Human Rights Violations & the FATA Insurgency

As Brian attests to in his post below, the Poets and Policymakers crew are back from their unofficial hiatus. Celebrate, read and comment away!

In a 130-page report issued by Amnesty International last week, the world-renowned organization alleged that nearly 4 million Pakistanis are living under Afghan-style Taliban rule in the tribal belt, and are subject to human rights violations at the hands of both the military and the Taliban.

Evocatively entitled “As if Hell Fell on Me: The Human Rights Crisis in NorthWest Pakistan,” the report condemns the Pakistan Taliban for systematically targeting civilians and civilian property and using disproportionate force against the military. At the same time, it takes both the Pakistani and US governments to task for treating FATA and NWFP as “geostrategic assets only, without due consideration for the welfare of the people.” More than 1,300 civilians were killed in the region in 2009 as a result of this conflict.

Not surprisingly, following a tried and true pattern, the Pakistan government has responded with a strong denial and rebuttal of the “unfortunate and incorrect” report. Minister for Information Qaira questioned the evidence presented against the government forces and claimed that civilian casualty figures had never been concealed. Interestingly, liberal Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Times, also questioned the report’s findings, arguing that while a humanitarian crisis may be underway in the tribal belt, this was merely “an indicator of an ongoing struggle in the tribal areas” and that the military offensives in the region have finally gotten things back “on the right track.”

The Amnesty report, based on interviews conducted with 300 people, is significant in bringing global attention to the humanitarian and human rights angle of a crisis usually viewed merely from a strategic lens. The quote with which the report begins is particularly telling, because it reminds a divided populace of the murky and messy nature of loyalties in the region: “If we stand with the government the Taleban will hit us. If we stand with the Taleban the government will target us.” As easy as it is to vilify an ill-defined category from a distance, what determines who is a “militant” is hardly a straightforward endeavor.

The report makes two distinct criticisms of the Pakistan government. First, it condemns the government and military for human rights violations during the operations, including extrajudicial killings and violations of the rights of detainees, as well as failure to meet the needs of IDPs. Second, it argues that the Pakistan government has failed to ensure adequate socio-economic development in the region. Social indicators in FATA are dismally low, with even the most generous statistics of female literacy reaching only 8%.

Exploring possible answers to the situation in the tribal areas raises the principle dichotomy of bringing into line both short-term and long-term goals and solutions. For instance, Amnesty’s suggestion to repeal the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) of 1901 (the barbaric legal regime which still governs the FATA) is of course necessary, but even if the Government of Pakistan were to do so tomorrow, what real impact would it have on daily life in the tribal areas? On the insurgency? The Political Parties Act does need to be extended to FATA, to help bring this belt into the mainstream of the country, but even if were to be extended, the tense security situation ensures that political party activity is still decades away.

Nonetheless, what the report makes clear is that no semblance of international law is being adhered to in this lawless region. Amnesty International’s report has been released at a significant juncture, if only to remind all those vehemently and blindly in favor of the military operations in the FATA that such operations must be conducted with a long-term strategy in mind for consolidating government control and rule-of-law and with the best interests of the civilians at the forefront. Because isn’t that who we are there to protect in the first place?