- Looking at the picture from Pakistan’s point of view
In Pakistan, there is no dearth of detractors within. Whenever the country faces a foreign policy challenge they endorse our opponents’ position. In recent months, the propaganda against Pakistan roughly runs as follows: (a) Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism; (b) it allows its soil to be used by terrorists staging attacks on other countries; (c) it has weak anti-money laundry (AML) laws and countering financing for terrorism (CFT) regime that helps fund terrorist groups; (d) it is playing a double game, seeking external assistance (including GSP+ status) while nurturing terror groups that the world is fighting.
This hostile narrative gained more currency after President Trump announced the new US policy for Afghanistan and South Asia, followed by his new year’s tweet, in which Pakistan was singled out for scathing comments. This was an affront to national dignity and the whole nation responded with unprecedented unity and harmony to controvert such labels.
Since these statements were essentially directed toward the Pakistan army, it was not surprising when the General Qamar Bajwa used the Defense Day ceremony to send four unequivocal messages to the world. One, despite meager resources, Pakistan has done more to fight terrorism than any other country in the world; it is time for others to do more. Two, we need no assistance, but deserve respect and confidence. Three, Pakistan desires mutually respectful relations with all countries; if other countries cannot help us fight terrorism then at least they should not blame us for their own failings. Finally, there is no terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan nor is our soil used for launching attacks in other countries.
The easing of these pressures should dispel the oft repeated mantra that Pakistan is isolated. In fact, we have succeeded in expanding our support base. Both civil and military leaderships have done their part
This, then, is the counter-narrative of Pakistan, elaborated by none other than the army chief last week in his address to the Munich Security Conference. While underscoring the importance of trust and cooperation, and advising against attempts to scapegoat partners, he made some important observations to expound Pakistan’s position on the subject of terrorism. First, Pakistan army has waged a relentless and bloody fight against terrorism and violent extremism, at a monumental human and material cost (over 35,000 Pakistanis have lost their lives; over 48,000 are critically wounded or disabled; incurred a cost that exceeds $250 billion – only a fraction of which is actually shared by our global partners). Second, today, there are no organised terrorist camps on our side of the border, even though the presence of terrorists of various hues and colours cannot be ruled out, as there are still active and sleeper cells, who are hiding in mountains, border towns and 54 refugee camps, besides some major towns and cities. Finally, of the last 131 terrorist attacks in our border areas last year, 123 were conceived, planned and executed from Afghanistan.
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has termed this as the ‘Bajwa Doctrine’. In Munich, General Bajwa said he had no intellectual pretentions but what he was saying was ruminations of a soldier commanding an army ‘which has achieved great successes, against violent extremism and terrorism, of course at a huge cost and sacrifice’. This is not a doctrine of defiance, as some may interpret, rather it is a matter of fact, straight talk from a nation that has been unfairly treated in a supposedly friendly relationship. ‘Pakistan still wants to work with the US’, the General Bajwa reportedly assured US General Votel, a few days ago, “but it is not helpful to engage in blame game and name-calling”. It was not surprising, then, to see General Votel telling the Washington Post, in his reaction to President Trump’s new year’s tweet, that “we are talking to Pakistan, but we don’t do so on public messaging system’.
But the rocky nature of our relations with the Americans was again on display when in an unprecedented move the State Department held a press conference in Washington announcing that in the forthcoming meeting of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in Paris, the US, with the support of Germany and Great Britain, would move a motion to place Pakistan in the FATF watch-list for failing to go after the banned organisations under UNSC Resolution 1267. Many analysts termed the move political, with twin objectives: coerce Pakistan to yield to US pressure and appease India by aiding its efforts to paint Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. It was not surprising therefore that a frenzy erupted in Indian media celebrating in advance the success of the move. Our own detractors were not far behind, projecting a dooms day scenario in the aftermath of such designation.
Pakistan has made significant progress in implementing an AML/CFT regime (Pakistan Today: 17-2-2018) that is comparable to best international practices. Undoubtedly, there are some implementation issues, particularly when faced with obligations that require the federal government to move against organisations and individuals outside the financial system, in areas within the remit of provincial governments. Pakistan has addressed this problem by amending the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. A final word from the forum’s deliberations is awaited. Even if Pakistan is asked to do some more work, this would not be something that would amount to a calamity falling on the country. We have spent time in this list during 2012-15 and would bounce back even stronger, because Pakistan’s regime is not supporting outlaws to launder money or funnel monies to terrorists. When this situation does emerge, this would not be a statement of any lack of confidence by our friends, as many of our detractors would surely cry out to lament. We have a much broader relations and those ties are deepening on many other fronts.
A similar situation was faced during our biennial review with EU for qualifying for continued access to GSP-Plus status. While the frenzy on the FATF watch-list was played out, the European Parliament expressed satisfaction on Pakistan’s progress on its 27 core conventions. The two initiatives that made the most significant contribution in this assessment were the National Action Plan and the establishment of an independent National Human Rights Commission.
The easing of these pressures should dispel the oft repeated mantra that Pakistan is isolated. In fact, we have succeeded in expanding our support base. Both civil and military leaderships have done their part in mobilising international support for Pakistan’s position.
Still, our detractors would not be impressed. In their view, even if we succeed, these would be temporary life-lines that amount to nothing more than some time given to an errant player. They feel that Pakistan is nurturing terrorists and it does not deserve GSP-Plus concession as it is misrepresenting its economic status as a least developing country. This is a curious observation. To suggest that we are misrepresenting our economic status is presumptuous, because the EU knows its criteria of selection. Pakistan cannot compete with its competitors in the EU without the GSP-Plus status, as India, Turkey, Vietnam and Bangladesh all have preferential access. India is nearing a Free-Trade agreement. Pakistan’s economy has suffered hugely in the aftermath of the war on terror and we have helped International Coalition Forces in Afghanistan by providing a variety of logistical and security related services.
But what is amazing is to see that these detractors are silent on the double standards to which Pakistan is frequently subjected; when they fail to show any indignation on the atrocities committed by Indian security forces in Kashmir. They are also silent on the rising tide of extremism in India with western complicity. Our detractors, acting like headmasters, are only chastising Pakistan for its alleged failures, while turning a blind eye to inaction and unjust criticism of Pakistan by others.