Imran Khan in Power: Same Age-Old mistakes in Naya Pakistan

By Arslan Shahzad

Image result for imran Khan's official portrait — Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi (Official Portrait)

When Imran Khan was appointed Pakistan’s prime minister by the masses on August 18, 2018, some Pakistanis saw him as the best option, but others saw Khan as a saviour, and followed him like rigid members of a populist cult.

Khan’s victory was the feat of Pakistan’s self-righteous and self-serving and well-off urban middle class. They were supported internationally by a well-meaning but naive diaspora, and domestically by the leadership of the politically dominating and psychologically impatient judiciary and military.

Image result for 2018 pakistan general election results

Khan’s supporters agreed on his remedy for treating the problems of Pakistan’s economy and polity: i.e. moral answers to material questions and administrative solutions to structural problems.

Both have failed to work. Rather than providing relief to common citizens as promised, the past year has added to their gloom.

In 2018, the narrative that was sold to the public for a “Naya Pakistan” could be summarized as a corruption-free economy and a righteously governed country. This narrative was realized through Khan’s rise to power, along the rise of his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), in national and provincial general elections.

The 2018 general elections were tainted by accusations of pre-poll manipulation and rigging. But those who understood that an emerging democracy controlled by a colonial structure would stagger before finding its feet were willing to give Pakistan’s new democratic journey a serious chance. Even the main opposition parties were careful and fearful that their non-cooperation could have brought an end to the democratic order altogether.

Therefore, Khan’s government began with even better support than two of his predecessors — Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1972, and Nawaz Sharif in 1990. All powerful institutions of the state were on his side, opposition was reluctant to agitate and a large part of the affluent middle class — having sway over both market and media at that time — saw him as a savior.

One year into this government, not only do we find all the promises made for improving the economy and governance unfulfilled, the path forward seems to have been lost as well.

Image result for current gdp of pakistan 2019

Capitalism works in a certain way in a developing country, and the PTI claims it can fix the system without knowing how it works.

The PTI’s narrative about decreasing corruption and ending financial debt was turned upside down sooner than imagined. The cluelessness, and therefore poor performance of PTI’s economic leaders appointed at the beginning, brought about their abrupt expulsion within months.

A late agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) not only put more pressure on Khan’s government, it also meant the IMF could exercise more control over Pakistan’s financial decision-making.

In the name of bringing macroeconomic stability, growth has been subdued, the currency is majorly devalued and markets have lost their trust. Hyper-inflation and unprecedented power and energy price hikes coupled with sharp decline in incomes of middle, lower middle and working class have brought extraordinary hardships on common people. Poverty indicators soar and under- and unemployment rise as a consequence of this economic slowdown.

Image result for pti budget 2019 — Budget at a Glance

On top of this, there have been major financial cuts introduced in spending on health and education directly hitting the underprivileged. As far as public debt is concerned, a recent report in a Pakistani newspaper revealed that more than two-thirds of what the previous Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) government had borrowed in five years has already been acquired by Khan’s government in less than one year.

In terms of foreign relations, Khan’s government is finding it hard to create a balance between the US and China for its own advantage. The pace of investments and development under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is caught up in ambiguity, while the US seems to be reluctant in offering any substantial support unless Pakistan fulfils the role Washington envisages for it in the ongoing Afghan peace process.

Bending over backwards to flatter Saudi Arabia and the UAE over the past year has brought limited dividends to Khan in every quarter, including support to Pakistan’s economic stability.

The Arab countries’ response was icy when Pakistan expected them to denounce India’s annexation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, where constitutional safeguards were withdrawn, compounded with stark military aggression against civilians.

What Khan’s government have successfully done over the past year is to systematically check political opposition and restrain freedom of the mainstream media according to Amnesty International.

But those who can recall Pakistan’s political history —however chequered it may have been — know full well that muffling of voices eventually leads to unmanageable disagreement in the state that in turn erodes the very base of the government.

At the end of its first year in power, what Khan’s government needs is a critical introspection in order to fundamentally alter its economic policies to realize the economic rights of Pakistani citizens. This includes alleviating poverty and increasing productivity.

The government also needs to better manage the country’s foreign relations with a long-term vision that helps strike a balance between global powers to Pakistan’s advantage.

Finally, the government needs to appreciate the importance of civil and political rights and respect for the freedom of expression, which are prerequisites to creating a healthy society and sustainable polity.

The writer is Masters in International Relations from National Defense University, Islamabad. Kindly like my Facebook page “The Basement Journal” and follow me on Twitter @Journalbasement for any queries or suggestions.

Modern Annexations: The failures of ICJ

By Arslan Shahzad

For over half a century, much of modern international law has been based on this fundamental rule: states must not acquire territory through the use of force. With the crisis in Kashmir following on the heels of annexations in Europe and the Middle East, we should examine: are we doing enough to prevent populist strongmen from acquiring what territory they want?

Although the rule against annexation and conquest of territory is clear, states seeking to justify their rights against invasions and annexations oppose with insufficient settlement mechanisms. Stuck in questions of jurisdiction and admissibility, states may find it hard to sufficiently hold annexing states to justification.

Image result for russia and crimea map — Photo Credit: Encyclopedia Britannica

Take for instance Russia’s annexation of Crimea. In 2014, Russia passed a law claiming to incorporate Crimea, an area in Ukraine, into the Russian Federation. Russia’s annexation of Crimea came after a local Crimean referendum indicated a preference for Russia over Ukraine. International observers and rights bodies questioned the results of that referendum.

The Council of Europe called the referendum illegal, noting that it was held in the presence of “soldiers under conditions of intimidation of civic activists and journalists, blacking out of Ukrainian television channels and obstruction of civilian traffic in and out of Crimea.” The UN General Assembly and most states refused to recognize Russia’s annexation. The US, European Union and other countries imposed sanctions on Russia as a result.

Ukraine had to carefully consider its jurisdictional approach when taking Russia to the ICJ. Put simply, for combative disputes, the ICJ generally has jurisdiction where states: (i) accept compulsory jurisdiction in relation to other states that also accept it; (ii) accept jurisdiction by special agreement; (iii) accept jurisdiction after one state’s unilateral application; and (iv) jurisdiction arises for matters specially provided for in the Charter of the UN or in treaties or conventions in force.

Many states do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Some states accept its jurisdiction with objections. Ukraine and Russia do not accept its compulsory jurisdiction. So as part of its pleadings approach, Ukraine had to rely on relevant treaties giving rise to jurisdiction. It brought proceedings based on the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of all forms of Terrorism and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Racial Discrimination (CERD). Its case is underway, but Ukraine must make a case under those treaties, not one based on annexation, and that may not necessarily directly give Ukraine the result it seeks: a clear ruling on the annexation of Crimea.

Image result for map of russia and georgia — Photo Credit: The Economist

Georgia faced similar jurisdictional issues when challenging Russia’s invasion of Georgia’s boundaries. It had to rely on the CERD. Georgia sought to apply the treaty’s compromissory clause to establish the ICJ’s jurisdiction following Russia’s invasion. What it wanted was an international decision reinforcing its rights against invading Russian forces. But in its pleadings, it had to make specific reference to racial discrimination matters and indirectly approach the issue of territorial violation.

Considering Kashmir, Pakistan’s foreign minister recently announced Pakistan’s decision to take India to the ICJ. Jurisdictional issues are likely to feature in Pakistan’s pleadings strategy. Pakistan and India accept the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction with reservations. Given India’s reservations, when Pakistan takes the Kashmir issue to the ICJ, jurisdictional issues will first turn on whether India accepts jurisdiction. India is unlikely to do so because it insists that Kashmir is an internal matter. So Pakistan may have to consider treaty-based jurisdiction, rely on a relevant human rights treaty that affords ICJ jurisdiction and jump through other admissibility circles.

But as terrible as India’s documented human rights violations and recent communications blockade are, India has not merely violated human rights: Pakistan argues that India has annexed Kashmir. And that needs to be the main subject of legal proceedings – but might not be because of jurisdictional issues.

Beyond the realm of binding decisions on the merits of a dispute, the ICJ can issue advisory opinions. Such opinions are issued at the request of the UN Security Council (eg Namibia opinion), UN General Assembly (eg Wall Advisory Opinion) or other UN organs. Considering annexation, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion on Israel’s Wall in response to a question from the UN General Assembly. In its Wall Advisory Opinion, the ICJ noted that Israel’s Wall and associated exercise of authority amounted to ‘de facto annexation.’ But its opinion was not binding on Israel and Israel’s Wall still stands. For Kashmir, it’s unclear whether an advisory opinion will be in the offing or enough.

While modern international law affords us the language to question territorial transgressions of populist regimes, it should also afford states greater opportunity to fully vindicate their rights. Modi and his RSS crew, well-known admirers of Hitler sympathizing Golwalkar, must be kept from their worst excesses. The international community must work on bolstering mechanisms for challenging annexations lest we find ourselves dealing with another Hitler invading Poland.

Kashmir and the Fourth Geneva Convention

By Arslan Shahzad

Map of kashmir — A detailed map of the Kashmir region with its current stakeholders

There are no doubts about the immorality of India’s annexation of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. It is a violation of the Indian Constitution as it is expressed by many experts. However, we need to understand why it infringes the Fourth Geneva Convention. During World War II, there was the “Law of Geneva”, which only applied to soldiers that were no longer fighting. It was divided into three Geneva Conventions. The First Geneva Convention applied to the sick and wounded soldiers of the armed forces. The Second Geneva Convention applied to the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the naval forces. The Third Geneva Convention was for prisoners of war. Then the world realized that about 70 million civilians were killed in the War. The Fourth Geneva Convention was established for the protection of civilians in two situations: armed conflict and military occupation.

There are over 700,000 Indian soldiers occupying Kashmir, making it the world’s most heavily militarized zone. Life there has always bear a resemblance to living in an open air prison, similar to Gaza. Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949 prohibits torture against civilians in the occupied territory. It reads as follows, “The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments … but also to any other measures of brutality by civilian or military agents.”

According to a report by Kashmiri activists released in May this year, thousands of civilians in Kashmir have been summarily arrested and abused by Indian soldiers. The report documents 432 victims of Indian torture. Civilian deaths rose over 200% between 2013 and 2018. A New York Times story says, “Nazir Ahmad Sheikh, 61, a farmer who was featured in the report on torture, said soldiers accused him of being a militant and detained him in 1994. He said they crushed his legs with a heavy roller and then poured scalding hot water on them.”

The Indian soldiers forced him to open the lid of a coal heater with his bare hands. Nazir said, “The moment I touched it, some of my tortured and numb fingers fell to the ground.” Does that count as torture? For those who may still not fathom the gravity of this, Nazir’s following words might come in handy, “A torture chamber is like a dark well where you cry out loud and no one hears your voice.”

Image result for jammu kashmir eid violence

Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949 states that, “Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.” India denied locals’ access to the Jamia Masjid, the main masjid in Srinagar, for Eid prayers. Is this violation of the stipulation of respecting “religious convictions and practices” not blatant enough for the global community to see?

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949 says, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” After revoking Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, India has not only stripped the Kashmiris of their autonomy, but also paved the way for Indians to buy property and make investments in Kashmir. Business tycoon, Mukesh Ambani announced that his group will invest in the region soon. I can go on about violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention by India, but the limited space allows me to pen down only so much.

Image result for modi and netanyahu photos — Modi and Netanyahu: Two Bodies, Same Mindset

India must not complain about terrorism, the seeds of which it is actively sowing with its aggression as Kashmiris will soon retaliate for their autonomy and freedom. The global community has a limited time to act. Failing to do so is the victory of Indian antagonism and the terrorism it breeds. The hesitation of the World Powers will breed another Palestine in the middle of the most populous area of the world and India will become the dagger in the heart of South Asia.

The faults in Democracy and Socrates

By Arslan Shahzad

As the recent debate about the Presidential and Parliamentary System rages on, and the debate of the eligibility of many world’s leaders is in question, many do not realize that maybe the fault lies in the system that makes the people like Donald Trump and Narrandera Modi rise to power. Let us therefore discuss the system of Democracy on philosophical grounds.

Image result for donald trump and narendra modi — (From Left to Right) US President Donald J. Trump and Indian PM Narendra Modi. Photo Credit: qz.com

We’re used to thinking very highly of democracy and by extension of ancient Athens the civilization that gave rise to it. The Parthenon has become almost a personification for democratic values, which is why so many leaders of democracies like to be photographed there. It’s therefore very unusual to discover that one of ancient Greece’s greatest achievements, Philosophy, was highly suspicious of its other achievement, Democracy.

Image result for different leaders and parthenon — Ex US President Barack H. Obama in front of the Parthenon in Greece. Photo Credit: Chicago Tribune.

The founding father of Greek philosophy, Socrates is portrayed in the dialogues of Plato as enormously pessimistic about the whole concept and standings of democracy in Book Six of “The Republic”, Plato describes Socrates falling into conversation with a person called Adeimantus of Collytus, and trying to get him to see the imperfections of democracy by comparing a society to a ship. If you were heading out on a journey by sea, asked Socrates who would you, if at all possible, want deciding who was in charge of the vessel, just anyone or people educated in the rules and difficulties of maritime affairs. “The latter of course”, says Adeimantus. “So why then”, response Socrates, “do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be the ruler of a country”, Socrates pointed out.

The main point to be noted that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition and like any skill it needs to be taught systematically to people letting the public vote. Without an education of the trade, voting can be as irresponsible as putting a novice in Maritime Affairs in charge of a ship sailing in a storm. Socrates was to have firsthand catastrophic experience of the foolishness of voters, much like what we have seen in US and India very recently. In 399 BC, the philosopher was put on trial on made-up charges of corrupting and misleading the youth of Athens. The jury of 500 Athenians was invited to hear the case and decided by a narrow margin that the philosopher was guilty. He was put to death by hemlock.

Related image — David: The Death of Socrates

In a process which is for thinking, people every bit as ignorant as they would be, were handed the reign of Socrates’ life. Here, it should be noted that Socrates was not elitist in the normal sense. He didn’t believe that a small group of people should only ever vote. He did however insist that only those who’d thought about issues rationally and deeply should be let near a ballot box.

We have forgotten this distinction between an “Intellectual Democracy” and a “Democracy by Birth-right”. We have given the vote to all, without connecting it to wisdom and Socrates knew exactly where that would lead to, a system the Greeks feared above all, Demagoguery. Ancient Athens had painful experience of demagogues. For example, the immoral figure of Alcibiades, a rich, enigmatic, smooth-talking wealthy man who usurped basic freedoms and helped to push Athens to his unsuccessful military adventures in Sicily.

Socrates knew how easily people seeking election could exploit our desire for easy answers. He asked us to imagine an election debate between two candidates, a Doctor and a Sweet Shop Owner. The Sweet Shop Owner would say of his rival, “Look this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter medicine, and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will”. Socrates asks us to consider the audience’s response.

Do you think the Doctor would be able to reply effectively the true answer, that he caused you trouble and goes against your desires in order to help you would cause an uproar among the voters? Don’t you think we have forgotten all about Socrates’ dire warnings against democracy? We have preferred to think of democracy as an unambiguous good, rather than as something that is only ever as effective as the education system that surrounds it. As a result, we have elected many sweet shop owners and very few doctors, as we seek comforting lies rather than bitter truths.

(From Left to Right) Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan Niazi and his confidants Jahangir Khan Tareen and Asad Umer. The Picture is Self-Explanatory.

Presidential or Parliamentary System: Which is Better for Pakistan?

By Arslan Shahzad

There are similarities and dissimilarities between a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy. One similarity is that in both forms of government, the people elect their representatives. This gives the people significant power since they are able to decide who will represent them.

Likewise, there are differences between the two forms of democracy. The United States has a presidential democracy, while the United Kingdom has a parliamentary democracy. In a presidential democracy, separation of powers is important. There are detailed jobs that each branch of government has. This means that executive power doesn’t have overlapping responsibilities in the legislative branch. However there is a system of Check and Balance among the state pillars. Also, the President is elected separately from the members of the legislative branch.

In a parliamentary democracy, there is no election for the chief executive. The majority party in the legislative branch will choose that person. This makes it easier to pass laws because there is no threat of a presidential veto in a parliamentary democracy. Because presidential democracies generally have a system of checks and balances, this may limit what each branch of government can do. Generally, we can see that the former European Colonies have the parliamentary system of democracy.

After the analysis given by Dr. Shahid Masood yesterday, the social media have sprung into a new debate, whether Pakistan should be a Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy. I personally think that the Parliamentary System is the system most suited to our regional environment. History has proved that Presidential system has given Pakistan the worst setbacks. Field Marshall Ayub Khan’s Presidential Era sowed the seeds for the East Pakistan Debacle. Likewise, General Zia Ul Haq’s era gave rise to numerous problems (like Taliban, Ethnocentrism, Drug and Kalashnikov Culture) that we still face today.

Image result for ayub khan and zia ul haq — (From Left) Field Marshall Ayub Khan and General Zia Ul Haq

There are open and sometimes violent debate among many circles that the Pakistani PM Imran Khan is not able to deliver the desired results due to the fact that he get to pick and choose only the members of the Parliament as his Ministers. This is has been a serious issue with the supporters of his political party, The Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) as they despise most of his cabinet due to their pervious political affiliations. However, I think that such system can easily be amended instead of tearing down a system that is seeing its third consecutive democratic setup, a miracle this country has not seen in its 71 years old history.

The writer is Masters in International Relations from the National Defense University, Islamabad.