Topic
Foreign
Intervention in Internal Affairs of Pakistan: Challenges and Prospects.
Abstract
The intervention has been
bedeviling the international system for quite a long. The international society
has been confronting challenges as well as making gains from the phenomenon. In
terms of strong states, the intervention has come as a bounty and on the other hand,
weak states have endured sufferings for an intervention taking place on behalf of
strong and powerful states. Pakistan being a weak state is no exception. This
paper examines the literature available on intervention and its legitimate
concern. It illustrates that how interventionism has changed substantially in
the latter part of the 20th century and the first half of the 21st
century. It has severe implications, as mentioned earlier, that Pakistan, too,
borne for more than a half-century. This paper thoroughly outlines the issues,
in detail, faced due to the phenomenon and how these consequences pose as a
threat to the state of Pakistan.
Key
words: intervention, international system, international
society, interventionism, consequences.
1.
Introduction
Foreign
or international intervention, in terms of international law, is the use of
force by one country or a sovereign state in the internal or external affairs
of another country. However, with the
passage of time, since the ban on the use of force to achieve national interest by
UN, the concept of intervention has undergone many changes and, as result, is
carried out differently. Foreign interventions are aimed at achieving national
interest in other countries. By and large, interventions can be categorized as
political, economic, military, and humanitarian. Historically, great powers have
been involved in the internal and external affairs of various countries to
achieve their interests. They considered intervention, particularly
humanitarian interventions, as legitimate and necessary for peace and
democratization. In the contemporary era, with the advent of new modes of
subversion, proxies, and hybrid warfare tactics, countries irrespective of their
strengths have been seen carrying out interventions to make relative gains.
Pakistan has been subject to foreign intervention since its inception. Many
western and non-western countries have been interfering in the internal affairs of
Pakistan. States such as America, the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and India are to name a few that have been playing the game in different time and
space. Besides these countries, many Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and
International Organizations (IOs) have been found intruding on the internal
affairs of the country. These countries and organizations have committed
interventions either to set up like-minded regimes, formulate policies, or have
used proxies to achieve their aims and objectives. The interventions have come
either directly or indirectly. All these endeavors, either aggressive or
non-aggressive, have significant impacts on countries. Pakistan, too, has been
bearing the brunt owing to foreign intrusion in its internal affairs. These
interventions, undoubtedly, have greatly influenced the society of Pakistan.
These acts are attributed to have social, political, and economic ramifications
on the country.
Most of the ills prevailing in the society are a consequence of foreign powers meddling, overtly or covertly, in the internal
affairs of the state. The question arises here that, what challenges did
Pakistan faces as a result of foreign interventions in its internal affairs.
2. Theoretical
Framework
I
will be using the realist school of thought to assess the concept of intervention
in international relations. The realist school of thought considers sovereignty
as a significant attribute of the state. Without sovereignty, states are like
other organizations. The feature of sovereignty is the one that makes the state
distinct from the other organizations. According to realists, state's main aim is
to intact its territorial sovereignty and that gives the state right to use
force to protect its sovereignty. Similarly, sovereignty leads to a state’s
survival and that requires self-help. To ensure statism through self-help
states enhance their national power to avert the crisis of security dilemma
that is part and parcel of an anarchic world.
3. Research
Question
How foreign intervention, in internal affairs, is posing challenges for Pakistan?
4. Background
Every
state has a right to manage its affairs, internal as well as external,
according to its own wishes. This right has been granted in accordance with the
principle of state sovereignty. State sovereignty implies that its legitimacy
and authority can be established exclusively by reference to the legal system
itself. It requires no reference to principles outside that very legal order.[1] the above right of a state
establishes a corresponding duty on all other states that is the principle of
non-interference. Non-interference in the affairs of other states is an agreed
principle of International Law. However, when the principle of non-interference
is violated, or when a state interferes in the affairs, it is referred to as intervention. Intervention is defined as a forcible or dictatorial interference
by a state in the affairs of another state to impose certain conduct or
consequence on that other state.[2]
Intervention
maybe military, subversive, economic, diplomatic, to name a few. The military intervention takes place with the use of armed forces, which may become a
military occupation of the territory of another state. Subversive interventions
imply the conduct of propaganda, by another state, aimed at fomenting of revolt
or civil unrest in another state. This phenomenon has been a norm in
contemporary internal relations in order to weaken the rival or competing
states. Diplomatic or economic intervention may include hurling of threatening
tone implying use of force or other coercive measures, short of force, to
institute compliance.
Historically, the intervention was widely used as an instrument of national policy. However, the
rise of the nation-states system gave, after the treaty of Westphalia, in 1648,
birth to the concept of sovereignty. Accordingly, states do not only assert
ultimate authority within a distinctive entity but also assert membership of the international community. The doctrine of sovereignty implies a double claim:
autonomy in foreign policy and exclusive competence in internal affairs.
Internal sovereignty thus refers to supreme decision-making and enforcement
authority with regard to a particular territory and population.[3]
The
traditional position on the principle of intervention has greatly changed with
the creation of United Nations (UN), in 1945. While the use of force by an
individual state has been drastically restrained, the Security Council (SC),
one of the organs of the UN, has been given the authority to use the force
according to the provisions of U.N charter. It states that, All Members
shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in
any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.[5]
The UN charter has prohibited the use of force by a state in the affairs of
another state under Article 2. And, it presses up on to settle its political
and territorial disputes according to the peaceful means of settlement
enshrined in the charter of UN. The above-mentioned Article clearly prohibits
any means of force that is inconsistent with the purpose of the UN. The UN was
created, at the end of World War-II, to maintain peace and security of the
world. The use of force and other coercive means used by the states are
essentials threats to the world peace and security. Therefore, the Draft
declaration on Rights and Duties of states prepare by the International Law, in
1949, has set forth non-intervention as one of the duties of a state under
Article 3.[6]
Pakistan
came into being as a separate state, carved out of the British subcontinent, on
August 14, 1947, under very difficult circumstances. The traumatic experience of
the partition from Indian Subcontinent coupled with refugee crisis gave it a
severe blow to its peaceful existence. Indeed, it came into being in a very
peculiar set of circumstances that made it a very difficult country to run. The
partition of Indian Subcontinent was reluctantly accepted by the Indian
National Congress leadership, they hoped that Pakistan would rejoin India sooner
or later as a federation or confederation. Pakistan, therefore, had to face a
serious threat to its security from a hostile India from the very beginning of
its existence. India’s hostility reflected itself in several ways soon after
the Partition: its reluctance to share cash balances and military stores with
Pakistan equitably and expeditiously, the stoppage of the flow of river waters
into Pakistan through its control on river headworks located in India, and the
trade dispute because of Pakistan’s refusal to follow India’s decision to
devalue its currency.[8] Since then, India is bent
upon to destabilize Pakistan through covert interventions. India in pursuit of
its nefarious designs has been indulged in nefarious activities that would lead
to a weak or a failed state. Also, the subversive activities of New Delhi are
not a new phenomenon for Pakistan. The dismemberment of erstwhile East-Pakistan
took place with the help of Indian civil and military leadership. During his
visit to Bangladesh in June, PM Modi had admitted that India played a part in the
break-up of Pakistan in 1971 Liberation war. He had said that he was proud that
Indian troops sacrificed themselves for liberation of Bangladesh.[9] Not only India but also
many other states including the United States of America (USA), Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (KSA), Israel and other Middle eastern countries have playing the
dirty games to weaken the state of Pakistan.
When
Pakistan came into being, the cold war between the USA and Soviet Union had
already started. Consequently, the world was divided into two blocs i.e., the
capitalist and the communist camp. Pakistan in search of its security and
development needs, soon after partition, joined the former bloc wherein it was
assured of unabated help by the USA. The dependency on the US to fulfill its
security and other demands lead to an increased influence of the US in
Pakistan. Eventually, the USA used this leverage to achieve its national
objectives. During the cold war era, Pakistan affirmed her support to USA
against the Soviet Union. This interest-based relationship remained consistent
and America kept exploiting Pakistan for its personal gains. The Past two
decades are reflection of the earlier past. Since the beginning of War on
Terror (WOT), the mantra of do more has augmented the covert actions of the US
in Pakistan. Despite being, a non-NATO ally, the USA never recognized Pakistan’s
role to end terrorism in the region, rather Washington alleged Islamabad of
supporting and sponsoring terrorism. Under this pretext the US has under taken
drone strikes in tribal areas of Pakistan without consent of the Pakistani
authorities. This drone attacks, killing of Osama bin Laden, presence of
Raymond Davis, an agent of black water, are the episodes of US intervention in
Pakistan. US drone strikes risk significantly weakening Pakistan's democratic
institutions. What has been the whole outcome of these drone attacks is that
the US has directly or indirectly contributed to destabilizing or undermining
the democratic government.[10] Besides, the economic
assistance provided by the US government, instead of making lives of people
easier, was aimed at to serve the US interest. The increase in aid inflow
during the 1960s is connected with Pakistan’s signing of mutual defense
assistance agreements with the US in the cold war era. Aid inflow of the 1980s
can be visualized in perspective of the Afghan war. In the 1990s, economic
assistance to Pakistan was cut off by the US and other multilateral donors when
the Afghan war ended. Aid inflow to Pakistan was further dropped down after the
nuclear tests in 1998 and the military takeover in 1999. Most recently, aid
inflow is a result of closer Pak-US ties after 9/11.[11]
Furthermore,
not only the US and India, the middle Eastern countries too have been carrying
out interference, without consent of Islamabad, in the internal and external
affairs of the country to further their own agenda. Since the 1970s, Saudi
Arabia has exercised enormous influence on Pakistan behind the scenes through
its funding of Ahl-e-Hadith and Deobandi madrassas (religious seminaries),
which teach a more puritanical version of Islam than had traditionally been
practiced in Pakistan.[12] The author argues that
the funding is directed up on to propagate their own version of Islam that runs
parallel to the ambitions of Iran. In other words, the funding is done in order
to enhance its influence and curtail that of Iran. Saudis influence in the
country has increased since the Iranian Revolution- in 1979, and the invasion
of Afghanistan by Soviet Union. The Iranian revolution instigated Saudis to
enhance their influence and the invasion provided a mechanism to do so. The
flow of Saudi money was used to train Mujahideen studying in Pakistani
Madrassas. In addition, Iran, too, has trained relations with the Islamic republic.
Historically, Tehran and Islamabad enjoyed cordial relations with each other.
However, after the demise Shah and beginning of 1979 revolution, the relations
have been on the downward trajectory. Iran and Pakistan are no longer allies of
Cold war, instead they view each other as competitors. Iran views Pakistan as a
staunch ally of its arch rival Saudi Arabi. In
recent years, Iran’s overtures toward a partnership with India, as well as
Pakistan’s security challenges and struggles with Sunni militancy, have led to
a tense relationship between Islamabad and Tehran.[13] Iran friendly overtures
with India are seen in Pakistan as anti-Pakistani, and these overtures of Iran
are fueling a negative sentiment in Pakistan. It is also believed that Iran is
supporting Anti-CPEC sentiment propagated by India and China. Besides the
abovementioned countries, various International Lending Institutions and
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are meddling in the affairs of Pakistan.
NGOs
and INGOs are bodies that carry out work to expedite social development in
collaboration with the respective governments across the world. The work of
these organizations is based on charity and donor’s sponsorship. Developed
countries and philanthropist world wide donate funds to developing countries
aimed at to bring in social change thus, comforting the lives of downtrodden
population. Yet, these NGOs and INGOs deviated from their prime responsibility,
which is to help the locals in collaboration with their governments, in a transparent
manner, and conduct activities which are design to promote specific interests
under the guise of development work. The government seems increasingly
threatened by nonprofit organizations’ role in mobilizing the support of civil
society on issues such as violence against women, honor killings, blasphemy
law, freedom of the press, accountability, and corruption. The resulting
hostility has been reflected in attempts to penetrate various nonprofit
organizations and, in extreme cases, in attempts to close them through
deregistration.[14]
All these bodies work under the State’s Welfare department and need to be
registered for oversight and check. The government, as a result of failure to
provide necessary documents for registration, has cancelled license of many
NGOs on the basis of anti-state agenda. In addition to the NGOs and INGOs,
money lending institutions have also been exerting their influence to enhance
their sway in the country. Institutions such as International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and World Bank (WB), through their policies have attempted to influence
decision making in the country. In
Pakistan, IMF and World Bank policies have weakened the economy and promoted
the interests of the elite. We need new global institutions that are democratically
accountable.[15]
The author argues that the experience of these lending institution with third
world countries including Pakistan are traumatic. These organizations have been
for long promoting neoliberal economic agenda, designed to benefit the elite
groups, through their Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs). These endeavors
have resulted in a compromised political sovereignty.
5. Hypothesis
Foreign
interventions are dictatorial or forceful interference that result in a
compromised sovereignty. When internal and external sovereignty are compromised
that gives birth to multitude of consequences of negative nature and plunges
the country into a quagmire.
6. Significance
of the Study
This paper is aimed at to understand the
repercussion of foreign intervention in the internal affairs of Pakistan. The
concept of intervention has assumed significance as it has bedeviled
international system for quite long. Historically, the act of intervention was
used as an instrument by great powers to achieve their national objectives at
the expense of unstable affairs of the states where intervention would take
place. However, with the creation of UN, in 1945, the political experts started
viewing it as counterproductive to the international peace and security. Thus,
renders the purpose and creation of UN ineffective. The UN was created to save
the future generation from the scourge of war, and to maintain a peaceful order
in the international relations. Moreover, the concept has adverse implication
on the social order of the countries concerned. However, the concept since then
has substantially changed and it has taken a new form; covert interference, in
form of proxies and economic aid. Yet, states interfere in each other’s’
affairs to destabilize the competitors. Pakistan is no exception. It has been
bearing the burnt for years and the prevailing circumstances are outcomes of
these covert interventions. The study highlights how these interventions take
place in Pakistan and how deeply have these interventions implicated Pakistan.
7. Challenges
of Foreign Intervention in Internal Affairs
A
compromised sovereignty, as a result of intervention, leads to a chaotic social
order. Following are the challenges Pakistan faced as a result of foreign
powers intervention, covert or overt intrusion, in its internal affairs.
I.
War on Terror spawned terrorism and
incurred economic and human losses in Pakistan
Pakistan
and the US became allies in the WOT and pledged to eradicate terrorism from the
region. In the wake of terrorist attacks on the world trade center and the
Pentagon, on September 11, 2001 the global outlook of world politics
transformed. In this deadly attack at least thousand people were killed and
material losses amounted to billions of dollars were incurred. The
unprecedented and never imagined assault on the US mainland was more
destructive than the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.[16] The devastating event had
left the American nation in a traumatic condition. Consequently, President
George W Bush resolved to hunt down the culprits involved in the heinous act.
President of Pakistan, on the sad occasion, issued a condemnation and showed
his willingness to join the US in the fight against terrorism. Soon after the
attack, the global media accused Al-Qaeda of carrying out the deadly attacks.
Soon after his address to the nation, by the American President, secretary
state, Colin Powel announced that the US expected full cooperation of Pakistan,
adding to that, President Bush said that those who harbored terrorist would be
treated as terrorists.[17] In consequence to the
statements issued by the US authorities, Pakistan had to agree with the global
powers. In is crystal clear that the hegemonic tone set by US contained
warning. Pakistan, in the wake of the situation, had left with more choice
other than to align with the world power. This is a clear reflection of
Pakistan having no consent to be part of WOT. Eventually, it cost Pakistan both
in terms of human capital and finances. War-related violence has killed 65,000
people in Pakistan in the last 17 years, including 23,000 civilians, 9,000
security personnel.[18] And, in terms of economy,
Pakistan has incurred billions of losses. The Pakistani economy suffered $23.77
billion in 2010-11 due to expenses related to war on terrorism.[19] In addition to the
losses, new wave of suicide bombing and terrorism started. The Taliban was
outraged for Pakistan siding the US on war on terror. Pakistan allied with US
for it was compelled by the US and denying could cost Pakistan its survival. Thus,
the said intervention in its internal affair is a stark example of a
compromised political sovereignty.
II.
Drones creating instability,
fomenting terrorism and weaking democracy
The
drone strikes in erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) by the US
agencies in the lieu of WOT were tantamount to forceful intervention. These
strikes were carried to target Taliban taking sanctuaries in the area. However,
these strikes carried out by the US authorities were threatening Pakistan’s
territorial sovereignty. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) drone strikes
violate Pakistan's sovereignty, says senior diplomat. Islamabad's high
commissioner believes the US should hand over control of the attacks to his
government.[20]
The International Law and Principles of sovereignty do not allow any state to
breach territorial sovereignty of any other state irrespective of their size
and power. It is on the record that Pakistan has repeatedly asked the US
administration to handover the technology to be operated by its own military.
Not only sovereignty but also terrorism would be fueled and democracy at stake
owing to the intermittent use of drone technology. The terrorists were being
targeted in drone attacks would blame Pakistan for abetting the US in this
saga. In retaliation they would carry out suicide bombing across Pakistan. They started their activities
inside Pakistan by attacking law enforcement agencies, secular political
parties, educational institutions and government installations.[21] Also,
the use of drone technology would instigate a negative sentiment against the US
and the local people would become sympathizers of the terrorists. The violation
of state sovereignty along with civilian casualties could fan grievances in the
general populace, i.e., not just within terrorist groups. The resulting
sentiments could translate to physical, financial, or ideological support for
terrorists.[22]
In addition to fanning of terrorism, the drone strikes were contributing for
political instability and weakening of democratic norms. To stop continuation
of drone strikes in Pakistan, the parliament would pass resolutions against
them. Unfortunately, despite the unanimous opposition from the political
parties it would not come to halt any soon. In an interview with the Bureau of
investigation Journalism, Wajid Shams-ul- Hassan, a senior Diplomat, said, people
really make fun of the democratic government – when you pass a resolution
against drone attacks in the parliament and nothing happens. The Americans
don't listen to you, and they continue to violate your territory.[23] Parliament is considered
as the supreme law-making authority of a state and all laws pertaining to its
defined territory are immune to any external intrusion. Otherwise, it is
tantamount to subversion of the legal authority that is in violation of state
law and UN charter.
III.
Indian interference is posing
instability and civil unrest in Pakistan
India’s
involvement has created serious implications for the national security and
economic progress of Pakistan. Furthermore, this may eventually lead to
permanent instability in the region.[24] It is not a new
phenomenon, India, since the partition of Indian subcontinent, in 1947, has
been trying to weaken Pakistan. The Partition of Indian subcontinent did not
bode well for those at the helms in Indian National Congress (INC). One
can quote numerous other instances in which Indian leaders have lamented the
Partition and expressed the hope that Pakistan would cease to exist as a
separate independent and sovereign country and rejoin India as part of a
federation.[25]
In pursuit of their mission to destabilize Pakistan and to fulfill its
aspirations of becoming a hegemon, in the region, it has left no stone
unturned. Consequently, face has to face a severe threat to its security from
the rival India since its independence. Indian hostility has been reflected on
many occasions; be it sharing of assets, water distribution, prevention of
Kashmir accession with Pakistan etc. Above all, Indian support of civil unrest
in former East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, speaks volume of its interference in
internal affairs to weaken Pakistan. The Indian involvement in dismemberment of
Pakistan was conceded as fact by the current Prime minister of India, Narender
Modi. During his visit to Bangladesh in June, PM Modi had admitted that India
played a part in the break-up of Pakistan in 1971 Liberation war. He had said
that he was proud that Indian troops sacrificed themselves for liberation of
Bangladesh.[26]
Furthermore, recently, in 2016, Pakistan captured an Indian spy trying to fuel separatism
in India. The Indian Naval officer, Kul Bashan Yadav, later admitted that he
was funding the terrorist organizations under the agenda set by its spy agency
Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). India in search of achieving its objectives,
formulated under Kautilya’s philosophy, to control its neighbors to meet its
aspiration of becoming a hegemon pursues policy of interference in internal
affairs of its neighbors.[27] Pakistan has found
evidence regarding Indian interference in Baluchistan, Karachi and erst while
Fata. The dossier contains additional information and proof of Indian/RAW
interference in Pakistan and involvement in terrorism — particularly in Baluchistan,
FATA and Karachi.[28] All these endeavors on
part of India are stark examples of Indian involvement in the country to
destabilize the state so that Islamabad will yield to New Delhi’s long standing
hegemonic aspirations and stop supporting Kashmir cause at international
forums.
IV.
External Funding to Seminaries
Fueling Extremis and Terrorism
The
use of terrorist organizations has been a new norm in the interaction of states
at global level. States in their interaction spend huge amounts in order to
achieve their objectives. Later these organizations are used as proxies. The
advent of extremism and terrorism date back to the period of Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, in 1979 and Iranian revolution of 1979. When the Soviet Union
invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the United States and Saudi Arabia propped up
Pakistan to wage a proxy war. The United States took a hands-off stance as it
provided money, supplies, and arms to the ISI. The ISI, flush with cash,
weapons, and materiel, favored the more extremist jihadi factions fighting the
Soviets, thereby cutting out factions who were better fighters and more
effective combatants.[29] Since then terrorism
surged and extremist groups took hold of Pakistan with Baking of foreign powers
including the USA, KSA and Iran. As a result, within Pakistan, Wahabi madrassas
spawned and all foreign funds were directed to produce extreme radical groups
who would be used later against the Soviet Union as proxies. In addition, the
KSA to sway its influence and to spread sunni version of Islam to counter
Iran’s backed Shiaism in Pakistan. Since the 1970s, Saudi Arabia has exercised
enormous influence on Pakistan behind the scenes through its funding of
Ahl-e-Hadith and Deobandi madrassas (religious seminaries), which teach a more
puritanical version of Islam than had traditionally been practiced in Pakistan.[30] The tug of war between
Riyad and Tehran promotes sectarian divide and that, in turn, fuels extremism.
All the Madrasas having a Wahabi version of Islam are sponsored by the Saudi
monarch. This leads to funding of proscribe organization such as LEJ, Sipha
sahabe etc. that carry out militant activities to advance the agenda of their
masters.
V.
NGOs Promoting Foreign Interest
instigates Social Unrest
There
are plethora of NGOs working in Pakistan like in other countries across the world.
The dramatic rise in the numbers has become a norm since the end of 20th
century. These NGOs have become part of governance structure in the country.
However, the role of these organizations is subject to government’s
surveillance and operate under the domestic law. Yet, owing to mushroom growth
of these NGOs and governance lacunas these organizations tend to exert their
influence that breeds discontent at domestic level. One finds Pakistani NGOs
subjected to all types of criticism challenging their legitimacy to exist. They
are termed undemocratic creatures, insensitive to culture and religion,
existing with the sole aim to act as an agent of foreign countries.[31] They reasons is sometimes
these organizations step out of their ambit and overstepping in terms of
authority pose serious threat to the political sovereignty of the state. This
leads to crisis of sovereignty which is the sole domain of the local
government. They do so to promote a specific interest overriding the prescribed
space by the concerned governments. Government by keeping the check and balance
policy in effect deter transgression of any sorts. y.
NGOs are also considered to be anti-state and working on foreign agendas to
seek funding. People believe that power and influence of NGOs should be
controlled by some legal measure in order to provide some form of visibility
and accountability in cases of their preconceived irresponsibility.[32] Pakistan has been home to
many foreign NGOs, most of them either work independently or they are associated
through their networks. In case they obviate their agenda and try to circumvent
the procedures, in lieu of an ulterior motive, states either bar their functioning
or declare them as persona non grata. Recently, Pakistan ordered closure of few
NGOs for their suspecting role. the
government stated their reason as the organizations’ inability to provide
documents for regulatory transparency, many suspect it to be the general
mistrust and suspicion on part of the government instead as an official from
the Ministry made the following comment, “they were working against Pakistan’s
national interests, and were involved in matters related to security and
religion.”[33]
Thus, in this way organizations intrude in internal affairs and harm national
interest through intervention.
8. Conclusion
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Laskar, “Use of Force under Article 51 of
the UN Charter.”
[6]
[7] “GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 2131 (XX) OF
21 DECEMBER 1965.”
[8] Husain, Pakistan and a World in
Disorder.
[9] “Pakistan to Move UN after Modi Cites
India’s Role in 1971 War, Says Its Stand Has Been Vindicated.”
[10] Woods, “CIA Drone Strikes Violate Pakistan’s
Sovereignty, Says Senior Diplomat.”
[11] Abbas Haider, “Boon or Bane?: Historical
Analysis of Pakistan’s Foreign Aid Inflow.”
[12] Afzal, “Saudi Arabia’s Hold on Pakistan.”
[13] Karim Tariq, “Pakistan’s Relations with
Iran and the Implications for Regional Stability.”
[14] Zaman, “NGOs: Difficult Relationship with
Pakistani State and Society?”
[15] Khaliq Abdul Syed, “The IMF and World
Bank Have Lost All Legitimacy. We Need New Alternatives.”
[16] Sattar Abdul, Pakistan’s Foreign
Policy 1947–2019 Fifth Edition.
[17] Sattar Abdul.
[18] Iqbal, “War on Terror Left Half a Million
Dead in 17 Years, Says Report.”
[19] “Terrorism in Pakistan.”
[20] Woods, “CIA Drone Strikes Violate
Pakistan’s Sovereignty, Says Senior Diplomat.”
[21] Storai and Idrees, “Internally Displaced
Persons.”
[22] Mahmood, Jetter, and Mehmood Riffat,
“Military Intervention via Drone Strikes.”
[23] Woods, “CIA Drone Strikes Violate
Pakistan’s Sovereignty, Says Senior Diplomat.”
[24] Khetran, “Indian Interference in
Balochistan.”
In pursuit o
[25] Husain, Pakistan and a World in
Disorder.
[26] “Pakistan to Move UN after Modi Cites
India’s Role in 1971 War, Says Its Stand Has Been Vindicated.”
[27] Khetran, “Indian Interference in
Balochistan.”
[28] Dawn.com, “Pakistan Submits Proofs of
India’s Involvement in Cross Border Terrorism to UN Chief.”
[29] Roberts and Murphy, “Review of The Making
of Terrorism in Pakistan: Historical and Social Roots of Extremism,
MurphyEamon.”
[30] Afzal, “Saudi Arabia’s Hold on Pakistan.”
[31] Kahlon, “GOVERNANCE IN PAKISTAN:
LEGITIMACY REGIME OF NGOs.”
[32] Kahlon.
[33] Zaman, “NGOs: Difficult Relationship with
Pakistani State and Society?”
Comments
Post a Comment