Pakistan in time of need

I WRITE this article five weeks after a group of terrorists struck the United States and ten days after Washington began its air campaign against Afghanistan. Not a day has passed since September 11 when all the major newspapers in America have not carried at least one long story about Pakistan. Some of the stories have been incisive but most of them have been superficial.

The hordes of journalists who have descended on Pakistan show little knowledge of the country they are covering. The same is true of the dozens of commentators who have filled the columns of American newspapers with analysis. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the Americans are rediscovering Pakistan. Pakistan is back as a frontline state for the United States. This time the war is not against European communism for which Pakistan was recruited as a partner in the eighties. This time the war is against international terrorism. As time passes, the enemy gets more difficult to define.

As the shock of the attacks of September 11 begins to wear off, some deeper thought is being given to the circumstances that persuaded 19 young men to give their lives in order to take the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. In its issue of October 15, Newsweek devoted a lot of space to one article titled “Why they hate us.” Written by Fareed Zakaria, an American Muslim of Indian origin, the “they” in the article’s title are not only the terrorists who attacked the United States last month. They are also the millions of citizens of the Arab world who have become increasingly disaffected with the regimes in power in their countries. The “us” in the title of the article, of course, are the Americans.

“To dismiss the terrorists as insane is to delude ourselves,” writes Zakaria. “Bin Laden and his fellow fanatics are products of failed societies that breed their anger. America needs a plan that will not only defeat terror but reform the Arab lands.”

But it is not only America that needs a plan. So does Pakistan. Appointed by geography as a frontline state in the war against international terrorism, Pakistan needs to ensure that it does not allow the environment that led so many people to commit such desperate acts to be recreated within its own boundaries. To quote Zakaria again: “Many of the largest Muslim countries in the world show little anti-American rage. The biggest, Indonesia, had, until the recent Asian economic crisis, been diligently following Washington’s advice on economics with impressive results.

The second and third most populous Muslim countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh, have mixed Islam and modernity with some success. While both countries are impoverished, both have voted a woman into power as prime minister, before most western countries have done so.” The election of a woman to a high political office is regarded as a sign of modernity. There is great irony in this since it was Islam of all the major religions of the world that raised the status of women.

But will this moderation abide and balance the forces represented by fundamentalism. There are indications of growing western concern that the opposite pulls exercised by radical Islam and the Washington-led coalition against terrorism may pull apart some of these societies. According to a story carried by The Washington Post on its front page on October 15, “Anti-US sentiment [was] spreading in Pakistan.” A wide cross-section of the public was expressing “concern about the short-term human damage and long-term consequences of the US military campaign against next-door Afghanistan,” said the newspaper.

Expressions of worry are not confined to commentary in the American newspapers. The European press is also carrying analyses that should alert all those engaged in the war on terrorism. It is now being appreciated that victory over terrorism will take more than bombs and missiles. According to Quentin Peel, writing for The Financial Times, “the international coalition brought together in horror and sympathy over the atrocities of September 11 is very fragile. Moderate Muslim opinion is torn between fear of fundamentalism and revulsion at civilian casualties. Vital US allies such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could face revolutions if the bombing lasts too long.” The same fear was implicit in the press conference addressed by General Pervez Musharraf the other day. He expressed the hope that the bombing won’t last very long and the work on rebuilding Afghanistan would start quickly.

How is Pakistan preparing to deal with the dynamics unleashed by the events of September 11? What should Islamabad do to ensure that the spill-over from the war on Afghanistan does not cause grievous harm to the citizens of Pakistan? What should Pakistan’s policy-makers do to move the country towards progressive modernization rather than have it slip backward and go towards fundamentalism? A good part of the answers to these questions lies in the domain of economics. Initial impact of the events of September 11 on the Pakistani economy has been negative.

Pakistan has been hurt in many different ways. It has been hurt — and will be hurt further — by the global recession that is all but certain as a result of the consumer loss of confidence following the terrorist attacks. Pakistan’s exports will suffer as will the exports of all countries. World trade is not likely to increase in 2002. Located in the middle of what is now called the war zone, Pakistani exporters have to pay higher shipping and insurance costs. Foreign airlines carrying cargo from Pakistan have shut their operations. However, the most serious impact on the economy is the result of large-scale cancellation of orders by importers.

People buying from Pakistan just don’t have the confidence that producers in the country will be able to deliver on time. Two large IT firms have suffered a great deal as their customers are insisting on getting their products developed outside Pakistan. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the value of exports from Pakistan may decline by over a billion dollars as a result of the September attacks. Pakistan needs to be compensated for this loss of market.

In order to seek economic help to address this situation and in order to revive the economy, a team headed by Pakistan’s finance minister has visited Washington and held intensive discussions with the various departments of the American government. It also met the officials of the IMF and the World Bank. These discussions focused on three things: easing the enormous burden of debt carried by Pakistan; providing Pakistan with a large and steady flow of non-project concessional money; and gaining greater and easier access for Pakistani products to the markets in the United States.

The American response to the requests made by Pakistan displays considerable eagerness to help. Once the negotiations are completed, Pakistan may be able to reduce its debt service burden by about 40 per cent — from about $6 billion during the current financial year to $3.5 billion, a saving of $2.5 billion. In addition, Pakistan may receive $2 billion of almost free money from both multilateral and bilateral aid agencies. This money will be used to pay for imports not covered by earnings form exports and also to build foreign exchange reserves. It is hard to predict how much additional export earnings will materialize from the promised greater access for Pakistani products to the US.

If there is no problem with producing the goods and services in demand in America, a sizable increase in export earnings could be achieved. To take one example of the benefits that may accrue to Pakistan is the order about to be placed on a producer of gas masks in the country who, given the scare associated with biological terrorism that may be directed at the US, will be able to sell as much as he is able to produce.

To the American support for Pakistan we should also add what is coming from Europe and Japan. While my estimate of $2 billion of additional soft money likely to become available for Pakistan as well as the debt relief the country is likely to get included all donors, it appears that the European Union will also provide better access to its markets for Pakistani products. All in all, Pakistan may receive $5 to $6 billion of additional foreign flows as a result of its willingness to participate in the war against terrorism.

But this is only for one year — my arithmetic is confined to the year 2002. It would be wrong for Pakistan not to focus on the medium and long term in order to put the economy back on a track that will take it towards sustainable growth. If that were to be done, Pakistani negotiators should focus on three things.

In working on debt relief the donors will try hard to limit their dispensation to only one year. That way they will keep the country on a short leash and continue to have an enormous leverage on Islamabad. From Pakistan’s perspective, however, a longer-term arrangement is highly desirable. That way the country will be able to build its reserves rapidly, create a larger margin for accommodating imports needed to revive the economy, and provide comfort to foreign capital markets.

It will ultimately be foreign direct investment that will bring growth to the Pakistani economy. But foreign capital will need some comfort before it will be prepared to move into the country. This comfort can be provided by public sector agencies that guarantee investments in emerging markets. Given the size of the Pakistani economy, the size of its population and the size of the Pakistani diaspora in Britain and North America, the country could become an attractive destination for foreign investment. The initial push for this will have to come from guarantees given by agencies such as OPIC.

The third element in Pakistan’s strategy should concern trade. A serious effort should be made to obtain a status similar to that given by the US to such favoured states as Mexico, Israel and Jordan. A similar status is being contemplated for Indonesia. All these are free trade arrangements that allow complete access to the goods from these countries to the markets in America. The US, in return, will demand a similar treatment for its exports which Pakistan should be able to provide.

It appears that the Americans are contemplating a somewhat limited accommodation for Pakistan — some reduction in import duties and some relaxation on the quotas on textile exports. While these are welcome, the positive effect of these concessions is only for a limited duration since by 2005 the US is obliged to make these kinds of adjustments for all developing countries, not just Pakistan. On the other hand, with a free trade arrangement in place, Pakistan will become an attractive place for foreign companies — not just for those of the US — for making investments. This has happened in both Mexico and Israel. These two countries saw a very large increase in foreign direct investment following the implementation of free trade arrangements with the US.

The approach the Pakistani negotiators should follow, therefore, is not only to seek compensation for the damage done to the country’s economy by the events of September 11. They should seek longer-term relief and assistance in order to get the economy moving again. This is the easy part. The hard part will begin when Pakistan starts to plan the use of the additional resources likely to become available.

In sackcloth and ashes

THE war against terrorism seems to be, for the time being, Osama bin Laden specific though in the sweep, Taliban have been included. It would seem that a military solution is being sought, at least, in the first phase.

On September 11, the moral high ground was with the United States. With the aerial bombardment of Afghanistan becoming indiscriminate, search and destroy is how it is officially described, this moral high ground is becoming slippery and the bombing is beginning to resemble, ominously, the bombing raids that the Americans carried out in Vietnam.

History teaches us that history teaches us nothing. In the meantime, a humanitarian disaster which was looming even before September 11 has turned into a catastrophe and the death figure of men, women and children, particularly children, is being upgraded on a daily basis and the numbers are terrifying. Add to that the refugees, the flow has become a torrent and one is numbed by the foolhardiness of it all.

We knew that human life has always been cheap but this cheap, as if to suggest that a fire-sale is on? There is a good deal of talk about the re-building of Afghanistan once “this” is over and this is eerily reminiscent of the American commander in Vietnam who had to destroy a town in order to save it.

The war against terrorism should not be confined to a “panorama of attacks,” the world needs no convincing that the United States and its coalition partners enjoy a preponderance of military power but even if the Taliban are pummelled into submission, the war will not have been won because the peace would have been host.

This is one aspect of the war against terrorism. The other is the eager cynicism of certain countries to promote their own agendas while the pot is on the boil. And the one that most directly concerns us is India. It is no coincidence that the Indians launched an artillery and mortar attack along the Line of Control in Kashmir on the eve of Colin Powell’s visit to Islamabad describing them as “punitive action” and a part of a new “proactive” approach to curbing militancy in Kashmir.

There has always been a sanctimonious mumbo-jumbo about Indian foreign policy, a sackcloth and ashes piety that is meant to mask its real designs. Solidly aligned with the Soviet Union, India strutted about the world stage as a champion of Non-alignment, scolding all and sundry in strident moral tones.

India claims to be a victim of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, the harlot protesting her innocence. Never mind the thousands that have been killed by the Indian army and para-military forces in Kashmir, India must examine its own record in sponsoring terrorism, its role in the Sri Lankan Tamil insurgency.

This is what Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lankan scholar writes in his paper International and Regional Implications of the Sri Lankan Tamil Insurgency about India’s involvement: “Although Tamil insurgents had established a few training camps in Tamil Nadu in 1982, there was no official assistance from the Central Government of India prior to August 1983... After Premier Indira Gandhi, also leader of the powerful Congress (I) Party took over, a policy decision was taken to support Sri Lankan northern insurgency from August 1983.

“The need to have leverage over Colombo was adequately demonstrated by the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the agency also responsible for advancing India’s secret foreign policy goals. Within her inner circle, the decision was justified. Geopolitics and domestic compulsions validated the rationale. The Third Agency of RAW, a supra-intelligence outfit was entrusted with the task. Within a year, the number of Sri Lanka Tamil training camps in Tamil Nadu mushroomed to 32.

“By mid 1987, over 20,000 Sri Lankan Tamil insurgents had been provided sanctuary, finance, training and weapons either by the central government, state government of Tamil Nadu or by the insurgents themselves.

While most of the initial training was confined to Indian military and paramilitary camps in Uttar Pradesh, specialized training was imparted by the Indian instructors, attached with RAW, to Sri Lankan insurgents in New Delhi, Bombay and Vishakhapatnam. The most secretive training was conducted in Chakrata, north of Dehra Dun.”

With the Indo-Lankan Accord of July 1987, RAW assistance was ended. This is only one example of India’s principled foreign policy and it is unlikely that Jaswant Singh would have mentioned it to Colin Powell. Instead there was much bleating over the suicide-bombing of the Srinagar Assembly which was immediately condemned by Pakistan. Let me state here that those responsible for that bombing were friends of neither Pakistan nor the Kashmiri people, raising some questions about whose friends the bombers were.

If the Indians wish to include Kashmir in the war against terrorism, Pakistan should welcome it and insist on an independent investigation, preferably by the United Nations to find out what is really happening in Kashmir. Such a team will be able to give a correct picture of whether what is happening is an uprising of the Kashmiri people or merely alleged Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. The time has come to clear the air.

As for the gunning down of Israel’s ultranationalist Tourism Minister Rehevam Zeevi, the message reached him that those who live by the sword, perish by the sword. Like India, Israel sees its apple-cart upset by the new realities after September 11 and is thrashing out. It remains to be seen if Dr Frankenstein can rein in the monster. The greatest threat to the stability of the coalition that is being put together is Ariel Sharon. The sooner the United States realises, the better it is.

Implications of Afghan war

THE Anglo-US air strikes against Afghanistan since October 7 and the American president’s plans to carry the war beyond Afghanistan’s borders poses a threat to regional and global peace. Russia has warned the US against embarking on any aggression against Iraq while the European Union has publicly dissociated itself from any such escalation.

Though the OIC foreign ministers’ meeting at Doha on October 10 supported only limited punitive strikes against the alleged terrorist network in Afghanistan, it rejected the view that resistance to foreign occupation was terrorism. It strongly opposed any attack on other states, meaning Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Libya. Clearly, the American warmongers have raised the spectre of Osama bin Laden in order to overthrow the governments of these countries which do not kowtow to Washington.

It is the Security Council and not any power bloc that is competent to take military action against a delinquent state within the meaning of Articles 39-47 of Chapter VII, UN charter. These provisions require the Council to set up a military staff committee comprising the chiefs of the armed forces of the five permanent members of the Security Council to conduct any military operation under the direction of that body. A United Nations force is raised for the purpose under its command.

This legal procedure was not complied with and the Anglo-US bloc confronted the UN with a fait accompli by launching an attack on Afghanistan. In other words, this is an Anglo-US invasion and not enforcement action by the UN. It is strange that the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has endorsed the action. The question is: if the Security Council resolution permits the use of force against terrorists, can any state attack another state on this pretext? In that case, there will be anarchy and disorder in the world and the strong will dominate the weak.

The problem becomes more confounded when there is no consensus on the definition of terrorism as manifested in the recent UN General Assembly debate. The Islamic countries in particular refused to brand national liberation struggle as terrorism. On the contrary, they regard them as legitimate. In this context, the struggles of Palestinians, Kashmiris and Chechens for self-determination find support in the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. The United States and the European Union have turned a blind eye to the genocidal acts of Israel and India in occupied Palestine and Kashmir and, instead of condemning state terrorism, denounce the resistance movements in these territories.

This approach of the metropolitan powers must change if there is to be peace and tranquillity in the world. The West, Russia, India and Sri Lanka must realize that separatist insurgencies in their territories have erupted when the parent state in each case denied the national aspirations of a people. The problems of Palestine and Kashmir illustrate the failure of military means adopted to solve political, social, economic and cultural problems. Will the big powers send their armies, navies and air forces to Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Sri Lanka and far-off places to fight “terrorism” instead of seeking political solution through diplomatic means?

It seems that by terrorism the West means the Muslim resistance to big power hegemonies and foreign occupation. The Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation is seen as terrorism while the Timorese armed rebellion against the parent state, Indonesia, is considered as legitimate exercise of a people’s right to statehood. This is duplicity. If the big powers apply the same yardstick to identical cases, the affected people will not be driven to desperation. It is the double standards and discriminatory policies of the UN that cause heart burning.

Further, the intelligence agencies of big powers are guilty of murder, mayhem and violence. In this respect the American CIA, Mossad and SAS are most notorious. The former President Bill Clinton had recommended that the existing ban on CIA to assassinate foreign heads of state or government should be lifted and the agency should be allowed the option of eliminating them where America’s ‘vital’ interests so require. He admitted having ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Following in his footsteps, his successor, George Bush, wants Osama ‘dead or alive — preferably alive so that he can be put on trial. This is the confession by Clinton and Bush of abetment to murder. The question is: is it permissible for an American government or its intelligence agency to order extra-judicial killing of any person?

It will be a very unsafe world if the intelligence agencies of big powers go about toppling governments and killing people across the world as manifested in a series of the CIA-engineered coups in many countries — against Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 and Allende in Chile in 1973. Then, there were the US-backed invasion of the Bay of Pigs (Cuba) in 1961, the American military attack on Grenada on October 25, 1983, Panama on December 1, 1989, the air attack on Libya on April 15, 1986, the downing of the Iranian passenger plane on July 3, 1988, by US warships and the simultaneous cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan on August 20, 1998.

Another instance is the continuing Anglo-US piratical air raids on Iraq and Israel’s bombing of the civilian population of West Bank and Gaza with Washington’s connivance since it twice vetoed the draft-resolution calling for the stationing of a UN monitoring force for the protection of the Palestinians.

Regrettably the UN has paid no attention to the plight of Kashmiris, sixty thousand of whom have been killed by the Indian occupation forces. It looks so dishonest on the part of the UN to refuse to implement its resolutions on Kashmir and Palestine on the one hand, and to allow the Anglo-American bloc to invade Afghanistan on the other.

The big powers should first stop terrorism which they themselves have been practising as state policy against Third World countries and then seek to remedy the causes that are to be found in colonial domination, racial discrimination and authoritarian and fascist rule and absolute monarchies imposed on a people. A comprehensive social, political and economic reform programme and not an invading army legion or an armada could bring about equilibrium at national and international level.

The geopolitical change emerging from the debris of Afghanistan will neither bring peace and stability to that country nor will it permit Islamabad to have a voice in the formation of the future government of Afghanistan.

Americans would gain control of the land route connecting Central Asia and Pakistan, enabling their Unocol company to regain the concession for laying the gas pipeline between Turkmenistan and Pakistan; at the same time they would be able to influence developments in the Central Asian states, Iran, Xingjiang and Tibet. Pakistan’s present government may get the promised peanuts and a new lease of life as was the case with Zia but the crushing debt burden will more or less remain intact and the Kashmir imbroglio will keep hanging around its neck like a millstone. The prospects for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan would be ever more dimmed.

A painful journey

TO combat those who stand behind the attacks of September 11 in the United States, it is essential to understand the roots of terrorism — and to grasp that terrorism’s journey from Afghanistan to New York, passing through the Middle East, has been permeated with pain and suffering.

What drives a person like Osama bin Laden? With other Islamist Arab volunteers, he fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan under the auspices of the CIA in the early 1980s, After Moscow withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, Islamist allies felt deserted and betrayed by America.

Many of the Afghan Arabs returned to their homelands. Many were transformed into local fanatics who applied what they learned in Afghanistan at the hands of the CIA.

They exercised their violence through Islamist groups, which paralyzed entire Arab societies and crippled their economies. Thousands of civilians have been slaughtered in Egypt, Algeria, and elsewhere in the Arab world. Not a week goes by without yet another massacre being committed against Algerian civilians.

For years, Arab leaders have been asking the United States, Britain and others to hand over terrorist organizers living in their countries, but to no avail. Meanwhile, democratic, liberal and moderate Islamic trends in the Arab world were weakened by the polarization — and at times even coordination — between the military and the violent Afghan Arabs leading the Islamist groups.

Not until the first bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993 did the West begin to feel the magnitude of the danger that had haunted Arabs for years. —The Washington Post

Influx of Afghan refugees

PAKISTAN is confronted with the threat of another wave of mass influx of displaced Afghans, as according to the UNHCR estimates about one million of them are likely to swarm into its territory in the near future. The actual figures could be much higher depending on the scale, nature and duration of the on-going attack on Afghanistan by the coalition forces.

The government of Pakistan’s policy of closing its border with Afghanistan that was put in place last November remains unchanged. However, the latter is at the same time putting up those refugees who are able to sneak in through the unfrequented routes in camps. More importantly, the government is working with UNHCR in trying to locate suitable sites for those who are expected to pour in in the days and months to come. It is also making fervent appeals to the international community to make generous financial contributions for their upkeep as and when they arrive.

The government’s close-door policy, while welcoming the new wave of refugees, raises a number of questions some of which one proposes to answer in this piece. First, given Pakistan’s bitter experience with regard to Afghan refugees who have played havoc with this country in a wide variety of ways and who pose a clear security threat to it, why is Pakistan letting them swarm its territory once again? Does the government have no option but to accept the refugees as it did during the Afghan “jihad”?

Before answering these questions, a word of explanation for the government’s present policy of keeping its border closed is in order. In our judgment, Pakistan’s closure of its border is explained, among other things, by the change in Pakistan’s supreme national interest. Thus, during the period of the Afghan jihad Pakistan welcomed refugees because they supplied the manpower material for launching the militant struggle against the Soviet occupation forces and also because they provided a locus standi to Pakistan to speak on the Afghan question which was translated subsequently through Pakistan’s participation in negotiations for the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

However, following the end of the Afghan jihad the refugees ceased to serve any useful purpose. Instead they became a liability for Pakistan following refusal by the international community to financially share Pakistan’s burden because of donor fatigue.

The factors of Islamic solidarity and ethnic solidarity wore thin and the urge to reach out to the wretched of the earth bore horrendous consequences for the country. Consequently, the government’s policy towards displaced Afghans underwent a radical change in November last year when it closed the country’s border with Afghanistan following the arrival of a large number of refugees into Pakistan as a result of drought and civil war.

The change in the present close-border policy is explained by the fact that Pakistan has opted to be a front-line state in the US-led coalition’s war against terrorism. The West would not like the Afghans to be pushed back into Afghanistan and is also scared of adverse publicity by the international media resulting from images of starving and dying Afghans.

The refugee policy is equally dictated to some extent by considerations of economic gains for cash-strapped Pakistan. In this we are doing nothing but continuing our previous line of action when we collected more than $1 billion from the international community during 1979-97. Incidentally, Pakistan’s case is not exceptional as examples are there where nations in similar situations have fully milked the international community. For instance, the assistance given to Somalia for refugees who were victims of the conflict in mid-1980s between the latter and Ethiopia was a matter of dispute. According to the UNHCR, refugees numbered around 450,000 whereas Somalia put the figures at two millions.

Regarding the question as to whether Pakistan should allow itself to go through the same unhappy and nightmarish refugee experience that it has inherited from the Afghan jihad, it is unfortunately repeating the bitter past without exploring other options. On the basis of a brief survey of the recent history of refugee movement in the world, we notice at least two other models which Pakistan should have carefully examined before taking a decision on how to proceed on the question of Afghan refugees.

One option derives from the case of Kurdish refugees who tried to swarm into Turkey at the time of the Desert Storm campaign against Iraq. We can call it the Turkish model. In this case, in the face of the Turkish opposition to the mass influx of Kurdish refugees into Turkey whom the latter regarded as a threat to its security, the coalition forces decided to contain them on the basis of a Security Council resolution by creating “safe heavens” in Iraq.

As far as the doctrinal basis of this decision is concerned (to satisfy the UNHCR), one may cite Article 3 of the Declaration on Territorial Asylum adopted in 1967 by the UN General Assembly which, in addition to accepting the national security as the basis for excluding refugees from entering national territory, also accepted the case of mass influx of people. This ground equally figured in the 1977 Conference on Territorial Asylum when Turkey, through an amendment, tried to justify non-compliance in exceptional cases where mass influx of people could constitute a serious security problem for the contracting state.

Taking a cue from the Turkish example, Pakistan, as a member of the international coalition against terrorism, should negotiate with it for the creation of “safe heavens” inside Afghanistan for the fleeing Afghans. The UNHCR, which has been reluctant to establish displaced persons’ camps inside Afghanistan as borne out by the failure of the Kofi Annan and Lubbers missions earlier this year, is likely to drag its feet, nor would the international coalition be receptive to the idea for the reason given above. However, since President Musharraf is convinced of the soundness of the idea of providing assistance to Afghans inside Afghanistan, he should work on the above-mentioned proposal. This time the effort may bear fruit because of the critical nature of the present situation. But its success will depend on Pakistan’s will to push it.

The other option is based on the example of “boat people” who, towards the end of the1970s and during the 1980s, fled from Indochina bound for countries of South East Asia for refuge. According to this model, unlike the Convention approach whereby a refugee is entitled to stay in the country of refuge for an indefinite period, the refugee is accorded only “temporary protection”. Additionally, there were two more noteworthy features of this model which were a commitment to share the financial burden by the international community during the refugees’ stay in the country of first asylum, and, an assurance to resettle the latter in other countries. The model was subsequently implemented in the case of Yugoslav refugees fleeing from the Bosnian and later Kosovo crises in the 1990s. The difference between this example and the previous one is that whereas Yugoslav refugees were granted refuge on a clear guarantee that they would return to their places of origin once the conflict was over, the South East Asian refugees were to be resettled in third countries.

What the above model suggests for Pakistan is that if it cannot escape the mass influx of displaced Afghans and “safe heavens” cannot be established within Afghanistan, then Pakistan should negotiate with the international community for a commitment: a) to repatriate refugees the moment some kind of normality returns in some part of Afghanistan and b) that as long as they stay in Pakistan the international community would be responsible for financial burden-sharing. This is a reasonable proposal and should be acceptable to the international community. Given Pakistan’s importance for the international coalition vis-a-vis the present Afghan crisis, Pakistan does possess clout to get one of the above two proposals accepted. It goes without saying that Pakistan should preferably push for acceptance of the Turkish model.

An impression seems to be gaining ground in Pakistan that in the event of Zahir Shah returning to power in Afghanistan, refugees would start trekking back to their country in droves because of reconstruction activity which will be undertaken there by the coalition forces. This overly optimistic scenario should be accepted with a pinch of salt. Those familiar with the Afghan history know very well that the scenario which is likely to develop in the post-Taliban period would be a long and painful period of chaos and civil war resulting in further exodus of Afghans in large numbers to the neighbouring countries.

The launching of a kind of Marshall Plan” in Afghanistan by the international community, if at all it comes through, in all probability would have to wait the cessation of civil war and restoration of normality and peace.

It is anybody’s guess when that will take place. Hence the argument to accept refugees since a Marshall plan would soon be launched is nothing but chicanery and hence should be outrightly rejected.