There are many ways of viewing any particular event, many realities if you will. A highly significant event has occurred:
Osama Bin Laden was killed in
Abbottabad,
Pakistan by US forces. The most wanted man by the US was finally traced and eliminated. There are three realities to this event that I want to highlight. One is the
death of Osama Bin Laden. The other is the violation of the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan by the US. The third one is the impact of this event on Pakistan's geo-political situation. One event, three realities. All three occurred. All are real.
What is telling is the reactions to these two realities by governments and people around the world. It is here that we see the importance of perceptions. Consider the first reality: the death of Osama. The news was greeted with delirious joy by Americans as the considered perpetrator of the greatest peacetime attack on US soil was perceived to have been brought to justice. In Pakistan, reactions were far more ambiguous. Some people rejoiced, some mourned, a large number were indifferent to the fact of the death. In one country, a criminal and a terrorist was perceived to have been brought to justice. In the other, for some people, a hero was martyred and for others a troublesome character was removed from the scene. Even the circumstances of the death are being perceived differently. In the US, the death is being viewed as being unavoidable. Osama Bin Laden was highly unlikely to meekly surrender and time was of essence to the US forces. Besides, their orders were to eliminate and not to capture; this order had been given by a legitimate authority viz. the President of the United States. In Pakistan on the other hand, the perception is different. If US forces have the capability to travel deep inside another nation and carry out a major operation, why could they not also disable their target? Why did they not capture him and produce him before a court? Americans value their justice and court system. Why not give this man a fair trial? After all, a cardinal principle of the justice system is that all are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why not give the man a chance to defend his actions? There is also a related but relevant question: what are the Americans trying to hide that they did not want to bring their man to trial? One reality has led to widely differing perceptions. These in turn generate different types of reactions.
The second reality to this event is the violation of the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan by the US. The fact is that in order to take out Osama, US troops had to enter and operate deep in Pakistani territory. How has this fact been perceived in the two most affected countries? In the US, this is not even a consideration. The US has reserved for itself the right to strike anywhere it deems fit, at any time it deems fit against anyone it deems necessary. For Americans this is a proper and legitimate given the important role that their country plays in upholding international law. All international US actions are viewed in this prism. The world is a dangerous place. International law needs to be upheld and given the economic and military might of the US, if the country has to penetrate another country for this purpose then so be it. On the other hand, in Pakistan and in many other countries, this is viewed as an intolerable affront to the country's sovereignty. When the US sends its troops into another territory, it is behaving as a bully using its military muscle in an illegitimate manner. This perception then drives resistance which in turn is viewed in the US as being illegitimate and intolerable.
The third reality is the impact of this event on Pakistan's geo-political situation. For Americans, this is not even a factor. For Pakistanis, this has a major impact. If the US can get away with sending its soldiers into Pakistan's territory with impunity, what is to stop others, specifically India, from doing the same? Suddenly Pakistan starts to feel vulnerable and this perceived vulnerability at both a governmental and a societal level will drive reactions to the event. The view in Pakistan then becomes that the US is not to be trusted. In turn, this feeds into a view at the popular level in the US that Pakistan is playing a double game and is therefore not a reliable ally.
One event has occurred. It is being perceived differently at different levels. These perceptions are far more important than any objective view. It is these perceptions that will eventually drive popular and governmental reactions. The danger is that these differing perceptions will lead to a massive increase in distrust and lead to instability where stability is required.
