During his visit to Pakistan on course the trail that would also take him to Afghanistan and India, Mr Ban Ki-Moon announced that an independent Commission of Enquiry would be set-up soon by the United Nations (UN) to investigate the assassination of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. It is also speculated that the Ambassador of Chile to the UN Mr Heraldo Munoz would head the commission with another two members, one each from Indonesia and Sweden. Responding to the UN secretary-general's announcement, Mr Zardari, the husband of the assassinated leader and the incumbent president of the state, welcomed the move hoping that the commission would become functional soon and its findings "would lead to eventually exposing financiers, organisers, sponsors and conspirators of the terrorist act and bringing them to justice." The UN announcement comes at the culmination of a yearlong struggle of the Pakistani government in convincing the international organisation that it should approve the setting up of the commission. There were serious reservations expressed within the country with regard to the government's avowed stance and, at least, one former foreign secretary was asked to pack up who dared disagree with the official position. The disagreement pertained to the prospect of a compromise of national sovereignty if the UN were to proceed with investigating a matter that, by all contours of applicable law and imagination, fell within the exclusive internal jurisdiction of the state of Pakistan. The falling apart also concerned the terms of reference of the said commission and whether it would be empowered to summon state functionaries in the process of investigating the case and what would be the consequential outcome if such an authority were to be granted? These issues remain current even now when the UN has agreed to take the necessary, though belated, step on road to discovering the hidden hands, if any, behind the heinous and dastardly murder of the former prime minister. While there may be arguments forwarded favouring the opposite positions taken in the matter, the act of approaching the UN, nevertheless, reflects an acknowledgement of the failure of the state of Pakistan and various organisations and agencies associated with it in the principal task of discovering the forces behind the elimination of one of its former prime ministers and the leader of a mainstream political party of the country. In a macabre extension of the downside, it also indicates the abysmal lack of interest and resolve that the concerned functionaries of the state, more specifically the leaders of the political party she headed that now rules the country, have exhibited so far in undertaking this onerous task in earnest. This should specifically be viewed in the context of a statement made by Mr Zardari on the occasion of the first death anniversary of the former prime minister when he said: "I know the killers of Benazir Bhutto. I'll expose them at an appropriate time." Does it, therefore, follow that he would be willing to take the UN commission into confidence with regard to the names of the killers that he has stated he knows - information that, ostensibly, he has so far not shared with the national authorities of law that were probing the assassination It quizzes one's mind no end to think of the malevolent content of such a mindset that is intent on publicly disowning the credibility or efficacy of its own state institutions to investigate a murder and, instead, investing confidence in a commission that, in addition to probing the evidence that may or may not be available, would also have to invest considerable time to understand the national, regional and international dynamics that may have spurred the ultimate act. As far as I understand, it is the first instance of a state approaching the UN with a request to undertake a probe into an exclusively domestic issue and, in the process, providing a foothold to alien powers and actors to interfere in its internal affairs. Now that the first step has been conclusively announced, with little or no option to go back, what are the possible ramifications that the investigation would unfold for the state of Pakistan? Also, what would be the stance of the government in the event that incriminating evidence was to be found against any of its state functionaries or organisations? Would it be that the government would ask the UN to conclude that enquiry and punish the 'criminals', or would the state take over the responsibility of administering the punishments? Or, is it that this whole faade is being enacted, as some may be speculating, to protect the real criminals behind the conspiracy who may be known? The more you stretch the nauseating prospects, the more weird the decision appears in the context of the emerging domestic compulsions and international relations and attitudes. In the process, Pakistan has earned a kind of notoriety in being the first in a number of different ways. It has become the first country that has expressed its inability, ineptitude or unwillingness to successfully probe the dastardly murder of one of its former prime ministers. It has also become the first country to accept the jurisdiction of the UN to interfere in a matter that falls entirely within the internal domain of the state of Pakistan. It has also affixed a seal of incompetence on a galaxy of state organisation primed with the task of looking into such matters. Consequently, what would be the government's response to the allegations of incompetence emanating from the international arena with regard to its credentials in fighting terrorism, including the Mumbai mayhem? Also, can the leadership that is in the saddle still lay a claim to the right of ruling the country? An open acknowledgement of inability is the first step to the initiation of a sequence of natural and unstoppable consequences that begin to unfurl. The avowed forfeiture could also be construed as a tacit acquiescence of the ultimate act. Therefore, is it that instead of discovering the hidden hands behind the murder, the real intent of the referral to the UN is protecting the very same forces that may be under the microscope? In other words, instead of influencing the local legal process that has been shorn of the last vestige of legality and constitutionality, these forces are looking for more credible sources to secure a verdict of innocence? History never waits for long in shedding light on gruesome mysteries which proponents of disasters perceive as beyond human logic and insight The writer is an independent political analyst based in Islamabad E-mail: raoofhasan@hotmail.com