Author: Manoj Mitta
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: June 27, 2003
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=26566
Introduction: UN panel asks tough
questions on terror, Pak evades
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 India's concerns
regarding Pakistan's alleged complicity in terrorism.g
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 Council'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.
* The CTC asked Pakistan to ''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.''
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 ''prevent support
within Pakistan to acts of terrorism carried out or proposed to carried
out elsewhere.''
It also claimed that the option
of extradition would arise only with those 27 countries with which it has
extradition agreements. Pakistan'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.
* Resolution 1373 requires all countries
to give one another ''the greatest measure of assistance'' in investigations
and criminal proceedings relating to terrorism. The CTC therefore asked:
''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?''
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 ''where sufficient evidence
has been provided justifying recourse to such action,'' 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.
* 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 ''provided later.''
* In response to an earlier questionnaire
of the CTC, Pakistan made no bones about the fact it gives ''early warning
on anticipated terrorist acts'' only to countries with which it has extradition
treaties and with ''other coalition member countries.'' The CTC followed
this up by asking what Pakistan would do with countries which belong to
neither of the categories.
Reply: ''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.'' 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 ''friendly and non-hostile states.''
The CTC'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 ''terrorist acts perpetrated against Indian interests, mostly
in India itself.'' 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 ''has not
yet been found to be operating in India.''
But one question India seems to
have needlessly evaded was regarding denial of safe haven to terrorists
wanted abroad. The CTC pointedly said: ''It would be helpful if India supplied
examples of any relevant action taken.'' 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.
