Pakistan-Bashing
in UK
By Dr Shireen M Mazari
The Blair and Charles
Windsor visits notwithstanding, one can see a concerted
effort in Britain, both at the official and media
levels, of targeting the Pakistani state along with
the growing targeting of the British Muslims. Nor
is this merely conspiracy-theorizing. Rather, this
view is based on prevailing realities on the ground.
To begin with, having got their citizen Tahir Mirza
out despite the death penalty awarded to him and
despite the numerous poor Pakistanis still languishing
on death row, the British refuse to sign an extradition
treaty with Pakistan. This allows them to continue
to harbor criminals wanted in Pakistan, including
Mr. Khokhar, the owner of Margalla Towers, on the
pretext that they cannot sign an extradition treaty
with a country that has the death penalty. Why are
Pakistanis so eager to handover British citizens
to Britain without an extradition treaty? Is there
no notion of reciprocity anymore in the case of
Pakistan? Are we to be pushed around at will by
all and sundry in the US and Europe? How long do
we have to succumb to a psychological confidence
deficit post-9/11?
Nor is British duplicity confined to the extradition
treaty issue. Recently, the Foreign Policy Centre
(FPC) in London publicised the holding of "an
event" on "Why Balochistan matters: Insurgency
and the politics of military rule in Pakistan."
The event is to take place in the House of Commons
on December 4, 2006.
There are six speakers listed for the event, out
of which three are Pakistani -- Asma Jehangir, Javed
Mengal and Senator Sanaullah Baloch. Then there
is that perennial Pakistan-basher, Selig Harrison,
along with an old Czech communist, now a member
of the European Parliament, Jaromir Kohlicek and
the FPC's Philip Fiske as the chair. Having checked
with Asma last week, I discovered that, as she put
it, "I have neither been invited and nor will
I be going to London". Nevertheless, it is
interesting to note that only one viewpoint from
Pakistan has been sought in what is clearly an intrusion
into our internal affairs.
This suspicion is bolstered by the writeup in the
copy of the invitation from the FPC which makes
a clear distinction between the Baloch and Pakistan
-- which as a Baloch I find insulting. Of course,
reference is made to "resource-hungry"
China -- as if the US and others are not equally
resource hungry, despite the onslaught on Iraq --
but the most damning revelation of the FPC's agenda
is the sentence that states, "In 1998, Pakistan
escalated the regional arms race by detonating a
nuclear bomb." Even the most ardent Pakistan-bashers
can hardly lay the onus for a nuclear arms race
in South Asia on Pakistan, given the fact that India
tested first. Anyhow, the FPC feels that Balochistan
should be on the radar of the international community
but surely with all the attacks on Muslims in Britain
and Europe, and the oppression of the Muslim identity,
the FPC would have served its cause better by putting
its own country and Europe, or the United States
for their actions in Iraq and elsewhere, more squarely
on the international radar.
But isn't this what free speech is all about, readers
may well query? Of course it is, but then divergent
viewpoints must also be heard unless there is a
preconceived agenda. It is not so much a question
of the Pakistani government sending speakers, which
would immediately raise issues of credibility, but
of the FPC inviting opposing viewpoints if it really
was interested in understanding Pakistan's internal
affairs.
However, there is an even more serious issue linked
to the FPC, and that is its linkages and funding.
It is not exactly independent in the proper meaning
of the word since, according to the FPC's own website,
it was launched under the patronage of Prime Minister
Blair while its membership scheme was launched from
the Office of the then British Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw. And membership was not for the public
at large but strictly by invitation. So clearly
the FPC has links to the British government and
is also funded through the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, British Council, National Audit Office,
Home Office and so on. But like some other government-funded
institutions, the FPC also gets funding from foreign
governments and the corporate sector. In this context,
it should be interesting for Pakistan to note that
apart from the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish governments,
the FPC is also funded by the Brunei government.
Among its corporate sponsors are Nestle and Reuters.
Given the large market Nestle has in Pakistan, do
our people know that Nestle is also funding Pakistan-bashing
agendas as is our supposed ally, the state of Brunei?
All in all, clearly the British government has an
agenda for Pakistan that is negative and damaging
for our country. It is time the Foreign Office protested
strongly to the British Foreign Office and sought
an explanation as to what the FPC is really up to
especially when it deliberately distorts facts,
such as who actually started the nuclear arms race
in 1998 in South Asia; or makes wild assertions
with no facts to prove these such as the statement
relating to China when it declares that China sent
"security officials" for the construction
of the port at Gwadar.
If one were to make a rational educated assumption
it would be that this FPC program on Balochistan
is linked to the US-UK agenda of redrawing borders
of the Greater Middle East which sees the establishment
of a large Kurdish state and an independent state
of Balochistan carved from Iran and Pakistan. Ironically,
the Brits themselves are not prepared to even let
go of colonially occupied territories of Northern
Ireland and the Malvinas. What is the linkage here
between the FPC program and the redrawing of borders
issue? The FPC invitation letter which declares
that Balochistan matters (to Britain that is, since
it will always matter to us as it is part of our
country) because it "crosses the states of
Pakistan, Afghanistan (sic) and Iran and in some
ways (one wonders what they may be) is the 'Kurdistan
of Central Asia.' More absurdities follow because,
according to the FPC, it is Balochistan that is
a "crucial element to Britain's relations with
Pakistan and the Pakistani community in the UK."
Could one dare ask, since when?
It seems that our pliancy towards demands from the
UK and our reticence to be more assertive on crucial
issues has been misconstrued by the British as a
sign of weakness. Meanwhile, our tolerance for abuse
at the hands of foreigners seems to have reached
new heights -- in contrast to our intolerance within
the domestic context.
Apart from our tolerance, our self-deprecation also
continues ad nauseum. So we see ourselves as being
uncivilized because our men stare at foreign women,
but what about the Brits spitting at and abusing
burqa-clad Muslim women in their country? Where
is the real and dangerous intolerance for diversity?
It is time we looked more questioningly both at
the official and civil society levels as to what
the British agenda is towards Pakistan and Pakistanis
-- beyond the occasional appeasing rhetoric.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
