COMMENT: Pakistani peacekeepers
—Hina Hafeezullah Ishaq
Pakistan has been a member of the UN since 1947 and has been actively involved in its peacekeeping missions in various conflict-torn countries. We are at the top of the list with our largest number of troop and observer deployments
Pakistanis have made international headlines yet again for the wrong reasons. According to Reuters, “Two UN peacekeepers from Pakistan have been sentenced to a year in prison for raping a 14-year-old Haitian boy after being convicted in a Pakistani military trial in Haiti, authorities said on Monday.” According to reports, “UN spokeswoman Sylvie Van Den Wildenberg said judges from a Pakistani military tribunal came to the impoverished Caribbean nation to hold the trial that resulted in the conviction last week of the peacekeepers. They were found guilty of the rape of a boy in the northern city of Gonaives on January 20.” The soldiers were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment in Pakistan.
Pakistan has been a member of the UN since 1947 and has been actively involved in its peacekeeping missions in various conflict-torn countries. We are at the top of the list with our largest number of troop and observer deployment. Pakistan’s army has been a part of the UN mission in Haiti since 1995 and provided one infantry battalion that made tremendous contributions to the conflict-ridden area. Mr Enerique ter Horst, UN Secretary General’s Special Representative in Haiti, while appreciating the services of Pakistani troops said, “Since the arrival of Pakistan Battalion in Haiti the UN has realized that Pakistan Army is not only a formidable fighting force but peace keepers and peace builders in the best sense of the word. The way in which they have participated in the reconstruction and humanitarian assistance programmes beyond the call of duty to ensue stable environment, makes me confident that UN shall very soon attain the objectives of its mission in Haiti.”
The recent conviction of the Pakistani soldiers prompted me to check the website of the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), which revealed that no military personnel were part of this mission; however, Pakistan’s police personnel are deployed there. Hence, I think it might be safe to infer that the persons convicted in fact belong to our police service.
The next question that the ordinary man would be asking is if those convicted were civilians and not military then how come they were tried and sentenced by a Pakistani military tribunal?
The UN peacekeeping troops are granted jurisdictional immunity from criminal prosecution as the result of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) executed between the UN and the Haitian government. There have been many allegations of human rights violations and sexual abuse committed by the MINUSTAH troops. Last year Uruguayan troops landed in hot water after a video appeared on the internet showing them gang-raping a Haitian boy; the Uruguayan government undertook to prosecute the accused in their own homeland.
The Pakistan Army Act 1952 (PAA) is applicable to our forces deployed on UN peacekeeping missions. Section 2(c) reads “persons not otherwise subject to this Act, who, on active service, in camp, on the march, or at any frontier post specified by the Central Government by notification in this regard, are employed: by, or are in the service of or are followers of, or accompany any portion of the Pakistan Army”, will be subject to the said Act “until duly retired, released, discharged, removed or dismissed from the service.”
Section 41(c) reads any person subject to this Act “is guilty of any disgraceful conduct of a cruel indecent or unnatural kind shall, on conviction by Court martial, be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or with such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.”
Section 59 states “any person subject to this Act who at any place in or beyond Pakistan commits any civil offence shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if charged therewith under this section, shall be liable to be tried by Court martial”. The offence committed by the Pakistani peacekeepers would be covered by the term ‘civil offence’ used in this section and since it was committed while they were in active service in Haiti and it otherwise was an offence as described in the Army Act, it fell within the jurisdiction of the military courts
The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) does not recognize ‘rape’ as an offence when committed against a male; the definition of rape pertains exclusively to a ‘woman’. However section 377 of the PPC relates to “unnatural offences” and states: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years nor more than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Unlike section 376 PPC, which provides death or life imprisonment as a mandatory punishment in cases of gang rape, which means “two or more persons” jointly commit rape, there is no provided punishment for acts of “unnatural offences” if committed by a gang or against minors.
The punishment awarded in this case has eluded me. If reports are to be believed only one year rigorous imprisonment was given to the two peacekeepers; the tribunal was empowered to award punishment extending to ten years if a field general court martial had taken place. However, it appears that in order to appease the outrage immediately, a summary court martial took place that could only award imprisonment extending to one year.
Pakistan is a signatory to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and to the United Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Whilst Pakistan has done precious little to safeguard its own children, one being the lack of adequate and effective child protection laws in place, it is shameful to see members of our forces committing atrocities against the very persons they are deployed to protect, and that too against minors and while representing our nation on none other than on a UN peacekeeping assignment.
It is commendable that whilst Uruguay opted to prosecute its personnel at home, Pakistan’s military tribunal tried the accused in Haiti; this is the first time that members of a UN peacekeeping mission have been prosecuted within the borders of Haiti. The Haitian Justice Minister, Michael Brunchae has termed the verdict a “small” step in the right direction, and added, “We expected more from the UN and the Pakistani government, but now we want to focus on the proper reparation that the victim deserves.” Pakistan has since called back its forces and there is fear that it will be blacklisted by the UN.
Pakistan has offered to compensate the victim, according to reports. Although I have never understood the concept of ‘compensation’ in regard to the indignity suffered, not to mention the despicable violation of one’s body and the trauma that the survivors of such heinous offences have to live with all their lives, I guess every ‘small’ step counts. How Pakistan intends to compensate itself for loss of its own image and tarnishing of all previous efforts of extending humanitarian assistance “beyond the call of duty” is what plagues me. The Pakistani peacekeepers who have been summarily tried and convicted should have had a full court martial and sentenced to the maximum punishment instead of the token one year. We owe it to ourselves and that little boy to restore our dignity and to lessen his sense of indignity by awarding exemplary punishment, so no Pakistani peacekeeper dares violate the very rights he has been entrusted to uphold.
The writer is an advocate of the high court
1- NO PA regular army present in Haiti. another example of maligning the PA by the western media and our media falls hook, line and sinker with them without checking the details. at least this author did.
2- the punishment certainly should have been more severe then 1-yr.
3- the UN should ban the PK Police if such a ban is imposed.
