Professional Documents
Culture Documents
31
The closure of the Afghan border comes at a time when relations between the two states are
deteriorating, with Islamabad accusing Kabul of not doing enough to curb extremists the former
claims operate out of Afghan territory. Indeed, a Pakistani government official speaking on the
condition of anonymity said that the border would remain sealed until Kabul acted against a list of
76 most-wanted terrorists.
The closure has resulted in losses in the tens of millions of dollars in trade, and a diversion of east-
bound exports to Iran in the medium to long term. More significant than the monetary costs,
however, has been the human cost, with the ongoing Afghan refugee crisis exacerbated by the border
sealing. A cardinal norm in international law is that of non-discrimination, reflected in the 1948
Universal Declaration on Human Rights as well as the 1966 International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination both of which have been signed by Pakistan.
Thus, blocking the entry of virtually all Afghans irrespective of their threat level would be in
The border closures are the latest steps taken by Pakistan in the interests of ensuring greater
security; Pakistan has, for decades now, been a front-line state in the war against extremism, and the
fact that it takes certain precautions is not only appropriate but laudable. But a democratic state
must always balance most carefully its needs for security with its need for liberty, lest it slip too far
down the road to a police state; indeed, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: those who give up liberty
This sort of unilateral behaviour, labelling a group of people as the root cause of ones troubles and
lashing out against them, is not novel; indeed, the world has seen these unilateral restrictions on
movement imposed on Palestinians by the Israeli state, where Palestinians are often barred from
going to their places of work as retaliation for extremist activity in which they played no part. This
kind of unilateralism is also on lurid display in the US. In his first week in office, President Donald
Trump signed Executive Order 13769, lowering the number of refugees to be admitted into country
in 2017 to 50,000, suspending the US Refugee Admissions Programme for four months, indefinitely
suspending the entry of Syrian refugees, and indefinitely suspending the entry of people from seven
Muslim-majority countries.
A democratic state must always balance most carefully its needs for security with its need
for liberty.
While the world including Pakistan decried this unilateralism and celebrated when it was struck
down by the US federal courts, it would be prudent to take stock of ones own moral capital. The
border closures are a mirror of Americas Muslim ban; arguably, the majority of Afghans affected by
the closures hold valid visas or otherwise possess the legal right to enter Pakistan. Moreover, those
who cant afford to travel by air are the ones disproportionately affected by Pakistans Afghan ban.
Executive Order 13769 was struck down by the US judiciary and the subsequent Muslim ban might
very well also be held to be unconstitutional. In Pakistan, however, the trichotomy of power is not as
strong and developed; in light thereof it is unlikely that the judiciary would act to keep the executive
in check in acting in such a disproportionate, reactive and retributive manner ostensibly in the
The balancing act conducted here is between human and national security, and if the state should
choose to make compromises on human security in this regard this calculus should be assessed and
acted upon by the people through democratic forums and processes. Judicial oversight is one way to
achieve this, but it requires transparency and accountability and the sharing of information with civil
society and institutions like the judiciary so that they can prepare and execute a constitutional
response in alignment with Pakistans international and domestic human rights law commitments.
Such compromises of ones human security should not, however, be made by the executive or the
security establishment impromptu on the pretext of dealing with terrorism in such a reactive and ad
hoc manner. This form of decision-making is opaque, firstly making it impossible for those indulging
in this risky calculus to be held accountable to the people for any potential abuses of power.
Secondly, and more sinisterly, such opacity in the decision-making process could potentially
obfuscate the real causes underlying threats to national security. Pakistan, unfortunately, has no
shortage of domestic extremist actors and casting responsibility off and putting it on the 76 most
wanted Afghans raises the danger of possibly ignoring threats closer to home.
Domestic terrorism is now, unfortunately, deep rooted and a function of structural problems and
socioeconomic disparity caused by a weak state relying on decades of bad policy. Individuals who
carry our terrorist acts are indeed criminals, but they are at the same time pawns and agents of
a machine that thrives on the socioeconomic disenfranchisement of the people at the hands of
political elites.
There is a whole institutional network of terrorist organisations thriving in Pakistan and the use of
lethal force against them might very well be justified. But socioeconomic and political reform aimed
at achieving distributive justice would, in the long run, yield far more permanent results. The border
closures as a tactic of reprisal or coercion would impact the lives of ordinary Pakistanis and Afghans,
leading to greater human suffering, and only serve to radicalise hitherto peaceful elements of society.
Pakistan must realise that while there might indeed be foreign elements playing a hand in domestic
terrorism in Pakistan, terrorism within the country is locally sustained. The role of external sources
in domestic acts of extremism is by and large limited and can often be negated if one addresses the
needs of the marginalised elements. It is a simple matter to cast blame for internal harm on foreign
elements, but before Pakistan casts a stone at Afghanistan it is prudent to note that Afghanistan also
shares a border with Iran a country which has experienced relatively little extremist activity.