Rethinking Amnesty View of Pakistan’s Anti-Terror Campaign
The recent report released by Amnesty International on the counterterrorism activities in Pakistan, especially in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, is quite one-sided. Although the possibility of examining state activities is important as far as human rights promotion is concerned, it makes little sense to deliver an incomplete image of an extremely complicated security situation as it does not only discredit such reports but also gives a chance to strengthen the power of forces that attempts to undermine peace and stability in the region.
Pakistan has led the fight against terrorism in the world for more than 20 years. This conflict has been costly beyond measure, with more than 80,000 people dying among civilians, security agents, and police officers. They have driven whole towns out of their homes, destroyed schools, and disrupted economic growth more than once. But the Amnesty report in no way provides any suggestion to this amount of suffering or the developing nature of the threat.
Terrorist groups in the north of Pakistan have resorted to becoming progressively more advanced in the last few months, with an emphasis on small, armed drone targets in the country. The drones have been used in civilian locations, in military convoys, at military bases, and border locations, bringing up a new dimension to asymmetric warfare that is dangerous. Amnesty has remarkably avoided commenting on this beckoning development, yet this is a big blind spot that creates a deceptive impression regarding the reality under which Pakistan has to work.
Terrorists have further taken bases in the civilian populations, whereby they operate using homes, schools, and religious places. These are strategic embeds aimed at eliciting hostile responses within the state and creating a furor in cases of civilian death. It is an effort aimed at controlling the information of the media and global opinion, as well as shifting the focus on the violence caused by the militants themselves.
It is also important to know where the militants are getting the weapons and technology that they are using. The above-mentioned drones are neither issued by the state nor made locally in Pakistan. There are indications that they have been purchased on the black market within Afghanistan, supplied by India, to destabilize Pakistan. The failure of the report to look at this cross-border aspect once more shows that the report was selective in its framing.
The Pakistani counterterrorism activities are conducted in light of precision and proportionality. The armed forces and the police departments are particularly conscious of the issues of sensitivity in combat operations among the civil populations, and great attempt is done to reduce the collateral damage. No state is exempt from criticism. Pakistan, like any other responsible country, should be accountable for actions that breach international laws or human rights provisions. Nevertheless, accountability has to be based on thorough knowledge of the environment of operation. Choosing to highlight or omit other important aspects, like the infiltration of other countries, terrorist drone attacks, or the use of human shields, will make the report look skewed and could be used to fulfill other unknown purposes. However, a more comprehensive, less sweeping, and more nuanced approach is needed, which can appreciate the gravity of security problems Pakistan is going through and the hybridized impact of the contemporary terrorist.
Amnesty International and others ought to consult the Pakistani authorities, security experts, and the civil society before coming out with such reports so that they will have a better understanding of the ground level. The ability to see the wider security composition and the limitations under which the counterterrorism effort is undertaken is vital in establishing a sensible and positive criticism. Without such involvement, reports such as this can potentially cause more harm than good. They strengthen terrorists’ propaganda.
Pakistan is engaged in a war that it never wanted. It is not against a soft target but a war against a brutal enemy who is fast to change, has its interests in mixing with the population, and doing everything in its favor with the use of international narratives. A straightforward human rights analysis ought to take that into account.
