Human Rights?

Published at The Express Tribune

Why the sudden publicity surrounding human rights issues in Baluchistan? The US committee on Foreign Affairs has not recently held any hearings on human rights violations in Kashmir and Palestine. How did these Congressmen vote on a recently passed US security bill that allows the military to hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial? Strangely enough they all voted in favor of detaining their own constituents without due process. What about the human rights of innocent civilians killed by drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan? Needless to say the grievances of the Baluch are urgent and need to be addressed but the timing of this interest by three Republican politicians about the plight of Baluchistan is suspicious.

Although this bill has little chance of going anywhere in Congress, it effectively riled up politicians within Pakistan. With any hope it will result in a grand bargain with the Baluch to provide them their fair share of political representation and economic development. That would be the most positive possible outcome from this unwelcome intrusion. Politicians who are foreign to Pakistan such as the Texas Republican Louie Gohmert should refrain from meddling in affairs of which they cannot even begin to fathom the end result. His reasoning for creating Baluchistan as a separate country because “They love us…they’ll stop the IEDs and all the weaponry coming into Afghanistan”. That line of reasoning did not work out that well for Dick Cheney in 2003, who said “The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.”

Ironically, Louie Gohmert’s own State of Texas has its fair share of secessionists. The annexation of Texas by the US is considered illegal by some groups in Texas and they continue to believe that the State remains an independent nation under occupation. Gohmert the liberator does not appear intent on helping fellow Texans secede from their own authoritarian rule.

Dana’s unfamiliarity with the region was on clear display as he consistently transitioned between the correct pronunciation and “Biloke-istanwhile reading from prepared notes. The Representative also left out some important facts in his opening remarks. Painting Baluchistan as a single united entity seeking independence is misleading since Pashtuns and Hazaras also inhabit the province. Baluchistan’s troubles are not black and white but severely complex and certainly not suitable for intervention by such politicians on the other side of the world. The fact is that this man is only 1 of 435 elected members of the House and represents one fifth of one percent of US citizens. To clarify further, he is one of 53 representatives of California, which is only one of 50 states. His views do not represent those of the USA and should hold just about zero weight among the international community.

As far as the third co signatory of the Baluchistan bill is concerned, Steve King, he stated in 2008 that if Obama becomes the president of the US then al-Qaeda and its supporters will be dancing in the streets after declaring a victory on the war on terror. He also inferred that Obama’s middle name, Hussain is troublesome. His intolerant views above are a good indication of his intellect level. If Rohrabacher, Gohmert and King are truly sincere about human rights then they should begin by giving up obstructionist antics at home and promote greater human rights for their fellow citizens in the US; simply lead by example. These Tea Party lawmakers have systematically voted against universal healthcare, women’s rights, gay rights and minority rights while demanding harsher immigration laws.

In the end it is clear that addressing human rights violations was never the intention of the hearing. This was just perceived as a good opportunity to kick the hornet’s nest for political gain and to antagonize Pakistan further in its current fragile state. All three signatories of the bill belong to Obama’s opposition party and are motivated to damage the administration’s efforts to mend relations with Pakistan, even at the detriment of their own nation. Rohrabacher and his pals may be “sticking it to the Pakistanis” but calling for a separate Baluchistan at a time when Israel is threatening to attack Iran and the coalition forces are preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan does not show much geopolitical judiciousness. As public servants these lawmakers should put more thought into the consequences of their actions. The US State Department is now busy with damage control and has made it very clear that they continue to view Baluchistan as part of the Pakistani state. However, the issue has been brought to light. Pakistan would be wise to step up and earnestly make an effort to appease regional concerns if it intends on securing Baluchistan as an integral part of the Country.

Further Reading:

Balochistan Pakistan’s other war, Al Jazeera documentary

Pakistan’s Fatal Shore, The Atlantic


3 Responses to “Human Rights?”

  1. 1 taurus
    March 1, 2012 at 3:19 am

    Great stuff as usual

  2. 2 Zain Irfan
    March 1, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Good perspective… I am wondering when will the issue of natural resources in Baluchistan become a boiling point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 79 other followers

Twitter Updates

Blog Stats

  • 20,358 hits

%d bloggers like this: