By Belaar Baloch
Despite Westminster’s disavowal that the detention of Baloch human right activists under Terrorism Act 2000 has no link to the move to extradite Rashid Rauf, a terror suspect who was at the centre of the plot to blow up mid-air transatlantic flights in the summer of 2006, the predominant factor that compelled British authorities to act was pressure from Pakistan. On December 4, 2007, British authorities arrested Hayrbeyar Marri and Faiz Baloch, two prominent activists in Britain. Though Hayrbeyar Marri was released on conditional bail over three months later, Faiz Baloch is still imprisoned in Belmarsh, a notorious prison known as the Guantanamo Bay of the U.K.
At present, the whole Baloch region is effectively sealed off by the Pakistani army, so why is the regime in Islamabad desperate to harass Baloch dissidents, even when they are living abroad? It is the growing media interest in the West over its military’s oppressive policies that worries Islamabad and the Baloch diasporas has played a significant role in bringing the human rights abuses of the Pakistani military to the fore. Faiz Baloch, a student with meager resources, successfully organized campaigns and arranged meetings with local human rights campaigners to highlight the misconduct of Pakistan’s military in British newspapers. Similarly, Hayrbeyar Marri was in the forefront organizing the conference in the Parliament House under the auspices of the Foreign Policy Centre which later produced the landmark paper: ‘Baluchis of Pakistan: on the margin of history.’
The chronology of diplomatic wrangling between Islamabad and London suggests that Pakistan, in classic diplomatic bargaining, desperately attempted to link the fate of Rauf to that of Baloch exiles by demanding the extradition of seven Baloch dissidents living in the U.K including Mehran Baloch, a prominent Baloch human rights activist, who regularly participates and intervenes in the U.N and E.U sponsored human rights conferences held in Geneva and Brussels.
The stealthy negotiation started in early March 2007, when officials of the British Crown Prosecution travelled to Pakistan in order to initiate Mr. Rauf’s extradition process. Later that same month, British attorney general Lord Goldsmith met several ministers, including Pakistan’s prime minister Shoukat Aziz. In a quid pro move, Pakistani authorities obdurately asked their counterparts for “something in return.” This request was confirmed by the U.K daily The Guardian that subsequently leaked key parts of this “proposed swap deal” struck between London and Islamabad.
When faced with a barrage of criticism by human rights groups over its extra legal initiatives, London took the legal route, not only to fulfil domestic legal requirements but also send a signal to Islamabad that it was ready to play ball by detaining Hyerbeyar Marri and Faiz Baloch. But it was Islamabad that retreated and failed to fulfil its part when it facilitated the escape of Rashid Rauf, reported by the British daily The Times.
For centuries, London has remained the capital city of exiles and dissidents, who fled from authoritarian and totalitarian regimes for hosts of reasons, mainly fear of persecution at the hands of brutal regimes. Accepting and integrating dissidents, a proud tradition, is deeply entrenched in British values. Even at the height the Cold War, Soviet dissidents, particularly writers, human rights activists, and defected KGB intelligence operatives, were given safe sanctuaries in the U.K. Despite fierce reactions from Moscow, London stood firm on its policy of protecting and giving sanctuary to asylum seekers.
Nevertheless, upholding the norms of human rights is only one part of this truth: security and strategic imperatives, economic benefits, and more importantly, power and influence wielded by powerful individuals in the domestic politics of their countries of origin also dictates day-to-day policy. In recent years, a surge of wealthy dissidents from Moscow to Harare, with their mega fortunes have come to Britain. Some of them have sought asylum under human rights law and continue their political activities in order to influence the politics of their home countries.
Baloch dissidents, by contrast, possess neither enormous wealth which could enable them to buy political influence, nor does the small size of their community make them attractive to British electoral politics. Given their secular profiles which make them detached from the so-called Muslim leaders and their brand of politics, they are even less attractive to the champions of Muslim rights who claim to be the guardian of “umah.” Indeed, these organisations, including Muslim MPs, are forefront in defending the extradition case of Mr. Babur – an Islamic terror suspect, wanted by the U.S for his alleged involvement in terrorist activities.
In a face-saving exercise, the Home Office justified its charges against Hyerbeyar Marri and Faiz Baloch on the grounds that they were both involved in “fomenting acts of terrorism outside Britain.” Meanwhile its prosecutors are struggling to defend their flimsy evidence in court and are relying on various tactics to prolong the detention of the activists in order to satisfy Pakistani intelligence services. In defence of the charges against Mr. Marri and Baloch, the Home Office denied any political motivation, however, it is worth considering a couple of similar examples from the recent past:
The case of Boris Berezovsky, a Russian tycoon who is wanted by Moscow on corruption charges, has recently become a bone of contention between Moscow and London. In April of last year, the oligarch openly threatened the Kremlin with his rhetoric that “violence was necessary to change the regime in Moscow.” He further boasted, “it isn’t possible to change this regime (Putin’s government) through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure.” Having invoked the use of force to bring down the authority of a sovereign nation, Mr. Berezovsky blatantly broke the British law. Ironically, London turned a blind eye and denied Moscow’s demand to extradite the oligarch; they also declined to prosecute him under the new terrorism laws.
Consider, too, that Westminster remained silent over the May 12th carnage in Karachi in which more than fifty political activists perished in its streets. The perpetrators were caught on camera—thugs of the Mutahida Qoumi Movement (MQM). Altaf Hussein, the leader of MQM, is often described by the British media as a ‘gangster politician’ and remains at liberty in a posh suburb of London, despite the fact that some Pakistani opposition politicians brought serious charges against him in the British courts. Yet, the Home Office paid no heed. With a firm grip on the largest Pakistani city and a strong showing in recent elections, small wonder why the Home Office is unable to bring him before the court of law.
At present, the Pakistani state is suffering deep political turmoil and is embroiled in internal civil strife. Despite recent elections, the crisis is so intense that western policy experts view it as the most dangerous state on earth and edging towards disintegration. It is true that Pakistan commits internal atrocities and external aggression against its neighbours, be it India or Afghanistan. Islamist terrorism is its chief export commodity and most terrorist attacks have direct or indirect links to Pakistan’s intelligence services. From the London Underground bombing to Heathrow terror plot, the groundwork was laid in Pakistan. Its clandestine intelligence services harbour some of the most dangerous terrorists within its borders. It represses members of civil society including judges, lawyers, media reporters and political activists, as well as the people of Balochistan, who are perceived by Islamabad as a national security threat. Despite the recent elections in which moderate parties gained considerable seats in the parliament, military intelligence still retains control over Balochistan’s affairs and so far, there are no signs that the elected government will be taken into confidence by the military and its intelligence services.
But what exactly prompted British authorities to act against Baloch dissidents, thereby placating the Pakistani military, despite its gross human rights abuses in Balochistan?
To put it simply, crude pursuit of national interests drive the policymakers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in the process they overlook human suffering. They deny this harsh fact; however, it is discernible when one analyses both internal and external spheres of British policy in the broader context of the war on terror. Pakistan’s frontline status makes the West regard it as a linchpin state. The West perceives Pakistan’s cooperation as vital for success in the war on terror. It is this very status which gives Islamabad an extra edge which it, in turn, is able to temporarily exploit, notwithstanding its current position as a third-rate power whose sovereignty is being questioned not only by its own citizens, but also constantly violated by the Americans when conducting aerial bombings in the tribal areas. The British, however, are masters of old tactics and well convinced that appeasement still works in the case of Pakistan. Given the security imperative in Afghanistan where its 7,800 troops face a Taliban-led insurgency, as well as its own internal security threats emanating from British citizens of Pakistani origin whose sympathies lie with Islamist causes, it does not take much insight to see why British policymakers are kowtowing to Pakistan’s illegitimate demands.
From intelligence sharing to supply routes to the troops stationed in southern Afghanistan, Britain is increasingly dependent on Pakistani cooperation and it is precisely this status Islamabad exploits for its own ends. Much the same holds true when it comes to the domestic threat posed by Pakistani descended British citizens. Nearly 40,000 of them pay visits to Pakistan every year. This provides al-Qaeda and its patrons a potential pool of recruits for violent jihadi networks in Britain and other European cities. The footprints of every terrorist incident leads to Pakistan’s doorstep, including that of Rashid Rauf and Siddique Khan, the ringleader of the 7/7 suicide bombing in London and the masterminds of a foiled attack in Germany in 2006, where the alleged targets were the U.S. army base in Ramstein and the Frankfurt airport.
What is constantly ignored by the West is the paradoxical role of Pakistan’s military in the war on terror, particularly its roguish role in controlling the cross-border movements of Taliban insurgents. Generally speaking, stability in Afghanistan is not on Islamabad’s priority list. In fact, a stable and peaceful Afghanistan directly contradicts its ambitious doctrine of defence depth against India.
Far from condemning Pakistan’s human rights abuses, America and Britain have rewarded its military with modern weapons and cash. Moreover, they have turned a wholly blind eye to the use of this hardware on Baloch civilians and have instead extended their support for policies that a London-based human rights campaigner characterized as ‘collaboration with war crimes.’ In a recent policy speech foreign secretary David Miliband boasted of the moral credentials of British foreign policy because an “interventionist foreign policy” is at the heart of British foreign policy goals. Unfortunately, when it comes to Pakistan’s gruesome actions in Balochistan, Britain has run out of moral capital and the price is being paid by the Baloch.
belaar3@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment