COMEY'S BOOK AND PAKISTAN'S LEADERS - James Brien Comey Jr served as Director
0 comments | by IKRAM SEHGAL
James Brien Comey Jr served as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for four years till fired by President Donald Trump on May engaging others to give false testimony and prompting people to falsify documents. Using extremely objectionable language against the superior judiciary and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on numerous occasions, their targeting of the Army has been by inference only and not directly, discretion being the better part of valour.
Bizarre as it may be, Comey’s description, “We are experiencing a dangerous time in our country, with a political environment where basic facts are disputed, fundamental truth is questioned, lying is normalised and unethical behaviour is ignored, excused or rewarded,” appears Pakistan-specific. Nawaz Sharif also believes Trump-like he has the mandate of everyone in Pakistan, surrounding himself by 'Yes Men' ever ready to endorse or support their chief's every opinion or proposal without criticism. Many making up his inner circle act like darbaris (courtiers) carrying out their master's bidding without question, excelling in filling his ears in instigating him past the political fail-safe line. DNI Director James Clapper was present during Comey's first meeting with the President soon after his election when Trump launched into a strategy session about how to "spin for the public what we'd just told them" about Russia's election interference. Compare the Trump and Putin relationship with Nawaz and Modi, Maryam’s uncle Modi openly pursues a hard-line policy towards Pakistan, using both state and non-state actors to harm Pakistan. Keeping alive their "friendship" with Modi, Nawaz Sharif and his family have no qualms about keeping mum over the killings of innocent civilians and other atrocities committed in Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK). While recently ordering dozens of Russian diplomats out of the US because of the Skripal poisoning and ordering an air offensive against Russian-supported Syria because of alleged chemical attacks against civilians, while Trump's personal friendship with Putin reportedly persists, national interest prevails over personal and/or commercial interests.
Comey explores the toxic consequences of choosing loyalty to an individual over truth and the rule of law. With dishonesty, bullying, peer pressure and groupthink central “to the entire enterprise of organized crime,” he says these repellent traits were shared by Trump and company. Loyalty to an individual being more important than the truth and the State is also pervasive in our political culture. Party faithful fall over each other in decrying the SC and NAB almost on a daily basis, flouting the rule of law, spouting venom against anyone and everyone deemed anti-Sharif, twisting facts and giving spin to facts in order to appear truthful. The lies and fabrication that Nawaz, his sons, attacks on the people of neighbouring Afghanistan as well as on US troops stationed in the war-ravaged country.
Notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan’s ability to secure its integrity along the Durand Line suffers from a number of social, cultural, economic and religious limitations, the country, nevertheless, has in its own national interest and also to deny the terrorists safe havens on Pakistani soil, launched as many as three military campaigns in the region since May 2009—the Rah-i-Haq of General Kayani, Zarb-i-Azb of General Raheel Shariff and the current Ruddul Fasaad of the current Army Chief General Bajwa. The cost of these campaigns in monetary terms as well as in men and material has been enormous. But instead of appreciating the effort and extending a helping hand, especially in terms of financial compensation, the US seems to have decided to turn the screws on Pakistan in complete violation of all international norms.But then, this is nothing new for the Americans as according toStephen M. Walt,professor of international relations at Harvard University(America Can’t Be Trusted Anymore—Published in Foreign Affairs—April 10, 2018) Americans believe they are honest, plain-speaking truth-tellers who can be counted upon to keep their word and fulfill their promises whereas America’s opponents, by contrast, are a slippery bunch of deceptive charlatans who will exploit any loophole and seize any opportunity to hoodwink the country.
“Accordingly, U.S. negotiators must insist on all sorts of intrusive measures — such as the extraordinarily stringent inspection regime incorporated into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran — to make sure they can verify what others are really up to.”Mr. Walt says the United States has amassed a pretty good record of reneging on promises and commitments. At a minimum, he says, Washington cannot claim any particular virtue or trustworthiness in its dealings with others. He points out that in the unipolar era the United States repeatedly did things it had promised not to do.
“Think about all the treaties U.S. officials signed with various Native American tribes and subsequently broke, modified, or reneged upon as the nation expanded steadily across North America.“Or consider the Nixon shocks of 1971, when the United States unilaterally ended convertibility of the dollar into gold, in effect dismantling the Bretton Woods economic order it had helped create.
”President Richard Nixon also slapped a 10 percent surcharge on imports to then a few years later, President Barack Obama’s administration ignored that earlier pledge and collaborated in Qaddafi’s overthrow.“But wait, there’s more! The multinational operation against Qaddafi was authorized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, and Russia agreed to abstain on the resolution because its stated purpose was preventing Qaddafi from attacking civilians in Benghazi, not toppling the regime. However, as Stephen R. Weissman has shown in an important article, regime change was on U.S. officials’ minds from the get-go, and they soon blew right past the terms of the resolution. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates later recalled, ‘The Russians felt they had been played for suckers on Libya. They felt there had been a bait and switch.’ And they were right. So, if you’re ever wondering why Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly blocked Security Council action over the disaster in Syria, there’s at least part of your answer. then a few years later, President Barack Obama’s administration ignored that earlier pledge and collaborated in Qaddafi’s overthrow.“But wait, there’s more! The multinational operation against Qaddafi was authorized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, and Russia agreed to abstain on the resolution because its stated purpose was preventing Qaddafi from attacking civilians in Benghazi, not toppling the regime. However, as Stephen R. Weissman has shown in an important article, regime change was on U.S. officials’ minds from the get-go, and they soon blew right past the terms of the resolution. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates later recalled, ‘The Russians felt they had been played for suckers on Libya. They felt there had been a bait and switch.’ And they were right. So, if you’re ever wondering why Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly blocked Security Council action over the disaster in Syria, there’s at least part of your answer.
“Needless to say, the lessons of Libya have not been lost on other countries. North Korean media have repeatedly invoked this example to justify the country’s nuclear weapons program and to warn against ever trusting assurances from the United States. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why. If you were Kim Jong Un, would you rather pin your survival on a nuclear deterrent of your own or promises from the United States?
“Which brings us to Donald Trump. The world is now dealing with a U.S. president who appears to have no firm convictions or beliefs, the attention span of a hummingbird, and who apparently makes important national security decisions on the basis of whatever fairytale he just saw on Fox & Friends. As near as one can tell, he never saw a treaty or agreement signed by his predecessor that he liked, even though he has trouble explaining what’s wrong with any of them. He just likes to talk about ‘tearing them up’ no matter what the consequences may be.”