MFN status: Diplomatic implications
Ambassador’s Diary
Dr Samiullah Koreshi
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 - Last week in writing on Most Favoured Nation status [MFN] I could barely touch on the serious implications of Pakistan giving MFN treatment in bilateral trade to India. I am glad that some circles have reacted to this development in identical manner, and these circles included Chief Minister of Balochistan, Sardar Atiq a leader of Azad Kashmir, and some political circles as well. It was a wide sampling of public reaction. On the opposite side, there are some circles, particularly traders who have defended ‘opening up of trade” with India as if granting MFN was the real means to do so. Naturally, their approach is one dimensional Opening up of trade does not necessarily mean that MFN has to be the only method of “opening up trade”. That can be done from small beginning to significant extent to “no limit” .
How much is the opening up is under consideration. Opening up trade with India is not in itself the issue. Should it be unlimited or with certain caution with a country with which there had been three wars, including a trade/devaluation war in 1949 is the question. At that time-see Prof G W Choudhry’s book on India-Pak Relations in which there is a chapter on the effect it had in paralyzing our trade totally. We ran all over the world to find markets , since in those days the main market for our few goods and raw products was only India as it was two years after independence. Such a sudden guillotine of trade boycott can be applied to accept certain political demands if our trade becomes India-centric, which is likely to happen given all the prevailing condition. I am not India-phobic. But one does not rush from one extreme to the other without getting reciprocity in benefits.
With India, at present there are three major irritants removal of which is necessary for jumping to the limit of grating India Most Favlured Nation status These are Kashmir Dispute, impediments on access to Indus River Waters to Pakistan, with Indian plans to build dams on them and most importantly Indian subversion in Balochistan which is going on since seventies or so. Azad Balochistan stint was floated by India etc, and now from Jab lei Siraj India along with CIA, Mossad and Raw is jointly operating to aid the subversive groups and activities, by supplying arms and money to the anti-Pakistan Balochis. Rehman Malik goes on saying that foreigners are involved in carrying trouble in Balochistan but avoids naming them. Even V S Naipaul in his book “ Among Converted Peoples” hints at foreign involvements in Balochistan, and if one lifts the veil from the story in the chapter on “ Guerrillas” one can see Indians involved in it then.
Moreover, to call India “MFN” damages the possibilities of Pakistan taking claims against India in the UN and international forums. The simple reply to them will be all the matters should be solved bilaterally, there is no need to come to UN or involving international community in them.
Another point is do we agree to grant India a Permanent Seat in the Security Council, which is a logical implication of granting MFN to India. Use of the word “Most Favoured Nation” for India implies Pakistan being denied any locus standi on objecting to India’s candidature to Perm seat on UNSC, withdrawing Kashmir case, having no right to raising the question of Indian schemes to turn Pakistan into a desert. Etc. Do you agree to all these implications.
Let me assure here that no one would like to preach a doctrine of hatred against India, but one has to be wide eyed in planning drastic moves, and as I said earlier, trade is adjunct of diplomacy in all countries. One dimensional approach in trade misses its other implications. Prof G W Chowdhuri was Head of Department of International Relations, Dhaka University, Dhaka, then in East Pakistan. He was a high caliber Bangali intellectuals and had been Federal Minister of Communications under Yahya Regime. The book was written much before his affiliation with Yahya Khan. His book is replete with details that only a high-class researcher could include in his work. After the fall of Dhaka he left for US where he became a Professor in some university.
I might include in this article another diplomatic theme, since my bad habit of wanting to stick to correctness bothers me when I find the well-established principles being violated revolts, and this is the case of Pakistan’s “recognition” of traitors regime in Libya. Had the movement been that of people’s revolt against Kadhafi it would have been incorrect to brand it as the revolt of traitors put up by US, Sarkozy and NATO with a mask of “people’s revolt” against Kadhafi. Who can accept a group of self seekers armed, supported by gun fire and aerial bombardment of legal forces of a legal regime as people’s revolt” Only a very willing credulous imbecile will do that.
And before there are fresh elections, a new regular government is installed in power, Pakistan grants recognition. Under international law it was not entitled to be recognized de facto and here Pakistan with its competent Foreign Service Officers is made to grant “recognition “ to the traitors foreign supported traitors group installed in power. If Kadhafi did not have people’s support how he fought till the end. US did not recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 80s after it was in control of Afghanistan and had authority through out Afghanistan. Now they are going to hold another “Nuremberg like Victors’ Trial of the vanquished under the label of International Criminal Cour, for “Crimes against Human Rights”. It would be better if the Western Powers would come to the UN and state clearly that whatever they do is right and whatever their supported groups or proxies financed and supported by them by all the means of destruction are always right.
Why not state the blunt truth, that West is the sole custodian, judge and upholder of its rights in all cases. Bernard Shaw has said some thing similar about the English always getting a Court verdict in their favour. I remember the last Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar who when tried by the British for “rebellion” against the East India Company’s rule over his empire in 1959 said” You are trying me the Emperor of India for rebellion against you foreigners in my country?” The Emperor of India was sentenced for Mutiny against the British, and exiled to Rangoon where he died and his burial was made secretly, his body was burnt and his grave was raised to the ground lest. Lest someone suspect that I have some motive in writing this piece, May I say that I write on principles. With due humility I may say that I am beholden to none anywhere neither in Pakistan nor abroad. God alone helped me I sought no favours nor received any favours for myself from any one. So I am not supporting Ghaddafi’s regime for any personal motives. I am not fond of Mir Jafars or Mir Sadiqs of Muslim history anywhere.
How much is the opening up is under consideration. Opening up trade with India is not in itself the issue. Should it be unlimited or with certain caution with a country with which there had been three wars, including a trade/devaluation war in 1949 is the question. At that time-see Prof G W Choudhry’s book on India-Pak Relations in which there is a chapter on the effect it had in paralyzing our trade totally. We ran all over the world to find markets , since in those days the main market for our few goods and raw products was only India as it was two years after independence. Such a sudden guillotine of trade boycott can be applied to accept certain political demands if our trade becomes India-centric, which is likely to happen given all the prevailing condition. I am not India-phobic. But one does not rush from one extreme to the other without getting reciprocity in benefits.
With India, at present there are three major irritants removal of which is necessary for jumping to the limit of grating India Most Favlured Nation status These are Kashmir Dispute, impediments on access to Indus River Waters to Pakistan, with Indian plans to build dams on them and most importantly Indian subversion in Balochistan which is going on since seventies or so. Azad Balochistan stint was floated by India etc, and now from Jab lei Siraj India along with CIA, Mossad and Raw is jointly operating to aid the subversive groups and activities, by supplying arms and money to the anti-Pakistan Balochis. Rehman Malik goes on saying that foreigners are involved in carrying trouble in Balochistan but avoids naming them. Even V S Naipaul in his book “ Among Converted Peoples” hints at foreign involvements in Balochistan, and if one lifts the veil from the story in the chapter on “ Guerrillas” one can see Indians involved in it then.
Moreover, to call India “MFN” damages the possibilities of Pakistan taking claims against India in the UN and international forums. The simple reply to them will be all the matters should be solved bilaterally, there is no need to come to UN or involving international community in them.
Another point is do we agree to grant India a Permanent Seat in the Security Council, which is a logical implication of granting MFN to India. Use of the word “Most Favoured Nation” for India implies Pakistan being denied any locus standi on objecting to India’s candidature to Perm seat on UNSC, withdrawing Kashmir case, having no right to raising the question of Indian schemes to turn Pakistan into a desert. Etc. Do you agree to all these implications.
Let me assure here that no one would like to preach a doctrine of hatred against India, but one has to be wide eyed in planning drastic moves, and as I said earlier, trade is adjunct of diplomacy in all countries. One dimensional approach in trade misses its other implications. Prof G W Chowdhuri was Head of Department of International Relations, Dhaka University, Dhaka, then in East Pakistan. He was a high caliber Bangali intellectuals and had been Federal Minister of Communications under Yahya Regime. The book was written much before his affiliation with Yahya Khan. His book is replete with details that only a high-class researcher could include in his work. After the fall of Dhaka he left for US where he became a Professor in some university.
I might include in this article another diplomatic theme, since my bad habit of wanting to stick to correctness bothers me when I find the well-established principles being violated revolts, and this is the case of Pakistan’s “recognition” of traitors regime in Libya. Had the movement been that of people’s revolt against Kadhafi it would have been incorrect to brand it as the revolt of traitors put up by US, Sarkozy and NATO with a mask of “people’s revolt” against Kadhafi. Who can accept a group of self seekers armed, supported by gun fire and aerial bombardment of legal forces of a legal regime as people’s revolt” Only a very willing credulous imbecile will do that.
And before there are fresh elections, a new regular government is installed in power, Pakistan grants recognition. Under international law it was not entitled to be recognized de facto and here Pakistan with its competent Foreign Service Officers is made to grant “recognition “ to the traitors foreign supported traitors group installed in power. If Kadhafi did not have people’s support how he fought till the end. US did not recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 80s after it was in control of Afghanistan and had authority through out Afghanistan. Now they are going to hold another “Nuremberg like Victors’ Trial of the vanquished under the label of International Criminal Cour, for “Crimes against Human Rights”. It would be better if the Western Powers would come to the UN and state clearly that whatever they do is right and whatever their supported groups or proxies financed and supported by them by all the means of destruction are always right.
Why not state the blunt truth, that West is the sole custodian, judge and upholder of its rights in all cases. Bernard Shaw has said some thing similar about the English always getting a Court verdict in their favour. I remember the last Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar who when tried by the British for “rebellion” against the East India Company’s rule over his empire in 1959 said” You are trying me the Emperor of India for rebellion against you foreigners in my country?” The Emperor of India was sentenced for Mutiny against the British, and exiled to Rangoon where he died and his burial was made secretly, his body was burnt and his grave was raised to the ground lest. Lest someone suspect that I have some motive in writing this piece, May I say that I write on principles. With due humility I may say that I am beholden to none anywhere neither in Pakistan nor abroad. God alone helped me I sought no favours nor received any favours for myself from any one. So I am not supporting Ghaddafi’s regime for any personal motives. I am not fond of Mir Jafars or Mir Sadiqs of Muslim history anywhere.
Advertisement
Epaper
Advertise Here
Comments