WE in Pakistan are quite allergic to American pressure and hate to be seen to be doing something that is in compliance with dictation from America, or for that matter from any western country.

In one sense this is understandable, for as an independent state with a democratic government Pakistan must not take political pressure from the US or from any other country.

However, at the same time we should not forget that apart from 'American' or 'western' pressure, there are several legal obligations binding on Pakistan through various treaties that the country has ratified. These obligations need to be complied with because they are commitments made under international law to the international community.

We should refrain from confusing the legal obligations that Pakistan has to fulfil with pressure from any specific country. It is a well-known fact that every treaty that a state enters into causes the state to surrender its sovereignty to the extent of the scope of the treaty. Every treaty chips off a certain portion of sovereignty in the interest of global harmony and mutual benefit.

Pakistan has several thousand federal statutes, whereas the number of treaties, bilateral instruments, MoUs, etc., that it has ratified or linked with are not less than 10,000. Pakistan's government, its political leadership and also its public need to be aware of the broad spectrum of the commitments of the state under these legal instruments.

It must be clarified that the implementation of these legal commitments by Pakistan has to be undertaken even if there is no political pressure from any country. Whereas if there is political pressure on Pakistan to do something that is not part of its legal commitments, then the government can rightly resist that pressure and decline diktat from a foreign country.

However, if a foreign country is asking Pakistan to fulfil its legal commitments under an existing treaty, then Pakistan has little choice but to comply, unless of course the government has a good legal reason or a valid interpretation of the treat to argue otherwise.

This exercise of knowing what Pakistan's commitments are must be undertaken by the federal government and the political parties need to also understand the framework of Pakistan's obligations, as this would discipline their own thinking and also equip them with better arguments to explain their position before the public as well as abroad.

If the Pakistani government freezes the accounts of a proscribed organisation, the public assumes this to be the result of pressure or arm-twisting by the US or the West. Whereas what needs to be shared with the public is that such an action is an obligation under the UN Security Council's binding resolutions. While it may be a case of pressure from the US, the fact remains that it is also an obligation under international law. Even if there is no US pressure, UN and international legal obligations remain intact.

If the US or western powers ask Pakistan to make an anti-money laundering law, is that pressure or a legal obligation? In this case it is both. Pakistan faces the pressure to come up with legislation as early as possible and also has a legal commitment under the Financial Action Task Force regulations to do so.

The US government puts pressure on Pakistan to hand over the Americans arrested in Sargodha to them. In this case, this is only political pressure. There is no legal obligation to hand over suspects without due process of extradition. In this case Pakistan can decline the pressure on the ground that it has no legal compulsion to accept a political demand which is not in conformity with the law.

When the US put pressure on Pakistan to hand over Ramzi Yousef, the government wrongly buckled under pressure because the said demand was not in accordance with any legal commitment that Pakistan had made. So the government could have refused to hand over Yousef and instead asked the US government to formally apply under the law for proper extradition.

Not everything that America says or attempts to dictate to Pakistan is a legal obligation. Therefore, Pakistan can resist where its government comes to the conclusion that the political and diplomatic pressure is not in conformity with international legal treaties or commitments. However, where pressure is exerted on Pakistan to fulfil its commitments under international law, there is little political room to resist.

In this case it becomes the duty of the state and its organs to explain legal compulsions to the people of Pakistan. The political parties also need to evolve clarity on the distinction between 'US pressure' and the actual legal commitments discussed above so that they not only take informed positions but also guide their followers towards a more rational discourse.

The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and president of the Research Society of International Law.

ahmersoofi@hotmail.com