EDITORIAL: Pakistan and the issue of ‘hot pursuit’
The foreign office spokesperson, Tasnim Aslam, has just delivered a routine Pakistani ‘warning’ to those who would invade Pakistan’s territory in ‘hot pursuit’. Ms Aslam was told that the Indian foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, had said that India would pursue militants into Pakistani territory. Understandably, her grim retort was that “there should be no doubt in one’s mind that any attempt to indulge in ‘hot pursuit’ would receive a befitting response. Any aggression across our borders or the LoC would be effectively countered. Everyone should know that we have the capability and determination to effectively deal with such threats and defend our borders”. Her warning was couched in general terms and not specifically aimed at the Indian foreign minister because she was not sure he had threatened ‘hot pursuit’ or whether the threat of ‘hot pursuit’ was only on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.
She conceded that India had given Pakistan “some information” about Pakistani infiltrators who had committed acts of terrorism in India and that discussions on the matter were ongoing. On the issue of US forces trespassing into Pakistan territory across the Durand Line in ‘hot pursuit’ of the Taliban, she said, “Some local commanders or generals might have said something of the sort, but the US Secretary of State has firmly stated that there was no plan of this nature as it would not serve any purpose”.
Territorial integrity is the cornerstone of the sovereignty of any nation-state. It points to the importance of agreed boundaries of the modern state that may not be violated. It is the mantra in all international agreements, and nations routinely remind each other that borders will be respected and not violated. If any state has a complaint about elements residing inside the respondent state it must put the said state on notice. Under no circumstances is a sovereign state ready to bear the idea of letting an outside force come in and take action of any sort. Yet, it is also true when a state begins to protest too much about its territorial integrity it can mean that it has problems that need to be addressed.
Boundaries are violated covertly, they are not challenged with ‘hot pursuit’ and then violated with troops. That would mean war if the host state is strong enough. And if there is no war, it is implied that the state is not able to defend its boundaries and has ceased to be a viable state. For instance, Afghanistan’s territorial integrity has been violated repeatedly under law and covertly against all law. Afghanistan therefore has often been called a failed state. The Soviet Union sent in its forces saying they had been ‘invited’ by the Afghan government; Later Pakistan sent in its mujahideen saying it didn’t know what was going on.
When Afghanistan’s territory was being violated by people going in from Pakistan, it took the plea that Afghanistan was no longer able to look after its people who were fleeing in large numbers into Pakistan, and that Pakistan was not to blame if the refugees went back to Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan was violated by a large number of states whose citizens were fighting a covert war there, first against the Soviet Union, then against one another. The government hardly existed, still less its writ. Since it did not control its own territory it could hardly complain if outsiders came in ‘hot pursuit’ to punish their tormentors.
Iraq is similarly without internal control these days, and Turkey is known to have sent its army in ‘hot pursuit’ to punish the Kurds it accuses of doing terrorism in Turkey. Pakistan’s case is not very different although it is a nuclear state and can justifiably warn of dire consequences those who would violate its territorial integrity. A large section of the state territory is without a proper writ of the state. Large chunks of territory are without any administration and without what the modern state calls ‘service delivery’ as grounds for claiming sovereignty. Since the ISAF-NATO forces are being harassed by the Taliban accused of coming from Pakistani territory, hardly a day passes without these forces trespassing into Pakistan.
At the present moment all the neighbours of Pakistan barring China are complaining about Pakistan’s ‘porous’ borders because Pakistan has no control over them. But let us face it: Pakistan cannot realistically threaten India, Afghanistan and Iran with dire consequences every day and not carry out the threat at some stage. However, when the violations finally come there is nothing Pakistan can do unless it is able to defend its frontiers against those who violate it ‘outwards’, that is, against those who attack other states from inside Pakistan. And if Pakistan is thinking of saying that no one is attacking its neighbours from inside its territory, it should not even try, because no one will believe it.
Pakistan has lived with its borders unbuttoned for almost 25 years. Now that it wants to go back to normal it doesn’t know how to stop its own people from going out and doing mischief abroad. Therefore the task before Pakistan is the securing of its frontiers from its own people living in the buffer areas without any writ of the state. *
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\07\story_7-3-2007_pg3_1
