Pakistans Afghan border closures are mirror of Americas Muslim Ban

[Devil Soul]

Sealing borders
SIKANDER AHMED SHAH | ABID RIZVIUPDATEDABOUT AN HOUR AGO
WHATSAPP
EMAIL
The closure of the Afghan border comes at a time when relations between the two states are deteriorating, with Islamabad accusing Kabul of not doing enough to curb extremists the former claims operate out of Afghan territory. Indeed, a Pakistani government official — speaking on the condition of anonymity — said that the border would remain sealed until Kabul acted against a list of 76 “most-wanted terrorists”.

The closure has resulted in losses in the tens of millions of dollars in trade, and a diversion of east-bound exports to Iran in the medium to long term. More significant than the monetary costs, however, has been the human cost, with the ongoing Afghan refugee crisis exacerbated by the border sealing. A cardinal norm in international law is that of non-discrimination, reflected in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights as well as the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination — both of which have been signed by Pakistan. Thus, blocking the entry of virtually all Afghans irrespective of their threat level would be in disregard of international law.

The border closures are the latest steps taken by Pakistan in the interests of ensuring ‘greater security’; Pakistan has, for decades now, been a front-line state in the war against extremism, and the fact that it takes certain precautions is not only appropriate but laudable. But a democratic state must always balance most carefully its needs for security with its need for liberty, lest it slip too far down the road to a police state; indeed, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: ‘those who give up liberty for security, deserve neither’.

This sort of unilateral behaviour, labelling a group of people as the root cause of one’s troubles and lashing out against them, is not novel; indeed, the world has seen these unilateral restrictions on movement imposed on Palestinians by the Israeli state, where Palestinians are often barred from going to their places of work as retaliation for extremist activity in which they played no part. This kind of unilateralism is also on lurid display in the US. In his first week in office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, lowering the number of refugees to be admitted into country in 2017 to 50,000, suspending the US Refugee Admissions Programme for four months, indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees, and indefinitely suspending the entry of people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD
A democratic state must always balance most carefully its needs for security with its need for liberty.
While the world — including Pakistan — decried this unilateralism and celebrated when it was struck down by the US federal courts, it would be prudent to take stock of one’s own moral capital. The border closures are a mirror of America’s ‘Muslim ban’; arguably, the majority of Afghans affected by the closures hold valid visas or otherwise possess the legal right to enter Pakistan. Moreover, those who can’t afford to travel by air are the ones disproportionately affected by Pakistan’s ‘Afghan ban’.

Executive Order 13769 was struck down by the US judiciary and the subsequent ‘Muslim ban’ might very well also be held to be unconstitutional. In Pakistan, however, the trichotomy of power is not as strong and developed; in light thereof it is unlikely that the judiciary would act to keep the executive in check in acting in such a disproportionate, reactive and retributive manner — ostensibly in the name of ‘national security’.

The balancing act conducted here is between human and national security, and if the state should choose to make compromises on human security in this regard this calculus should be assessed and acted upon by the people through democratic forums and processes. Judicial oversight is one way to achieve this, but it requires transparency and accountability and the sharing of information with civil society and institutions like the judiciary so that they can prepare and execute a constitutional response in alignment with Pakistan’s international and domestic human rights law commitments.

Such compromises of one’s human security should not, however, be made by the executive or the security establishment impromptu on the pretext of dealing with terrorism in such a reactive and ad hoc manner. This form of decision-making is opaque, firstly making it impossible for those indulging in this risky calculus to be held accountable to the people for any potential abuses of power. Secondly, and more sinisterly, such opacity in the decision-making process could potentially obfuscate the real causes underlying threats to national security. Pakistan, unfortunately, has no shortage of domestic extremist actors and casting responsibility off and putting it on the “76 most wanted Afghans” raises the danger of possibly ignoring threats closer to home.

Domestic terrorism is now, unfortunately, deep rooted and a function of structural problems and socioeconomic disparity caused by a weak state relying on decades of bad policy. Individuals who carry our terrorist acts are indeed criminals, but they are — at the same time — pawns and agents of a machine that thrives on the socioeconomic disenfranchisement of the people at the hands of political elites.

There is a whole institutional network of terrorist organisations thriving in Pakistan and the use of lethal force against them might very well be justified. But socioeconomic and political reform aimed at achieving distributive justice would, in the long run, yield far more permanent results. The border closures as a tactic of reprisal or coercion would impact the lives of ordinary Pakistanis and Afghans, leading to greater human suffering, and only serve to radicalise hitherto peaceful elements of society.

Pakistan must realise that while there might indeed be foreign elements playing a hand in domestic terrorism in Pakistan, terrorism within the country is locally sustained. The role of external sources in domestic acts of extremism is by and large limited and can often be negated if one addresses the needs of the marginalised elements. It is a simple matter to cast blame for internal harm on foreign elements, but before Pakistan casts a stone at Afghanistan it is prudent to note that Afghanistan also shares a border with Iran — a country which has experienced relatively little extremist activity.

Sikander Shah is former legal adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and law faculty at Lums.

Abid Rizvi is an expert on international law.

Published in Dawn, March 14th, 2017

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

buy visa and you are free to land in islamabad airport.

 

[IceCold]

Sikander Shah is former legal adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and law faculty at Lums.

Is it a coincidence that such gems are always found in LUMS and published by Dawn? Does anyone remember Hoodboy, he was a faculty member at Lums and well we all know his reviews specially on Pakistan's nuclear program.
Equating Pakistan closing border after more than 100 people lost their lives in a month with US muslim ban where nothing even close too happened other than two shooting incidents is illogical and like comparing apples with oranges. US already imposed sanctions over a decade ago when 9/11 happened. Trump only accepted it openly. Pakistan is hosting these ungrateful lot since many decades but it did not change the situation on ground where afghans are more than willing to side with the enemy and create terrorism and chaos inside Pakistan. Again the parallel does not exist because Muslims in large are not involved or does not side with Russia or China or anyone else to sponsor terrorism inside US. Yes a few individuals have been found in killing sphere but so did many non muslims. But in Pakistan nearly all Afghans are involved in illegal activities bared a few and many are involved in terrorism, extortion, prostitution and you name it.
The writer needs to search a bit more before writing paid write ups to somehow show Afghans the victims here whereas its the exact opposite. A simple research would had told him that every attack inside Pakistan had its roots traced back to Afghanistan. In most cases terrorists were in constant contact with their handlers in Afghanistan. In such circumstances it is only logical what Pakistan is doing, in fact we have done too little too late. This should had been done a lot earlier when terrorists from Afghanistan struck the first time.
@Horus @Irfan Baloch @The Eagle @WebMaster gentlemen who ever writes on behalf of PDF needs to also counter such propaganda which is lately given shape showing Afghans as the victims here. No wonder such articles always find their place in Dawn but Dawn articles should be stopped from giving undue coverage. This is a suggestion.

 

[Path-Finder]

we need to be speaking the language Trump is for Mexico to build a fence or wall with same scrutiny of afghans in Pakistan. This author tries to undermine completely the facts that afghan suicide bombers that enter from afghanistan have been raining havoc in Pakistan for too long when Mush spoke about fencing and mining the border he was met with great turbulence on the issue including afghanistan's top dog on rent karzai. But now it is inexcusable to not have a fence.

Before you can deal with internal issues you need to have secure borders that control and manage inflow both ways that is the first point for security yet the author is trying to go against such notion of border closure. the border needs to be managed and closed if need to be if it threatens the security of the state and no one is above national security.

 

[The Eagle]

Is it a coincidence that such gems are always found in LUMS and published by Dawn? Does anyone remember Hoodboy, he was a faculty member at Lums and well we all know his reviews specially on Pakistan's nuclear program.
Equating Pakistan closing border after more than 100 people lost their lives in a month with US muslim ban where nothing even close too happened other than two shooting incidents is illogical and like comparing apples with oranges. US already imposed sanctions over a decade ago when 9/11 happened. Trump only accepted it openly. Pakistan is hosting these ungrateful lot since many decades but it did not change the situation on ground where afghans are more than willing to side with the enemy and create terrorism and chaos inside Pakistan. Again the parallel does not exist because Muslims in large are not involved or does not side with Russia or China or anyone else to sponsor terrorism inside US. Yes a few individuals have been found in killing sphere but so did many non muslims. But in Pakistan nearly all Afghans are involved in illegal activities bared a few and many are involved in terrorism, extortion, prostitution and you name it.
The writer needs to search a bit more before writing paid write ups to somehow show Afghans the victims here whereas its the exact opposite. A simple research would had told him that every attack inside Pakistan had its roots traced back to Afghanistan. In most cases terrorists were in constant contact with their handlers in Afghanistan. In such circumstances it is only logical what Pakistan is doing, in fact we have done too little too late. This should had been done a lot earlier when terrorists from Afghanistan struck the first time.
@Horus @Irfan Baloch @The Eagle @WebMaster gentlemen who ever writes on behalf of PDF needs to also counter such propaganda which is lately given shape showing Afghans as the victims here. No wonder such articles always find their place in Dawn but Dawn articles should be stopped from giving undue coverage. This is a suggestion.

We can always place our observations and analysis that somehow present the other side of picture as well but unfortunately, LUMS and people like Mama Qadeer that previously was also at LUMS, are at large just because the propaganda machine is much bigger than our approaches. Also, we currently lack a proper counter machine however, everyone does the best it can. The DAWN, LUMS, Hoodboy etc are nothing but as the specific mafia is at large especially being backed by people like Asma Jahangir and others candle/NGO Associations, the less is done as compare to needed. People are so blind to the fact just because mostly believes what Media says as the same is one of the biggest warfare tools.

Just look at Dawn Leaks and leave other aside that the same is still pending which is not even the matter of month if Government is sincere to do so but on other hand, such things are put under carpet and left attended only due to personal gains and political greed as well. How come a corrupt to core could act against a media house that holds many keys to the black lockers of these politicians so to say that, people has to play the role majorly rather than electing the same cult again & again due to many reasons including ethnic/family etc affiliations.

Rest about coverage or not coverage to Dawn Articles, IMO, if the lie does not exposed and made public, the same may remain a bit of history and then be propagated as a fact being unchallenged so it is necessary to let it surface that many people can see the real face and be aware of true agenda of such group(s). Understanding of the same is bit clear that how most members do treat Dawn as a source and yet the specific lot relies upon the same for a certain period of time until & unless Dawn does not bite them back. Just saying.

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

Paid content

 

[IceCold]

We can always place our observations and analysis that somehow present the other side of picture as well but unfortunately, LUMS and people like Mama Qadeer that previously was also at LUMS, are at large just because the propaganda machine is much bigger than our approaches. Also, we currently lack a proper counter machine however, everyone does the best it can. The DAWN, LUMS, Hoodboy etc are nothing but as the specific mafia is at large especially being backed by people like Asma Jahangir and others candle/NGO Associations, the less is done as compare to needed. People are so blind to the fact just because mostly believes what Media says as the same is one of the biggest warfare tools.

Just look at Dawn Leaks and leave other aside that the same is still pending which is not even the matter of month if Government is sincere to do so but on other hand, such things are put under carpet and left attended only due to personal gains and political greed as well. How come a corrupt to core could act against a media house that holds many keys to the black lockers of these politicians so to say that, people has to play the role majorly rather than electing the same cult again & again due to many reasons including ethnic/family etc affiliations.

Rest about coverage or not coverage to Dawn Articles, IMO, if the lie does not exposed and made public, the same may remain a bit of history and then be propagated as a fact being unchallenged so it is necessary to let it surface that many people can see the real face and be aware of true agenda of such group(s). Understanding of the same is bit clear that how most members do treat Dawn as a source and yet the specific lot relies upon the same for a certain period of time until & unless Dawn does not bite them back. Just saying.

Agreed. It was imperative to the national security of Pakistan that that perpetrators of Dawn leaks whoever they were to be brought to justice irrespective of their office or political rank or affiliation but sadly it never happened just like nothing happened about the memo gate scandal. When person hiring the highest office in Pakistan can go such low to hurt an institution and Pakistan in general, we can expect nothing less from these paid NGOs who are working for foreign interests.
The point about not giving coverage to dawn type media outlets is because not everyone to able to differentiate between right and wrong and knowing how emotional this nation is, there is reason such cards are played to touch that emotional nerve. The less coverage the better that this crap stays off.
I also understand that there is only up to a certain extent PDF can help but whatever little we can do, we shall. Let me know if i can also somehow help, no matter how small it maybe, still i find it to be my duty to counter all propaganda against the state of Pakistan whether foreign or as in this case from within.

 

[The Eagle]

The point about not giving coverage to dawn type media outlets is because not everyone to able to differentiate between right and wrong and knowing how emotional this nation is, there is reason such cards are played to touch that emotional nerve. The less coverage the better that this crap stays off.
I also understand that there is only up to a certain extent PDF can help but whatever little we can do, we shall. Let me know if i can also somehow help, no matter how small it maybe, still i find it to be my duty to counter all propaganda against the state of Pakistan whether foreign or as in this case from within.

Exactly, that no matter what Dawn etc propagate and we have to play our part actively by sharing the fact as well as being productive to counter such wide propaganda. We can do such being consistent and with active mindset while not being driven away or disturbed by divergent. Mere nationalism wouldn't work that mostly friends believe upon which in the end, lacks substance that is needed to prove the point. We all have to play our part being responsible Citizens.

 

[kabooter_maila]

Sealing borders
SIKANDER AHMED SHAH | ABID RIZVIUPDATEDABOUT AN HOUR AGO
WHATSAPP
EMAIL
The closure of the Afghan border comes at a time when relations between the two states are deteriorating, with Islamabad accusing Kabul of not doing enough to curb extremists the former claims operate out of Afghan territory. Indeed, a Pakistani government official — speaking on the condition of anonymity — said that the border would remain sealed until Kabul acted against a list of 76 “most-wanted terrorists”.

The closure has resulted in losses in the tens of millions of dollars in trade, and a diversion of east-bound exports to Iran in the medium to long term. More significant than the monetary costs, however, has been the human cost, with the ongoing Afghan refugee crisis exacerbated by the border sealing. A cardinal norm in international law is that of non-discrimination, reflected in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights as well as the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination — both of which have been signed by Pakistan. Thus, blocking the entry of virtually all Afghans irrespective of their threat level would be in disregard of international law.

The border closures are the latest steps taken by Pakistan in the interests of ensuring ‘greater security’; Pakistan has, for decades now, been a front-line state in the war against extremism, and the fact that it takes certain precautions is not only appropriate but laudable. But a democratic state must always balance most carefully its needs for security with its need for liberty, lest it slip too far down the road to a police state; indeed, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: ‘those who give up liberty for security, deserve neither’.

This sort of unilateral behaviour, labelling a group of people as the root cause of one’s troubles and lashing out against them, is not novel; indeed, the world has seen these unilateral restrictions on movement imposed on Palestinians by the Israeli state, where Palestinians are often barred from going to their places of work as retaliation for extremist activity in which they played no part. This kind of unilateralism is also on lurid display in the US. In his first week in office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, lowering the number of refugees to be admitted into country in 2017 to 50,000, suspending the US Refugee Admissions Programme for four months, indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees, and indefinitely suspending the entry of people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD
A democratic state must always balance most carefully its needs for security with its need for liberty.
While the world — including Pakistan — decried this unilateralism and celebrated when it was struck down by the US federal courts, it would be prudent to take stock of one’s own moral capital. The border closures are a mirror of America’s ‘Muslim ban’; arguably, the majority of Afghans affected by the closures hold valid visas or otherwise possess the legal right to enter Pakistan. Moreover, those who can’t afford to travel by air are the ones disproportionately affected by Pakistan’s ‘Afghan ban’.

Executive Order 13769 was struck down by the US judiciary and the subsequent ‘Muslim ban’ might very well also be held to be unconstitutional. In Pakistan, however, the trichotomy of power is not as strong and developed; in light thereof it is unlikely that the judiciary would act to keep the executive in check in acting in such a disproportionate, reactive and retributive manner — ostensibly in the name of ‘national security’.

The balancing act conducted here is between human and national security, and if the state should choose to make compromises on human security in this regard this calculus should be assessed and acted upon by the people through democratic forums and processes. Judicial oversight is one way to achieve this, but it requires transparency and accountability and the sharing of information with civil society and institutions like the judiciary so that they can prepare and execute a constitutional response in alignment with Pakistan’s international and domestic human rights law commitments.

Such compromises of one’s human security should not, however, be made by the executive or the security establishment impromptu on the pretext of dealing with terrorism in such a reactive and ad hoc manner. This form of decision-making is opaque, firstly making it impossible for those indulging in this risky calculus to be held accountable to the people for any potential abuses of power. Secondly, and more sinisterly, such opacity in the decision-making process could potentially obfuscate the real causes underlying threats to national security. Pakistan, unfortunately, has no shortage of domestic extremist actors and casting responsibility off and putting it on the “76 most wanted Afghans” raises the danger of possibly ignoring threats closer to home.

Domestic terrorism is now, unfortunately, deep rooted and a function of structural problems and socioeconomic disparity caused by a weak state relying on decades of bad policy. Individuals who carry our terrorist acts are indeed criminals, but they are — at the same time — pawns and agents of a machine that thrives on the socioeconomic disenfranchisement of the people at the hands of political elites.

There is a whole institutional network of terrorist organisations thriving in Pakistan and the use of lethal force against them might very well be justified. But socioeconomic and political reform aimed at achieving distributive justice would, in the long run, yield far more permanent results. The border closures as a tactic of reprisal or coercion would impact the lives of ordinary Pakistanis and Afghans, leading to greater human suffering, and only serve to radicalise hitherto peaceful elements of society.

Pakistan must realise that while there might indeed be foreign elements playing a hand in domestic terrorism in Pakistan, terrorism within the country is locally sustained. The role of external sources in domestic acts of extremism is by and large limited and can often be negated if one addresses the needs of the marginalised elements. It is a simple matter to cast blame for internal harm on foreign elements, but before Pakistan casts a stone at Afghanistan it is prudent to note that Afghanistan also shares a border with Iran — a country which has experienced relatively little extremist activity.

Sikander Shah is former legal adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and law faculty at Lums.

Abid Rizvi is an expert on international law.

Published in Dawn, March 14th, 2017

Not really? Trump is trying to block the entry (i.e. both legal and illegal) of citizens of some countries into the USA. Pakistan, on the other hand, wants to block only illegal entry from Afghan side. And we have all the right to do that. Who in world would support an illegal or undocumented entry into his country? How the two approaches are same then?

 

[A.M.]

Anti-Pakistan elements continue to squirm under pressure from Pakistan Army.

 

[volatile]

The arrangement of free movement between Pashtuns areas is the most stupid arrangement in the world ,In Fact reason for Durand Line being existed is this arrangement

1. 5-10 years multiple visa`s to be issued after screening and guarantees from Pakistan citizens