Defeat in UN body prompts introspection
ISLAMABAD: The diplomatic humiliation of losing in a bid for re-election to the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has forced the Foreign Office to do some introspection and look for the causes.
The country had served three terms on the 47-member council and was vying for a fourth one from the Asia-Pacific Group which had five vacant slots.
Pakistan got 105 votes in the 193-member General Assembly and could not get re-elected. Other countries that lost from the group were Laos and Bahamas.
The group was topped by Mongolia, which bagged over 150 votes. The United Arab Emirates, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea and the Philippines were also elected.
The defeat was shocking because it was the first time that Pakistan had lost a major election at the UN. Just a year ago it had polled 180 votes to get elected to the Economic and Social Council.
Pakistan had been in the rights council since 2006, except for a year-long mandatory break.
The defeat on the one hand exposes the frictions with other countries (which were caused by the government’s foreign policy decisions) while on the other it sheds light on the way the Foreign Office and its missions operate casually on critical matters.
Most officials at the Foreign Office agree that the loss is a setback, but at the same time they say that the implications will be “more symbolic than real”.
Despite losing the seat, the country will be able to attend the proceedings of the council which promotes and develops human rights norms and investigates and highlights relevant issues and crises. But it will not be able to argue on issues of concern to it on the floor of the council or block a resolution tabled against it.
Kashmir issue
According to an insider, Pakistan was planning to raise at the council the issue of human rights violations in India-occupied Kashmir in a big way. Now the country will not have this advantage at least till it gets re-elected.
“There were multiple reasons why Pakistan didn’t get elected,” an official at the Foreign Office said.
The two major blocs that did not vote for Pakistan were the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
The Asean countries did not vote for Pakistan because of its policy on the South China Sea dispute, while the Gulf states had their own set of grievances.
Votes from the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation always helped Pakistan in the past elections, but this time the group was divided on the issue because of the stance of GCC.
Western countries also had their qualms. The Nordic countries in particular had concerns about Pakistan’s human rights record — death penalty, the blasphemy issue and persecution of Christians, Ahmadis and Shias. Others were uncomfortable over the strong position Pakistan took on issues like drones and ‘Islamophobia’.
Assertiveness has a price
“The West ganged up against Pakistan because of the strong and independent policies that Pakistan has pursued in the HRC. Western support for docile countries like Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea and the Philippines appears to be part of a concerted effort to make the HRC more compliant to western agendas,” an observer said.
“It also explains why Mongolia, a small country with limited means and certainly no visible campaign, was able to get the highest number of votes.”
According to an official, incumbency was another factor behind the defeat. Pakistan had been on the council almost since its inception. Therefore, some countries felt it was time to give a chance to others.
But at the same time there were some blunders committed by the Foreign Office.
The permanent representative in Geneva, where the council is based, was changed at the wrong time. The new representative had taken over the charge of the mission from Zamir Akram barely a fortnight before the elections and could not do much. The voting took place in New York, but still the outreach of the representative in Geneva is considered very important for the election.
“The outgoing Pakistani representative may have lost interest and the new one had little time to lobby,” sources said.
While there was practically no canvassing in Geneva, the foreign ministry too did little to contact the embassies here for securing their countries’ votes.
The campaigning by officers of the Pakistani mission at the UN in New York was also found wanting.
There has also been a controversy over the reciprocal arrangements worked out with various countries. The country put its weight behind the individual candidatures of Anwar Kamal and Barrister Zafarullah for two UN committees that cost votes for the national candidature this time.
“The decision to give preference to an individual candidate for the Committee for Elimination of Racial Hatred over the national candidacy for the HRC led to the loss of at least 20 votes that could have been secured if the arrangement had not been made,” the sources said.
More importantly, the Foreign Office failed to timely anticipate the electoral defeat and withdraw from the race.
“It is a setback, but with robust diplomacy and an active role in other forums, this will not be difficult to overcome,” an official said.
Published in Dawn, November 1st, 2015
=======================================================================
Nawaz Sharif's foreign policy is a 'non-policy'. Besides licking China's boots, he has no other real policy to speak of. Its a serious concern if you cannot get ASEAN to vote for you. GCC is a bunch of corrupt Arab totalitarian states anyways but even they didn't vote for Pakistan given their cozy relationship with Nawaz Sharif. What a failure PMLN government is in running Pakistan's foreign policy!
@Jzaib @Leader @Muhammad Omar @I S I @Viper0011. @Akheilos
