In a meeting with Pakistani journalists in Brussels, European Union diplomat from Germany Micheal Gahler stirred a storm in the proverbial teacup with statements on the timing of the upcoming general elections and the political marginalisation of Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
Gahler's interaction with the Pakistan media persons has two components:
Election Date
The EU has yet to receive an invitation from the government of Pakistan to observe the upcoming general elections, despite their pursuit since the start of 2023.
This perhaps made Gahler, a member of the EU Parliament from Germany, conclude that elections may not be held in October-November 2023.
Having led three EU observation missions to Pakistan, Gahler should have known that Pakistan, unlike many other states, does not follow a fixed election calendar. Election dates are constitutionally calculated once the National Assembly is dissolved. In this regard, elections can be held within 60 days if the National Assembly is allowed to complete its five-year term, or they may be delayed up to 90 days if it is dissolved before the completion of its constitutional term.
An invitation to foreign missions to observe the elections is usually extended after the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has announced the election schedule.
The question is: How could an invitation have been extended to Gahler (and his election monitoring mission team members) when the ECP has not yet fixed the election dates?
READ MORE: With No Announced Date Or Schedule, Why Is One EU Parliamentarian Worried About Invitations?
Gahler believed that the EU mission needs to prepare for the visit to Pakistan and apply for visas, a process that could potentially take up to three months. It must be pointed out here that the last general elections in Pakistan were held on July 25, 2018. A note verbale (NVB) for the EU Observation Mission visa facilitation of 60 persons was sent to the Pakistan mission in Brussels on June 28, 2018.
As per the ECP data, an 18-member EU mission ended up visiting Pakistan. Even in 2018, Gahler was not sent an invitation months in advance to observe elections in Pakistan. Did he issue similar statements of concern then? Not to my knowledge, at least.
A search on the subject showed no results either.
I have been unable to fathom the significance of Gahler's statement. Is it a message or a personal opinion?
If it is a message, who sent it – his government or the EU parliament?
Who is the message for in Pakistan – the government, the military establishment, the political stakeholders or the public at large?
Further, if it is his opinion -- of one out of 705 members -- then it can easily be dismissed as a diplomatic overreach. But, if it is a message, then analysts and diplomats need to understand who mandated or designated him to send this message?
In the diplomatic circles of Islamabad, a message is being conveyed that Gahler's statement is a case of misreporting. But misreporting by whom – Pakistani journalists are standing by their story or Gahler.
The EU parliament had decided not to field an election observation mission for "internal reasons, " as communicated to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in March-April 2023. It was decided that it would instead field an election expert group of five to seven members.
Then, why did Gahler choose to make this statement when the stated institutional interest for an election observation mission was weak at his parliament's end?
'Third Force'
Gahler's other fear was that elections "should not be influenced by 'third forces' that have their own agenda" and "the military is destabilising not just democracy in Pakistan but also the economy and society and that politicians must adopt a harsh stance against their interference". He also noted that Imran Khan was kept out of the electoral process.
These are not mere opinions but insinuations. Gahler has violated the cardinal principle of election observation by giving a political statement that may impact the authenticity of the next EU election observation report.
I have been unable to fathom the significance of Gahler's statement. Is it a message or a personal opinion? If it is a message, who sent it – his government or the EU parliament? Who is the message for in Pakistan – the government, the military establishment, the political stakeholders or the public at large?
Around the same date in July, Dr Riina Kionka, the European Union Ambassador to Pakistan, said in a video that "the EU is paying a lot of attention to the "crackdown on the PTI and [its] supporters in the aftermath of May 9," and that the proposed extension of the current regulation for GSP Plus in effect means no change for Pakistan at the moment and the country enjoys the same trade preferences and access to the European market.
While referring to Pakistan being a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), she stated that they are aware of the lively debate by national and international NGOs and experts on the issue of military courts and anti-terrorism courts that are to try those involved in May 9 incident.
There are 27 conventions linked to GSP+ whose compliance is monitored. They include human rights, labour rights, environment and good governance. Interestingly, the human rights defenders, such as Idris Khatak, were tried under the military court during the 2018-2022. However, the EU's annual report on HR & Democracy 2020-21, while talking about shrinking space for the media, rights activists and discourses, does not refer to trials in military court.
Suppose Ghaler's interaction with Pakistani media-persons and Dr Kionka's statement are read in conjunctions. In that case, there appears to be a message, pattern and audience. Has it been received by the intended quarters? What would it result in? Let's see how it unfolds.
Gahler's interaction with the Pakistan media persons has two components:
Election Date
The EU has yet to receive an invitation from the government of Pakistan to observe the upcoming general elections, despite their pursuit since the start of 2023.
This perhaps made Gahler, a member of the EU Parliament from Germany, conclude that elections may not be held in October-November 2023.
Having led three EU observation missions to Pakistan, Gahler should have known that Pakistan, unlike many other states, does not follow a fixed election calendar. Election dates are constitutionally calculated once the National Assembly is dissolved. In this regard, elections can be held within 60 days if the National Assembly is allowed to complete its five-year term, or they may be delayed up to 90 days if it is dissolved before the completion of its constitutional term.
An invitation to foreign missions to observe the elections is usually extended after the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has announced the election schedule.
The question is: How could an invitation have been extended to Gahler (and his election monitoring mission team members) when the ECP has not yet fixed the election dates?
READ MORE: With No Announced Date Or Schedule, Why Is One EU Parliamentarian Worried About Invitations?
Gahler believed that the EU mission needs to prepare for the visit to Pakistan and apply for visas, a process that could potentially take up to three months. It must be pointed out here that the last general elections in Pakistan were held on July 25, 2018. A note verbale (NVB) for the EU Observation Mission visa facilitation of 60 persons was sent to the Pakistan mission in Brussels on June 28, 2018.
Having led three EU observation missions to Pakistan, Gahler should have known that Pakistan does not follow a fixed election calendar. The election dates are constitutionally calculated after the National Assembly is dissolved.
As per the ECP data, an 18-member EU mission ended up visiting Pakistan. Even in 2018, Gahler was not sent an invitation months in advance to observe elections in Pakistan. Did he issue similar statements of concern then? Not to my knowledge, at least.
A search on the subject showed no results either.
I have been unable to fathom the significance of Gahler's statement. Is it a message or a personal opinion?
If it is a message, who sent it – his government or the EU parliament?
Who is the message for in Pakistan – the government, the military establishment, the political stakeholders or the public at large?
Further, if it is his opinion -- of one out of 705 members -- then it can easily be dismissed as a diplomatic overreach. But, if it is a message, then analysts and diplomats need to understand who mandated or designated him to send this message?
In the diplomatic circles of Islamabad, a message is being conveyed that Gahler's statement is a case of misreporting. But misreporting by whom – Pakistani journalists are standing by their story or Gahler.
The EU parliament had decided not to field an election observation mission for "internal reasons, " as communicated to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in March-April 2023. It was decided that it would instead field an election expert group of five to seven members.
Then, why did Gahler choose to make this statement when the stated institutional interest for an election observation mission was weak at his parliament's end?
'Third Force'
Gahler's other fear was that elections "should not be influenced by 'third forces' that have their own agenda" and "the military is destabilising not just democracy in Pakistan but also the economy and society and that politicians must adopt a harsh stance against their interference". He also noted that Imran Khan was kept out of the electoral process.
These are not mere opinions but insinuations. Gahler has violated the cardinal principle of election observation by giving a political statement that may impact the authenticity of the next EU election observation report.
I have been unable to fathom the significance of Gahler’s statement. Is it a message or a personal opinion? If it is a message, then who sent it – his government or the EU parliament? Who is the message for in Pakistan – the government, the military establishment, the political stakeholders or the public at large?
I have been unable to fathom the significance of Gahler's statement. Is it a message or a personal opinion? If it is a message, who sent it – his government or the EU parliament? Who is the message for in Pakistan – the government, the military establishment, the political stakeholders or the public at large?
Around the same date in July, Dr Riina Kionka, the European Union Ambassador to Pakistan, said in a video that "the EU is paying a lot of attention to the "crackdown on the PTI and [its] supporters in the aftermath of May 9," and that the proposed extension of the current regulation for GSP Plus in effect means no change for Pakistan at the moment and the country enjoys the same trade preferences and access to the European market.
While referring to Pakistan being a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), she stated that they are aware of the lively debate by national and international NGOs and experts on the issue of military courts and anti-terrorism courts that are to try those involved in May 9 incident.
There are 27 conventions linked to GSP+ whose compliance is monitored. They include human rights, labour rights, environment and good governance. Interestingly, the human rights defenders, such as Idris Khatak, were tried under the military court during the 2018-2022. However, the EU's annual report on HR & Democracy 2020-21, while talking about shrinking space for the media, rights activists and discourses, does not refer to trials in military court.
Suppose Ghaler's interaction with Pakistani media-persons and Dr Kionka's statement are read in conjunctions. In that case, there appears to be a message, pattern and audience. Has it been received by the intended quarters? What would it result in? Let's see how it unfolds.