THE recent international furore over the wanton destruction of the two Buddhist colossi at Bamiyan by the Taliban demonstrates yet again how the world has shrunk, and the extent to which we are interdependent. No country is an island unto itself any longer.

Despite the Afghan leadership's protestations that their bizarre behaviour was "an internal religious matter", the rest of the world was simply not buying this argument. Gradually, the international community has been moving towards a set of rules of acceptable behaviour, and it is now considered to be as morally reprehensible and irresponsible for the Taliban to dynamite millennia-old statues, as it would be for the Egyptians to bomb the pyramids.

Similarly, genocide is simply not tolerated even under the guise of "internal security." The treatment of citizens is no longer the sole concern of individual states: the United Nations and its members, as well as human rights organizations the world over, track and condemn violations of individual liberties and rights. Thus, voices are raised over mistreatment of individuals or groups; gross aberrations are occasionally punished through collective action; and forces representing either the UN or organizations like NATO are dispatched in extreme cases. Of course, the system of enforcement remains imperfect and full of loopholes, but there is a growing consensus that the global community has a responsibility to intervene where the behaviour of a government is absolutely intolerable. For instance, other countries continue to condemn the massacre of Armenians by the Turks over 80 years after the event.

Not long ago, states would hide behind the convention that others should not interfere in their internal affairs, but this cover is now wearing thin, especially as satellite television brings horrors into homes, thus mobilizing international public opinion. For instance, the atrocities committed in East Pakistan by our troops (and described vividly in the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report), would be inconceivable these days. Thirty years ago, Yahya's military government fended off international criticism by shameless denials and the constant recourse to the civil war being Pakistan's "internal affair." Despite the lack of instant images, India was still able to mobilize sufficient support to attack and break up Pakistan without a tear being shed anywhere in the world.

Of course, the weaker a state, the more vulnerable it is to international pressure. Sovereignty is relative, not absolute, but stronger and richer countries can assert themselves more effectively on the world stage and remain free of any interference. Thus, despite the worldwide push towards democracy and equal rights for women, oil-rich Arab countries can remain immune to calls for participatory governments and women's rights. Similarly, the United States can sabotage international efforts to establish a permanent World Court to try cases of international human rights abuses as it insists on exemptions for its citizens.

Countries like Afghanistan are so far outside the ambit of international norms and discourse that they are immune to pressure as well. Thus, their arms cannot be twisted by threats to cut off aid, grants or trade relations because they have none anyway. This freedom of action can be a mixed blessing. While the leadership can reject appeals to surrender Osama bin Laden, the Afghan people suffer under a myopic and medieval government that dictates the length of women's veils and men's beards. Indeed, the Taliban seem to have no other concern but the outward appearance of their citizens. Had Afghanistan been even loosely integrated into the international system, it would have come under pressure to tone down some of its more regressive ways. But without representation in any international forum, it feels free to go its own way, warnings of disaster ahead notwithstanding.

Many nations have surrendered a part of their sovereignty voluntarily in order to achieve certain collective ends. To join the European Union, for example, member states have agreed to subordinate many of their laws, rules and regulations to a legal framework arrived at through collective bargaining and agreements. Thus, large swathes of legislation are no longer within the purview of national parliaments. Clearly, this arrangement is viewed as beneficial by the majority of the people living within the EU, even though politicians rail against it from time to time.

Although national sovereignty is jealously guarded, it cannot be an end in itself. We surrender a portion of it every time we enter into an international agreement committing us to certain obligations. By joining the United Nations and its various bodies, we have pledged adherence to its Charter and its principles. By agreeing not to conquer foreign territory by force, for example, we are (hopefully) safeguarding our own territory from invasion by others. And by agreeing to the principle of the sanctity of international contracts, we are protecting our own commercial rights. However, by breaching such a contract by preventing Hubco from seeking recourse through international arbitration, the government has ensured that in future, foreigners will think ten times before investing in Pakistan.

Nations cannot escape the responsibility that comes with their support of other countries. Thus the United States is often blamed, especially by Muslim countries, for Israel's overbearing arrogance and unchecked aggression because of its open-ended support of the Jewish state. It is clear that without American military, financial and diplomatic assistance, Israel would have had to modify its behaviour and learn to live with the normal compulsions and limitations of a small state. Similarly, Pakistan cannot distance itself from the Taliban's aberrant behaviour: by virtue of having financed the movement and giving it the military and logistic support to become the paramount power in Afghanistan, the government and its various overt and covert agencies must accept responsibility for the actions of Mullah Omar and his government.

Indeed, despite our government's opposition to the destruction of Buddhist statues, many countries do not absolve Islamabad of some blame in the matter. To them, we are one of only three countries in the world to recognise the Taliban regime, and continue assisting them financially and militarily, and therefore should have considerable leverage with their leadership. However, in their search for the elusive "strategic depth" our military has been seeking, the government has failed to exert the kind of pressure on the Taliban as it could and should have.

Belatedly, the government has woken up to the very real danger posed to Pakistan by religious extremists. Never mind that it has taken hundreds of lives to focus minds at GHQ, the recent proclamations by Generals Pervez Musharraf and Moinuddin Haider are nevertheless very welcome. However, they must realize the contradiction between clamping down on armed sectarian groups internally while leaving them free to pursue their jihadi aims elsewhere. This gives them a legitimacy and a licence that must be withdrawn, otherwise Pakistan will have to accept responsibility for their actions.