The most important narratives for the survival and prosperity of any country are her internal and foreign policies. By 'narrative’ I mean representing, describing or explaining a set events or situations in such a way as to reflect the comprehensive set of aims or values. This is a very serious matter that’s why my post is abnormally long.
Because wrong foreign policy can contribute to an ‘Existential’ threat; This is not the time for Tarzan like bravado but revisiting our existing policy with ‘Cool’ head and removing whatever gives the perception /misperception to international community that Pakistan is a nursery of extremist ideology.
I don’t agree with the argument “US is doing this, India is doing that or what Afghans did, hence we are justified in doing such and such. This simply confuses the issue. Because “Two wrong don’t make a right”, I would restrict this post to the Pakistan’s policies towards Afghanistan alone
The word sovereignty has been used and abused in Pakistan for a long time in relation to the US drones and now referring the sovereignty of the parliament. Let us briefly look into its history.
In the aftermath of the 30 year war (1618-1648), a treaty was signed in Westphalia (Germany) on October 24, 1648 where all the European Powers agreed to:
· All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism.
· Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.
·
General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted
letters of marque and reprisal
to privateers was forbidden.
It is the Westphalian treaty that gave birth to the “Nation State” and where all the participants accepted the principle of the state sovereignty; the principle of equality of states and the principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another. Next major development was the birth of League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations. United Nations Charter is based essentially on the Westphalian principles. However article 51 states:
Article 51 ( Chapter 7)
“Nothing in the present Charter
shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
It is argued by some that the language of Article 51 provides for a right of self-defence only in response to an actual armed attack. However, it has been the consistent position of many governments such the USA, Israel & the UK that the right of self-defence under international law includes the right to use force where an armed attack is considered imminent.
Finally, responding to the 9/11, UN Security Council; after much haggling & discussion among its member states, passed the 1373 resolution.
Security Council Resolution 1373 called on states to freeze terrorist financing, pass anti-terrorism laws, prevent suspected terrorists from traveling across international borders, and order that asylum seekers be screened for possible terrorist ties.
When taken together with the Article 51, to most it means a large-scale terrorist action could constitute an armed attack that will give rise to the right of self-defence and that force could be used in “self-defence” against those who plan and perpetrate such acts and if it is considered necessary to avert further such terrorist acts; also against the countries that provide safe havens to the terrorists.
Traditionally, international law becomes national law when countries voluntarily ratify an international treaty. Resolution 1373 was the one and only time that the Security Council forced all UN member states to revise national laws to comply with an international standard. Pakistan being a member of the United Nations is bound by the UN Resolutions.
A digression:
Before some member refers to the 1948 Kashmir Resolution, regrettably Pakistan signed the Shimla agreement on July 2, 1972 October which includes:
Quote
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.
Unquote
India had 90,000 Pakistani POWs and arguably ZA Bhutto was negotiating from a position of weakness. The fact that I and other Pakistanis disagree with this is immaterial; this clause of Shimla agreement has been successfully used by India to interpret that 1948 Resolution has been superseded.
Concept of Nation State works both ways. It is an undeniable fact that due to the flawed ‘Strategic depth’ concept, we have been ignoring that Afghanistan is also a Nation State.
The Pakistani military doctrine behind the concept of strategic depth suggests transforming Afghanistan into a client or subservient state that is beholden to the Pakistani security establishment.
https://www.fairobserver.com/region...kistans-strategic-depth-in-afghanistan-88910/
While Drone attacks undoubtedly impugned our sovereignty, it is hard to deny that Haqqani network was based in North Waziristan for a number of years and by allowing them operate against Afghanistan gov’t of the day, we were also undermining Afghan sovereignty.
Without doubt Pakistan has suffered more than any other country with about 50,000 deaths including about 5,000 army jawans. Nevertheless the perception of Pakistan as terrorist friendly country by majority of the international community is an open secret. Problem is that instead making an all-out effort on negating the misperception, our seriously flawed internal & foreign policy and statements by the Taliban sympathizer politicians such as Munawwar Hassan, Imran Khan and Ch. Nisar reinforce this perception.
For example who does not know that Hakimullah Mehsood who died in the drone attack in November 2013 was a blood thirsty TTP Commander? However Imran /Taliban Khan was furious, he said that PTI would ban cargo truck trucks supplying to NATO troops in Afghanistan. PML-N Interior minister Ch. Nisar also condemned the US action describing it as “Murder & progress for hope & peace in the region”. Can anyone honestly say that Hakimullah Mehsud was an ambassador of peace?
Many politicians keep on repeating that this not our war. Do we imply that we don't want to fight terrorists who have killed 50,000 innocent Pakistanis, destroyed mosques and bombed graves of the Saints!
Even though it goes against the spirit of the 1373 resolution. We have been differentiating between good & bad Taliban’s since WOT started. This differentiation means that terrorists that do not attack Pakistan directly should be left alone to do whatever they want to do elsewhere.
Here the banned organizations can easily sidestep the ban by simply changing their name for example, SSP is banned but their leaders can carry on their nefarious activities by changing its name to Jamiat Hale Sunhat wall Jamaal. Why don’t we stop it?
OBL was found living in Pakistan. Afghan Taliban Commander Mullah Mansoour killed by US drone near Quetta had Pakistan ID card!
Pray tell me, after hearing such reports, can rest of the world believe our innocence?
I am sure that out & out Taliban lovers such as Munawwar Hassan would like nothing better than a US / Pakistan military confrontation so that in the aftermath a hard-line Daesh type government could possibly emerge. But prudence demands that our response to the US threat should be cool and calculated.
Being a Pakistani, to me threats by Donald Trump are akin to being “Bullied” by Super Power. Undoubtedly, US Afghanistan policy has a been an abysmal failure and the US is looking for someone to make the scapegoat. However, threat by the TTP is very serious to Pakistan as well. Gen Kiyani declared about 4 years ago:
“Forces of extremism and terrorism pose a threat to our national security and stability but armed forces of Pakistan are fully prepared to fight this menace. “
(
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/20...an-fear-is-gen-raheel-says-ali-haider-gilani/ )
We need a paradigm shift in our approach to terrorists & terrorism of all kinds and need to launch a strong diplomatic offensive to alter the perception or misperception in the international community that Pakistan provides succour to the extremists. All genuine concerns of the US and the Afghan government should be addressed. There is no such thing as good Taliban, all are terrorists. Efforts must be made to eliminate Quetta Shura from Pakistan if it still exists.
I would like to make it clear that I am not apologizing for Donald Trump. As matter of fact I abhor him for his obvious pro white supremacist tilt and his anti-Muslim policies. My point is that simply making fiery speeches and cursing Trump for his threats is not going to make Pakistan safe. A self-introspection by Pakistanis in general and by politicians in particular is sourly needed. We should identify what we are not doing and what we are doing wrong and rectify our internal and external policy accordingly.
For some the above post may be nothing more than a liberal diatribe against the jehadists, however that is my view of the situation.
