In an interview to ABC News on Sunday, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta criticised Pakistan’s sentencing of Dr Shakil Afridi, who had helped the CIA trace Osama bin Laden, on a charge of treason. Panetta — never one to mince his words — said, “It’s so disturbing that they would sentence this doctor to 33 years for helping in the search for the most notorious terrorist of our times,” adding that Dr. Afridi “was not working against Pakistan. He was working against al Qaeda.” The controversy surrounding the sentence does not end there. If Dr Afridi’s alleged offence took place in Abbottabad, why has he been tried in Khyber Agency? As a result, he has been sentenced under a colonial-era regime, the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR). Proceedings under the FCR do not constitute due process; it does not allow the accused legal representation, presentation of material evidence or cross-examination of witnesses. Critics have labelled it a ‘kangaroo court’ decision. Although the FCR rules out appeal, Dr Afridi’s brother has delivered a power of attorney to Peshawar Central Jail where the doctor is currently being held and urged the Supreme Court Chief Justice to intervene and help him exercise his right to appeal. Dr Afridi’s conviction has added another fissure in Pakistan’s already fractured relationship with the US. After the two sides met in Chicago at the NATO summit, the latest point of friction has been the issue of what price Pakistan is willing to accept for reopening the supply routes. Although the US has slammed Pakistan’s demand of $ 5000 per truck, this is an issue that can be resolved if the two sides sit down, thrash it out, and come up with something reasonable. Reportedly, behind closed doors, some negotiations are in progress. For both the US and Pakistan, there is a great deal at stake. For the US and NATO, the supply routes are important for inward logistics, as well as withdrawal of heavy weaponry and equipment by the withdrawal date of 2014, given that the alternate northern route is three times more expensive. The US/NATO withdrawal looms. Like any invader of Afghanistan in history, they have tired. The Afghan Pashtun has earned a reputation as one of the toughest and most enduring guerilla fighters, famously telling the US: “You may have the watches, but we have the time.” The US currently views Pakistan as a half or schizophrenic ally. Indeed, we are an internally divided state and society on this issue. The military is running the show with the civilian government in tow. But perhaps the time has passed when we could keep a foot each in two boats and continue with our double game. Pakistani dependence — borderline addiction — on US and global aid is so great that if they turn off the tap, our economy will further tank. We have an army that is obsessed with India gaining influence and ground in Afghanistan, which we could have easily had, had we reacted intelligently to 9/11. Pervez Musharraf attacked al Qaeda but saved the Afghan Taliban for a rainy day, giving the terrorists carte blanch in operating over the years from our soil. Everything the military is dictating in framing of policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan is bringing about precisely the opposite of what it wants. Pakistan is becoming an international pariah, its approval ratings in Afghanistan are at an all-time low whereas India — which has invested in development, agriculture, energy and more in that country — is viewed as a friend. If we hadn’t played a double game, we would’ve been on a much more level playing field to rival India’s efforts there. We are still banking on the Taliban coming back to power in Kabul and being a friendly regime, playing a high-risk strategy that may not work. Pakistan must understand its strengths and its weaknesses and negotiate a path that builds on the positives. We cannot afford a complete breakdown in relations with the US, lest we incur its (and the world’s) wrath and possibly punishment, nor can we abdicate our responsibilities when it comes to terrorism. *