The dilemma for most states to be in a global war against terrorism led by US has legal, moral, integral and political aspects. The greatest challenge for any state, more if it is a Muslim country comes from physically participating in it at the cost of their established legal codes. A full fledge participation in war may be avoided boldly but evasion of pursuit against “Terrorists” may place a government in an Al-Qaeda camp. The blunt political discourse emerged after 9/11 could not be managed by making chess moves otherwise possible. It was viable for every state to make a decision not on the grounds of principles but purely on the basis of ‘cash in hand’. “With US or against US” left most countries without option and no other manoeuvre could be entertained. Although a decision for a far flung states in Africa, Europe or in the heart of Atlantic was easy not so was possible for countries so proud of their geo-strategic positions.
Pakistan allied global war against terrorism. Many utterly against, few in favour, others dismayed over the deal and most were ready as ever to embrace any decision, which flows from the corridors of Islamabad. Though the legality of decision was addressed poorly and only the political analytical tools measured the participation, it was not so the case when Pakistani nationals were packed to Guantanomobay prison. Pakistan is ill reputed over its adherence to the constitution. So is true that society as a whole also feels no sympathy for rule of law. When at least a significant cry was raised over the government’s decision to hand local nationals to US, we were once again reminded of law. Then emerges the series of queries, were all these people actually extradited? Which crime they have committed? And most important question of all, does the war against terrorism requires any law to operate within? Quite evidently volumes of both private and public international law were explored for a possible answer.
Precedent of Aimal Kansi was exploited in courts of politics. Contractual exile of ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif was also questioned once again. The blunt face of time has unfortunately placed us at a position where super powers remain oblivious of law to achieve their ends. Miscarriage of justice has now too frequently marred our face. A blunt international decision from the district judge in UK in 2003 says at least of western legal standards. A Chechen rebel Akhmad Zakayev was refused to be hand over to Russian authorities when an application to extradite him was forwarded by Russian government to UK. The District Judge Timothy Workman highlighting evidence of other leading Chechens who have died in Russian Custody.
In an attempt to provide a visible legal mediation at home between the government who so favours the fleeing of terrorists from Pakistan to ‘improve’ its International image and those who so vehemently asks for law to be upheld, much needs to be done. Interestingly there seems to exist no law which allows a government lest a President or any other authority in Pakistan by which they can deprive its citizen of the nationality. Such list of “disowned nationals” can at least provide a litmus test and a mint of legality in our acts in this war against terrorism. Though such legal operations have been done by other states in the world lead comes from KSA. Saudi Kingdom disowns Bin Laden and other most wanted cards. Certain other states in the Middle East have also been performing their disregard for those who are internationally wanted or are involved in crimes against humanity. It is largely believe as principles of Private international law that once “jurisdiction” of a court of law is determined along with ‘recognition’ of an accused is ensured and law is supplemented a trial of a foreigner criminal can be initiated. General Pinochet of Chile was another example and UK court’s decision not to extradite him to Spain where he was actually wanted for crimes against Spanish people also stand as a landmark decision. Endangering the lives of our nationals merely forsake of global war against terrorism which still stands nude and without a legal cloak is unintelligent. Clarity of law may be there, but once again adhering to our principles once again poses a challenge. All those handed over to US by Pakistan, who are of foreign nationals may be an issue of less importance but carries an invaluable detail. To get rid of criminals may be important but ultimately the international power centres must realize that the global laws to address international terrorism needs to be developed drastically, only then it will allow states like Pakistan to “transform” them domestically. In the meanwhile, it is mandatory for Pakistan to bring its decision and ultimate consequences in the fight against terrorism in a framework of law. The municipal law now requires a vigorous overhauling in the wake of our decision. Whether ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ the decision now has started to show its muscles and a failure to respond to it will further suffocate our endangered specie. THE RULE OF LAW
No comments:
Post a Comment