In this Issue:
- Pakistan-Afghanistan Border Management: Need
for a Unified Strategy
- Custodial Killing of MQM Worker: A Dent in
the Karachi Operation?
- No Meeting of the National Security Committee
- Premier-COAS Interactions
Border Management: Need for a Unified Strategy
A view of the logjam of trucks and passengers witnessed at
the Torkham border crossing, after it was closed down on May 10, 20161
Effective border management, especially along
the Pakistan-Afghan border, remains an issue of urgent national importance.
PILDAT has been highlighting an urgent need for a better-managed Western border.
Our focus stems from the belief that no State can survive with soft borders
and unless Pakistan secures its borders, it will continue to face a host of
issues branching not only in internal and external complications, terrorism
and espionage, but also matters relating to health and trade, among others.
The Pakistan-Afghanistan border has attained
renowned notoriety for being a soft and porous border and is frequently described
as one of the most volatile and dangerous places in the world largely due to
the alleged presence of terrorist safe havens and lax Governmental control.
Various forms of illegal activities such as smuggling of weapons, narcotics,
vehicles, timber and electronic goods are routine matters. The health hazards,
posed over the years due to the spread of polio and other viruses through free
movement also poses another challenge.
Despite positive news on measures to improve
border management in May 2016, the issue does not seem to be resolved so far.
Some of the recent developments and facts in this context are listed below:
Towards Effective Western Border Management:
-
The National Assembly passed a resolution
on March 15, 2016 stating that ‘the Government should take effective
steps to strengthen Pakistan-Afghanistan border’.
-
On April 02, 2016, a meeting of the Provincial
Apex Committee of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was held, where improving border
management at all crossing points with Afghanistan, especially Torkham,
was stressed. The Committee decided to enforce a proper border management
system and also to send a high-powered delegation to Afghanistan to seek
resolution of the issue.2
-
According to the salient features of the
National Action Plan available on the website of NACTA, although ‘FATA
reforms with immediate focus on IDPs’ repatriation’, and
‘formulation of a comprehensive policy to deal with the issue
of Afghan refugees, beginning with registration of all refugees’
are mentioned, nowhere is the objective of improved management of our western
border explicitly stated.3
-
On April 08, 2016, the Political Agent
of the Khyber Agency issued a notification directing Afghan nationals living
near Torkham within the Pakistani territory to vacate the area; they were
given a four-day deadline in this regard. 4
-
According to media reports, as early as
April 17, 2016, the number of Afghan nationals coming to Pakistan from the
Torkham border crossing had dropped as the Pakistani authorities allowed
only those to pass with the required travel documents. According to
various estimates, almost 20,000-25,000 persons cross over into Pakistan
from the Torkham crossing, with only 1,800-2,000 Afghan nationals having
the required documents. 5
-
On May 10, 2016, the Afghan authorities
closed the border crossing at Torkham. Afghanistan protested that it was
not intimated in advance over the fencing being carried out by Pakistani
security forces in the area. Reportedly, a two-kilometer fence was being
constructed by Pakistani authorities beyond the 30-meter radius of the border
crossing involving barbed wires to check unauthorized movement across the
border. A news report carried out in daily Dawn in this regard
cited the Political Agent of the Khyber Agency, who stated that ‘We
had duly informed the Afghan authorities at Torkham border much in advance
about our plan of fencing some unauthorized points at the border but they
did not respond on time … Being a sovereign country, we have every
right to make our own decisions’.6 The Political Agent
went on state that the border would remain closed till the Afghan Government
formally responded to the development.
-
On May 13, 2016, the Ambassador of Afghanistan
to Pakistan, Mr. Omer Zakhilwal, called upon the COAS, Gen. Raheel Sharif,
at the GHQ where it was ‘agreed to resume routine cross border
traffic at Torkham’.7 The border re-opened on May
14, 2016, after a span of four days.
-
According to a Press Release issued by
the ISPR on May 21, 2016, a newly constructed border management facility
at Angoor Adda was ‘handed over to the Afghan authorities’.
The Press Release went on to state that ‘this gesture will act
as a catalyst and is envisioned to bring momentum for establishing peace
and stability along the Pak Afghan Border… It was reiterated during
the process, that all border related issues will be amicably resolved through
mutual consultations subsequently’.8
Angoor Adda was a part of a longstanding border disputebetween Pakistan and Afghanistan. Previously in 2007, Pakistan had erected
fences and posts near Angoor Adda in South Waziristan. Afghanistan alleged
these to be located a few hundred meters inside its territory. Afghan National
Army quickly removed them and began shelling Pakistani positions. According
to news report by The News, a security official involved in the
process stated that Afghanistan had been claiming ownership of the border
crossing point near the Pakistani border in Angoor Adda and this had affected
relations between the two countries. According to him, Pakistan finally
decided to ‘hand over’ the border area to Afghanistan
in a bid to improve its relations with it.9
- Complications started to surround the Angoor Adda development
when it emerged that the Federal Minister for Interior, Chaudhry Nisar Ali
Khan, MNA had written a letter to the Prime Minister ‘expressing
reservations’ over his Ministry not being consulted on the handover.
A news report carried by the daily Express Tribune cited the letter,
which apparently stated that ‘There are very clear rules which should
be followed before taking such important decisions … The Government
is the custodian of each and every inch of the motherland. We must follow
the legal procedures if we have to take such decisions’.10
- On May 24, 2016, the Afghan authorities closed down the Angoor
Adda border-crossing facility, which remains closed till this date.11
- On May 31, 2016, news reports emerged that the Pakistani
authorities had decided that no Afghan without the requisite travel documents
would be allowed to crossover from the Torkham border crossing from June 01,
2016 onwards. Apparently, previously no such documentation was required as
traders were allowed to pass through only on the basis of ‘route
permits’. Afghanistan reacted negatively to the move, with the
Ambassador of Afghanistan to Pakistan stating that the ‘Afghan Government
was not taken into confidence over the matter’.12
As welcome and important it is to put in place
a stringent and effective border management system that puts to rest any mention
of the Pak-Afghan border as a “porous” or “soft” border,
the developments leading to the positive actions on border management appear
to suggest that some of the recent steps have not been taken with the required
consultation among civil and military institutions. In fact, Federal Minister
of Interior’s reported complaint indicates that effective civil-civil
and civil-Military consultations had apparently not taken place over the important
issue of handing over the border crossing facility at Angoor Adda to the Afghan
authorities.
This underlines a disjointed civil-military
approach, to say the least, especially when it comes to our Afghan policy.
While a consensus seems to be there within Pakistan
for securing the border with Afghanistan, the issue of transfer of Angoor Adda
border crossing point should have received the importance and the deliberation-based
policy it requires. Certainly the subject warranted a discussion among all stake
holders within the Government including the Ministry of Interior and the decision
should have been executed after explicit approval of the country’s Chief
Executive. The issue warrants a deeper analysis and a Parliamentary probe by
the Parliament’s Interior and Defence Standing Committees.
The border management issue also needs to be
approached and understood within a certain Pakistan-Afghanistan cooperative
framework. It remains undeniable that the Durand Line is the internationally
accepted border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan also reserves its
right as a sovereign nation to secure its side of the border by any means including
fencing or trenching and must move swiftly to do so. Precedents for this also
exist in the case of United States fencing its border with Mexico and India
fencing its border with Pakistan, unilaterally.
Although the newly introduced border management
system at Torkham needs to be lauded for its intentions, it is hoped that its
operations will become smoother and more efficient over time.
Pakistan must work together with Afghanistan
by invoking the international law and UN resolutions that ask both countries
to “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit
terrorist acts, or provide safe havens” and to “prevent
those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their
respective territories for those purposes against other states or their citizens.”
13 On the
domestic front inside Pakistan, a comprehensive strategy may also include bringing
Parliament into the fold by enacting a comprehensive legislation enabling Pakistani
authorities to document persons crossing the Durand Line. In order to institute
an effective system of checks and balances along the Durand Line, the proposed
legislation should define easement right users and issue special ‘easement
right user IDs’ to individuals falling under this category. Detailed recommendations
on the subject are available in an earlier PILDAT paper titled: Pakistan-Afghanistan
Border Management: A Legal Perspective.
Killing of MQM Worker: A Dent in the Karachi Operation?
Since the launch of the Karachi Operation in
October 2013, and its renewed vigour in March 2015, the MQM has repeatedly claimed
that the Operation is being carried out to exclusively target the party. The
polarization further seemed to increase when an MQM worker, Mr. Aftab Ahmad,
serving as the personal assistant of Dr. Farooq Sattar, died in Rangers’
custody on May 03, 2016. Mr. Ahmad was arrested from his residence and produced
in front of an Anti-Terrorism Court by the Rangers on May 02, 2016, for a 90-day
remand.14
Although it was initially denied by the Pakistan
Rangers (Sindh), the Director General of the Rangers, Maj. Gen. Bilal Akbar
later admitted that the MQM worker had died due to torture under Rangers’
custody and the Standard Operating Procedures were not followed in the course
of the investigation.15 The post-mortem report also confirmed that 35%-40% of Mr. Aftab Ahmad’s
body bore bruises and abrasions.16 In the meanwhile, the COAS directed the concerned authority
to carry out an inquiry into the incident, following which four personnel of
the Rangers were arrested.17
PILDAT believes that custodial killings and
the case of missing persons has should not become a recurrent feature of the
Karachi Operation. Consider the list recently submitted by the MQM to the Supreme
Court, which showed that 171 of its members had gone missing since the Operation
was launched, with ‘90% of them picked up by the Rangers from their
residence’.18
Such actions are needless given the various
legal amenities that the Pakistan Rangers (Sindh) have been provided with, including
Special Policing Powers granted under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 and 2014
for the operation. Therefore, custodial killings and the case of missing persons
is not only unacceptable, unnecessary and unwelcome, but also dents the credibility
of the significant progress achieved under the Karachi Operation.
It is hope that the enquiry ordered by the COAS
will lead to administration of justice and recommendations for precluding any
suc