Dawn.com | February 18, 2012 | Story

CrisisBalochistan comments on below article: It mystifies us why borders drawn by white men are regarded as so inviolable--especially when it is clear that those borders don't benefit the majority of citizens. At least Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is willing to think outside-of-the-box. If Ms. Fair were forced to live and grow up in Pakistan, survive in a setting other than that of its rich elites, she'd probably be singing a different tune. Too many advocates of the status quo have the means to escape this badly-run country (living elsewhere part-time, or they don't have to live there at all). Can one really blame the suffering Baloch for not wanting to be a part of Pakistan--especially given the dead bodies they take home on almost a daily basis?

If Balochistan were to regain its independence, the average Pakistani would never know the difference. Because Balochistan never became a tourist destination (as Kashmir is to India, or as, say, Sante Fe and Joshua Tree are to the U.S.), the average Pakistani has few real ties to the place. And in terms of economics, the Baloch will still have to sell their gas and the average Pakistani will still have to buy it. It is the military/industrial elite who currently profit from Baloch resources who will notice the difference. And they are not deserving of this bounty.

Most certainly old charges will be trotted out that the sardars are responsible for the backwardness of Balochistan. This myth needs to be dispelled. Please visit this site for an account of a fascinating part of Baloch history: http://tiny.cc/rms51. ["It is not widely known nowadays but in 1972 a resolution was moved in the Balochistan Assembly demanding that the Federal Government abolish the Sardari, the Jirga System and the Tribal System since the Provincial Assembly did not have the authority to do so. The Federal Government took no action in this regard and about eight months later, on 14th February, 1972, the National Awami Party (which was responsible for presenting the resolution in the Assembly) Government was overthrown and a military operation was launched in Balochistan."]

Update: we have been copied on an email in which Ms. Fair characterizes the hearing as "a stunt to piss off the Pakistan government while pandering to a bunch of pathetic extremists who have no understanding of the geopolitical morass into which they have been drug."

Yes, to talk of borders may drag the world into a geopolitical morass--but the Baloch are already living and dying in that very geopolitical morass. Is it not time for the West to confront the realities the Baloch--and the Sindhis and others--suffer within the confines of our ally's borders? To speak of human rights violations without taking into account the geo-politics responsible, in part, for that situation is itself evidence of a lack of understanding.

Please read the full text of Ralph Peter's statement at the hearing for a refreshingly non-cynical and principled stand on the subject of Balochistan.

* * *

"Stick it to the Pakistanis"

By Eddie Walsh

Dawn.com | February 18, 2011 | Story

Christine Fair and Ralph Peters (second from left) at U.S. Congressional Committee hearing.
Photo by Malik Siraj Akbar

In the days before last week's Congressional hearing on Balochistan, Dr C. Christine Fair, an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, was extremely critical of the proceedings, going so far as to call the hearing a "political stunt" and one of her fellow witnesses a "nut" in a series of Twitter exchanges.

At the time, Fair did not elaborate on what drove her to so publicly rebuke the hearing. It is only now that she is ready to set the record straight in defence of her statements amid what she calls "considerable harassment from some vocal members of the Baloch diaspora."

The "stunt" heard round the world

According to Fair, her "political stunt" comment was prompted by a call from a sub-committee staff member. Fair had contacted him to solicit guidance for her upcoming testimony. In the course of their conversation, the staffer explained "we want to stick it to the Pakistanis." The staffer further elaborated that the Pakistanis had been "killing our troops for ten years in Afghanistan."

In Fair's words, while she understood and even shared this person's views on Pakistan's relations with the United States over the past decade, this comment about the hearing made her "feel really uncomfortable about being roped into something that I would call a stunt. So, I wanted to make my position publicly known."

Looking back on the comment, Fair is unapologetic: "Prior to accepting the request to serve as a witness, I was told this was a hearing about human rights violations and other issues needed to understand the various crises in Balochistan. But, based upon that brief phone conversation, I concluded that it wasn't about human rights. Rather, it seemed that the people behind this hearing were pandering to diaspora politics just to tick off the Pakistanis at a time when the United States is trying to repair its tattered relationship with Pakistan."

Fair's comments did not go unnoticed. Elements of the Baloch diaspora, who Fair called "a bunch of extremists," took extreme exception to the comments, especially on Twitter. In her words, they then "subjected me to an array of bullying and obnoxious assaults, many of which also tagged Congressman (Dana) Rohrabacher (R - CA)."

This avalanche of tweets protesting Fair's participation in the hearing ultimately brought the matter to Rohrabacher's office. On the Monday prior to the hearing, the staff member who had been coordinating with Fair reached out to her again to convey his displeasure: "He called to take a piece out of my hide. I requested that he explain to the Congressperson why I called the hearing a stunt, namely this staffer's explanation that they wanted to stick it to the Pakistanis." However, in her assessment, the staffer "did not have the testicular fortitude to explain the comment to Rohrabacher."

A "nut" by any other name

Fair's characterisation of Ralph Peters, a fellow witness, as a "nut" also rankled many proponents of Baloch interests, including at least one staff member affiliated with the hearing. According to Fair, during the aforementioned phone call, the angered Congressional staff member explained that he was taken aback that Fair dismissed Peters as a nut. He added that he had never previously experienced one witness attacking another before the hearing.

In recounting that exchange, Fair remains vivacious in her defence. She points out that she actually called Peters "a certified, flipping nut because only a nut would advocate the dismembering of a sovereign state based upon the views of one community in a province." She then explains the reasoning for her steadfast opposition to Peters: "If this Congressional subcommittee remotely intended to try to use the hearing to put pressure on Pakistan for its human rights record in Balochistan, they should not have included someone who calls for the halving of their country."

Biting the hand that invites you

Fair acknowledges that her comments were the impetus for the uncomfortable exchange with Rohrabacher at the hearing's conclusion. Rohrabacher, who looked her straight in the eye and explained "this was not a stunt," appeared perturbed by her pre-hearing comments. He therefore, used the hearing as the forum to issue his rebuttal.

While Fair admits that she "might not be invited back to give testimony again," she does not regret her actions. From her perspective, she needed to signal her concerns because "this was a hearing designed by a collection of guys - and possibly a woman or two - who share a strategic image of how the Afghanistan and Pakistan postures should interrelate. While they reflect the general frustration in Congress with Pakistan taking US money and supporting terrorism, their views about dismembering Pakistan do not reflect the larger sentiment in Congress on Pakistan. Their statements struck me as incredibly provocative, did nothing to advance human rights in Balochistan, and made a US-Pakistan rapprochement much more difficult."

Fair also notes that Congressmen Rohrabacher and Louie Gohmert (R - TX) bear significant responsibility for undermining the hearing before it was ever held. She points to the Congressmen's pre-hearing OpEd, which suggested the United States should openly support an independent Balochistan, as setting the wrong tone for a hearing purportedly on human rights.

Eddie Walsh is a senior foreign correspondent who covers Africa and Asia-Pacific. He also is a non-resident fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS. Follow him on Twitter here.