Filtering Truth From Propaganda In The GSP+ Human Rights Controversy – OpEd
The international community has consistently considered Pakistan as a partner with whom it shares the same values of cooperation, respect, and non-interference. Nevertheless, the political and security developments in Pakistan have, at least indirectly, influenced the discussion around GSP+ human rights compliance in a negative way over the past months. It is quite clear that the human rights issues requiring the most attention and need to be tackled openly, yet separating the advocacy for geographical or separatist agendas is also very critical. To arrive at a just assessment, it is necessary to not only acknowledge the positive changes in Pakistan but also to understand the complications that are associated with the groups and networks that claim to speak for the poor.
Some organizations, like the ones using diaspora networks, have a place in the human rights dialogue and are showing very limited Indonesia’s security operations, thus ignoring the country’s rightful counter-terrorism needs. The Pakistani government has been under continuous threat from armed factions that are operating in difficult terrains and are often killing innocents. In this situation, the presence of organizations that are somehow linked to the separatist movements in the events is questioning their intent and credibility. The critics in Pakistan assert that these organizations are accusing the government with a one-sided view and are ignoring the violence perpetrated by the militant groups whose attacks have resulted in the deaths of not only the civilians but also the public workers and the community leaders, among others. A narrative that does not take this point into account is likely to present a distorted picture of the region’s issues.
Simultaneously, Pakistan should keep on involving European institutions and international observers in a constructive way. It is very important to differentiate between real advocacy efforts, which have a positive impact on policy changes, and politically connected campaigns that base their arguments on unverified claims or broad generalizations. The use of human rights vocabulary by any participant to promote a political or separatist agenda or its silence about the violence perpetrated by the groups it is either connected with or sympathetic to, will understandably lead to questioning the credibility of its message. A fair evaluation will require the recognition of the fact that the monitoring of human rights should be impartial and condemnatory of abuses committed by both the state and non-state actors.
Since 2014, Pakistan’s performance under GSP+ has been nothing but a demonstration of a continuous legislative effort to comply with international commitments. Major legal changes have been realized in the whole range from women’s rights to criminal justice and child protection. Among these, the Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act provided some guarantees for press freedom; the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act made it more difficult for the victim to suffer the same fate again; and the provincial laws on domestic violence gave the victim more rights. Also, there were reforms like the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act and the Zainab Alert Act that signified the recognition by the state of the need for protecting the rights of the vulnerable sections of society. The National Commission for Human Rights’ upgrade has empowered the watchdog with a more extensive range of activities and better independence. All these events are indicators of tangible progress, but the area of implementation still requires the same old and more investments—something that the government has also accepted.
Pakistan’s endeavors are praiseworthy but accountability and transparency are the very bases over which the international trust can be built and maintained. Constructive criticism, if it is supported by strong evidence, can help to bring reform but it becomes unproductive when it is based on one-sided narratives, geopolitical interests, or external funding. The suspicions that some diaspora groups might have been indirectly supported by enemy intelligence services only make the concerns about the politicisation of the human rights debate stronger. But, these suspicions should be removed by state communication based on evidence rather than by engaging in rhetorical confrontation. The European Union, for its part, should keep an eye out so that no group whether state or non-state uses its platforms to push agendas that are not directly related to human rights and hence enter the territory of political influence operations.
The GSP+ process is a matter of integrity for the EU. It is crucial to keep the legislative aspect and the rules-based approach in dealing with the matter. The scheme is not intended to serve as a diplomatic tool or a means for pushing separatist narratives, but rather to stimulate reforms. The conversation should focus on observable progress, independent monitoring, and open reporting. The presence of a non-representative group in the discussions not only reduces the partners’ trust but also diminishes the impact of human rights advocacy. Thus, balancing is necessary not only for the EU’s mechanisms but also for the growth of reform in Pakistan to gain credibility.
In the end, Pakistan’s movement towards human rights has to be assessed through a complex perspective—one that acknowledges the nation’s security difficulties, its law-making progress, and the requirement for constant betterment. Apart from this, Pakistan still has the advantage of engaging with multiple civil society voices, including the critical ones, as long as the engagement is based on fact evidence and independent monitoring and not on political alignment. A balanced approach signifies that both wholesale rejection of criticism and uncritical endorsement of the narratives crafted by the interest groups with non-transparent agendas should be avoided.
Pakistan has by no means shown a tendency to withdraw its pledge to GSP+; on the contrary, the country has already made significant reforms and is still on the path toward guaranteeing rights and building up the institutions. However, one side of the coin is that Pakistan should be receptive to constructive criticism, the other is that international partners should not concede to any party that is using human rights as a tool for political gain. The only way to steer clear of the unethical practice of human rights advocacy and at the same time support genuine development that is based on sovereignty, accountability, and mutual respect is by means of principled, fact-based engagement.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
