Condemned unheard
Terrorism is a global issue. It should be analyzed using the same standards
The writer is an advocate of Supreme Court
Terrorism is a global issue. It should be analyzed using the same standards. The 9/11 attacks were committed by Saudi and UAE citizens. The majority of terrorist attacks in Pakistan find their origin in Afghanistan. The recent acts of terrorism in France, Belgium and Germany were committed by individuals with North African origins. Fresh terrorism in the US is committed by individuals with origins in various Muslim countries.
The countries of origin of the terrorists in the above cases were not declared sponsors of terrorism by default. Terrorism is a complex issue; the international community is aware that labeling the countries of origin of terrorists as sponsors of terrorism would lead nowhere.
This position, however, dramatically changes when it comes to Pakistan. The state of Pakistan is explicitly accused of involvement in case a terrorist is traced back to Pakistan.
Over the years, the tendency of accusing Pakistan for any wrong committed anywhere has grown. It has now become a norm. Interestingly, this trend was encouraged by none other than successive Pakistani governments which chose not to forcefully rebut such accusations. The tendency of Pakistani governments of either completely ignoring such accusations or denying them with single-liners casually issued by the Foreign Office has landed the country in a situation where Pakistan has now become the world’s favorite punching bag or scapegoat as it would not react to any charge, no matter how provocative.
One classic example is that of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh condemning Pakistan as the “epicenter of terrorism” in his address to the General Assembly of the UN in September 2013 while also noting that he would be meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif the next day. India did not care that such remarks may jeopardize the holding of next day’s meeting. True to Indian expectations, instead of cancelling his meeting to show Pakistan’s strong resentment, the Pakistani Prime Minister dutifully showed-up in the Indian Prime Minister’s hotel the next day for what was later described as talks in a “friendly atmosphere”. After getting declared the epicenter of terrorism on the floor of the General Assembly, how could a meeting take place in a friendly atmosphere the next day? Similar submissive behavior by the country has convinced the world that it can get away with any irresponsible statement in the case of Pakistan.
Other countries are now following India. This September, Afghanistan too openly accused the state of Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism in Afghanistan again on the floor of the General Assembly.
One view is that Pakistan has adopted this subservient posture expecting, wrongly, that this would placate India and the western powers. This school further holds that there is nothing wrong with a foreign government using Pakistan as a scapegoat to win an upcoming election or for achieving certain foreign policy objectives. This view appears to carry weight.
According to Seymour Hersh, President Obama, to win his second term in office, sold a concocted story to the Americans in which he claimed all credit for the finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad while completely suppressing all information about the material support that the US received from Pakistan for locating Bin Laden and his eventual elimination. In the process, Pakistan was made to look like the country hiding the most wanted terrorist in the world and whose defense forces were so incompetent that they could not spot the presence of four American helicopters that included two giant Chinooks. Thus Pakistan allowed itself to be humiliated before the whole world to ensure Obama's victory in the US elections.
Another school argues that the vulnerabilities of Pakistani rulers that arise out of the illegal wealth that they have amassed outside of Pakistan come in the way of Pakistan's forceful defense of charges of terrorism. These rulers are fearful of vigorously defending Pakistan and exposing what other countries are doing in the country, as such behavior is liable to open up investigations into their illegal assets stashed overseas. Clearly, the corruption of Pakistani rulers has started to pose a security threat to Pakistan.
Pakistanis, however, need to understand that the perpetual silence maintained by their rulers on these sensitive issues has landed the country in a very precarious situation. Silence is generally an admission of guilt. If a country is not willing to defend itself with cogent evidence it would be presumed guilty upon an assumption that it has nothing to offer in its defense. Over the years, Pakistan’s adversaries have built a strong legal case against it - they are now waiting to have a final go, it appears.
The recent Uri incident is one example in which the Indian government, on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, admitted to undertaking “surgical strikes” in Pakistan. Although, such behavior is a flagrant violation of international law no one has condemned the Indian aggression. The international community seems to have accepted the Indian narrative that Pakistan is involved in terrorism in India hence its use of force is justified.
Pakistan, on the other hand, has been extremely reluctant to openly name India as a perpetrator of terrorism in Pakistan. The speech delivered by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the General Assembly in September this year did not specifically name India as a country sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. Although, there were numerous references in this speech to Indian atrocities in the held Kashmir there was only one reference to foreign sponsored terrorism in Pakistan indeed without naming India. This was an opportunity for the Pakistani Prime Minister to bring to the attention of the international community Indian terrorism in Balochistan and to name the Indian spy, a serving officer of Indian navy, currently in Pakistan’s custody who has confessed to the acts of terrorism in Balochistan and Karachi.
It appears that Pakistan has decided at an official level that it would not name India as a sponsor of terrorism at international forums. An interesting example is from the 33rd Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva where the Pakistani delegate presented a very convincing case that fully exposed Indian atrocities in the held Kashmir. In response the Indian delegate instead of responding to issues highlighted by Pakistan’s delegate solely focused on purported Pakistan sponsored terrorism. Interestingly, in its right to reply the Pakistani delegation did not rebut the Indian allegations regarding Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism let alone making any reference to Indian sponsored terrorism in Pakistan. This faulty strategy of course made Pakistan’s position very weak.
Offense is the best defense – instead of meekly denying Indian accusations, it is time for Pakistan to force India to defend itself before the international community.
In a contrast with India which made available on the internet a dossier of purported evidence to establish the involvement of Pakistan in the Mumbai incident Pakistan has provided evidence of Indian involvement to India itself in Sheram al Sheikh. Does Pakistan expect India to voluntarily accept evidence that proves India’s culpability? One fails to understand why Pakistan is treating that evidence as a closely guarded secret? Recently, certain evidence was provided to Ban Ki-moon in New York only to establish the Indian atrocities in Kashmir – no evidence was provided to establish Indian terrorism in Pakistan.
Time is running out - Pakistan has to act fast. It, however, appears that the corruption and conflicts of interest of Pakistani rulers stop Pakistan from arguing its case – in the meantime the country continues to be condemned unheard.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 28th, 2016.
The countries of origin of the terrorists in the above cases were not declared sponsors of terrorism by default. Terrorism is a complex issue; the international community is aware that labeling the countries of origin of terrorists as sponsors of terrorism would lead nowhere.
This position, however, dramatically changes when it comes to Pakistan. The state of Pakistan is explicitly accused of involvement in case a terrorist is traced back to Pakistan.
Over the years, the tendency of accusing Pakistan for any wrong committed anywhere has grown. It has now become a norm. Interestingly, this trend was encouraged by none other than successive Pakistani governments which chose not to forcefully rebut such accusations. The tendency of Pakistani governments of either completely ignoring such accusations or denying them with single-liners casually issued by the Foreign Office has landed the country in a situation where Pakistan has now become the world’s favorite punching bag or scapegoat as it would not react to any charge, no matter how provocative.
One classic example is that of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh condemning Pakistan as the “epicenter of terrorism” in his address to the General Assembly of the UN in September 2013 while also noting that he would be meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif the next day. India did not care that such remarks may jeopardize the holding of next day’s meeting. True to Indian expectations, instead of cancelling his meeting to show Pakistan’s strong resentment, the Pakistani Prime Minister dutifully showed-up in the Indian Prime Minister’s hotel the next day for what was later described as talks in a “friendly atmosphere”. After getting declared the epicenter of terrorism on the floor of the General Assembly, how could a meeting take place in a friendly atmosphere the next day? Similar submissive behavior by the country has convinced the world that it can get away with any irresponsible statement in the case of Pakistan.
Other countries are now following India. This September, Afghanistan too openly accused the state of Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism in Afghanistan again on the floor of the General Assembly.
One view is that Pakistan has adopted this subservient posture expecting, wrongly, that this would placate India and the western powers. This school further holds that there is nothing wrong with a foreign government using Pakistan as a scapegoat to win an upcoming election or for achieving certain foreign policy objectives. This view appears to carry weight.
According to Seymour Hersh, President Obama, to win his second term in office, sold a concocted story to the Americans in which he claimed all credit for the finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad while completely suppressing all information about the material support that the US received from Pakistan for locating Bin Laden and his eventual elimination. In the process, Pakistan was made to look like the country hiding the most wanted terrorist in the world and whose defense forces were so incompetent that they could not spot the presence of four American helicopters that included two giant Chinooks. Thus Pakistan allowed itself to be humiliated before the whole world to ensure Obama's victory in the US elections.
Another school argues that the vulnerabilities of Pakistani rulers that arise out of the illegal wealth that they have amassed outside of Pakistan come in the way of Pakistan's forceful defense of charges of terrorism. These rulers are fearful of vigorously defending Pakistan and exposing what other countries are doing in the country, as such behavior is liable to open up investigations into their illegal assets stashed overseas. Clearly, the corruption of Pakistani rulers has started to pose a security threat to Pakistan.
Pakistanis, however, need to understand that the perpetual silence maintained by their rulers on these sensitive issues has landed the country in a very precarious situation. Silence is generally an admission of guilt. If a country is not willing to defend itself with cogent evidence it would be presumed guilty upon an assumption that it has nothing to offer in its defense. Over the years, Pakistan’s adversaries have built a strong legal case against it - they are now waiting to have a final go, it appears.
The recent Uri incident is one example in which the Indian government, on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, admitted to undertaking “surgical strikes” in Pakistan. Although, such behavior is a flagrant violation of international law no one has condemned the Indian aggression. The international community seems to have accepted the Indian narrative that Pakistan is involved in terrorism in India hence its use of force is justified.
Pakistan, on the other hand, has been extremely reluctant to openly name India as a perpetrator of terrorism in Pakistan. The speech delivered by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the General Assembly in September this year did not specifically name India as a country sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. Although, there were numerous references in this speech to Indian atrocities in the held Kashmir there was only one reference to foreign sponsored terrorism in Pakistan indeed without naming India. This was an opportunity for the Pakistani Prime Minister to bring to the attention of the international community Indian terrorism in Balochistan and to name the Indian spy, a serving officer of Indian navy, currently in Pakistan’s custody who has confessed to the acts of terrorism in Balochistan and Karachi.
It appears that Pakistan has decided at an official level that it would not name India as a sponsor of terrorism at international forums. An interesting example is from the 33rd Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva where the Pakistani delegate presented a very convincing case that fully exposed Indian atrocities in the held Kashmir. In response the Indian delegate instead of responding to issues highlighted by Pakistan’s delegate solely focused on purported Pakistan sponsored terrorism. Interestingly, in its right to reply the Pakistani delegation did not rebut the Indian allegations regarding Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism let alone making any reference to Indian sponsored terrorism in Pakistan. This faulty strategy of course made Pakistan’s position very weak.
Offense is the best defense – instead of meekly denying Indian accusations, it is time for Pakistan to force India to defend itself before the international community.
In a contrast with India which made available on the internet a dossier of purported evidence to establish the involvement of Pakistan in the Mumbai incident Pakistan has provided evidence of Indian involvement to India itself in Sheram al Sheikh. Does Pakistan expect India to voluntarily accept evidence that proves India’s culpability? One fails to understand why Pakistan is treating that evidence as a closely guarded secret? Recently, certain evidence was provided to Ban Ki-moon in New York only to establish the Indian atrocities in Kashmir – no evidence was provided to establish Indian terrorism in Pakistan.
Time is running out - Pakistan has to act fast. It, however, appears that the corruption and conflicts of interest of Pakistani rulers stop Pakistan from arguing its case – in the meantime the country continues to be condemned unheard.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 28th, 2016.