THE only thing clear about the case of Raymond Davis, the American man accused of shooting two young men in Lahore last month, is the amount of confusion it has generated. Too many questions remain about the incident, perhaps the most important concerning Mr Davis's actual identity and whether he is a diplomat or not. Both the American and Pakistani governments have been engaged in public diplomacy about the fate of the accused — who is in Pakistani custody — and the verbal sparring is getting increasingly nasty. On Friday, a US congressional delegation warned Pakistan that defence ties could suffer if Mr Davis was not granted diplomatic immunity. According to a press release, issued by the US embassy, concerning the House Armed Services Committee's meeting with Prime Minister Gilani, the delegation “protested the continued illegal detention of the American diplomat in Lahore”. These are strong words and releasing public statements of this nature does not seem to be in line with diplomatic protocol.

It needs to be decided what law should be referred to in order to determine Mr Davis's fate. Should the Foreign Office's manual be followed, according to which he didn't have diplomatic status? Or should the Vienna Convention be the point of reference which, according to the US, came into force the moment the US embassy applied for his registration as a diplomat last year? The Pakistani government needs to clearly communicate its stance on this issue. If the conclusion is reached that under the Vienna Convention he has a right to diplomatic immunity, then perhaps Pakistan can seek assurance from the US that legal action will be taken against him. Public sentiments are important and the Pakistani government's failure to react in time has not helped the situation.

Beyond the legal cobweb the case also highlights the need to address the issue of security contractors coming to Pakistan in the guise of diplomats. The American media has linked Mr Davis to an obscure Florida-based security firm. Was Mr Davis a consulate staffer, a diplomat or a private security contractor working for the Americans? Was he assigned to the US embassy in Islamabad or the consulate in Lahore? These clarifications are required because different things have been said at different times about Raymond Davis. Clarity is also needed on the part of the government regarding the nature of the activities of foreign private security contractors in Pakistan. Foreign private security firms using diplomatic cover is totally unacceptable and the state must take up this issue. The present policy of ambiguity only strengthens the cause of the right in this country while US arm-twisting of the Pakistani government in this case will continue to fuel anti-American sentiments.