Sameer Khosa Boy will Raymond Davis be kicking himself in his jail cell these days. In two fatal seconds, he managed to lay bare the artfully orchestrated diplomatic dance that both the governments of the United States and Pakistan had been managing. The first expos, not that it needed further exposing, is the shocking ineptitude of Pakistans government. More than three weeks after the shooting there is still no consistent line of opinion that the Pakistani government has adopted. The former Foreign Minister says that according to his briefing Davis does not have blanket immunity. The current Information Minister (wanting perhaps to feel what it likes to be a lawyer) held a press conference claiming that according to the law Davis does have immunity - only to retract it hours later maintaining that her opinion was only personal and not that of the government. Well, if ever there was a time for the Information Minister to hold press conferences citing her personal opinions that was not it. To make matters even worse, the Prime Minister of the country and the Chief Minister of the Punjab province (where the shooting took place) cannot decide whose government is to present the official position in court. On the other hand, America has adopted a consistent line from the first instant claiming of blanket diplomatic immunity for Davis in the strongest possible terms. Now, if the situation had not been so serious and had it not just claimed the lives of three people, perhaps the irony of Americas newfound love for international law might even have been amusing in its audacity. This is after all the country whose Department of Justice authorised 'enhanced interrogation techniques - code for torture. This is the same country that has held people without so much as a charge for years on end. In fact, even as they claimed that Pakistan must respect international law, on February 03, 2011, Mr Awal Gul, a 48-year-old detainee at Guantanamo Bay, died. He spent the last nine years of his life being held without charge, and possibly having suffered torture at the hands ofyes, the same country, which has suddenly remembered that international law obligations should be respected. Moreover, the same Convention under which the US government claims blanket immunity for Davis (the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) imposes a duty that diplomatic missions may not be used in any manner incompatible with the purposes of the Convention (in other words diplomacy, not espionage). Will the US administration please answer why its 'diplomats walk the streets of their host country armed with unlicensed Glock pistols? Would it also please explain why his mobile phone records show calls made to Taliban strongholds? Much is often made of 'communications between the Pakistani intelligence and militants - yet the US government seems strangely at ease with its diplomats being in touch. However, one must give credit where credit is due. Despite the glaring contradictions of the US position and the embarrassing situation in which its national has been caught, the Pakistani government has still somehow managed to be caught on the back foot. That takes some considerable level of skill. It seems clear that Davis is not a diplomat in the true sense of the word. It seems clear that even if he has legal diplomatic status, it is only a cover for espionage in which the US government is complicit. This was an opportunity for the Pakistan government to make changes to the Pak-US relationship much more far-reaching than the present case. It should have used this incident to insist on greater scrutiny and oversight in the granting of diplomatic status. Pakistan should have further pushed for greater disclosure going forward of all the US Consulate personnel activities within Pakistan. It could also have bartered 'compliance with international law for exactly the same by the US by seeking assurances that illegal activities pursued by Washington in its AfPak strategy be ceased. Pakistan, for the first time, could have used a public forum backed up by evidence for egregious violations of good faith inherent in diplomatic relations. Through a more straightforward public posture, the Pakistani government could have at the very least pushed the US government at the back and kept its people onside. The last thing that should have happened is for the Pakistani government to be under immense pressure from both sides with no wriggle room. It reflects on how badly the cards were played. Lastly, tempted as we may be to take out our frustration at American impunity through the Raymond Davis episode, how we deal with the episode will reveal more about us than them. We are tempted to consider what would happen if the roles had been reversed - if a Pakistani had been caught in the US. However, our benchmark for our behaviour should not be the behaviour of those who we think would act wrongly. Our benchmark of behaviour should be in consonance with our conception of right. We should not behave illegally because others do. We should consider instead how we would have reacted if the person who had been captured not been an American citizen, but lets say a Malaysian or Chinese citizen. Would we still be as vitriolic? We should consider how we would have wanted another country to act if the roles had been reversed: Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself. Despite what it may seem to have become, this is really not a difficult situation in which to know what the right course of action is. Just play it straight for once. If Davis has legal diplomatic status then we have no right to keep him, but we do have a right to seriously revisit the nature of the relationship with the US. If he doesnt, then come hell or high water, three people died - true justice must be done, but that also means that we must grant him an absolutely free trial. n The writer is a barrister and fulbright scholar. Email: skhosa.rma@gmail.com