Notes on "Missing in Pakistan"

At around the six-minute mark, with the increasing hysteria of Amina Masood’s screams, Missing in Pakistan finally progresses from a thoughtful but not-entirely riveting narrative to an extremely gripping – and disturbing - documentary about the spate of ‘disappearances’ in Pakistan.[1]

Amina’s panic arises as she realizes that her 16 year old son has been arrested by the police – and stripped of his trousers before being pushed into the police van. The site of his arrest, and its cause, is a peaceful protest organized by Amina to protest the disappearance of her husband. Ahmed Masood Janjua, was last seen by his family on July 30, 2005. Since then, Amina has received information through informal channels that her husband is in custody of the police, but no official is willing to confirm this, let alone provide her with a reason.

Janjua is one among several hundred Pakistanis who have gone missing since the launch of the ‘war on terror’. Evidence suggests that the missing have been abducted and detained in secret locations on the orders of the Pakistan government, which is one of America's allies in the War on Terror. It is reported that several have been transferred to America's custody as well.

The Musharraf government claims that it is only apprehending terrorists, but has failed to provide evidence linking several of the missing to terrorism; neither has it brought them before Pakistan courts.[2] Some of the missing, like Janjua, are members of groups like the Tablighi Jamaat, described as “a global Islamic proselytizing movement with one of the largest numbers of followers in the world.” It has been suggested that such religion-based groups may be recruiting grounds for terrorists, but there is no evidence establishing this particular group’s link to terrorists or terrorist activity.[3]

There is increasing bitterness in Pakistan at the government’s blind allegiance to American foreign policy at the cost of serious threat to the rule of law in Pakistan. “Do countries sell their own people?” screams one poster. It is an open secret that President Musharraf, who seized control of the government via a military coup in 1999, has been able to prolong his dictatorship due to backing from the western world, particularly the Bush government. BBC’s Zafar Abbas notes that as an active partner in the war on terror, Musharraf has been perceived by many in the West as one of the most liberal and enlightened faces of the Muslim world. Swayed by the exigencies of the war on terror, the American government has been able to overlook the suspension of due process in Pakistan, even as it goes about bringing “democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights” to other Islamic nations.

The 24 minute documentary brings out the very thin line between acts of terrorism and those sometimes perpetrated in the name of counter-terrorism, it addresses the terror v. torture debate discussed in the post on the Battle of Algiers, it raises questions about the extent to which a state allows its internal governance to be overridden by its obligations to other states and it provides an insight into the ‘conditional aid’ policies that governments of the North can use to arm-twist governments of the South. It also alludes to the ease with which values of democracy and rule of law can be co-opted or ignored. And of course, most significantly, it brings to public notice, several cases of disappearances in Pakistan and splices together the response from different communities of interest – the families of the missing, the government, the human rights fraternity and the lawyers.

This blog reports that the documentary has been circulating through informal channels as its content is too explosive for broadcast networks in Pakistan. It suggests that while there is a producer mentioned in the credits, there are doubts as to whether the person’s real name has been used. Other sites however indicate that Zafar is an independent journalist and film-maker. The documentary is freely available on Google video and on Youtube. Do watch.

[1] This is not to say that first five minutes were superfluous – in a second viewing I noticed details I had missed while settling down in the first; it is more a compliment to the film’s ability to shake even the over-exposed or desensitized (to documentaries, or the issues they cover) out of their passivity.

[2] The Supreme Court of Pakistan, seized of this matter, has encouraged the government to regularize the detention of those being held in secret prisons.

[3] See here for a presentation by Eva Borreguero, a Fulbright scholar and Professor of Politics, whose research is focused on this group, at the United States Institute of Peace.


Missing in Pakistan was screened at NYU on February 26, 2008.

A Few Good Men

Adapted from a play of the same name by Alan Sorkin, A Few Good Men follows the efforts of a team of lawyers defending two Marines accused of murdering a colleague at a US military base. The defense discovers that the death was the result of a ‘Code Red’ – illegal corporal punishment meted out to a soldier in need of discipline – administered upon the order of a senior officer.

This brings up a question of great relevance to international criminal law – what weight to attach to a defense of “superior orders” when these are claimed as the basis for action by a soldier. On the one hand a soldier’s duty to the military is considered paramount – the code for Marines is “Unit, Corps, God, Country”; at the same time, as a human being, he cannot be exempt from the moral duty to differentiate between right and wrong.

How to decide which of these duties must take precedence, has never been easy. Lhasa Oppenheim’s work is illustrative of this dilemma. In the first edition (1906) of his treatise on international law, he wrote “If members of the armed forces commit violations by order of their Government, they are no war criminals and cannot be punished by the enemy….”. In the sixth edition (1935) however, having witnessed the horrors of the first World War, he stated “The fact that a rule of warfare has been violated in pursuance of an order of the belligerent Government or of an individual belligerent commander does not deprive the act in question of its character as a war crime…[M]embers of the armed forces are bound to obey lawful orders only….”[1]

Indeed the film chooses to set this question against a more complicated backdrop than a situation of outright war would provide. The US military base is located in Guantanamo Bay, the situation with Cuba is tense, and the marines are on the alert throughout. Just a few days before these developments, there was unauthorized firing between a Cuban and an American soldier. Thus without being ‘at war’, the Base is always in readiness for an attack and a cadet lacking discipline is unacceptable. It is to the credit of the film makers and Sorkin that they bring out all these nuances, but do not refrain from choosing one course of action as the correct one, with some excellent dialogue explaining why.

The various sub-plots of the film provide several other interesting points to ponder over:

• The ethics of plea-bargaining – as Sgt Galloway ridicules Lt Kaffee for his conclusion of 44 cases in nine months through this device, and is herself dismissed as a spurious trial lawyer because of ‘too much passion and no street-smarts’;
• The conflicts of jurisdiction between different departments of the same organization reflected through the initial tussle between Sgt Galloway, Office of Internal Affairs and Lt Kaffee (JAG Corps.) for control over the case;
• The status of women in the military – indeed A Few Good Men has too few women of any significance, and the only one - Galloway - finds herself dismissed or ridiculed throughout. In fact, the script assigns most major faux pas to her character; and
• The problems of hierarchy that may interfere with a military court martial – as a Lieutenant, it is a major step for Kaffee to build up a case against seniors in the army.

An issue which resonates throughout the film is that of the power of the phrase “national security”. In this film, made just after the end of the cold war, “national security” has an emotional pull and the military is not just a profession, but endowed with a special sanctity. This is articulated at different points in the movie by various characters. It is most poignant in the bewilderment of a senior marine who truly believes that the nature of the service he performs puts him above the rules in his execution of it, and who upon interrogation can only respond: ‘I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way.’

Despite the fact that the Code Red was administered to a marine, not a terrorist, the parallels with the post 9/11 America and the debate over the legality of the manner in which the war on terror is being conducted are evident.

[1] Christopher Henson, Superior Orders and Duress as Defenses in International Law and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,
http://www.unt.edu/honors/eaglefeather/2004_Issue/HensonC4.shtml.
Now, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides a test: “The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless: (a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question; (b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and (c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.”

Dr Strangelove

A Kubrick classic, Dr Strangelove is a black comedy that satirizes the Cold war doctrine of mutual assured destruction. The doctrine was based on the principle of deterrence, and provided in essence that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by either super-power would effectively result in retaliation by the other and would lead to the destruction of both; and thus, knowing this, both parties should refrain from using these weapons against their opposing bloc. Dr Strangelove exposes the fragility of this principle by showcasing the ease with which a nuclear attack may be set in motion even without the intention of knowledge of the principals.

In the film, a mad US army general, hoping to force the US into war with the USSR, sends the airforce bombers to attack the Soviet Union's military bases. Without a psecial code, known only to the general these planes cannot be recalled.

The horrified US President, establishes contact with the Soviet Premier, through the Russian ambassador, only to discover that the Russians have been building a secret ‘Doomsday’ machine which will obliterate all life on Earth within a few months of an attack on USSR. Further, the Russian cannot deactivate the machine.

The President turns to Dr Strangelove, a wheelchair-bound, former Nazi, to advise him on the potential impact of the doomsday machine. Dr Strangelove is quite the mad scientist who is also suffering from the alien hand syndrome. His right hand alternates between trying to strangle his neck and performing the Nazi salute. Strangelove explains its capacity for total annihilation of human life; he also points out that when shrouded in secrecy it has no value as a deterrent – thus pointing out that even within the framework of deterrence, lack of intelligence regarding a nuclear build-up results in a situation of potentially more horrific consequences, unaccompanied by greater stability.

The President then cooperates with the Russians in shooting down the planes, but one plane succeeds in bombing a base.

In one of the most popular scenes of the film, Major TJ King Kong, commander of this plane is swept onto one of the bombs while trying to get the ejection doors open, and falls to his death, waving and whooping all the way down – in part a tribute to the single minded devotion and courage of the soldiers, and in part a reflection on their vulnerability to brainwashing and exploitation by the higher military and political echelons, a theme also seen in a Few Good Men.

The Doomsday machine is thus triggered and the Americans and Russians alike are now faced with the prospect of total annihilation. Faced with this calamity they remain united for the five minutes it takes for Strangelove to come up with a proposal for saving some lives – a deep underground bunker where about 200,000 people can be housed for a century, while the earth regenerates. The Russians decide to follow this plan and construct their own bunker. The last few scenes show senior American officers worrying that Russian bunker will be better than theirs and that Americans will thus emerge at a military disadvantage a century later. They start discussing how they must prevent a ‘mine-shaft gap’ (A reference to the Cold war preoccupation with "missile gap")

Kubrick had initially intended to make this a serious film about the instability of the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, but realized that a black comedy was a more effective way of exposing its absurdities:

"My idea of doing it as a nightmare comedy came in the early weeks of working on the screenplay. I found that in trying to put meat on the bones and to imagine the scenes fully, one had to keep leaving out of it things which were either absurd or paradoxical, in order to keep it from being funny; and these things seemed to be close to the heart of the scenes in question."

The result is a gripping, often tongue-in-cheek film that explodes comfortable myths about the improbability of nuclear war, and the instability of deterrence. Issues it touches upon repeatedly are

• failure of intelligence – not only did the Americans not know about the Doomsday machine, limited information resulted in troops believing they were at war;

• the Cold war climate of deep suspicion – while this is evident in nearly every frame featuring the American war room and in Ripper’s speeches; it is also evident in the reaction of the Russian premier, who when contacted by the US president does not directly relay information about the Doomsday machine to him, he only mentions it to the Russian Ambassador who sees it fit to let the President know;

• the power play between the Americans and the Russians – even at the end with annihilation imminent, the Americans are worrying about a mine shaft gap, and the Russian ambassador is taking surreptitious pictures of strategic maps in the war room;

• tension between the realpolitik notion that ‘might makes right’, and rule of law, an issue which continues to be relevant today. This is reflected in the film through the contrast between the suggestions of the President’s advisors who want to follow General Ripper’s airstrikes with a full scale attack since they have the capacity to severely disable Russian capabilities, and the President’s actions in refusing to do so and instead inform the Russians of the strike.

• repeated hailing of the President as Fuhrer by Dr Strangelove, ex-Nazi – to drive home the total irrationality which gripped the US and the USSR leading to the long drawn out Cold War. Indeed Strangelove’s suggestion for selecting people for the underground bunkers also hints at eugenics.

True, the details are different. During the Cold War, the Russians did not have a “doomsday” machine and it is not known whether the US ever embraced a plan R; and today the Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia per se is not a threat; nevertheless nuclear armament continues, several countries have acquired the bomb in the last decades, many, especially neighbors, remain in a state of deterrence with each other; and the escalation of ongoing conflicts into nuclear war, whether through government intent, or through inaccurate intelligence, remains a grim reality.