Sovereignty
and Double Standards
By Dr Shireen M Mazari
It
was not my intent to discuss the abuse of Maulana
Samiul Haq's parliamentary status by certain EU
states since I hold no brief for him. However, having
seen some Pakistani newspapers get their facts wrong
on the case, including an English daily from Lahore
which surely does know better, I felt compelled
to state some facts relating to the issue.
One, it is every country's sovereign right to refuse
a visa to anyone they find undesirable. We in Pakistan
may not do so and, therefore, we are made to suffer
diatribes from biased and often dishonest American
academics. If we were to refuse a visa to some of
the undesirables who manage to enter our country
we would be well within our rights as a sovereign
state. This is what France decided to do in the
case of Maulana Samiul Haq -- while not refusing
the visa, they made it clear that that is what would
happen if he applied. The Belgians, on the contrary,
allowed him to enter the country and then abused
his status. This cannot be condoned especially since
he was part of an official parliamentary delegation.
Why our diplomats failed to anticipate this abuse
is incomprehensible. Ideally, our delegation should
have turned back the moment the Maulana was taken
away for questioning at Brussels airport, but all
this does not detract from the fact that the Belgian
government was in the wrong and Pakistan should
make a big issue out of it. Similarly, the British
government's abuse of the Maulana on his departure
was equally wrong and mala fide --given that they
had no problem with allowing him into the country
in the first place. In fact, the British government
has been increasingly imperious in the manner it
handles Pakistanis and, much to our shame, we have
done nothing to represent forcefully against this
abuse. Surely, we should, at the very least, scrutinize
visa applications from countries such as Britain
and Belgium more carefully since some undesirables,
who continuously abuse Pakistan, manage to get entry
into this country. After all, at least some level
of reciprocity is part of interstate behavioral
norms.
Two, it is totally incorrect to equate the US refusal
of a visa for Gujarat Chief Minister Modi with the
treatment meted out to Maulana Samiul Haq by Belgium
and Britain. Why? Because Modi as a representative
of the Indian State was party to the massacre of
Muslims in his state of Gujarat. The Maulana has
neither held such a position nor used his position
to order the massacre of any minority -- no matter
how distasteful his politics and religiosity may
be for many in the country and outside. Of course,
what purpose his inclusion in a Pakistani delegation
going to Europe serves, is another question altogether.
Bearing these facts in mind, the antics of the Belgian
and British immigration officials are condemnable
and their governments' silence on the issue unacceptable.
What makes the Belgian government's position even
more untenable is that their abuse of the Maulana
was the result of the histrionics of Birmingham's
Nina Gill, who is of Indian origin and a member
of the European Parliament's Foreign Relations Committee.
We know Ms. Gill's agenda and one assumes so do
the Europeans. Therefore, there should be some substantive
response from the Pakistan government. The absurdity
of the Belgian posturing on the Maulana was further
exacerbated by their parliamentarians' stance that
they would receive the Pakistani delegation sans
the Maulana -- a wish the Pakistani side sensibly
chose to deny.
Linked to the principles raised in this episode
are other questions of sovereignty and why the Pakistani
state is allowing its sovereign rights to be trampled
on by Western powers -- within the territorial confines
of Pakistan itself. For instance, there is the access
to data on all Pakistanis leaving and entering the
country being supplied to the US with no reciprocity
from the US government on Americans coming into
Pakistan.
Then we now have a member of the British government
at the exit point of the international departure
gate, at least at Islamabad airport, scrutinizing
all the departing passengers' passports, and the
Pakistani passengers, in a servile fashion, submitting
to his demands. While recently departing for the
UK, I refused to be party to this unacceptable foreign
scrutiny in my own country, but it was sickening
to see the servility to which the ordinary Pakistani
has been reduced to -- as a result of state submission
to external powers. If we are so submissive at this
micro level, it should hardly surprise us to find
ourselves submitting to the will of external powers
on macro issues also.
That is why we fail to protect our own citizens
from abuse outside the country. In fact, such abuse
hardly makes it to the press nowadays since we have
become so used to horror stories of abuse and unfair
detention that has destroyed the lives of many innocent
Pakistanis. Even the killing of Pakistanis in hate
crimes abroad rarely elicits our response, let alone
regret. Pakistani life seems to be cheap both at
home and abroad, especially in the post -9/11 era.
The war against terrorism has become a pretext to
abuse Pakistanis at will abroad -- whether in Guantanamo
Bay or detention centers in the US and Britain.
Yet the US continues to allow certain terrorists
to roam free in its country -- as long as they have
committed "correct" acts of terror.
The war against terrorism continues to see its credibility
undermined by such double standards and a total
neglect of state terrorism. As other states continue
to assert their sovereign right in defense of double
standards, where do we in Pakistan stand today?
(The writer is Director General of the Institute
of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Courtesy The News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
