Embassy attack
THERE has been no claim of responsibility yet, but the timing of the attack on Pakistan’s embassy in Kabul strongly suggests a link with the TTP calling off its ceasefire with the Pakistani state only days ago.
On Friday, the embassy compound came under fire from a lone gunman holed up in a nearby building. The security guard was critically injured while protecting the mission head, Chargé d’Affaires to Afghanistan Ubaidur Rehman Nizamani, who remained unhurt. One suspect has been arrested and two firearms recovered from him.
The Afghan foreign ministry has given assurances of an investigation into the attempted assassination of the Pakistani diplomat and punishment of those behind it. Given such a high-profile incident occurring in its capital, that too in what would be a more secure part of the city, this is the very least the Afghan government would be expected to say. After all, during the months leading up to its takeover of Kabul, the Afghan Taliban in parleys with the international community reiterated their commitment to crack down on militant groups on its soil and prevent any cross-border attacks.
It soon became clear, especially with the appointment as interior minister of Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the Haqqani Network which is known to have close links with Al Qaeda, that any assertive action against extremist outfits was unlikely.
Aside from their ideological commonalities with such groups, Afghanistan’s new rulers may have calculated that following through on its commitment to act against them risked the regime being seen as kowtowing to the West, a perception that could push its supporters towards the self-styled Islamic State, the Taliban’s only real rival on the militant landscape in their country.
The duration of the Afghan Taliban’s regime has thus seen a marked escalation in cross-border attacks by the TTP and other terrorist groups that have taken shelter inside Afghanistan, as well as border clashes between security personnel on both sides. The ill-fated ‘negotiations’ that the Taliban facilitated have unsurprisingly broken down, with the TTP calling for an all-out war on the Pakistani state.
In an already perilous environment, this development put the Pakistan embassy personnel at even more risk and the Taliban should have enhanced the existing security arrangements. The regime has an obligation to keep the diplomatic community within Afghanistan safe from harm; they must realise that the murderous elements they are playing host to are further compromising their international standing.
Published in Dawn, December 4th, 2022
Retracted offer
WITH so many U-turns under his belt, it was hardly surprising when on Saturday, PTI chairman Imran Khan decided to walk back his previous day’s offer of talks to the PDM, saying that his message had been ‘misunderstood’. On Friday, he had said he was ready to sit with the ruling alliance and set a date for polls, failing which the Punjab and KP assemblies would be dissolved. The former prime minister now appears resolved on the dissolution of the assemblies this month. However, there is greater sense in his previous suggestion of talking to the government, even if to settle on an election date. Engaging with the PTI is something that the ruling coalition government itself should not be averse to as this is the only way to craft a mutually acceptable political path.
Indeed, both the opposition and the ruling coalition face challenges. For instance, after having exhausted virtually all his options, including street protests, how much more pressure can Mr Khan exert on his political rivals to call early elections? At the other end, government officials have indicated that elections will be held as per schedule. But realistically speaking, with the economy in such terrible shape and no signs of the political uncertainty ending, the option of early elections is not something to be dismissed out of hand. True, Mr Khan’s hard and unyielding tone would put off most political rivals, but it is time to take a look at the situation for what it really is.
Politicians in democracies across the world attack one another, and use every constitutional and legal option to force their opponents out of power. But they do so while remaining a part of the system and without shutting the door on negotiations. They are aware that the solution to every issue lies in engaging with one another. They also know that there is no room for progress without give and take. There is little doubt that Mr Khan is the most popular national leader at the moment as the massive crowds at his anti-government rallies across Pakistan and his success in by-elections show. But if he hasn’t achieved his goal of early polls it is largely because he never engaged with his opponents. There are many in his own camp too who are against the drastic measures he has decided on. He would be well advised to heed wiser counsel, and sit across the table with the coalition government, without setting prior conditions, in order to genuinely seek a solution. At the same time, the ruling parties should also show flexibility if they want to find a way out of the political mess. It is true that the hate-filled rhetoric of the past many months has caused deep divisions within the political class. But unless the latter demonstrates maturity, there will be no progress.
Published in Dawn, December 4th, 2022
Double standards
IN a globalised world, if states fail to protect the human rights of their citizens, or worse, participate in abuses, the international community takes notice. However, problems arise when accountability for rights abuses is politicised, where allies are given a free pass, and geopolitical adversaries are raked over the coals. The US State Department’s annual Religious Freedom Designations listing very much appears to be a politicised project, where the above-mentioned dichotomy is clearly visible. This year, just as last year, Pakistan has been retained on the list of ‘Countries of Particular Concern’ where religious rights’ violations are concerned. Other states on this dubious list include China, Cuba, Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia. With the exception of the Saudis, all of the states listed are geopolitical adversaries of the US, while it is not apparent whether Washington considers Pakistan a friend or a foe. But there is one glaring exception: India. In the press release announcing the listing, the US secretary of state has castigated governments and non-state actors that “harass, threaten, jail, and even kill individuals on account of their beliefs” and “exploit opportunities for political gain”. India under the BJP’s watch very much fits the bill.
According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom — a bipartisan body of the American federal government — the Indian government’s policies “negatively affect Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits” while the outfit clearly recommends that the American administration should designate India as a ‘Country of Particular Concern’, and impose sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for religious persecution. Has Secretary of State Antony Blinken not read the USCIRF report? This paper has always argued that the state in Pakistan needs to do much more to protect the rights of religious minorities in this country. Yet the US State Department’s listing of Pakistan and exclusion of India as violators of religious freedom smacks of hypocrisy. Instead of individual states sermonising to others, bodies such as the UN should be used to discuss rights’ violations, so that states can explain their positions.
Published in Dawn, December 5th, 2022