You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
India-Pakistan
US didnÂ’t coordinate Bajaur attack with Pakistan: Musharraf
2006-01-30
President Gen Pervez Musharraf has condemned the Bajaur air strike, calling it a violation of PakistanÂ’s sovereignty and stating that the attack was not coordinated with Islamabad.
"No, no! Certainly not! We have complete control of our borders!"
“This was definitely not coordinated with us. We condemn it and have objected to it as an issue of sovereignty. (But) we do know there are foreigners and Al Qaeda in that (area). It is my regret that there are (such) people there,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post published on Sunday.
I'm actually wondering what kind of "sovreignty" Pak claims over the FATA and NWFP. The primitives live by their own laws, making them up as they go along. Presumably they're not taxed, since we keep hearing about how inaccessible they are. If they live as a separate country, can Perv even claim a violation of sovreignty?
Asked if he meant Arabs or Al Qaeda members, he said, “Yes, indeed. We are investigating who got killed there. Probably - and I use that word carefully - there were five or six Arabs or foreigners killed there.” He added, “While this (strike) is a violation of our sovereignty, I also consider the presence of Al Qaeda and foreigners a violation of our sovereignty. Let’s not play into the hands of extremists (who say) that sovereignty is only violated when someone comes by air.”
How about if we think of the area as an independent area under Pakland's protection but not under its control. Perv should be grateful to us for helping him maintain some sort of order.
Posted by:Fred

#3  So what's the cost of Perv if he allows us to have our way there?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-01-30 08:17  

#2  There is a big difference between the systems in place in the NWFP and FATA, despite having the same demography.

The NWFP is a province of the Pakistani nation, with a state parliament and representation on the federal level, just like Punjab and other provinces.

The FATA exists as an almost sovereign entity, with the current system completely unchanged since the days of the British Raj when there were constant low level wars to get the area under control, before the Brits gave up and simpy accepted nominal loyalty from the tribal leaders. In the FATA centrally appointed governors operatre like colonial administrators, able to punish a tribe for the crimes of some of it's members and so on.
Posted by: Paul Moloney   2006-01-30 04:41  

#1  Actually, the locals in the FATA/NWFP are taxed, though it's closer to what we would understand as tribute than any kind of actual revenue system. They pay set amount to the local government in return for it leaving them alone in their primitive culture, which seems to be the way that things have been since at least the end of the Raj. I think that the closest thing we have to that in a Western conception would be something on the order of a suzerainty, but I'll defer to Paul or john on that score.
Posted by: Dan Darling   2006-01-30 02:55  

00:00