Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Whatever spin General Pervez Musharraf may give to his US visit, away from the media glare, a post-9/11 United Nations panel is turning the screws on Pakistan on the question of terrorism. And, in response, Islamabad is ducking for cover.
In fact, the Counter Terrorism Committee CTC set up by the Security Council is virtually echoing India8217;s concerns regarding Pakistan8217;s alleged complicity in terrorism.
|
Delhi deflates Gen8217;s roadmap balloon
|
|
|
Ironically, the CTC comprises not only the permanent members of the Security Council but also its non-permanent members, including Pakistan.
The committee, which has met 70 times in New York, monitors the implementation of the Security Council8217;s Resolution 1373 calling upon all countries to join the global war against terrorism. It has so far sent three questionnaires to all countries, the latest being about six months ago. While the first questionnaire was common, the subsequent two were based on the responses given by each country.
Take the questions the CTC put in its latest questionnaire to Pakistan in what seems to be a tacit reference to the list of 20 sent by India after the December 13 attack on Parliament.
8226; The CTC asked Pakistan to 8216;8216;confirm that foreign fugitives found in Pakistan who are alleged to have committed or attempted terrorist crimes outside Pakistan will be either brought to justice in Pakistan or extradited.8217;8217;
In its reply on February 25, 2003, Pakistan avoided making any commitment that such fugitives would be brought to justice or extradited. Instead, it claimed that its laws 8216;8216;prevent support within Pakistan to acts of terrorism carried out or proposed to carried out elsewhere.8217;8217;
It also claimed that the option of extradition would arise only with those 27 countries with which it has extradition agreements. Pakistan8217;s reply in effect rules out the possibility of foreign fugitives such as Dawood Ibrahim being handed over to India since there is no extradition treaty between the two countries.
8226; Resolution 1373 requires all countries to give one another 8216;8216;the greatest measure of assistance8217;8217; in investigations and criminal proceedings relating to terrorism. The CTC therefore asked: 8216;8216;What plans does Pakistan have for making it possible to render such assistance to member states with which it has no extradition treaty, should such a request be made?8217;8217;
This is the closest the CTC could have come to mentioning the stalemate that exists on the 20 fugitives India wants from Pakistan. But Pakistan said that 8216;8216;where sufficient evidence has been provided justifying recourse to such action,8217;8217; it was willing to adopt one of these three options:
a Extradite the person to a third person to a third country with which it has an extradition treaty.
b Extradite the person to the requesting state under a specific bilateral arrangement.
c Act on behalf of the requesting state to obtain and provide the necessary information.
8226; Resolution 1373 disallows claims of political motivation as grounds for refusing requests for extraditing alleged terrorists. The CTC asked Pakistan if it was planning to make the necessary amendment to its extradition law. Given Kashmir-related terrorism, Pakistan dodged this vital question with the promise that the reply would be 8216;8216;provided later.8217;8217;
8226; In response to an earlier questionnaire of the CTC, Pakistan made no bones about the fact it gives 8216;8216;early warning on anticipated terrorist acts8217;8217; only to countries with which it has extradition treaties and with 8216;8216;other coalition member countries.8217;8217; The CTC followed this up by asking what Pakistan would do with countries which belong to neither of the categories.
Reply: 8216;8216;Pakistan regularly exchanges information with all friendly and non-hostile states, whether they are coalition partners and have signed extradition treaties with Pakistan or not.8217;8217; So, if India never received any intelligence from Pakistan on anticipated terrorist crimes, it is apparently because it does not belong even to the category of 8216;8216;friendly and non-hostile states.8217;8217;
The CTC8217;s questionnaires to India have been relatively tame. One of the main concerns raised in the latest questionnaire was that POTA, enacted in the wake of Resolution 1373, deals only with 8216;8216;terrorist acts perpetrated against Indian interests, mostly in India itself.8217;8217; In its response on March 28, 2003, India, seeking to dispel such an India-centric interpretation of POTA, pointed out that Al Qaeda had been banned under that law even though that outfit 8216;8216;has not yet been found to be operating in India.8217;8217;
But one question India seems to have needlessly evaded was regarding denial of safe haven to terrorists wanted abroad. The CTC pointedly said: 8216;8216;It would be helpful if India supplied examples of any relevant action taken.8217;8217; Since no terrorist has so far sought safe haven here, India was in no position to cite an instance of rejecting such a request. It could well have said so in its reply. Instead, India skipped the question altogether.
