Skip to main content

The world needs Pakistan to be a strong defender of human rights

An Interview with Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

Published in: Dawn

Q: What are the most pressing human rights issues currently being faced by Pakistan?

A: Pakistan is at a pivotal moment. The new government is moving towards the restoration of constitutional rule and it has already done some very important things: there’s a re-flourishing of media freedom, political prisoners have been released. What perhaps sums up the new government’s approach was the response to the long march, which was clearly a movement in opposition to the government’s position. The government respected the right of people to gather and protest, in contrast to what the Musharraf government did to the lawyers – beat and detain them. That’s a very big improvement, as is the decision to commute death sentences and recognise trade unions.

But a number of important items remain on the agenda, beginning with the restoration of the judiciary. In our view, it is not possible to speak of the rule of law if a precedent has been set in which the executive is able to dismiss judges. That is the government controlling the law rather than subjecting itself to the law. That precedent needs to be reversed with the complete restoration of the deposed judges as soon as possible.

We are also disturbed by the continuing practice of the ISI to force disappearances. Being particularly vulnerable to torture and execution, it’s a matter of urgency that these people reappear and their detention be acknowledged by having them brought before a judge.

We would to like to see the government announce a moratorium on any further death sentences and also reduce the extraordinarily large number of crimes that can give rise to the death penalty.

We would like to see a restoration of constitutional rule and make sure that the constitutional package does not provide indemnity for serious human rights abuses. That would set up a poor precedent, suggesting that governments can violate human rights and then beg for forgiveness in a future constitutional reform.

Q: How has the ‘war on terror’ affected the campaign for human rights?

A: What the Bush administration calls the ‘war on terror’ has been a huge setback for human rights, while terrorism itself is a serious human rights problem. The deliberate killing of civilians is an affront to everything the human rights movement stands for. So while the human rights movement favours efforts to contain terrorism, it is important that it be done with respect for human rights.

The Bush administration and to some extent General Musharraf chose to fight terrorism by disregarding human rights. Some of the excesses were encouraged by the US in Pakistan, but some were the Pakistani government’s own doing.

This effort to fight terrorism has become an excuse to ignore human rights, and it’s also been counter-productive. It is not enough to merely arrest terrorist suspects, we also have to undermine terrorist recruitment. Terrorists love it when their adversaries commit human rights violations . . . their websites are filled with references to Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo, because such abuses get people angry and are more likely to drive them into the arms of terrorists.

Making people disappear or torturing them is similarly not a smart way to fight terrorism in Pakistan. The best way to fight is from within the requirements of human rights law, by maintaining the moral high ground and presenting the state with a positive vision, as an alternative to the terrorist vision. But if you speak to the practices of the terrorist while yourself violating human rights, you lose the moral high ground and end up losing the battle against the terrorist recruiter – which is just as important as the battle with the terrorist himself.

Q: It is believed that a military operation in Fata would involve human rights abuses. What is your view?

A: I think that what is happening in Fata is still in the realm of police action, even though troops are involved.

Even if it were to rise to the level of a war, which I don’t think is the case yet, you can still ensure that you target only combatants on the other side, and that captured combatants are treated decently.

I don’t equate intense security operations with human rights abuses. It’s a question of leadership and making sure that those commanding the military operations insist upon respecting human rights.

That said, Fata does present a problem because the local authorities are themselves violating human rights. It is important for the Pakistani government not to allow there to be ‘rights-free zones.’ The Pakistani government has a sovereign duty to ensure that all citizens enjoy basic rights. Jus because Fata may historically have been outside the realm of federal government control, that does not justify tolerating atrocities such as summary executions being committed by the local authorities. It is the Pakistani government’s duty to see that this ends.

The effort to establish the state’s authority in Fata would include intensive development activities – and [access to] basic education and healthcare are human rights in themselves. One way to improve the perceived legitimacy of the state is to ensure that the state meets the basic needs of the people in its territory. One of the problems with abdicating official authority to the local leaders is that the state then also abdicates concern for the welfare of the people of those territories.

Q: You wrote in a recent article that much of the world has succumbed to the ‘wishful thinking’ of equating sham elections and democracy with the real thing . . .

A: Certain governments, of which the Bush administration is perhaps the worst offender, prefer to speak about democracy instead of human rights. That’s because when the Bush administration talks of human rights, people immediately think of Guantanamo, the CIA and secret detentions. But democracy is a sort of soft, fuzzy concept which does not have the same precise meaning in international law. No one quarrels with the fact that the US has democracy, but of course it has severe human rights problems. That is why the Bush administration has preferred the term democracy.

Yet by divorcing democracy from human rights, they divorce democracy from much of its meaning. As we’ve seen in Zimbabwe, merely holding elections is meaningless if you don’t have the basic rights that allow fair political competition. The same thing was seen in Pakistan, because after General Musharraf declared emergency rule, President Bush was still praising Musharraf for being on the road to democracy.

We want a commitment to a fuller concept of democracy that includes human rights and see that applied to all governments of the world, not applied selectively depending on whether the government happens to be a strategic ally or an economic partner. The Bush administration doesn’t push democracy too hard when it comes to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but it’s quite willing to push at countries that don’t matter so much such as Myanmar or Zimbabwe. That kind of inconsistent, selective approach to democracy-promotion is not acceptable.

Q: Have there been any indications of change in Pakistan’s concern for human rights?

A: Pakistan was recently reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council as part of a new process by which every government is reviewed. It was a moment to reflect on the role that Pakistan played at the United Nations. Until very recently, Pakistan was one of the most vocal and vigorous defenders of dictatorships around the world. Even at times when there was democracy within Pakistan, the country’s foreign policy was at odds with its domestic policy. Pakistani diplomats were amongst the most vociferous defenders of abusive governments and constituted an intense obstacle to the enforcement of human rights.

That has begun to change over the past few months. Pakistan’s ambassador in Geneva, where the Human Rights Council is based, is beginning to reflect the values that his government is showing at home. It’s just the beginning of a change, but I hope it’s a process that continues. Frankly, the world needs Pakistan to be a strong defender of human rights. It should not be the government that comes to the defence of every two-bit dictator.

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

Region / Country