No UN Commission, please… —Ejaz Haider

Unlike the Hariri case, after Ms Bhutto’s assassination, neither the Security Council president nor the UN Secretary General gave any indication that the UN would like to establish a Commission to investigate Ms Bhutto’s assassination
Immediately after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, the Pakistan People’s Party began demanding a United Nations-mandated investigation into her killing. The party cited the precedent of Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister killed on Feb 14, 2005 and whose murder probe was mandated by Security Council Resolution 1595 under a UN-constituted Commission.

The PPP said that Ms Bhutto was a politician of international standing, just like Mr Hariri had been, and therefore her assassination be investigated by a similar UN-mandated Commission. (For a rebuttal of the PPP demand, see Ahmer Bilal Soofi, “Hariri Commission and PPP’s demand”; The Friday Times, Jan 4-10, 2008)

Since it first made the demand, the PPP has won the elections and led the formation of a coalition government. We again hear the demand for approaching the UN and asking the international body to investigate the circumstances of Ms Bhutto’s killing.

Is the demand justified? Consider.

When the PPP was not the government, it could not approach the UN with such a request because that body only deals with governments and, given the legal constraints of its Charter, cannot entertain demands made by non-governmental groups and parties, especially if any such demand conflicts with the sovereignty of a member-state.

The Security Council could, however, set up such a commission if it felt the need for doing so on its own. But that only happens when there is strategic pressure from some quarter, as happened to Syria in the case of Mr Hariri’s assassination because the United States and the West wanted to arm-twist it.

Now, the PPP can make its demand through its government in Islamabad. Should it? No. Here’s why.

One factor that compelled the Security Council to set up the Hariri Commission was a strong suspicion of direct involvement of another state, i.e. Syria. Syria was implicated by Lebanon where authorities were in no position, because of Syria’s intervention into Lebanese affairs, to investigate the murder or conclude Syria’s guilt in the matter.

The matter could either be allowed to fall by the wayside or taken up. The latter course was adopted but only because the Presidential statement by the UN Secretary General immediately after Mr Hariri’s assassination did not express confidence in the law enforcement authorities of Lebanon. The UNSC also set up a fact-finding commission and it was kept alive through successive UN resolutions.

The starting point of setting up the Commission was the first statement by the UN Secretary General. It was the basis of the idea to have a body or authority that in essence would transcend state authority and use pressure on a state, if necessary, to collect evidence.

In Ms Bhutto’s case, there is no suspicion of the involvement of a third state, Al Qaeda being a non-state actor (if official claim of its involvement is accepted).

Also, since the PPP is now in power, it controls the wherewithal and the government machinery and can re-investigate the matter to its full satisfaction. For the government to approach the UN to ask for a Commission of Inquiry amounts to accepting that such a government is not in effective control of its own machinery and requires the services of a foreign body to help it do so.

Please note that the involvement of the UN is not so much for the purposes of exploiting any foreign expertise in carrying out the investigations but to cast doubts, when the demand was initially made, over the intentions of the then government to probe the matter impartially.

That being the case, and the PPP being the government now, it should be able to ensure that any reopening of the case can look into the matter impartially.

Furthermore, the previous government did invite Scotland Yard to give its expert input. Except for one detail, Scotland Yard’s findings corroborated the earlier story pieced together by the previous government.

Just like the government, however, Scotland Yard also bemoaned the lack of an autopsy report. To determine, beyond any doubt, the actual cause of anyone’s death, an autopsy is a must. Ms Bhutto was buried without an autopsy and the only way her cause of death can now be determined is through exhumation — a very difficult task given political, emotional and cultural sensitivities.

The PPP government now has access to all relevant information and it can determine what is right and what looks, or may look, suspicious.

There is also the problem of the terms of reference of a UN-mandated Commission. The Hariri Commission’s TORs were extensive. For instance, the UNSC had granted “full freedom of movement to the investigators throughout the territory of Lebanon” including “access to all sites and facilities”. Would this be acceptable to Pakistan, the government that is. And PPP is the government.

Unlike the Hariri case, after Ms Bhutto’s assassination, neither the Security Council president nor the UN Secretary General gave any indication that the UN would like to establish a commission to investigate Ms Bhutto’s assassination. The December 27 statement after the SC meeting only underlined the need to bring the offenders responsible to justice. By calling upon all states to help Pakistan with the investigations, the UN essentially left the issue in the hands of the Pakistani government.

Finally, the UN does not have a standing body with a pre-defined mandate and terms of reference to investigate such matters. Its specialised crime body is the UNODC (UN Office on Drugs and Crimes) which has no legal authority to investigate the assassination of internationally important persons.

Setting up a UN Commission therefore means a mandate will have to be given specifically through Security Council resolutions. Since the UN has no standardised resolution or TORs, the terms of reference may include activities that are not acceptable to the host state.

Let us not forget that the PPP’s responsibilities as the government may run contrary to its emotional requirements as a party.

Ejaz Haider is Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times and Consulting Editor of The Friday Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk

Courtesy: Daily Times