Dr Shakil Afridi[/caption]Craig Kyzar — Can a man be a traitor in defense of his nation? If his actions benefit an entire peace-loving world, can we afford to placate the nation that condemns him? When Dr. Shakil Afridi undertook his role in the covert vaccination program that ultimately helped the CIA bring down Osama bin Laden, he knowingly took his fate in his own hands. Yet, it is doubtful that he did so with the expectation that his country would brand him a criminal while the world stood idly by.
His reward for conducting such a dangerous and successful program, which left Pakistani officials in the dark: Dr. Afridi was tried and sentenced to 33 years imprisonment under the notoriously inequitable Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR). Without due process of law or the pretense of a fair trial, he was convicted of high treason in a severely miscalculated show of power.
Given the duplicitous governmental dealings that have since come to light, it is no wonder the operation was shielded from official eyes. Nor is it any wonder that Pakistan is now taking measures to save face and scare its citizens into conformity. However, allowing Afridi to serve a sentence based on frontier justice in a void of due process is not merely a black mark on US-Pakistani relations; it is yet another slight on international convention that Pakistan has come to increasingly believe will never be challenged by the global community.
Clearly, Pakistan is fuming over the perceived breach of sovereignty by conducting such a program without official knowledge. Whether the United States was right in carrying out the program is a question for another time. However, if Pakistan truly wants its sovereignty respected as anything more than a land of frontier justice and rampant rights abuses, it must look beyond its punitive cravings. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Pakistan signed in 2008, and ratified in 2010, commits its signatories to respecting the civil rights of all individuals: primarily the rights to due process and a fair trial. Bringing charges of treason is every nation’s right, but doing so without any hint of legitimacy (indeed, with a clear specter of retribution) is the right of no nation.
A finding of high treason by virtue of an act that served nothing but good on an international scale translates rather directly into perceived government sympathy toward the terrorist movement. In what way did Afridi's conduct harm Pakistan, beyond the embarrassment spilled onto the global stage when his own government's unscrupulous dealings were revealed? And how is exposing such embarrassment the crime of one man?
This is not damage control and it is certainly not justice. This is little more than an iron-fisted lesson: a chilling disclaimer by the government of Pakistan that, within its borders, rule stands superior to right and the affiliation of its government overrides any notion of international expectation. It is a frightening road sign pointing down an ugly path to further isolationism and yet, once again, the world responds with impotent dismay.
Standing at the precipice of an ideological divide, it appears as though Pakistan may be losing sight of its place in the world. Indeed, it may be losing sight of a world beyond its borders altogether. The legitimate crime of treason has always presumed a precipitating action against the values and sanctity of one's own nation. It represents the transformation into an enemy of the state, oftentimes by virtue of aligning with an existing enemy.
While Pakistan has every right to protest a perceived violation of its sovereignty, there is nothing treasonous about Dr. Afridi's actions. That is, unless the elimination of bin Laden runs contrary to official state sentiment. There are appropriate diplomatic channels for taking up such protests if, indeed, that is the genuine source of Pakistan's grief. But restitution and resolution will never come through the oppression and intimidation of its own citizens.
So determined to lash out against a perception of cracks in its absolute rule, Pakistan risks running afoul of both universal human rights law as well as its own constitution, which forbids any action detrimental to the liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with law. In permitting this FCR ruling to stand, Pakistan rises defiantly onto its soapbox and signals to the rest of the world that it stands alone, while reaching below the podium to accept billions of dollars in aid.
Now is the time for Pakistan to stand up like a mature 21st century nation and rail against the United States for its perceived transgressions, not to exact revenge through bullying of the weak and defenseless. Dr. Afridi is a trans-national hero whose brave personal actions helped the entire world fight a growing, malignant cancer. Of course, Pakistan need not agree with such an assessment in order to see the strategic misfire in continuing down this road.
Once again, Pakistan finds itself in an awkward and volatile position: apparently more at odds with itself than anybody. Scolding the international community by applying pressure to one's own people is a familiar and failed method of asserting power: far more likely to court suffocating sanctions than deferential respect. The faith of fading allies, allegedly on the same side, has been rewarded with little but defiance. In the eyes of the Pakistani government, a man can, indeed, be a traitor in defense of his nation. That said, perhaps it is time for the wealth of nations to rise up in defense of the traitor.
