“A shameful attempt to get parliamentary sanction for continuing in the debilitating and erroneous US ‘war on terror’ is how Dr Shireen Mazari, Central Vice President in-charge Foreign and Security Policy, described the PCNS Report on revising Pak-US relations.
In a press statement Wednesday,she critiqued the PCNS Guidelines article by article.
In Article 2, she points out, it is stated that “the US must review its footprints in Pakistan” which implies that an appeal is being made to the US. Instead, what should have been stated was that “Parliament must review the US footprint in Pakistan”.
In the same Article the appeal to the US continues by asking for a “cessation of drone attacks” which is seen as “counter productive, because loss of valuable lives and property, radicalize the local population, create support for terrorists and fuel anti-American sentiments.”
Ironically, while drones do indeed have all this impact, but the most crucial factor legal for stopping them has been left out: that they are against international law and the violate the sovereignty of Pakistan.
Yet for the “unprovoked incident” of 25-26 Nov 2011in Mohmand Agency, this is the reasoning used for condemnation (Article 5). One really has to wonder why the PCNS was so reluctant to describe drones as counter to international law when international NGOs are filing lawsuits against governments like the UK on this very ground.
According to Dr Mazari, the most absurd Article is Article 3 which suddenly declares that “Pakistan’s nuclear programme and assets including its safety and security cannot be compromised.”
Why do we need to make this point which should be a given to begin with, unless the government had discovered compromises being made with the US on this count? Dr Mazari expressed shock at what she stated was a factually incorrect statement on the FMCT in the same Article:
“The strategic position of Pakistan vis-à-vis India on the subject of FMCT must not be compromised and this principle be kept in view in negotiations on this matter.”
Mazari explained that Pakistan’s position on the FMCT is on principles within a multilateral framework and is not a bilateral India-specific argument nor does it have a bilateral negotiation dimension – either with the US or India.
She asked why parliamentarians choose to show their ignorance rather than getting informed from experts on such sensitive technical issues.
Articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 all show that the decision has already been made to open up the NATO transit route on ground and it’s really all about arriving at a better money deal!
Yet NATO transit route is not just about money but about being embroiled in an erroneous conflict where these supplies lead to further killings of Afghans and Pakistanis.
Articles 6 and 8 also talk about ending verbal agreements and laying down procedures for future agreements/MOUs.
Again, the PCNS seems unaware of a simple fact, as Mazari pointed out, that there are never any verbal “agreements” only understandings which are then translated into written agreements. In fact verbal understandings have no place in international law.
Two crucial requirements have been left out here also according to Dr Mazari: One, amending the Constitution to bring all international agreements/treaties to Parliament for discussion and ratification. Two, making it compulsory for even one-on-one meetings to have a note taker present.
Article 15 talks of a fast track for future payments in relation to the Coalition Support Fund and other “leviable” charges. This again reflects the fact that a decision seems to have already been taken to keep Pakistan in this damaging war on terror and bolster this destructive role for Pakistan by giving it Parliamentary sanction.
Dr Mazari made it clear that PTI totally rejects this document as a farce and an insult to the wishes of the people to extricate themselves from the US ‘war on terror’ which has become a war of terror for Pakistanis.
This is not an effort at redefining our relations with the US in any substantive way at all, she stated. PTI will not accept any compromise on the issue of drones or the NATO supply route’s resumption.
Finally, it is sad to see the PML-N again play a double role since its members were part of the PCNS and according to the preamble of the draft, supported each Article – and then outside of Parliament they sought to disassociate from it. This bodes ill for the health of parliamentary democracy as well as for the nation.
