brilTek
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 0
Did New Delhi draft the Pak-Afghan MoU?
The News
Sunday, May 24, 2009
By Mariana Baabar
ISLAMABAD: The “original authors” of the seven-page-long United States sponsored Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Pakistan and Afghanistan — to improve Trade and Accession Facilitation — wanted the document to be inked by no less than Presidents Asif Zardari and Hamid Karzai during their latest Washington sojourn. However, due to last minute insistence by Islamabad, not only was the exhaustive document watered down to a four-para MoU but it was also signed by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi†and his Afghan counterpart Rangin Dadfar Spanata.
Western diplomatic sources provided The News the original MoU, the authenticity of which was also acknowledged by the Foreign Office.
“Well, normally a country will keep their own interests in mind when they formulate such a draft, but then it is up to Pakistan to ensure that its own interests are kept supreme. In this case, the credit to modify the original draft efforts were put in place by not only the Foreign Office but also the Ministry of Commerce, the Prime Minister Secretariat, the President’s office, ISI and other relevant departments,” an official told The News.
According to the markings on the MoU, it was passed by Washington to Pakistan’s mission in the US capital, which subsequently faxed it to DG Afghanistan, Amjad Majid Abbassi.
Consequently, it reached the Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir who, together with the above-mentioned institutions, brought it to its present and relatively palatable form.
“In the past, attempts were made to facilitate India through Pakistan-Afghanistan transit trade facility but the Foreign Office had put its foot down and it had to be adhered to by President Musharraf. Also, when Mir Zafarullah Jamali was the prime minister, he approved a similar summary from the Foreign Office,” said an official.
The original US MoU clearly states on page 1 that this trade facilitation would be a great advantage for greater regional and global trade linkages and export-oriented business development.
What many officials said was “unprecedented and unacceptable” was the clause that “In the interim period (before December 31, 2009) pending that agreement and without prejudice to the outcome of those negotiations, the governments agree to proceed and implement the following advance elements in order to begin to reap the benefits of increased operation, trade and eased transit.”
In the Article related to Designation of Transit Transport Corridors, it clearly stated that the routes used for international transport transit through Pakistan and Afghanistan should include “land border stations between the Contracting Parties, or between one Contracting Party and a third country”.
“What is this? Certainly not a bilateral but a regional, multilateral arrangement to facilitate India,” said the official, adding, “In the Article on Land Border Stations, there is no mention as who would foot the bill to build or upgrade the required infrastructure at land border stations.”
Again in the Article on Border Crossing Facilitation, the contracting parties have been told to cooperate in order to gradually achieve “integrated controls” by which the officials of adjacent countries will carry out their inspection jointly and simultaneously. “How could this have been possible when the adjacent countries are not even party to the agreement?” the official said.
A clause has also been inserted without naming India to ìprovide facilities for prior clearance of commercial vehicles with the appropriate transit permits. Question marks were also raised about Pakistan “guaranteeing” Afghanistan the right to use the ports of Karachi, Port Qasim and Gwadar, as no country could provide such ironclad guarantees.
Also unacceptable was the clause on customs control and other controls asking the contracting parties “not to subject goods carried in sealed road vehicles or containers to inspection at customs offices en route, unless irregularity is suspected.”
The original MoU would even put Alice in Wonderland to shame as it completely tries to steam roll over the sovereign rights of Pakistan.
There are dozens of others clauses that are highly objectionable but most important unlike the standard international agreements, there is no life/time frame of the agreement, no mention as to how dispute settlement would take place, etc. If anyone thought the four-para MoU was bad, then imagine what would have happened if the original document had been signed.
Source: Did New Dehli drafted Pak-Afhan MOU?
The News
Sunday, May 24, 2009
By Mariana Baabar
ISLAMABAD: The “original authors” of the seven-page-long United States sponsored Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Pakistan and Afghanistan — to improve Trade and Accession Facilitation — wanted the document to be inked by no less than Presidents Asif Zardari and Hamid Karzai during their latest Washington sojourn. However, due to last minute insistence by Islamabad, not only was the exhaustive document watered down to a four-para MoU but it was also signed by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi†and his Afghan counterpart Rangin Dadfar Spanata.
Western diplomatic sources provided The News the original MoU, the authenticity of which was also acknowledged by the Foreign Office.
“Well, normally a country will keep their own interests in mind when they formulate such a draft, but then it is up to Pakistan to ensure that its own interests are kept supreme. In this case, the credit to modify the original draft efforts were put in place by not only the Foreign Office but also the Ministry of Commerce, the Prime Minister Secretariat, the President’s office, ISI and other relevant departments,” an official told The News.
According to the markings on the MoU, it was passed by Washington to Pakistan’s mission in the US capital, which subsequently faxed it to DG Afghanistan, Amjad Majid Abbassi.
Consequently, it reached the Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir who, together with the above-mentioned institutions, brought it to its present and relatively palatable form.
“In the past, attempts were made to facilitate India through Pakistan-Afghanistan transit trade facility but the Foreign Office had put its foot down and it had to be adhered to by President Musharraf. Also, when Mir Zafarullah Jamali was the prime minister, he approved a similar summary from the Foreign Office,” said an official.
The original US MoU clearly states on page 1 that this trade facilitation would be a great advantage for greater regional and global trade linkages and export-oriented business development.
What many officials said was “unprecedented and unacceptable” was the clause that “In the interim period (before December 31, 2009) pending that agreement and without prejudice to the outcome of those negotiations, the governments agree to proceed and implement the following advance elements in order to begin to reap the benefits of increased operation, trade and eased transit.”
In the Article related to Designation of Transit Transport Corridors, it clearly stated that the routes used for international transport transit through Pakistan and Afghanistan should include “land border stations between the Contracting Parties, or between one Contracting Party and a third country”.
“What is this? Certainly not a bilateral but a regional, multilateral arrangement to facilitate India,” said the official, adding, “In the Article on Land Border Stations, there is no mention as who would foot the bill to build or upgrade the required infrastructure at land border stations.”
Again in the Article on Border Crossing Facilitation, the contracting parties have been told to cooperate in order to gradually achieve “integrated controls” by which the officials of adjacent countries will carry out their inspection jointly and simultaneously. “How could this have been possible when the adjacent countries are not even party to the agreement?” the official said.
A clause has also been inserted without naming India to ìprovide facilities for prior clearance of commercial vehicles with the appropriate transit permits. Question marks were also raised about Pakistan “guaranteeing” Afghanistan the right to use the ports of Karachi, Port Qasim and Gwadar, as no country could provide such ironclad guarantees.
Also unacceptable was the clause on customs control and other controls asking the contracting parties “not to subject goods carried in sealed road vehicles or containers to inspection at customs offices en route, unless irregularity is suspected.”
The original MoU would even put Alice in Wonderland to shame as it completely tries to steam roll over the sovereign rights of Pakistan.
There are dozens of others clauses that are highly objectionable but most important unlike the standard international agreements, there is no life/time frame of the agreement, no mention as to how dispute settlement would take place, etc. If anyone thought the four-para MoU was bad, then imagine what would have happened if the original document had been signed.
Source: Did New Dehli drafted Pak-Afhan MOU?
