National Security Counsel Refuses Briefing from American Ambassador
Published in Ausaf
(Pakistan) on 19 December 2008
by Editorial (link to original)
(Pakistan) on 19 December 2008
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Mohammed Abuhuraira Akrami.
Edited by Louis Standish.
The American ambassador, N.W. Peterson, recently has written a letter to the chief of the parliamentary committee formed for the implementation of the resolution of the National Security Counsel, Mr. Raza Rabbani, to offer the American standpoint regarding the country’s spy planes. According to sources, the American ambassador said that he would like to present the American perspective on the matter of his country's spy plane, in a letter written to the chief of the National Security parliamentary committee. The letter is a request to invite the American ambassador before a session of the parliamentary committee, so that the American standpoint can be shared.
On receiving the letter, Mr. Raza Rabbani presented the matter before the committee members to discuss whether or not to invite the American ambassador to a session.
Many members of the committee directly opposed the briefing by the American ambassador.
When asked about the situation, Mr. Raza Rabbani said that as far as the request of American ambassador was concerned, “We don’t feel it is necessary right now to (have the Ambassador present his point of view). However, when we need it, we would take another route, through the external ministry.”
The true essence, and the superb benefit of democracy, is that every job is done with debate and thoughtful consideration. Decisions are made with majority consent; no one individual has the right to implement his own judgment putting aside the views of the whole nation.
If the same situation had occurred during the regime of ex-President Parvez Musharraf, guess who would have dared challenge the American offer?
Only Mr. Raza Rabbani and God Itself knows about his inner intentions or his personal motives, which he may have kept hidden when taking such a bold step and consulting the concerned committee members before responding to the offer, and then to the ambassador accordingly.
We don’t have any detailed report as each member reacted to the offer in the session of the committee. However, we came across the suggestion of Moulana *Sameeul Haque, that there was nothing wrong in inviting the ambassador to deliver his briefing on the American standpoint, asserting that his presence at the parliamentary committee session would have allowed many important questions regarding American policies in the region in question. It is possible that it was the intention of the Moulana to take the opportunity to ask some bitter questions, and argue with the American ambassador. However, the Moulana had to consider that all things appear fair and good if it is within the frame of the law of the country. Otherwise, it would be bad, and harmful to the country if those limits were crossed.
According to the state’s protocol, the American ambassador doesn’t have the 'right' to present any briefing directly to committee members responsible for the purpose of national security. The ambassador must. in the case of conveying a message from his mother country, present it through the external ministry.
In this regard, we believe that the members of the committee took a brave step in refusing a direct briefing from the American ambassador. Actually, it is the real fruit of democracy, which we received only after battling eight years.
Now, the question that arises is why democracy in Pakistan is disconcerting to America. Why would she rather support dictatorship over democracy in Pakistan?
The reason for this kind of American attitude towards Pakistan is that in a democracy every job is done with debate, mutual consent of the concerned members, and parliament is not bypassed, while America wants to do every thing with a “One Window Operation,” and desires to get demands met within minutes.
To strengthen our democracy and to say goodbye to dictatorship forever is the best way to rectify the bad habits of America.
In this regard, we should not have to forget the ordinance of our Quaeed E Aazam Mohammed Ali Jinnah (the founder of Pakistan), who decreed that the future of Pakistan lies with democracy.
__________________________
*the title used for Islamic Scholar in Indian subcontinent
On receiving the letter, Mr. Raza Rabbani presented the matter before the committee members to discuss whether or not to invite the American ambassador to a session.
Many members of the committee directly opposed the briefing by the American ambassador.
When asked about the situation, Mr. Raza Rabbani said that as far as the request of American ambassador was concerned, “We don’t feel it is necessary right now to (have the Ambassador present his point of view). However, when we need it, we would take another route, through the external ministry.”
The true essence, and the superb benefit of democracy, is that every job is done with debate and thoughtful consideration. Decisions are made with majority consent; no one individual has the right to implement his own judgment putting aside the views of the whole nation.
If the same situation had occurred during the regime of ex-President Parvez Musharraf, guess who would have dared challenge the American offer?
Only Mr. Raza Rabbani and God Itself knows about his inner intentions or his personal motives, which he may have kept hidden when taking such a bold step and consulting the concerned committee members before responding to the offer, and then to the ambassador accordingly.
We don’t have any detailed report as each member reacted to the offer in the session of the committee. However, we came across the suggestion of Moulana *Sameeul Haque, that there was nothing wrong in inviting the ambassador to deliver his briefing on the American standpoint, asserting that his presence at the parliamentary committee session would have allowed many important questions regarding American policies in the region in question. It is possible that it was the intention of the Moulana to take the opportunity to ask some bitter questions, and argue with the American ambassador. However, the Moulana had to consider that all things appear fair and good if it is within the frame of the law of the country. Otherwise, it would be bad, and harmful to the country if those limits were crossed.
According to the state’s protocol, the American ambassador doesn’t have the 'right' to present any briefing directly to committee members responsible for the purpose of national security. The ambassador must. in the case of conveying a message from his mother country, present it through the external ministry.
In this regard, we believe that the members of the committee took a brave step in refusing a direct briefing from the American ambassador. Actually, it is the real fruit of democracy, which we received only after battling eight years.
Now, the question that arises is why democracy in Pakistan is disconcerting to America. Why would she rather support dictatorship over democracy in Pakistan?
The reason for this kind of American attitude towards Pakistan is that in a democracy every job is done with debate, mutual consent of the concerned members, and parliament is not bypassed, while America wants to do every thing with a “One Window Operation,” and desires to get demands met within minutes.
To strengthen our democracy and to say goodbye to dictatorship forever is the best way to rectify the bad habits of America.
In this regard, we should not have to forget the ordinance of our Quaeed E Aazam Mohammed Ali Jinnah (the founder of Pakistan), who decreed that the future of Pakistan lies with democracy.
__________________________
*the title used for Islamic Scholar in Indian subcontinent
Previous article![]( "Guantanamo Must Close Now")
