdul Samad told reporters.

“He is being sent to central jail Kot Lakhpat,” said police official Suhail Sukhera in reference to the high-security prison in the eastern city of Lahore, where the US official confessed to shooting two men in self-defence last month.

Punjab Prosecutor Abdus Samad says the judge also has ordered that the Pakistani government clarify whether or not the man enjoys diplomatic immunity, as the US says he does, AFP reports.

The US says the American, identified by Pakistanis as Raymond Davis, shot two Pakistanis dead in late January in self-defense because they were trying to rob him.

Washington insists his detention is illegal under international agreements covering diplomatic immunity.

The U.S. Consul General in Lahore, Carmela Conroy, responded with this statement:

Good evening.

Today, American diplomat Raymond Davis was remanded into judicial detention in Lahore in connection with an incident in this city on January 27.

We understand that eyewitnesses at the scene said that Ray acted in self defense when confronted with two armed men on a motorcycle. We also understand that these men were found with stolen property and, as the police stated today, a loaded gun. We regret that authorities did not consider these eyewitness accounts and physical evidence when they stated that this was not a case of self-defense.

As a member of the Administrative and Technical staff at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Raymond Davis is entitled to full immunity from criminal prosecution by Pakistan under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. All countries, including my country and your country, freely agreed to abide by these rules. Under the rules, he should be freed immediately.

We respect the law and Pakistan's sovereignty, and expect all representatives of our government to respect the laws of our host nation. We respect the people of Pakistan and enjoy working and living in this country. Americans and Pakistanis can accomplish so much together. We need to resolve this case immediately and continue our work, including cooperation in education and health, our common fight against extremist violence, and building bridges between the people of Pakistan and America.

This incident was a tragedy, and we feel tremendous sorrow over the loss of life. We extend our deep sympathy to all the family members who have been affected.

Thank you.

I take it as a bad sign that Davis has now been placed in jail, whereas until yesterday he had been held much more safely and discretely in an office at a police training center.

But at least we now have a statement of regret from a U.S. official - we feel tremendous sorrow over the loss of life - and that small gesture, however belated, might actually have some calming effect on the Pakistanis who control Davis's fate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Update. A few minutes after I posted this I saw the following press release from the State Department spokesman:

In light of the political changes in Pakistan and after discussions with Afghan and Pakistani officials in Washington, it was agreed to postpone the Trilateral Meeting scheduled for February 23-24. We remain committed to robust engagement between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States, as we share many issues of mutual concern and benefit from being at the same table. We look forward to convening a very productive Trilateral Meeting at the earliest opportunity.

I had discounted the vague murmurs about U.S. retaliation that appeared in the press over the last couple days, but evidently they were true. We are making the Davis case a major diplomatic incident.

"I Just Work As A Consultant There ... With RAO"

The WaPo has a ho-hum story today on the Raymond Davis case, one that just recaps the standoff that exists over the matter of Davis's diplomatic immunity or lack thereof. However, there were two anonymous quotes of interest:

The Pakistani official said his government was also angry that no U.S. official has apologized for a third, apparently inadvertent, death in the incident, that of a Pakistani cyclist run down by a car from the U.S. consulate in Lahore that unsuccessfully tried to reach Davis at the scene of the shooting before his arrest.

I had noticed that lack of an apology myself. Would it hurt our position regarding Davis's immunity, or anything else, if we expressed regret?

And then there was this unattributed and gratuitous statement from our side, which might not even be accurate:

Senior U.S. State Department officials have said that Davis was not supposed to carry a weapon in Pakistan.

Thanks for that, Mr. Helpful, whoever you are.

The only real news in the story is the release of a video of Davis's initial interrogation by Punjabi police, a video that Davis evidently recorded himself without the knowledge of police by placing his cell phone or camera on the floor at his feet.

You can see a clip from it in the above Pakistani television report, at 1 minute 30 seconds into the video.

Pakistani television aired a video Wednesday that appears to show Davis being questioned by authorities after he was taken into custody. Davis identifies himself as an American and repeatedly pleads with his interrogators to help him locate a passport that he says went missing shortly after he showed it to police at the crime scene.

He identifies himself as an employee at the consulate in Lahore, saying, "I just work as a consultant there."

A sad business all around.

Widow of Pakistani Shot By U.S. Consulate Lahore Employee Commits Suicide

A tragic development today in the Raymond Davis case. There were threats last week that family members would kill themselves to draw further public attention to their demands that Davis be brought to trial, and now one of them has carried out her threat.

Here's the Associated Press story, Pakistani woman commits suicide after US shooting:

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- The wife of a Pakistani man shot and killed by a U.S. official committed suicide by eating rat poison Sunday, explaining before she died that she was driven to act by fears the American would be freed without trial, a doctor said.

The U.S. has demanded Pakistani authorities release the American, saying he shot and killed two armed men in self-defense when they attempted to rob him as he drove his car in the eastern city of Lahore. He was arrested on Jan. 27, and the U.S. has said he has diplomatic immunity and is being illegally detained.

The shootings have stoked anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, feelings that could be further inflamed by Shumaila Kanwal's suicide. She died several hours after being rushed to a hospital, said Ali Naqi, the doctor in Faisalabad city who treated her.

"I do not expect any justice from this government," said Kanwal in a statement recorded by the doctor before she died. "That is why I want to kill myself."

Kanwal also spoke to reporters after arriving at the hospital, saying "I want blood for blood."

"The way my husband was shot, his killer should be shot in the same fashion," she said.

The case puts Pakistan's government in a difficult position. The government relies on the U.S. for billions of dollars in aid but is wary of being seen as doing Washington's bidding. The U.S. is widely unpopular in Pakistan, in part because of its undeclared campaign of drone missile strikes along the northwest border with Afghanistan.

The government could face charges of being an American lackey if it hands Raymond Davis over to the United States. But refusing to do so risks harming a relationship with a vital ally.

Pakistani officials have avoided definitive statements on Davis' level of diplomatic clearance and whether he qualifies for immunity.

Federal officials have said the decision on his fate is up to courts in Punjab province, where the shootings occurred. But provincial officials have said the federal government must decide whether Davis has immunity. The two governments are controlled by rival political parties, which has further complicated the case.

Besides the two men who were shot dead, a bystander was also killed when he was struck by an American car rushing to the scene to help Davis. Police have said they want to question the Americans suspected in that death as well.

Relatives of the men who were allegedly shot by Davis have participated in several protests in Lahore, including one Thursday outside the U.S. consulate where demonstrators shouted "Hang the American killer!"

Some commentators have tried to paint the two men as innocent Pakistanis rather than thieves who were attempting to rob Davis. But the U.S. Embassy has said the men had criminal backgrounds and had robbed money and valuables at gunpoint from a Pakistani citizen in the same area minutes before the shootings.

Public demonstrations outside the U.S. Consulate in Lahore have been fairly mild so far, but this event has the potential to escalate those demonstrations into mobs.

Raymond Davis's Diplomatic Immunity - Mistakes Were Made

It's not as if there aren't other things going on in the world - as I type this it is being reported that Hosni Mubarak has resigned as head of the ruling party in Egypt - but the case of Raymond Davis is just so interesting. So here's one more bit of news to add to that already compiled by Diplopundit.

Dawn, which is Pakistan's oldest English-language newspaper and the Pakistani counterpart to the WaPo in that it is the first choice for officials who wish to leak info or launch trial balloons, has some non-attributable quotes today about the Pakistani Foreign Office's position on the matter of Davis's diplomatic immunity.

Dawn had earlier run the above photo of the visa that was placed in Davis's passport by the Pakistani embassy in Washington in December of 2009, and which was later extended several times by the Foreign Office in Islamabad. Note that the purpose of the visit is listed as "Official Business" and the visa number is preceded by "CD" for Corps Diplomatique. So far, so good.

But did the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad register Davis with the Foreign Office as a member of its technical and administrative staff? The answer is a big MAYBE.

According to Dawn's unnamed senior officials, the embassy notified the FO in January of 2010 that Davis was a member of its technical and administrative staff, and the FO "did not issue a disagreement note." They did not reply at all, and that left the embassy with an expectation that Davis was registered with the FO when, in fact, he may not have been.

Here are the key parts of the story (Experts start consultations on status of Davis):

“The Foreign Office’s legal division and the government’s law and justice division have started consultations on the matter,” a senior official disclosed to Dawn a day after the US embassy through a diplomatic note urged the Pakistan government to issue a certificate on the status of Raymond Davis.

According to Pakistan’s Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act of 1972, the government, in case of a dispute over privileges and immunities of someone working for a foreign mission, has to issue a certification which will be deemed as “conclusive evidence of that fact”.

-- snip --

A few slip-ups by Pakistani officials while dealing with Davis’ notification and subsequent registration request are quite obvious. His posting in Pakistan was notified in January last year. However, the FO did not issue a disagreement note, rather there was apparently no reply. The US embassy is now claiming Davis’s immunity on the basis of that notification.

However, when the embassy submitted his registration request queries cropped up and these were communicated to it, which remained unresolved to date. Resultantly, Davis hasn’t been registered as yet.

But the US embassy maintained that the FO registration was irrelevant for the immunities guaranteed under the Vienna Convention. Moreover, the Pakistani officials agreed that they took too long to decide on Davis’ registration case.

There are also problems on the American side. The US had filed two applications for Davis’s registration — one for the Lahore Consulate and the other for the Islamabad Embassy. Which one of these requests ultimately holds would determine which Vienna Convention — the one on diplomatic relations (1961) or that on consular relations (1963) — would apply to Davis if he were to be ultimately granted immunity.

But the decisive factor in the case, even if the Pakistan government agrees to give limited immunity, would be a determination of the fact whether the act of fatally shooting the two alleged muggers occurred during the course of his duties.

At least for now no one is ready to speak on what Davis was doing in Mozang, Lahore, which has no diplomatic activity whatsoever.

The Vienna Convention’s Article 37 states: “…. the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties.”

An official privy to some initial legal consultations said Davis by no stretch of imagination qualified for full immunity.

The US embassy is, however, adamant that Davis is entitled to full criminal immunity and cannot be lawfully arrested or detained.

Can a nation unilaterally declare an employee to be a member of its diplomatic staff despite the absence of agreement by the receiving nation?

Lahore Shooting "A Most Wonderful Opportunity" To Raise Anti-American Sentiment in Pakistan

A couple quick comments on the situation surrounding Raymond Davis, the U.S. Embassy TDYer in Lahore who shot two Pakistanis in an apparent act of self defense.

First, Mr. Davis appeared in court for a second time today, where the judge ordered him to remain in custody for another eight days while police continue to investigate the case against him. No doubt the police also hope to identify the consulate employees who were trying to extricate Davis from the aftermath of his shooting when one of their vehicles fatally struck a third Pakistani. Davis reportedly is not cooperating with them on that.

Second, Pakistani public anger about this case is building. NPR had a good story about that today. Read it here or listen to it here:

The case of Davis has gripped Pakistan's headlines and spilled into the streets in a show of anti-Americanism.

"Oppressor, give us an answer!" the demonstrators cried. "Account for the blood you shed."

Hundreds of protesters gathered at the spot where Davis allegedly shot dead two Pakistanis, who he said were armed robbers. The small gathering, which included many students, took up an ominous chant aimed at Davis, whose drama one newspaper called "an avatar of the Ugly American."

"Hang Davis! Hang him!" the demonstrators shouted.

Davis has been depicted in banners across town as a bloodthirsty "terrorist."

There is talk of "revenge" for the fatal shooting of the two men and the death of a third man who was struck by an SUV reportedly coming to Davis' rescue.

-- snip --

Rashed Rahman, editor of the Daily Times, says the hostility erupting over the case of the jailed American is an extension of the furor over the blasphemy debate where, in defense of Islam, the country's radical right has whipped an anti-Western fervor. His paper was owned by Salman Taseer, the late Punjab governor who was killed by his bodyguard because he sought to reform the country's blasphemy laws.

"An issue like this is just going to add more ammunition to that anti-American sentiment; and Mr. Davis has provided a most wonderful opportunity to raise the bar even higher and I think the mood on the street is something that needs to be watched," Rahman says. "I'm not saying it's Egypt or Tunisia, but I'm just saying the street, at least the religious right, could explode."

The release of Davis could indeed provide a focal point for all the free-floating anger that seethes through Pakistan for a hundred different reasons.

Rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, it looks like the Pakistani authorities will let this situation play out for a while longer.