Constitutional Rights For Gilgit-Baltistan: New Age Islam's Selection, 23 May 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

23 May 2017

•  Constitutional Rights for Gilgit-Baltistan

By Afzal A. Shigri

•  Mainstreaming FATA Women

By Irshad Ahmad

•  Muslim Fraternity Is Its Own Enemy

By Mohammad Jamil

•  Botching Fata Reforms

By Mosharraf Zaidi

•  CPEC’s Lesser Known Impacts

By Dr Zahoor Khan

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau

-----

Constitutional Rights for Gilgit-Baltistan

By Afzal A. Shigri

May 23rd, 2017

LED by a small group of Gilgit Scouts, with the complete support and participation of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, the armed revolt to liberate the region against the repressive Dogra lasted for more than a year. For a few days, an independent state of GB was formed in November 1947, which then made a formal request to the government of Pakistan for accession. The rajas of various small principalities and areas also voiced their assent to join Pakistan. The Pakistan government dispatched its representative and a few army officers under the able leadership of Muhammad Aslam Khan (alias Colonel Pasha). Under his command, parts of Gilgit and all of Baltistan was liberated. While this irregular formation of brave warriors was on the march to Leh and Kashmir valley, the United Nations passed a resolution calling for ceasefire.

All of GB had unconditionally acceded to Pakistan. Unfortunately, the political government of Pakistan decided its fate unilaterally instead of consulting with the local leadership. They did so by signing the infamous Karachi Agreement, 1949, with the Kashmiri leadership — who surrendered the administrative control of this vast region, which was inhabited by a patriotic and trusting people, without any attempts to guarantee their citizenship rights in Pakistan. Since then, the arbitrary rule of the federal government has carried on — the trust reposed in Pakistan through unconditional accession rewarded, in turn, with harsh bureaucratic rule that introduced the draconian, colonial-era Frontier Crime Regulations (FCR).

It was the visionary leadership of the PPP that recognised this region’s importance and the necessity of addressing the issue of its people’s rights. The PPP leadership abolished the FCR and the Jagirdari system by putting an end to the established rule of rajas in the autonomous principalities in GB.

However, what has followed has been a sordid saga of broken promises and the repeated denial of constitutional rights to the people of GB on flimsy, fabricated grounds. The linchpin of these rationalisations is the linkage of the area with the Kashmir issue; the palliatives are cosmetic decrees of self-rule that echo imperial ‘constitutional reforms’ envisaged for India by the British Raj. Oddly, it was again the PPP that took a major step in granting at least a façade of self-rule and autonomy through the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009.

The people of Gilgit-Baltistan have been waiting for full citizenship rights for almost 70 years.

Recently, against the backdrop of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and under intense pressure from civil society and locals, a committee was formed under the adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to examine the constitutional status of this region. Two years of procrastination and inaction on the part of the committee came to an end when the hand of the federal government was forced by the Indian leadership’s relentlessly belligerent campaign against the passage of CPEC through this area. The government of Pakistan was roused enough to make some half-hearted statements about addressing the issue of granting constitutional rights to the people of GB — without the intention of disturbing or altering its stance on the Kashmir issue.

Even this small move by the federal government towards resolving this issue drew the ire of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir leadership. Kashmiri leaders across the Line of Control are likewise opposing any move to mainstream the people of this area — and the Indian media has joined in this propaganda, thereby objecting to any change in the status. Bizarrely, the Kashmiri leaderships on both sides of the LoC seem to be in agreement with the hostile Indian leadership in opposing the granting of constitutional rights to the GB people. The matter has even been taken up in the British parliament at the behest of the AJK leadership.

While perusing the statements and the press reports, it is extremely disappointing to note the cavalier attitude of the AJK leadership, that has not even cared to properly read the latest resolution passed by the GB Legislative Assembly on this issue. If only they had taken the trouble of examining the resolution the assembly passed on Aug 11, 2015 they would have realised that GB is unwaveringly committed to Pakistan and the Kashmir cause and has no intention to hurt them. However, it seems that media reports are given more credence than the official document. Despite this attitude of the AJK leadership, the GB assembly has drafted the resolution prudently — asking for equal rights as citizens of Pakistan provisionally until a plebiscite is held in Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.

This is the most viable solution for dealing with this complex issue and is based on the precedent of a provisional arrangement entered into by the governments of Pakistan and China while demarcating the boundary between the two countries in this region. If it is adequate as the basis for an international treaty, then the arrangement should be good enough to grant constitutional rights to the loyal and patriotic Pakistanis of GB in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Even the Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled in favour of granting full constitutional rights to the people of GB. The demand for provisional provincial status is to ensure the presence and participation of the GB government at all forums like the Council of Common Interests, Economic Coordination Committee, Executive Committee of the National Economic Council, etc, where decisions are taken that have a direct impact on the daily lives of GB’s residents, who are Pakistanis in letter and spirit, if not yet in the constitutional sense.

It is to their credit that they are willing to accept a provisional status of citizenship despite securing their independence on their own and acceding to Pakistan unanimously. The federal government should stand up to Indian pressure and not cave in. Instead, it must protect the rights of its most loyal and faithful citizens, thereby preventing this situation from becoming yet another missed opportunity.

Source: dawn.com/news/1334774/constitutional-rights-for-gb

-----

Mainstreaming FATA Women

By Irshad Ahmad

23-May-17

Since Pakistan’s independence, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas have been governed by the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) — considered a black law by human rights activists because it gives the political administration unlimited financial, executive and judicial powers.

Unfortunately, FATA’s women are conspicuous by their absence in all areas of governance. An examination of the formation, structure, working and findings of the FATA Reforms Committee 2016 as well as of details pertaining to commissions, committees, action plans formed for the purpose previously shows that women’s representation has never been an item on reforms’ agenda.

According to Pakistan bureau of statistics report, women comprise around 48 percent of FATA’s population, but they have had no opportunity to include their charter of demands in proposed reforms. No woman has yet been elected to the National Assembly as a representative of FATA, and, before Badam Zari, no woman had ever contested elections on a general seat from this tribal region.

The report of the latest committee on FATA reforms states that 182 different laws have been extended to FATA. The report shows that guidelines for reforms are aimed at ‘major social transformation of the region and its people’ that ‘must not be permitted to fail’. The report also claims it is absolutely necessary to continue supporting the retention of ‘Rewaj’ as the tribal way of life and a basis for dispute adjudication and resolution. Similarly, ‘introduction of judicial reforms to extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Court while retaining the jirga system’ were also included in the proposed reforms.

In ‘mainstream’ Pakistan, a seven-member Marriage Commission, headed by Justice Abdur Rashid and comprising three men and four women, had accepted long ago that family laws needed to be liberalised in accordance with the needs of the modern era. This ultimately led to the introduction of reforms in Muslim personal laws. Thus, relevant personal laws have been enacted in Pakistan for issues related to marriage registration, polygamy, maintenance, Talaq and judicial divorce, custody of children, inheritance, and succession. Among all these laws, however, only the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act of 1962 was ‘extended’ on August 30, 2012, to FATA by the then President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari.

According to the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act of 1939, a Muslim woman could obtain divorce only on eight specific grounds. However, the Muslim Family Law Ordinance of 1961 defined additional responsibilities and chalked out certain procedures to protect the rights of the married couple. Family Courts were established across the country under the West Pakistan Family Court Act of 1964.None of these other laws have yet been extended to FATA. In this situation, FATA’s women are singularly deprived of any legal remedy in matters pertaining to their personal rights through the ‘Court’ of the Political Agent.

Reforms in FATA should include extension of all laws that protect personal rights with complete ‘institutional framework’ needed for implementation of these laws

(M), a resident of FATA, who is the victim of domestic violence, had filed an application with the court of the Assistant Political Agent on January 1, 2013. She sought ‘dissolution of her marriage’ on the ground that she was subject to physical violence and was receiving life threats from her husband as she had testified against him in a murder case. She did get any relief from the court but her husband was soon released following a settlement with the victim’s family. After his release, M left her home and started living in different cities, because of which her parents stopped supporting her. Although her case fulfils most of the grounds for dissolution of marriage under khula as well as judicial divorce, she has not been able to get remedy for years because the relevant laws haven’t yet been extended to FATA. With no legal recourse, there is an absolute legal, institutional and judicial vacuum for dealing such cases in FATA.

Forget about rights protected by international human rights law, FATA’s women are even deprived of rights available to women in other parts of the country. M has four children and is completely helpless to save her life and dignity. This is a case that has come to our knowledge but we have yet to identify hundreds of thousands of undocumented cases where women are being deprived of justice for years.

On February 6, 1994, Pakistan had become party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Under Article 16 of the CEDAW, Pakistani government is obliged to take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations. FATA women are also Pakistani, their rights should be protected by fulfilling international obligations under the CEDAW. Pakistan should provide equal legal, economic, social and cultural opportunities to FATA women.

Under Article 247, read with Article 145, of our constitution, the President of Pakistan is empowered to ‘enact’ any law for FATA or to ‘extend the operation’ of an existing law to the region. Reforming FATA should not be restricted to the extension of the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court. It should include extension of all laws that protect personal rights with complete ‘institutional framework. Presently, only 10 women-related laws have been extended to FATA, and astonishingly there is no implementation mechanism for these laws. Parliament will soon be taking the FATA reforms bill with the constitutional amendments. The government and opposition must focus on gender disparity in this regard. FATA women should have representation on all relevant forums, including the Senate, National and provincial assemblies, judiciary and executive departments.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/23-May-17/mainstreaming-fata-women

----

Muslim Fraternity Is Its Own Enemy

By Mohammad Jamil

CONTOURS of Arab-Islamic-American summit were defined during the speeches of President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdul Aziz. President Donald Trump accused Iran of fuelling “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”, and held Iran responsible for training armed groups in the wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Saudi King Salman in his speech called Iran “the spearhead of global terrorism” and called for containing it. President Trump in his keynote address said: “The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So too have the nations of Africa and even South America. India, Russia, China and Australia have been victims.” He intentionally skipped the name of Pakistan, which has lost more than 70000 people and more than 6000 army personnel while fighting terror. To make it worse, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was not invited to address the conference.

In fact, the conference became the launching pad for bashing Iran. Of course, both Saudi Arabia and Iran were involved in proxy wars in other countries. In Pakistan, the banned organizations Sipa-i-Sahaba and Sipa-i-Muhammad were reportedly supported by them respectively. Unfortunately the differences between Arab countries and Iran over fiqa date back to 1400 years, as both sides believe in the righteousness of their cause. Both sects have co-existed during this period; however with sharpening of contradictions between Saudi Arabia and Iran the Muslim world stands divided. Moreover, the US and the West had fuelled the sectarian fracas by supporting Iraq in its war against Iran. With the funding by Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries, Iraq had emerged as the most powerful country in the region posing a palpable threat to Arab countries as well as Israel.

After Iraq had attacked Kuwait in August 1990, the UN Security Council passed a resolution on November 29, 1990, to take military action against Iraq. In 2003, once againthe US and its allies formed a ‘coalition of the willing’ and attacked Iraq. Pakistan did not join the coalition, as it was not mandated by the UN. Their next target was Syria where they played the sectarian card and provided arms to Syrian sunni rebels. Of course, Arab countries actively supported the rebels to overthrow Bashar al-Assad government. But with the emergence of IS, the situation became complex, and Iran helped Iraq and Syria in their fight against the IS militants. With signing of agreement over nuclear programme, the US attitude towards Iran changed; and former president Barack Obama had once said that Saudi Arabia should give some space to Iran.

But President Donald Trump has decided to strengthen economic and defence relations with Saudi Arabia. To showcase its power, Saudi Arabia had formed 34-countries alliance against terrorism, and now by holding Arab-Islamic-American summit convinced the US that it is leader of the Muslim Ummah. KSA support Sunni rebels in Syria and Iran supports the Houthis (rebels) to change the elected Yemeni government. In fact, both are to blame for their acts of adventurism and violation of UN principals. The sorriest part is that the fraternity itself is the most bleeding quarry of the rabid extremism of the fanatical clans. No Muslim polity is at peace with itself. Almost all are in turbulence and turmoil in varying degrees. They are being ruined and ransacked by ever-widening sectarian divide and blighted by confessional antipathies being whipped up by the divided fanatical strands. Unfortunately, most Muslim countries are deviating from the ideological track and are following shadows of opportunism or adventurism. And the present state of affairs is the result of profligacy of unimaginative rulers in majority of the Muslim countries.

One does not see a semblance of Islamic brotherhood so far as the foreign policy pursued by them is concerned. In the past, majority of the Muslim countries had supported Pakistan’s just stance on Kashmir i.e. to implement the UN resolutions that gave the right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Now they advise Pakistan to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations with India. In case of Palestine also, the OIC did not put serious efforts in persuading the international community to help implement the UN resolutions. Unless the UN resolutions bestowing on the Palestinians right for an independent state are fully implemented, there would be no peace in the region.

In fact, the OIC is divided on sectarian basis. Saudi Arabia and majority of Muslim countries are on one side, and Iran, Iraq and Syria etc., on the other. The simmering conflict can lead to a full blown war. Unfortunately, the Muslim fraternity is its own enemy, as its leaders have not tried to discover the verities of freedom, equality and solidarity, which is why some Muslim countries have become breeding grounds for extremists and criminals. Indeed, Islam stands for love and affection, peace and amity, moderation and enlightenment. However, the shenanigans of the fraternity’s extremist strands have given handle to the compulsive detractors of our religion to depict it as a creed of violence and bloodletting.

Those involved in the 9/11 tragedy definitely brought no victory but only outright hostility of the world community to the predominantly moderate Muslim fraternity. Muslim countries are paying the price of their follies, as they have been playing into the hands of imperialist powers. Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries support the rebels in Syria but demand the world community to support the rebels in Yemen. Saudi Arabia and Iran should wean off internecine conflicts otherwise Muslim Ummah as a whole would suffer immensely.

Source; pakobserver.net/muslim-fraternity-enemy/

----

Botching Fata Reforms

By Mosharraf Zaidi

May 23, 2017

For republican purists – those of us that believe in a coherent state guided by a consistent rule of law – reforms in Fata are long overdue because the special status of Fata sticks out like a sore thumb.

It is undemocratic that Pakistani citizens are treated so vastly differently, as a matter of rule. This is solid enough motivation to want to address the normative imbalance that Fata represents within the Pakistani republic, but it doesn’t answer the question about timing, urgency or salience. If we’ve waited 70 years, why shouldn’t we wait another few?

Almost every serious question about the quality and texture of our republic can be viewed through a national security lens. Fata has been elemental to our long-term strategic calculus, offering a mystifying legal set of constructs, a captive audience in terms of a populace, and an elite that had an unmatched stranglehold over economic and political opportunity. For decades, the covert services of our security forces have worked under the cover of the mystical and clouded status of Fata. But since 2001, those same advantages have become disadvantages as competing external forces have co-opted vulnerable internal ones to produce a sustained campaign of violence and terror that has redefined our statehood.

Whilst Fata was neither the cause, nor the sole driver of terror, it came to represent the principal arena of terrorists, with one Pakistani spymaster once referring to one of the Fata agencies as the “United Nations of international terrorism”. One reason to address the Fata anomaly would be to affect the quality of national security – especially given the massive scale of operations and the deep sacrifices made by the people of Fata, and members of the armed forces in recent years. Indeed, consolidating territorial and tactical gains against terrorist groups in Fata would seem to be a great starting point for a Fata reforms conversation. But we also know that decisions driven solely by national security concerns have rarely turned out well for Pakistan. To assess the Fata question dispassionately, it may be useful then to take a broad view of the importance of change now, and what it represents.

There are five key dimensions to the Fata conversation that should inform the future outcomes for that region. The first is the broad expanse of rights, dignity and wellbeing of the people of these tribal areas. Women, children, young people and all others from Fata deserve the same opportunity to dream and pursue dreams as people anywhere else. Reform should empower and enable the people of Fata to dream in 4K and to pursue those dreams in any and all parts of Pakistan, if not the world.

The second dimension is the existing structures and incentives that shape the local economies of the tribal areas. Fata represents an arena for international trade in which formal reporting is nearly non-existent. This has created an economic black hole in which smuggling is a significant economic activity, both of goods that are perfectly legitimate and goods and services that are not. The illicit narcotics trade, and the manufacturing and sales of weapons are entrenched aspects of the economy of the tribal areas. Reforms should examine the extent to which illicit economic activity will be disrupted, how local livelihoods will be impacted and what broader economic impact change will have on the people of both the tribal areas and settled parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The third key dimension is the ongoing complexity and drama that defines Pakistan’s relationship with Afghanistan. After the Chaman border incident, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s return to Kabul and just last week General Dostum’s escape to Turkey, Afghanistan is clearly going to continue to be a politically unstable country with an elite whose incentives are to ramp up conflict with Pakistan as a means of political distraction. The clumsy and unhelpful attitude of strategic decision-makers in Pakistan towards Afghanistan makes all this worse. A reform of the Fata region must carefully examine the vulnerability of the reforms to malign actions from across the border, as well as the local impact of clumsy decisions (such as sudden border closures, and urgent refugee repatriation programmes) on the people of Fata.

Closely linked to the question of Afghanistan is the broader conversation about Pakhtun identity that is ensconced within the Fata conversation. Pakhtuns are possibly the most diversely distributed ethnic group in the country, with substantial concentrations in each province and a significant presence within the bureaucratic, military and political elite of the country. The existential fear of sub-national identities that some elements of state and civil society have harboured over decades does not fit with the economic, cultural and social realities of Pakhtuns today. Questions about Fata reform, therefore, must not be approached from a lens of ethnic anxiety or trepidation, but from an angle of an opportunity for closing the small remaining gap between Pakhtuns and the rest of the country even more. Pakhtuns in Fata, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan all have legitimate grievances about the violence they have endured for three decades. A reform conversation that does not address these widely shared grievances will represent an opportunity lost.

The final dimension is the impact of Fata on electoral politics, and the various postures and positions that will shape and inform reform. Assumptions about the so-called backwardness of Fata must be measured against the narrative of elected representatives of Fata. Retired bureaucrats that are forever citing their service as political agents or services rendered at the Fata Secretariat represent important voices – but they need to be contextualised. Like the rest of the country, Fata is demographically skewed towards young people and reform must consider the appetite of young Pakistanis from the tribal areas – not be forever arrested by the views of the superannuated.

These five dimensions cannot be adequately lent to an analysis because there is a scattered and disjointed understanding of how the conversation has landed at the proposed Rewaj Act. While far from perfect, the current proposal addresses individual rights and establishes the jurisdiction of the judiciary in an unprecedented way. It also dilutes the adjudicatory powers of the office of the Political Agent, limiting its coercive rent-seeking capacity. There are serious questions about the process for these reforms however. They begin with the continued dependence on the Safron ministry, and the Fata Secretariat. The long-term vision of a normalised and integrated Fata would necessitate the termination of these kinds of organisations. These skewed incentives plague reform at every level in the country, and yet political leaders and top bureaucrats continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

Critics will legitimately ask what quantum of political, administrative and fiscal changes have been made to Fata, and the answers the government can provide today will leave us all deeply unsatisfied. At best, the current package offers some political reforms, but very little by way of robust administrative or fiscal changes. Even then, this may have been good enough for now.

Yet here we are, seemingly at a standstill. The fact that the government now straddles between the JUI-F and PkMAP on one side, the PTI, PPP, and ANP on another side, and the military largely distant from the overall conversation is a great barometer of the failure of leadership on the part of the prime minister on the Fata question. A generational opportunity to make transformative changes to a question that has long awaited some answers may slip away, largely because PM Sharif has a management style in which meaningful attention is only paid to dumpster truck fires.

The PTI government in Peshawar, Pakhtun nationalists at the ANP, the PPP’s senior leaders and a generation of young men and women from Fata are all rightly complaining about how the Fata reforms are being handled. It may be true that the current package is the best that Pakistan can do for now, but that case has not been adequately sold to either the government’s partners a la Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Mehmood Khan Achakzai, nor to salient stakeholders like the PTI, ANP and PPP.

We may be at the cusp of seeing yet another demonstration of the PML-N’s expertise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The losers will be the people of Fata – a story oft-repeated now for 70 years.

Source; thenews.com.pk/print/206026-Botching-Fata-reforms

----

CPEC’s Lesser Known Impacts

By Dr Zahoor Khan

23-May-17

The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is not just a hot topic in print and electronic media but the term CPEC has also become a buzzword among the masses. However, the question is how to maximise benefits from the corridor and minimise negative externalities for Pakistan.

Mere desire or wish to achieve something is not enough. Rather, preparedness with required potential and proper planning based on rational and feasible pre-assessments is needed to achieve something in a productive way. The same logic applies to CPEC. We have developed an emotional attachment with CPEC — ignoring preparedness and materialisation and optimisation dimensions in the meanwhile.

DAWN’s report on CPEC long-term plan has opened a new chapter in debate on the project. It has increased curiosity about the reality of CPEC and its perceived importance, while arising many unpleasant questions. Even if the plan is considered a draft proposed by the Chinese government, the question remains how autonomous is Pakistan in ensuring revision of the plan in its favour? Secondly, have we developed a revised version of the plan? If yes, why has it not yet been made public? Thirdly, why is there a mismatch between the long-term plan reported by DAWN and information publically available on CPEC? This situation has further increased the deficit of trust between the general public and the government.

The LTP reported by DAWN has been developed by the China Development Bank and the National Development Reform Commission of China. It shows China’s intentions and vision about CPEC. The draft shows that the centre of gravity for CPEC is the agriculture sector. Thousands of acres of agricultural land will be leased to Chinese contractors for carrying out demonstration projects. Taking into consideration the rapidly growing agrarian needs of China, the country is spending  a huge amount on these items. Its spending on agrarian products approximately equals the total size of Pakistani exports as of 2016. Since agricultural products are a priority for China, CPEC’s focus on the agriculture sector makes sense from Chinese perspective. Investments in Pakistani agriculture sector will increase the size of our gross domestic product (GDP) but who gets to benefit the most from these investments will be more important than the mere increase in the size of the GDP. Meanwhile, if agriculture sector is the main priority then the CPEC’s image as a massive industrial and transport undertaking — involving power plants and highways — may need clarification from Pakistani side.

A second focus of China is on the textile sector — specifically on yarn and coarse cloth. DAWN report reveals that to develop the textiles and garments industry China may exploit Pakistani market for cheap raw materials but use surplus labour from its Kashgar region. China may also use our textile products to feed its developing industry in Xinjiang.

Nonetheless, the good news is that Federal Minister Mr. Ahsan Iqbal has affirmed that the plan reported by DAWN is just an initial draft which is yet to be finalised.

We did not put enough energy into assessing costs associated with CPEC. Rather, we went ahead with the project on the basis of its expected benefits only

Some other important aspects of CPEC also need immediate focus. The free trade agreement with China has increased pressure on local producers because of China’s free trade agreements with other countries in the region. Thus, increasing competition in Chinese markets has decreased the size of gain for Pakistan from free trade with China. The government may help in increasing the size of gain from free trade by offering subsidies on credit and other inputs to competitive exporters as well as incentives to high-size exporters. A careful study of reasons resulting in low gain from free trade in Chinese markets may be further helpful in devising better policies.

Local industries — which need local raw material such as paper, paper board, rubber and some chemicals etc — should be protected because China is a major importer of these products as well. At the same time we need to increase the volume of these inputs for the survival and sustainability of local industry.

Under CPEC, China will get easy access to Central Asian and Gulf countries. After getting access to some Pakistan export markets ie UAE and Afghanistan, China may become international competitor for Pakistan especially in cotton and leather manufacturing sector. The demand for Chinese products in international market is already higher because of varieties of goods and low prices. Consequently, it may result in further marginalisation of Pakistani products. Before, it happens we need to understand the sensitivity of the situation to devise optimal policies. Pakistani exporters need to be ready to face the upcoming challenges. The government along with cotton and leather manufacturers and exporters need to devise some mechanism to face these challenges successfully.

In a nutshell, it can be concluded that we did not put enough energy to assess costs associated with CPEC on neutral and scientific grounds. Rather, we went ahead with the project on the basis of its hypothesised benefits only.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/23-May-17/cpecs-lesser-known-impacts

-----

URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/constitutional-rights-gilgit-baltistan-new/d/111243