By Qamar Bashir

Pakistan’s Foreign Affairs promptly rejected the US Department of State’s 120-page “2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Pakistan” without acknowledging its comprehensive compilation process where the source of almost all necessary data rests in Pakistan. The compilation involves gathering data from embassy and consulate reports, local NGOs, media coverage, government agencies, international organizations, academic institutions, testimonies, diplomatic channels, official government reports, and open-source intelligence. The report aims to provide a thorough and accurate assessment of human rights conditions in Pakistan indicating a failure to address shortcomings.

Rather than addressing issues and implementing reforms, Pakistan tends to respond with generic statements disconnected from reality which is shortsighted, as baseless rejection only draws more attention to the report’s contents, prompting further scrutiny. Pakistan’s tendency to ignore issues and reject criticism perpetuates poor human rights practices rather than fostering improvement.

“There is nothing in the report that has not been discussed almost on a daily basis by our courts, political parties, civil society, and both traditional and social media. Our media and civil society, day in and day out, in their reports, comments, and analyses, discuss, refer to, and quote, rightly or wrongly, all those issues, matters, and incidents which were referred to in the report. These include unlawful or arbitrary detentions and  killings, including extrajudicial killings; enforced disappearances; torture; and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government or non state actors.”

“They discuss harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; political prisoners; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; and serious abuses in conflict, including reportedly unlawful civilian deaths and enforced disappearances.

The elite journalists and opposition political parties have raised concerns about significant restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom. These include violence against journalists, unjustified arrests, and disappearances of journalists, as well as censorship and serious constraints on internet freedom. Additionally, there are substantial interferences with the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, including overly restrictive laws governing the operation of non-governmental organizations and civil society groups.

The media and civil society have been vocal about issues such as restrictions on religious freedom, coerced or forced returns of individuals to countries where they may face torture or persecution, government corruption, and government restrictions on both domestic and international human rights organizations. They have also highlighted extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and child and early forced marriage.

Media reports also suggest physical abuse of criminal suspects in custody, leading to injuries or deaths. Besides, lengthy trial delays at both the commencement and conclusion of trials, along with the failure to adequately investigate, discipline, and prosecute those responsible for killings, have contributed to a culture of impunity.

Our media is full of reports that there is a significant increase in attacks against police and security forces. According to the independent think tank Center for Research and Security Studies, there were at least 386 reported deaths of police and military personnel in terrorist attacks and counterterror operations during the first three quarters of the year. The number of attacks and casualties were higher than in 2022 or 2021.

However, they may not realize that these commentaries and analyses are being recorded, compiled, and reported upon by human rights watchdogs around the world, including those in the US reflecting negatively on our human rights record.”

The impugned report comprehensively cataloged a multitude of incidents, events, and statements with detailed dates, names, and qualifications forming its foundation. Noteworthy examples include the killing of seven Shia Muslims, including four teachers, in Upper Kurram, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, on May 4, apparently in retaliation for the earlier killing of a Sunni Muslim; a suicide bombing in Mastung, Balochistan, on September 29, which claimed the lives of at least 60 individuals during a religious procession; and an attack by Tehreek-e-Jihad on Pakistan Air Force Training Base M.M. Alam in Mianwali, Punjab, resulting in the deaths of nine militant attacks on November 4.

Ironically, instead of addressing these issues, there was a tendency to blame rating agencies for using inaccurate data, ignoring the fact that much of the data originates from within our own country, often from government sources.

During my tenure as Joint Secretary, I compiled a comprehensive report on all international ratings, rankings, and indexes, revealing a dismal picture of our nation’s neglect, lethargy, aimless governance, and widespread lawlessness. It underscored the multitude of challenges we faced, including multiple power centers, injustice, economic stagnation, and social degradation.

Surprisingly, the government at that time took my report seriously. It was shared with the Prime Minister and other key government figures, who instructed me to develop a robust plan of action to improve our international ratings and rankings. I diligently crafted such a plan, which was subsequently shared with the higher echelons of the government. The national security advisor was entrusted with leading the implementation of this plan, and I was tasked with briefing him on the report and the proposed strategy.

However, as fate would have it, the government was dissolved before any significant progress could be made. Sadly, this scenario mirrored the fate of similar plans throughout Pakistan’s history—promising initiatives often succumbing to the tide of political change, leaving crucial reforms languishing on the shelf.

It is imperative that reports by the US statement department and such other reports reflecting our national performance and responsibilities are thoroughly reviewed and referred to relevant committees of the National Assembly and Senate for in-depth analysis. These committees should scrutinize the reports meticulously, identifying any inaccuracies in the data and bringing them to the attention of the rating agencies for clarification or amendment.

Furthermore, these committees should establish robust collaboration with the focal persons of rating agencies in Pakistan, providing them with accurate and reliable data to ensure the integrity of subsequent reports. If the data and analysis in the report are found to be accurate, the committees should then formulate a comprehensive plan of action to address the shortcomings highlighted.

Rather than blaming the mirror, we must have the courage to acknowledge the reflections it presents and strive to ensure that what the mirror reflects is indeed a true representation of our nation’s beauty and charm. This approach fosters accountability and facilitates proactive measures to enhance our national performance and reputation.

By Qamar Bashir

Former Press Secretary to the President

Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC

Nasir Abbas Shirazi

Escalating to de-escalate is a strategy to take some appropriate action to avoid further action to end the conflict at least for the time being. It contains elements of capability, commitment, political will to act, and capacity to inflict unbearable loss to the adversary.

The goal of this escalation is not to defeat the enemy but to compel him to a situation where the enemy avoids further escalation. The Middle East has been a hot spot because of unending conflicts because of foreign interference and the interests of great powers. The rules of engagement in this region and anywhere else were simple; you do not mess with Americans. However, after the assassination of Iran’s IRGS’s commander Major General Qasem Suleimani’s assassination by Americans, Iran completely changed the rules of engagement. Ira responded militarily and targeted the main U.S. military base of Ain-ul-Asad in Iraq.

With this direct hit at American bases for the assassination of its General, Iran established four new rules and principles of engagement. First, Iran would respond militarily if attacked militarily. Second, Iran will respond directly as a state if attacked by any state. Third, Iran will not use any of its like-minded armed groups if attacked directly but will retaliate with state apparatus. Fourth, Iran’s military demonstrated by attacking the Ain Al Asad base which was used to assassinate its general that a response would be aimed at the location used to attack Iran or its interests.

The Iranian response resulted in the world fearing a U.S. retaliation to the direct attack at her base would start a spiral of incidents with a capacity to transform conflict into a full-scale regional war. Contrary to this, calm and restraint were witnessed even during the reign of hawkish President Trump. This time, the then-set rules by Iran were again being tested when Israel, violating international law, struck the Iranian embassy in Syria – Iran, re-establishing those four rules of engagement, retaliated directly within Israel from Iranian territory. 

Despite the hype created by Israel, America, and its Western allies – France, Germany, and Britain – Iran crossed the threshold with Israel by creating an effective level of deterrence. Iran launched a well-coordinated, comprehensive attack with 300 projectiles including drones, cruise, and ballistic missiles. The level of escalation was so calculated that it only hit the military installations throughout Israeli-occupied territories including Tel Aviv, Golan Heights, Nevatm air base, areas close to Dimona nuclear facility, Eilat point, and other strategically important locations. It demonstrated a clear message that any attack on Iranian soil will not go unanswered. Iran with this retaliation again showed the capacity, capability, and will to retaliate and inflict serious damage.

It was a loud and clear message that if Israel retaliates and attacks continue, the response would be harsher, destructive, accurate, and painful. Israel used to play with the psychological pressure of its military might, its invincibility, powerful allies, and state-of-the-art missile defense system – all shattered with Iranian retaliation and this loss of prestige is Irreparable. 

Following the retaliation, the U.S. distanced itself by declaring that the U.S. would not be part of any Israeli counterattack. The U.S. policymakers and analysts know how bad participating In Israel’s counterattack could go. The US has military bases all over the Middle East and, the U.S. naval fleet present in the Red Sea, Gulf, and other territorial waters – they all could come under direct Iranian attacks as Iran had proved this after Sulemani’s assassination.

One of the rules of engagement established by Iran was that it would attack the place of origin of attacks on Iran so the U.S. is unable to use any of its bases in the regional countries for a coordinated attack on Iran with Israel for those states would be the immediate target of Iranian retaliation. Moreover, the regional countries are after a rapprochement with Iran and are not willing to take any risk and face the situation like the Ain-ul-Asad in their homeland. Also, Europe is on the brink of an economic crunch and cannot afford disruption in the strategic energy and trade routes, mostly under Iranian control, causing unbearable economic consequences. 

In the prevalent situation, Israel is isolated at the international level to act or react and is facing enormous domestic pressure – Netanyahu and his war cabinet are only after some safe passage following a humiliating defeat in Gaza and the fact that it is unable to attack the Iranian mainland keeping in mind the Iranian promise and capacity of inflicting crushing response. The political situation at home and in the region is also not favorable for Netanyahu and his war cabinet. They failed on the diplomatic front by no consensus at the UN in their favor. War on Gaza is about to complete 200 days and the people in the siege are still in high spirits, still fighting the aggression. Israel is witnessing clear failure as it has achieved zero goals spoken about before the start of the war in Gaza – it has created unsustainable domestic challenges for Netanyahu followed by international isolation caused by its brutalities in Gaza where Israel has killed more than 34 thousand Palestinians. 

Iranian attacks were highly celebrated in the West Bank, Gaza, and other Palestinian areas providing a boost to their morale while simultaneously eradicating barging chips for Israel on the negotiation table. The situation is evident that Israel is not in the position to escalate further by attacking Iranian soil and possibilities for a cease-fire under the terms and conditions set by resistant movements like Hamas are growing. Iranian escalation is resulting in de-escalation and providing the environment for a successful ceasefire at least for the time being.

Nasir Abbas Shirazi is a senior lawyer, seasoned political analyst, and the president of Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies. He also serves as a visiting faculty member, teaching Middle Eastern and South Asian studies at different universities in Islamabad, Pakistan. His area of expertise lies ingeo-politics, geo-economics and geo strategic of the Middle Eastern region. He can be reached at [email protected]