Munizae Jahangir: Hello and a very warm welcome. You are watching VoicePK.net Exclusive.
Just recently, the GSP+ status report was released by the European Union, and it set some conditions for Pakistan. Now, the GSP+ status gives Pakistan tax-free access to European markets, and it is critical for Pakistan’s economy, especially its textile industry, which relies heavily on GSP+ status.
But now Pakistan will have to reapply for GSP+ status. The question is, will it get it or will it not?
We have with us the European Union Ambassador to Pakistan, Raimundas Karoblis. Thank you so much for joining us.
Well, thank you so much for giving us this interview, and I hope that you’re enjoying the mangoes of Pakistan.
Raimundas Karoblis: Exactly. They are great. I heard that Pakistani mangoes are the best in the world. Indeed, I think it’s true.
Munizae Jahangir: Okay, so they compensate for the heat.
Raimundas Karoblis: They compensate for the heat. But of course, regarding the temperatures, this year it was hot in Europe as well, except in my country, which is quite cool. But with climate change, we have this situation. What I heard is that this temperature is good for mangoes, at least, so it’s really positive.
Munizae Jahangir: Okay, so to get quickly to the actual big question: are we going to get GSP+ status in 2027? Because at the moment we have exemptions worth €732 million.
Most of our textile sector relies on this, and if we lose the GSP+ status, it will be a big blow, not only for our economy but also for Pakistan’s status and reputation.
Raimundas Karoblis: I will correct a little bit. Maybe not 2027. The countries which have benefits from GSP+ already now will have a transitional period for the application in 2028.
It means that physically, to grant or not to grant the status, it would be in the first half of 2029. So theoretically, there is still time. But answering your question whether it will get it or not, frankly speaking, I don’t know.
It’s not certain and it’s not for granted. It depends on the level of implementation of the United Nations conventions. One of the preconditions within the present GSP+ scheme and the future scheme is the absence of serious failure in the implementation of the United Nations conventions.
This is based, first of all, on the conclusions of the United Nations monitoring bodies.
So this is the legal status, and it largely depends on the government regarding improvements and the action plan which will need to be filled out and presented to the European Commission.
So I very much hope that the government will take the necessary measures to comply to a certain level with the concrete elements and concrete issues which are already in the newest GSP+ report, in order, of course, to have positive results in the application.
Munizae Jahangir: Well, there are 27 conventions that they have to meet. What particularly is the European Union concerned with, and what are you really going to focus on so that the Pakistan government meets the GSP+ status conditions?
Raimundas Karoblis: Indeed, now there are 27 conventions. Within the new system, it will be 32 conventions, but all of them are ratified by Pakistan. From this point of view, from a legal point of view, the first condition is fulfilled.
But now the emphasis, in particular with the new scheme, will be exactly on implementation. And I mentioned already that the government will need to present the action plan with concrete measures for the implementation or improvement of the implementation of the United Nations conventions.
Also with concrete timeframes and concrete performance indicators. So indeed, implementation is really important.
But also, it’s not about the future. It’s also about the current and present record.
The current report mentions, and it starts actually from, the achievements of Pakistan, including areas on human rights.
Indeed, there have been achievements and progress made since 2014, but also during the last two years. For example, reducing the scope of the death penalty, a de facto moratorium on executions, implementing acts on torture, child marriage acts, enhancement of the institutions responsible for human rights, like the National Commission on Human Rights, and also the role of the Ministry of Law and Justice, among others.
But together with that, there has also been regression on some elements of human rights. The main areas of concern are enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, freedom of expression, the rights of journalists, and minority rights.
So, reading the report, reading also reports of the monitoring bodies of the United Nations, but also discussing with colleagues, there are serious doubts about the effective implementation of certain conventions, exactly on these elements.
And in order to have these positive results with the reapplication, progress is needed exactly in these areas.
Munizae Jahangir: That’s very interesting that you say that now the European Union will be focusing on implementation. And I realise that in the last few reports that you’ve come out with, you’ve consistently said that where Pakistan lacks and falls behind is implementation.
Now, coming to the National Action Plan which you just mentioned, has the European Union in some ways helped the ministries formulate that National Action Plan, and in what way? In monetary ways, in directing them?
Raimundas Karoblis: First of all, the European Union and the European Commission are looking for implementation also according to the present GSP+ scheme. Now, more emphasis will be exactly within this one, but just to explain that, the European Union does not require perfectionism.
Of course, there are aspects in the countries and the beneficiaries. The countries are, of course, at lower levels of development, with specific risks. For example, the same security situation which we recognise also in Pakistan, without any doubts.
So, really, we are not speaking about European-level standard commitments. Nobody, nothing is perfect, but of course we expect a certain level of implementation.
During the course of the years, it was kind of a balancing. There was progress in some areas, including during last year, and there were problems and issues on which there was no solution or limited solution, and it was quite balanced.
But, of course, the data which we have and conclusions which we have did not allow us to conclude that there was a serious failure to implement the conventions or questions about effective implementation of the conventions as such.
But the recent findings are really about doubts that maybe we are getting into these red zones in a few areas, where particular emphasis is necessary to move forward.
So, just to explain the situation which was with the monitoring reports until now and compare it with the present monitoring report, the GSP+ report and also its implementation, this is the situation.
Munizae Jahangir: Right, you spoke about the red zone, and we’ll come to that.
But let’s say Pakistan is not able to meet the conditions. In that case, will Pakistan be downgraded like India does, just having GSP status? It doesn’t have GSP+ status.
Raimundas Karoblis: Exactly. In the case of GSP+, if Pakistan does not reapply for GSP+ status, or actually if the GSP+ can’t be granted because of this or other conditions, in that case ordinary GSP will be applied, in the same way as you mentioned India.
But I think it’s really more about other countries, the majority of other developing countries, because if I’m not mistaken, India does not have GSP for all products.
Munizae Jahangir: It doesn’t.
Raimundas Karoblis: Yes, indeed. But actually, it would be for countries of a certain level of development, countries of medium-level development.
So it means roughly approximately 30% lower tariffs compared with conventional tariffs.
The same tariffs, compared with 30% lower tariffs than, for example, China, the United States and others.
Munizae Jahangir: So if we are not able to meet those conditions, in that case we will be downgraded?
Raimundas Karoblis: It will not be zero tariffs in that case, but actually higher tariffs. But they will, in any case, be 30% lower than those applied, for example, to China.
Munizae Jahangir: You talked about the red zones. Let’s get into red zones. Enforced disappearances is something that the European Union is consistently speaking about since the last four or five years. Now, when you do speak about enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions with the government, what is their response?
Raimundas Karoblis: Well, there are different responses, actually.
The first response is that we are in a specific security situation, which is true. Pakistan ranks number one on the Global Terrorism Index. But our view is that even in this situation, human rights conventions and guarantees should be applied.
We are not saying that the government should not fight against terrorism. But basic rights, such as the right of defence and the right of access to families, should be protected.
At the same time, perpetrators should be held responsible and brought to justice. There should also be enhanced monitoring of cases involving enforced disappearances, for example. These are elements which, in our view, are manageable and should be implemented.
So far, speaking with different stakeholders, the answers are slightly different in tone. But the question is really up to the government to decide whether, because of its position on security, it wants to move on this issue and in which direction.
We very much expect, and we explain to all stakeholders, that this is one of the essential areas where we really need progress.
Munizae Jahangir: One of the other things that the European Union report mentions is blasphemy cases. In April 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution also calling for a review of Pakistan’s GSP+ status. It said that there had been an alarming rise in blasphemy cases and attacks on journalists. It also talked about freedom of expression and attacks on journalists, both online and offline.
So, has that situation now changed in the present day?
Raimundas Karoblis: I think these are two slightly different situations: blasphemy and freedom of expression, particularly when it comes to journalists and similar issues.
On blasphemy, we welcome the government’s efforts to reduce the number of blasphemy cases from the peak seen several years ago.
But, on the other hand, of course, we need to tackle the consequences of this peak. We welcome the decisions in Islamabad and Sindh, where more than 100 people were released on bail, but still we don’t have this step from Punjab, where 500 people and young people whose lives are destroyed remain affected.
The actions already taken by the government demonstrate that these were cases involving the abuse of blasphemy laws, and of course it is really necessary to tackle this aspect.
On the other hand, we are discussing additional guarantees to prevent blasphemy laws from being misused and to prevent this kind of provocation.
In particular, speaking about blasphemy gangs, it seems that their role has been reduced, but what we hear is that they are still active. Certain credible guarantees are necessary so that this kind of provocation should not work anymore.
Another issue is freedom of expression in general, and particularly the rights of journalists.
Yes, it is a serious concern indeed. This is exactly one of these areas where there are doubts about the ability to effectively implement relevant United Nations conventions, with concrete possible consequences.
Both the letter, or at least the practice, of the PECA law following its latest amendment, and the Punjab defamation acts are concerns.
Also, probably either the letter of the law or the practice of counterterrorism legislation. These are issues which really should be addressed in order to change the situation, make progress and tackle the challenges journalists face today.
Munizae Jahangir: Right, so much more needs to be done in that area.
The report also flags abusive judicial proceedings, and I’ll quote from the report, and the detention of opposition leaders, including the former Prime Minister, with concerns over fair trial standards and detention conditions, including access to lawyers, visitors and medical care.
Now, has Pakistan made improvements in this area this year?
Raimundas Karoblis: Indeed, political pluralism is one of the issues which we are raising in our human rights dialogues, in the specific subgroup on democracy, rule of law and human rights.
This issue was raised also in the last one, which took place at the end of November, and it is one of the values we discuss.
In these cases, the same as with the majority of other cases involving people who are in prison, we are looking primarily at issues such as conditions of imprisonment, conditions relating to torture, for example.
We are also looking at issues concerning the right of defence and similar matters.
Of course, we are not intervening in concrete cases. Only the court should make the decision as to whether this person is guilty or not guilty, and I hope that in this case also the court will make a proper and justified verdict, one way or another.
Munizae Jahangir: The report also mentions military trials, and it says that military trials are not in compliance with the requirements of Article 14 of the ICCPR, the right to a fair trial.
What are your concerns with that?
Raimundas Karoblis: Well, first of all, we recognise the security concerns the country has. I already mentioned that. But when the scope of military courts is increasing, involving civilians as well, of course, it is already a concern from this point of view.
The question is, of course, one of proportionality.
The principle is that we understand the security concerns, but human rights should, of course, remain applicable.
It is really up to experts to look at this in more detail.
First of all, I’m referring to United Nations experts regarding the proportionality of this measure, and, if not, which elements constitute violations of this particular convention.
So, it is one of the areas which we are looking at, and of course it will continue in the future with the United Nations.
Munizae Jahangir: What about the GSP+ report?
Raimundas Karoblis: Well, it’s one of the elements which are addressed in the GSP+ report.
Probably, I assume that since it is already reflected, somehow it should be reflected in the Act on Compliance also.
But for me, it’s really now difficult to assess in which category this is because we don’t have the necessary analysis.
So, it’s really more work for the United Nations experts, whether it goes into one category or another, or whether it is a shortcoming which should be addressed in the court.
Munizae Jahangir: But it’s one of the red flags.
Raimundas Karoblis: I don’t know. I’m not a human rights expert, actually, to relate it to a specific category.
Now, what we see, the main red flags are indeed enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, freedom of expression, and also elements concerning minorities.
Indeed, regarding other areas, whether they are or not, I assume that further analysis is necessary.
Well, as I mentioned, it is about the United Nations conventions, and to qualify whether something goes into one category or another, it is first of all about the conclusions of the United Nations monitoring bodies, such as committees, working groups, special rapporteurs and so on.
Munizae Jahangir: Well, that’s very, very clear. Thank you for that.
The report also mentions judicial independence. It has concerns over the recent constitutional amendments.
And I’m wondering, can you explain specifically the concerns that the EU has with these amendments?
Raimundas Karoblis: Again, we are referring to the United Nations conclusions, first of all.
There were statements immediately after these amendments by the United Nations, which expressed concerns. International civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations also expressed concerns.
But really, first of all, it is about the tendencies as such.
It’s about the reorganisation of the judicial system and the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court.
As such, probably, it’s not an issue, but of course the question of the appointment of judges to specific courts, including geographically, could potentially be an issue.
It’s really not my phrasing, but this is the phrasing, maybe not the exact formulation, from the United Nations observation.
So, I understand that, yes, it is concerns about the dynamics.
But, of course, the future will show what the consequences of these amendments will be.
Munizae Jahangir: And, you know, the report also raises concerns over Internet connectivity, especially in areas which are considered vulnerable areas or considered conflict areas.
Now, there has been a complete Internet shutdown in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. How will that impact the report in many ways?
Raimundas Karoblis: Well, the present report, since the reference period was until at least the end of last year, of course, does not address this concrete issue.
But, of course, further analysis is necessary.
As such, we see that cuts or Internet restrictions are possible in situations of conflict because of security reasons. But, of course, they should be absolutely proportionate.
I am not sure that it’s really, really proportionate, having in mind that it’s not about a counterterrorism operation or military activities.
But it’s really my personal doubt.
First of all, those who are assessing this aspect should look at it through the relevant United Nations standards.
Munizae Jahangir: All right. Now, Ahmadis are one of the groups that are considered to be vulnerable in Pakistan, and the European Union has expressed its concern over the way Ahmadis have been treated in Pakistan.
Now, has the government given you any reassurances about how they would protect this group? I mean, I know in the past that the European Union has also raised issues about the protection of the Ahmadiyya community.
Raimundas Karoblis: Indeed. The situation of the Ahmadiyya community is another concern, and a big concern indeed.
Ahmadis are also citizens of Pakistan, and their rights should also be respected.
So, despite, of course, the constitutional provisions, it’s about the dignity of people, but of course about physical security, about places of worship and similar issues.
And, of course, these atrocities against Ahmadiyya communities, which are unfortunately periodic, should not continue, and the government will need to take steps.
On the other hand, there are practical issues where some kind of decision should be made, like, let’s say, registration of marriages and similar matters.
So, documentation.
Also, these matters probably should not be dealt with through religious aspects and similar considerations.
We are discussing this with the government. There is, in general terms, recognition that security should be assured, and the dialogue continues.
But yes, not yet something concrete.
And, well, we expect that this issue, in one way or another, in a positive way, should be addressed sooner rather than later, but at the latest during the reapplication period.
Munizae Jahangir: And you mentioned that minorities is a red flag area, so one has to be concerned about that. Now, the report also talks about the Afghan refugees and that Pakistan must have a legislative and institutional framework to guarantee their rights. But at the same time, the European Union is criticised for not accepting that many Afghan refugees.
I mean, every day we see a story of somebody who was an Afghan national who worked for the European Union countries and was not allowed to come back. And Pakistan’s position has always been that, look, we’ve hosted them for so many years. We’ve been very generous.
Now we are in a crisis, an economic crisis. We have to send them back.
Raimundas Karoblis: Regarding the European Union’s position, the European Union is implementing all the conventions related to migration, human rights and other areas.
Those people who are eligible for international protection and meet the required standards, of course, receive it. They have these guarantees and are allowed to stay in the country.
Actually, I am from a small country, Lithuania, but we were also in Afghanistan for more than a decade. Even in the very few hours before the Taliban takeover, we succeeded in taking out all the people who cooperated with Lithuania. They are now integrating into Lithuania. Despite the different cultures, there are no problems.
The same applies to other countries. But now, there are references to a few cases where Afghan refugees committed crimes against members of the European Union, and their international protection was subsequently cancelled.
Some non-governmental organisations do not like this approach. They argue that if the person concerned committed a crime in that country, they should, of course, be held responsible there. But it is an issue that is up to the member states to decide.
So, once again, the European Union implements its obligations. But of course, this is definitely not the case with economic migrants. This is another track of legal migration, involving the attraction of labour and similar matters.
Regarding Pakistan and Afghan refugees, our reading is a little bit different. I am still quite new here, but Afghan refugees have lived in Pakistan for 40 years and have been quite integrated into society.
I don’t see that they have created an additional burden for Pakistan. On the contrary, they have contributed significantly to GDP.
But yes, the position has changed. Once again, we care about international conventions. First of all, those people who are eligible for international protection, for whom it is dangerous to return to Afghanistan, and vulnerable groups.
Our expectation is that special care should be given to these categories of people. Deportation should not take place in such cases.
For other Afghans, their movement should, of course, be organised, carried out with dignity, and with guarantees concerning their property and other rights.
Despite the fact that not all conventions related to refugees have been ratified by Pakistan, the basic rules, in particular the principle of non-refoulement, are commitments that Pakistan is bound by as well.
Munizae Jahangir: Right, I have just two last questions.
One is that people in Pakistan ask: Why is Brussels so concerned about how Pakistan treats its most vulnerable citizens? Why have you linked GSP+ status, which is about trade, to human rights?
Raimundas Karoblis: First of all, we are not talking about European-level standards, but about the United Nations conventions on human rights.
And by the way, Pakistan has a very good record in working on human rights conventions. Secondly, in our view, human rights are one of the basics for the development of society.
The economy and society cannot be prosperous if people are not free, and human rights are actually one of the essential elements.
It has also been proven by practice in all European Union countries and in Europe in general. Of course, we are one of the promoters of human rights, but Pakistan is also a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The question, of course, is about implementation, and as you mentioned, about vulnerable people.
Once again, I repeat that society cannot be prosperous if a person is not free and if he or she does not enjoy the basic rights that constitute human rights.
Munizae Jahangir: I think a lot of Pakistanis would agree with you.
And my very, very last question: Pakistan has played a pivotal role between Iran and the United States, bringing them to the mediation table. Will it be granted some kind of leeway? Maybe the human rights angle will be overlooked simply because of GSP+ status?
Raimundas Karoblis: Okay. Well, first of all, we very much appreciate the leadership of Pakistan in this mediation, particularly in the conflict between the United States and Iran, but also more broadly, its positive role on the Gaza conflict. I think it’s really, really good for Pakistan.
It also brings the attention of society, and maybe the business community, to the fact that if it is possible to effectively contribute to resolving conflicts, maybe it works, and there could be more engagement in business and similar areas.
But another angle regarding GSP+ is that its mechanism is constructed in such a way that it should be based on objective criteria only.
The conditions are such that it is possible to grant GSP+ status only in the case of the absence of a serious failure to implement the conventions.
It should also be based on the United Nations monitoring bodies, first of all assessed by experts, and only in the case of a positive assessment does it go to politicians, member states and the European Parliament.
So, it means that political influence to affect the process in a positive way or to provide a push is very limited.
On the contrary, of course, the European Parliament and member states could ask whether the conclusions at the expert level are objective and whether there is a sufficient level of implementation to grant GSP+.
This is the way the system is constructed.
So, we very much believe, and this is the only option, that the government makes the political will to improve the situation regarding all United Nations conventions, in particular the most problematic ones.
Munizae Jahangir: Well, thank you so much for giving us this interview. I really do hope that Pakistan complies, not for the sake of GSP+, but for the sake of its own people.