Custodial Killing of MQM Worker: A Dent in the Karachi Operation?
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.
The National Assembly passed a resolution on March 15, 2016 stating that ‘the Government should take effective steps to strengthen Pakistan-Afghanistan border’.
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.
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.
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.