Israeli sojourn
SEVERAL quarters have been testing the waters over the years to gauge the public reaction to possible ties between Pakistan and Israel. These attempts include the famous handshake between late military ruler Pervez Musharraf and Israeli leader Ariel Sharon at the UN in 2005, to much more recent visits to Israel by foreign NGO-led delegations that have included Pakistanis from different walks of life. But in the latest development, five Pakistanis hailing from Sindh’s Mirpurkhas town have been nabbed by the authorities for working ‘illegally’ in the Jewish state, with which this country does not have diplomatic relations. The state got wind of their visits after wire transfers by the men, that originated in Israel and were destined for Mirpurkhas, were detected. As per reports, the men had menial jobs in Israel, while some accounts say the individuals had family members settled in the Jewish state. Cases have been filed against the men for travel and ‘illegal immigration’ to a country not recognised by Pakistan.
The Pakistani passport says that the document is valid for all countries of the world except Israel, and travelling to a country for which the document is not valid is a violation of the Passport Act of 1974. However, more clarity is needed to determine if the individuals concerned actually had their Pakistani passports stamped by the Israeli authorities, or if they had used alternative documents to enter that country. The debate on recognition should also continue, particularly in parliament, so that decisions are taken in the national interest. Right now, the Foreign Office says there is no change in Pakistan’s policy towards Israel, and that this country “steadfastly supports the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination”. Morally, this is the correct position, for while some of our Muslim friends may already have embraced Tel Aviv, Pakistan should only consider the establishment of relations with Israel if a negotiated settlement is achieved to settle the Palestine question.
Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2023
Troubled waters
SECURING Pakistan’s water rights, as spelled out by the Indus Waters Treaty signed with India over six decades ago, is an existential issue for this country. Of late, there have been some noises emanating from across the eastern border calling for changes to the treaty. While the document can be altered, it cannot be done unilaterally. Unfortunately, many of India’s actions regarding transboundary rivers have been questionable, and jeopardise the free flow of the western rivers to Pakistan, as guaranteed by the IWT. Amongst these actions is the construction of the Kishanganga project on the Jhelum in held Kashmir, as well as the Ratle project on the Chenab, also in IHK. Pakistan had initiated legal proceedings in 2016 against both schemes at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, and as the court recently confirmed, it was the competent authority to adjudicate on the matter, rejecting India’s position that the court had no jurisdiction in the said dispute. This has been seen as a vindication of Pakistan’s stance, while the court noted that the decision was binding on all parties, and could not be appealed.
The IWT allows for bilateral resolution of disputes — which India favours. Yet when irritants cannot be addressed by both states, the treaty calls for the involvement of a neutral expert, or a court of arbitration. Ideally disputes between Pakistan and India should be resolved bilaterally. But as the past few years have shown, bilateralism has not yielded any major dividends where dispute resolution is concerned, which leaves room for third parties to step in and try their hand at mediation. Therefore, India needs to respect the decision of The Hague court and not stonewall efforts to find a just and practicable solution to the disputes concerning transboundary waters. Where India’s demands to alter the IWT go, as mentioned above, it cannot be a unilateral decision. The treaty has proved remarkably successful in tackling the sensitive technical and legal issues arising out of the sharing of transboundary waters. The Indian government must not politicise the water issue just to please its rabid voter base as elections in that country approach. Technical and environmental issues must not be sacrificed at the altar of ultranationalist ideology. For Pakistan, protecting its water rights is non-negotiable, and all efforts must be made to let the Indus waters flow freely.
Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2023
Keeping promises
THE commentariat has been abuzz ever since it emerged that the IMF had held separate meetings with two political parties over the $3bn sought by Pakistan under a Stand-by Arrangement. While the IMF also held a similar one-on-one meeting with the PPP, it was the agency’s meeting with the PTI leadership that piqued the most curiosity.
However, the ensuing gossip, which gave the meeting a political tint, ignored a simple fact: the only reason the IMF had sought the meetings was to secure assurances that whatever agreement was eventually signed with the current government would not be jeopardised by the next. To this end, all parties seem to have endorsed the deal that will be presented to the IMF board on July 12. However, they must also reflect on why an international lender felt the need to approach them individually.
As a nation, we have had a big problem keeping our promises. From the Reko Diq fiasco to the IPP contracts signed in the PPP era, to the repeated violation of IMF deals — Pakistan has a habit of failing to honour contracts and agreements, which has left it in a very weak position in negotiations that must be backed by some form of sovereign guarantee.
The usual reason behind our inability to keep our promises has either been a change of policy following a change of government, or interference and ‘intervention’ by the other branches of the state. The country has paid billions of dollars in direct fines and suffered incalculable secondary losses due to this.
Even if the original agreements in the aforementioned cases may have been deleterious to our national interests, refusing to honour them after they were signed was indefensible under the timeless, universal laws that guide formal contracts.
When the wise talk about the need for a ‘charter of economy’, this is one of the main issues they seek to address. The IMF, or any foreign entity interested in taking a stake in the country, should not feel the need to have our officials jump through hoops in order to satisfy it that they are, indeed, serious about the commitments they are making.
It is essential for this to happen that creditors and investors see some continuity in policy. This can be ensured if government leaders involve the opposition in the decision-making process so that any major reservations within political circles are cleared up well before the country enters into any sovereign agreement.
All contracts should also be vetted thoroughly beforehand by the relevant parliamentary committees to ensure that they are lawful. Once an agreement is finalised and inked, it must then be honoured consistently. Protecting the national interest is important, but what it means cannot keep changing, especially where sovereign contracts are concerned.
Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2023