LAHORE: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan organised a two-part panel discussion on ‘Gaps in governance and policy making.’

The first panel comprised former foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri, ex-foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed, journalist Zahid Hussain, and HRCP chairperson Zohra Yousuf.

The session was moderated by Ghazi Salahuddin.

The session discussed the external policies of Pakistan and the role of the foreign office.

Starting the discussion, Salahuddin questioned about who really made the policies and decisions on foreign relations, and why people didn’t really know much.

Stakeholders and parliament tend to have a little say in making the policy, he said and this was the result of ad-hocism.

HRCP holds panel discussion on judicial system, Balochistan issue and attacks on freedoms

Kasuri said the foreign office undoubtedly played an important and effective role. He spoke about how after Partition, India and Pakistan used to be on the same side of the coin regarding external relations.

“No one can substitute the role of the foreign policy, not even the ISI,” he said.

“There can only be so much that agencies can interfere with, but after a certain point the training of the foreign office is something that is needed. A good foreign minister who is willing to stick his neck out can achieve a lot,” he said.

Giving examples of his personal experiences, he said he had seen military power even in strong democracies, however if what the foreign office said had any weight then even the military would give it consideration.

He said the actual decline in the power of the foreign office started when the US decided not to confront Russia anymore. That meant no confrontation, but a lot of covert operations. CIA heads often met with ISI heads and that was when interference in the foreign relations began.

Shamshad Ahmed said the reason why there was no foreign minister in the Sharif government today was because the government gave ‘too much importance’ to foreign policy.

“You see when it comes to the foreign policy, a lot of personal interests are served through it,” he said on basis of his 40-year experience.

“Pakistani prime ministers tend to keep meetings secret. This way their personal interests are served during the meeting, and if they need to ask for anything they can without the involvement of any other,” he said.

Other country heads are known to discuss with their foreign offices about one-on-one meetings. On the other hand, some heads do not like the fact that their foreign ministers are taking more limelight than they are, he said.

Shamshad quoted a few experiences off the record of some leaders.

“When there is a vacuum in the centre, surrounding insitutions are also sucked inwards. If the centre is always doing things at the behest of Saudi Arabia and the US then what use is a foreign office even?”

“Also almost none of our leaders have the courage or vision to stand up to the others,” he said. “In my experience without any bias I have only seen ZAB doing this.”

He said Pakistan’s geo-political position was very strong and “we cannot afford to leave it all in the hands of politicians who only think of their own interests.”

“As the quote goes, politics is too serious a game to be left to politicians,” he said on a lighter note.

Journalist Zahid Hussain said contrary to popular thought the military was not responsible for all decisions made.

“It does not matter who interferes but leaders should come with their own vision and plan,” he said.

“If a head of government is so insecure about being manipulated he or she should not even be in that position if it comes to that.”

He said at present despite there being no foreign minister, ironically there was a new one everyday, including the Punjab CM.

He said if the parliament was involved in processes it was a good thing, but in case of foreign policies, this was not the job of the parliament. A foreign policy could only be formed by the government though it could be debated in the parliament. Regarding Yemen, the government’s own stance was still unknown, he said.

“You cannot keep inviting the military to make decisions for you and then expect them to stay out of the game,” he said. “In the Yemen case both the government and the army kept putting it on each other.”

Zohra Yousuf said the foreign policy was connected directly to the people’s basic rights. “How our government responds to other countries leads to results in our country. For example, the stance Pakistan took in the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan still has its repercussions today. There is a culture of secrecy regarding treaties and agreements. Pakistanis did not even know why they were fighting the war against Soviets. This time in the case of Yemen, Pakistan must be alert.”

The second session discussed the judicial system, Balochistan issue and attacks on freedoms.

Asma Jahangir, Munir A. Malik and Afrasiyab Khattak were on the panel moderated by Babar Ayaz from HRCP while Christine Herbert from LUMS department of philosophy also joined in.

The participants discussed the 18th amendment and came to the conclusion that it was more of a cosmetic change.

Khattak said the amendment tried to address the symptoms not the root causes.

“Our state is meant to be a republic and the Constitution says so but in reality this is not so,” he says.

“The 1973 Constitution itself was made only because of the army taking a backseat and the reason was that it had been globally condemned because of what happened in East Pakistan.”

He said 80 per cent of the budget goes to debt servicing, defence and administration.

“There are invisible actors in the system that manipulate things. For example, when President Zardari tried to extend Article 247, the Political Parties Act in Fata, he was discouraged from doing so,” he said.

“Basically the 2006 Charter of Democracy ended up in bringing the 18th Amendment so now we need a new CoD to bring about more change,” he said.

Asma Jahangir said many things were not included in the amendment and yet the legacy of General Zia in the form of Article 62 and 63 were still in it.

Asma and Munir Malik both said changes should be made in the process of appointing judges in superior courts.

Asma spoke of lack of infrastructural facilities in courts.

Munir Malik said Pakistan had inherited three main things from the British. “The military, their civil services and the judiciary and all served to benefit imperialism. The judge in this system could easily rule in an ordinary case but when it came to handling cases of the military or civil bureaucracy he could not break through the system. The system protected the interest of the ruling class.”

Meanwhile, Christine Herbert talked about the way the LUMS panel on ‘Unsilencing Balochistan’ was ‘silenced’ by those who were supposedly from an intelligence agency. She said there was no legality in the process the way it was done.

Asma Jahangir said the problem with the military was that they had pushed ethnic discrimination regarding Balochistan to such an extent that any kind of retaliation was to be expected.

“The military has now stopped differentiating between terrorism and national feelings,” she said. “The difference is that the terrorists have trampled our rights while the Baloch are only demanding their own. And their demands are completely reasonable.”

Meanwhile, answering a question, Asma said the proposed Cyber Crime Bill was opposite to giving people freedom of expression.

“We will not let this draconian bill be brought forward. The repercussions of this law will be terrible and it will be greatly misused,” she said.

Published in Dawn, April 20th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play