FOREIGN Office has done well by putting things in the right perspective in reaction to two developments that amount to interference in purely internal affairs of Pakistan. Its spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch was quite vocal during her weekly press briefing on Thursday about uncalled for comments made by the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) regarding the 26th Constitutional Amendment asserting that the High Commissioner had drawn unwarranted conclusions from media reports, social media posts and politically motivated speculative analysis. Similarly, she pointed out that comments on Pakistan’s domestic affairs in a letter written by over 60 US Congressmen to President Joe Biden seeking intervention for the release of PTI founder Imran Khan were contrary to the inter-state conduct and diplomatic norms.
It is unfortunate that some influential countries and multilateral institutions take smaller countries for granted and indulge in moves and actions that amount to crude interference in their internal affairs. In this backdrop, one must appreciate the Foreign Office for its prompt rejoinder on two developments and drawing attention of the sponsors of these moves towards international law, inter-state relations and their dual standards as far as respect for human rights is concerned. The speed with which the OHCHR moved to offer comments on the highly complex 26th Amendment in the Constitution shows immaturity and malafide intentions. The amendment has just been passed by the Parliament and even judges and jurists in Pakistan are unable to comprehend its fuller implications, therefore, it is intriguing how the OHCHR was able to analyze it in true perspective within a few hours of its passage. There are, therefore, reasons to believe that it formed its opinion on the basis of media reports and propaganda on social media and thus became a part of the malicious propaganda against Pakistan. The Parliament of Pakistan, as elsewhere in the democratic world, is supreme and OHCHR has no business to poke its nose into the exclusive domain of an institution that represents the will of the people. Is OHCHR speaking for the opposition parties of Pakistan? In that case too, it should study the ground situation minutely as one of the major opposition party – the JUI(F) – is celebrating adoption of the 26th Constitutional Amendment describing it as a sort of victory for it and the main opposition party – the PTI – had no serious objection to the changes in the Constitution. Mumtaz Zahra Baloch has rightly urged the OHCHR to focus on the actual and severe human rights violations occurring globally, where international human rights standards have been rendered ineffective or where draconian laws have been enacted to oppress occupied peoples. Instead of becoming a party in political disputes in other countries, the organization ought to focus on genocide in Gaza, which has entered its second year and large-scale killing of innocent people in Lebanon as well as brute use of force by Indian occupation forces in Jammu and Kashmir. As for the letter written to the US President by 60 congressmen, it is surely the outcome of the intensive lobbying by a political party of Pakistan to highlight its point of view and influence policy and decision makers in the United States. The spokesperson has a point in reminding the United States that Pakistan values its relations with Washington but such letters and statements are counter-productive and not in line with positive dynamics of Pak-US bilateral relations. These letters are also based on incorrect understanding of the political situation in Pakistan. It is hoped that the US Congress will play a supportive role in strengthening Pak-US ties and focus on avenues of mutual collaboration that benefit both our peoples and countries.
