Maulana, Minerals and Emergency

Maulana Fazlur Rehman is a formidable and widely respected figure in Pakistani politics. When he expresses his views on a matter of national importance, they cannot simply be brushed aside. Yet respect for a political leader does not mean that his pronouncements must be accepted without scrutiny. Even an opinion expressed by Maulana himself must be tested against reason, argument and the facts at hand. Maulana's position following the imposition of emergency rule and governor's rule has two distinct dimensions: the political and the strategic. The political dimension is not the subject of this article. Our concern here is the strategic argument he has advanced. In his remarks on critical minerals, Maulana has, in essence, argued that the emergency has been imposed to gain control of Pakistan's mineral wealth; that deals are being struck with the Americans to place our resources at their disposal; and that a foreign power, the United States, is being brought into the region, an arrangement that allegedly raises concerns for China and Russia as well. Politics has its ebbs and flows. Disagreements are part and parcel of political life, and there is nothing wrong with expressing them. The first question, then, is straightforward: what agreement has Pakistan entered into with the United States that could possibly be construed as handing over ownership of Pakistan's resources to the Americans? Indeed, has Pakistan entered into any such agreement with any country at all? If an agreement has been concluded, has Maulana actually read its text? Can he point to a specific provision in a particular agreement that runs counter to Pakistan's national interests? When was this agreement signed, and what are its precise terms? These questions assume even greater significance when one considers that Pakistan is, as things stand, merely exploring its options. No agreement has yet been concluded with anyone. All options remain open. There has been no sale of the country's mineral wealth, nor have its resources been handed over to any foreign power. In these circumstances, when even a responsible political leader like Maulana declares that deals have already been struck, he must, with all due respect, be asked to substantiate his claim. Which deals have been concluded? When were they signed? And what exactly do they entail? Equally difficult to comprehend is Maulana's assertion that China and Russia have reservations about any agreement Pakistan might enter into with the United States. Who has conveyed these reservations to him? Is it the Chinese and Russian embassies, or the relevant officials of those countries, who will announce that they have concerns? Or is Maulana himself speaking on their behalf and explaining the nature of their supposed objections? There is another question he needs to address. If Pakistan is negotiating an agreement concerning its own resources and national interests, is it obliged to take Russia's reservations, or those of any other country, into account? Have China and Russia themselves not entered into substantial economic agreements with the United States? In one breath, Maulana argues that a foreign power, the United States, is being brought into the region. In the next, he appears to be speaking for two other foreign powers, articulating their alleged reservations. Are China and Russia not foreign powers themselves? Or do they, too, happen to hold domiciles from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab? If Maulana objects to Pakistan entering into an agreement with a foreign power such as the United States, then surely his apparent sensitivity to the concerns of other foreign powers warrants scrutiny as well. China is our friend, and if it has any reservations, they certainly deserve to be taken seriously. But perhaps Maulana would care to explain when Russia's reservations acquired such overriding importance. Does Russia consult Pakistan before formulating its own policies? Does it approach us and ask, 'Brother, this is what we intend to do. Do you have any reservations?' Does Maulana believe that Pakistan, as a sovereign state, cannot make its own decisions? Must it seek the approval of one country or another even before deciding how to develop its mineral resources? Maulana is a senior political leader, and if he has reservations, he is entirely entitled to express them. If he disagrees with a government policy, that is his right. But he holds no mandate to speak on behalf of Russia or China. Nor is it appropriate to advance a narrative suggesting that deals for the sale of Pakistan's critical minerals have already been struck when, in fact, Pakistan has yet to conclude any agreement with anyone on the subject. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Pakistan ultimately enters into an agreement with the United States. The Americans possess the requisite technology and resources. Suppose Pakistan finds no better alternative and decides that an arrangement with the United States best serves its interests. What, precisely, would be wrong with that? Pakistan has to look after its own interests, not accommodate the reservations of other countries. It has every right to negotiate and enter into agreements with any country in the world, just as every other sovereign state enjoys the same right. No one asks other countries to seek Pakistan's approval before entering into agreements of their own. Why, then, should Pakistan be expected to do so? Politics has its ebbs and flows. Disagreements are part and parcel of political life, and there is nothing wrong with expressing them. But an issue as consequential as the development of Pakistan's mineral wealth deserves to be debated with greater care and precision. If Maulana has reservations, there are more constructive and intellectually credible ways of articulating them. Terrorism, too, is a grim reality that cannot be wished away or denied. Maulana himself has stated that the government's writ disappears as soon as night falls. In such circumstances, the political rationale for imposing emergency rule is certainly open to debate. But to claim that the purpose of the emergency is to seize control of Pakistan's mineral deposits is to advance an argument that appears indifferent to the demands of evidence and the force of reason. The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood