I have to admit, I had not heard of Dr. Shakil Afridi until last week. Then, as is the wont these days, the web can't have enough of him being discussed. If he has been discussed internationally since January as they claim, I blame my Google News aggregator for missing updates on the gentleman earlier on.
Was Dr. Afridi aware of the real intent behind the CIA vaccination campaign? If he did, would he have acted in the same way or would he have notified someone in the government of the shenanigans? That is a question with some very good retrospective answers and a very entertaining panel discussion but I'm sure there wouldn't be easy answers to the person handling the hot potato. For all we know, he may well have participated in the program just for the monetary aspect of it. For someone in his position it might have seemed like an easy enough way to make some quick money for himself.
It also makes for an interesting question and answer session of what exactly makes one a nationalist. In an increasingly globalized world, where borders are being rendered less and less effective with each new wave of technology and social development, does one work for the good of global humanity or do my duties toward my country forbid ignoring a local problem to sort out a global issue? I'm sure this is the contention of a lot many people wiser and better informed than me and this would remain a subject that has more gray areas than a straight black or white.
Is Afridi being made a scapegoat by the authorities? Is he paying the price for their incompetent intelligence and impotent bargaining power over Uncle Sam? Any self-respecting citizen would disapprove of foreign militia on their motherland. However, for a country that has provided (almost unrestricted) airspace to their allies, Pakistan authorities sure like to play it both ways. And if they do indeed have a problem with that unsanctioned strike in Abbotabad, why can't they put their foot down and stop the drone attacks that still continue?
Of course the contentious issue is not Pakistan's alone. Was the US correct in going after its man on a foreign land where they have no jurisdiction? They do have a credible argument that Pakistan was not doing enough to bring bin Laden to justice but does that give me free access to go in all guns blazing?
By that yardstick, would the US object to the citizens of Bhopal (or the government, perhaps) prosecuting Warren Anderson in India for the 1984 gas tragedy that has claimed about 5 times the lives lost in the World Trade disaster?
Coming back to Dr. Afridi, I would be glad to see him a free man. If the authorities in his country do not approve of his actions, simply strip him off his citizenship and be done with him. Something not very dissimilar to what the Chinese did to Chen Guangcheng. Not the same offence, of course. But a similar solution would save some further embarrassment and unwanted pressure.
Was Dr. Afridi aware of the real intent behind the CIA vaccination campaign? If he did, would he have acted in the same way or would he have notified someone in the government of the shenanigans? That is a question with some very good retrospective answers and a very entertaining panel discussion but I'm sure there wouldn't be easy answers to the person handling the hot potato. For all we know, he may well have participated in the program just for the monetary aspect of it. For someone in his position it might have seemed like an easy enough way to make some quick money for himself.
It also makes for an interesting question and answer session of what exactly makes one a nationalist. In an increasingly globalized world, where borders are being rendered less and less effective with each new wave of technology and social development, does one work for the good of global humanity or do my duties toward my country forbid ignoring a local problem to sort out a global issue? I'm sure this is the contention of a lot many people wiser and better informed than me and this would remain a subject that has more gray areas than a straight black or white.
Is Afridi being made a scapegoat by the authorities? Is he paying the price for their incompetent intelligence and impotent bargaining power over Uncle Sam? Any self-respecting citizen would disapprove of foreign militia on their motherland. However, for a country that has provided (almost unrestricted) airspace to their allies, Pakistan authorities sure like to play it both ways. And if they do indeed have a problem with that unsanctioned strike in Abbotabad, why can't they put their foot down and stop the drone attacks that still continue?
Of course the contentious issue is not Pakistan's alone. Was the US correct in going after its man on a foreign land where they have no jurisdiction? They do have a credible argument that Pakistan was not doing enough to bring bin Laden to justice but does that give me free access to go in all guns blazing?
By that yardstick, would the US object to the citizens of Bhopal (or the government, perhaps) prosecuting Warren Anderson in India for the 1984 gas tragedy that has claimed about 5 times the lives lost in the World Trade disaster?
Coming back to Dr. Afridi, I would be glad to see him a free man. If the authorities in his country do not approve of his actions, simply strip him off his citizenship and be done with him. Something not very dissimilar to what the Chinese did to Chen Guangcheng. Not the same offence, of course. But a similar solution would save some further embarrassment and unwanted pressure.
