Author: Ijaz Hussain
Publication: The Asian
Age
Date: December 2, 2000
Following the entry of
30,000 Afghan refugees in Pakistan during the last two months and the threat
of their unabated influx in the days to come, particularly the expected
flow of about half a million more during the next 45 days, the government
of Pakistan on November 9 imposed a ban on the entry of all Afghans into
Pakistan without valid travel documents.
The government justified
the ban on the ground of poor economy and the threat to security in the
country. R6acting to this, the UNHCR and UNOCHA conveyed their regret
against the ban and expressed the hope that Pakistan would review its decision.
The present piece proposes to look into the following questions: is Pakistan
under any moral or legal obligation to give refuge to the fleeing Afghans?
Since the conditions
in Afghanistan are peaceful in the area,, controlled by Taliban why does
not the international community provide assistance to displaced
Afghans within Afghanistan'?
Finally, given the magnitude of the refugee problem and particularly the
disastrous consequences that their further exodus would have for Pakistan,
why is the so-called liberal and humanitarian West indifferent in the matter?
Dealing with the question
whether Pakistan is under any obligation to grant asylum to the fleeing
Afghans, ii is obvious that it is under no legal obligation to do so because
it is not a party to the 1951 convention or the 1967 protocol which are
the relevant instruments in the matter.
Even if Pakistan was
a party to them. it is doubtful whether Pakistan would have been
under such obligation except with regard to those fleeing the civil war
because the definition of refugee given in these documents does not cover
economic refugees which is the case with the overwhelming majority of the
present refugees who are fleeing as a result of drought, lack of job and
educational opportunities and the ban by the Afghan government on poppy
cultivation.
As to the moral obligation,
given the fact that 40 per cent of Pakistanis live below the poverty line
and the country is on the verge of financial bankruptcy as well as the
deteriorating law and order situation with terrorists, including Afghans.
having a field day in Pakistan. it evaporates into the thin air.
The argument based on the moral imperative of sheltering Afghan fugitives,
is further weakened when we realise that since the withdrawal of, the Soviet
troops from Afghanistan the West has shown indifference to the plight of
the Afghan refugees found on the Pakistani soil.
This is testified to
by the fact that the amount earmarked for about two million refugees in
Pakistan is no more than 1.7 per cent of the current UNHCR budget.
Additionally one might ask as to why all criticism is reserved for Pakistan
which has not accepted the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol whereas
Iran and Tajikistan which have closed their borders despite accepting the
aforementioned instruments are not subjected to much criticism.
Regarding the question
of providing assistance to the displaced Afghans within Afghanistan, the
UNHCR does not seem to be much keen to do so apparently on the ground that
it operates within the framework set by the 1951 convention and the 1967
protocol which deal with individuals who are outside the country of their
nationality but not with the internally displaced persons. This hurdle
can be overcome either by asking the UNOCHA to establish camps, inside
Afghanistan as it did in 1994 in Jalalabad or the UNHCR can do it by getting
an authorisation from the UN secretary-general.
The Afghan government
is supportive of the idea of establishing camps inside Afghanistan.
And it is not asking for its recognition as a quid pro quo for such operations,
and if there is any apprehension on the part of the Western countries that
such an exercise may amount to recognition of the Taliban government, such
an argument is utterly unfounded because recognition is a function of the
intention of the parties and not a fortuitous act. Finally, regarding
the question as to why the "liberal" and "humane" West is indifferent to
the plight of the suffering Afghans, the answer lies in the fact that there
is no such thing as humanitarian assistance per se, and all aid which is
doled out to the suffering humanity is politically motivated. It
can be compared to human rights which is nothing but an instrument in the
hands of the Western governments to achieve certain political ends.
The enormous material
assistance doled out by the Western countries to the Afghan refugees in
Pakistan during the period of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was
given less out of humanitarian concern and more out of political consideration.
That explains why it
dried up and the donor fatigue set in as soon as the Soviets were out of
Afghanistan and the Western objective had been achieved, particularly since
1995 when the Taliban appeared on the political scene.
The present policy of
providing minimum material assistance to Afghanistan adopted by the Western
countries in general and the US in particular is premised on the assumption
that any large-scale assistance to Afghanistan wold bolster the Taliban
regime whose policies, notably their asylum to Osama bin Laden, re anathema
to them.
Here the question arises
whether the western countries do not realise that the economic and security
vulnerability of Pakistan does not allow it to absorb the influx of new
Afghans. The answer is that they do understand its constraints in
the matter. But they still want them to be given shelter in Pakistan
because if this is not done their next destination could be the West.
It is true that some of them will still end up there but they are more
than welcome because they will be the creme de la creme of Afghan society.
The other perhaps unintended
purpose behind this clamour could be to flood its territory with refugees
in the hope that this would force it to put pressure on the government
in Kabul to modify its policies, particularly on Osama bin Laden.
