Washington imposes travel restrictions on Pakistani diplomats

In this file photo, Pakistani protesters stage a rally demanding a trial for American diplomat involved in a vehicle crash that killed a person, in Islamabad, Pakistan, Tuesday, April 10, 2018. (AP)
Updated 20 April 2018
Follow

Washington imposes travel restrictions on Pakistani diplomats

  • The decision, effective from May 1, 2018, is a counter to restrictions already placed on US diplomats by Pakistan
  • Under 1961 Vienna Convention, diplomats have immunity from the laws of their host country

ISLAMABAD: After days of speculation, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed during a news conference on Thursday that the United States had informed its officials that Pakistani diplomats in the US will face travel restrictions.
“We have received official communication regarding certain measures that the US intends to implement with effect from May 1, 2018,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Dr. Mohammad Faisal said during his weekly news briefing.
Pakistan’s envoys in the US will only be able to travel within a 40 kilometer radius of the city in which they are posted. To go any further, they will have to inform authorities of their plans and request permission.
On Tuesday, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon said during an interview that Washington would implement travel restrictions that are “reciprocal” to restrictions already imposed by Islamabad that prevent American diplomats from visiting the tribal belt or Karachi. He played down the move, saying it was “common in diplomacy.”
Former diplomat Javed Hafiz described the US decision as “unusual and unfortunate.”
“The basic duty and function of a diplomat is to promote relations, may it be any area of cooperation, and for that the diplomat has to travel all over,” he said. “Both governments will have to review this very carefully because this can negatively impact their long-standing relations.”
US-Pakistan relations soured last year after President Donald Trump criticized and humiliated Washington’s “major non-NATO ally” by questioning its commitment to fighting terrorism, cutting aid and placing it on various sanctions lists.
The restrictions stem from a growing lack of trust and a number of incidents, including the 2011 US Navy SEAL raid in Abbottabad during which Osama Bin Laden was killed, which was carried out without Pakistan’s knowledge.
Meanwhile, Islamabad High Court sought a report on Wednesday from Pakistan’s Attorney General to place US Defense and Air Attaché Col. Joseph Emanuel Hall on the Federal Investigation Agency’s Exit Control List, which would bar him from leaving the country.
The diplomat was the driver of a vehicle that jumped two red traffic lights at an intersection on main Margalla road and hit motorcyclist Ateeq Baig and his pillion rider Raheel Ahmed. Baig died, while Ahmed suffered a broken leg and other injuries.
The presiding judge, Justice Amir Farooq, pointed out that diplomatic immunity does not give anyone a license to kill.
“Him being a diplomat does not mean he can kill our citizens…if our law protects him, it protects our citizens too,” said the judge.
He also reprimanded police officials for mishandling the case and ignoring proper procedures.
“In such circumstances, alcohol tests are conducted but the police failed to conduct any, wasting any evidence that could have been found,” he said.
A US embassy spokesperson denied that Hall was driving under the influence of alcohol and added: “We are in close contact with the relevant Pakistani officials.” What caused Hall to jump the traffic lights remains unclear.
Legal expert Sharafat Ali said that under the Vienna Convention and 1972 Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, it is not possible for a court to extend its legal jurisdiction or place a travel ban on a diplomat.
“The diplomat cannot be prosecuted (in the host country) and enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction, unless the US (the sending state) decides otherwise,” said Ali.
Faisal, the Foreign Office spokesman, also pointed out on Thursday that under “Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, which...deal with diplomatic immunity,” the possibility of holding Hall in Pakistan for criminal proceedings was unlikely.
“We are awaiting the outcome of preliminary investigations from the Islamabad Police, based on which further action will be initiated,” he added.


‘Not Winston Churchill’: Trump steps up criticism of UK’s Starmer

Updated 10 sec ago
Follow

‘Not Winston Churchill’: Trump steps up criticism of UK’s Starmer

  • Trump criticized Starmer’s decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, home to the Diego Garcia air base, ‌saying that they have ‘been very, very uncooperative with with that stupid island’
  • Donald Trump: ‘France has been great. They’ve all been great. The UK has been much different from others’
LONDON/WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Tuesday, ​saying his lack of immediate support for US strikes on Iran showed “this is not Winston Churchill we’re dealing with.” Trump has lashed out at Starmer three times this week after he said neither the British military, or its air bases, were involved in the initial US and Israeli strikes on Tehran that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Starmer told parliament that the government had learnt from its mistakes in backing the US in the 2003 Iraq war, and said any military action must have a “viable, thought-through plan.” He also said he did not believe in “regime change from the skies.” But ‌Starmer has since ‌allowed the US to use UK bases to launch what he ​called ‌limited ⁠and defensive ​strikes ⁠to weaken Tehran’s capabilities, after Iran hit US allies in the region with drones and missiles. On Monday, a British base in Cyprus was hit by a drone that Cypriot officials said was likely launched by Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah, prompting London to send a destroyer and more helicopters with counter-drone technology to the region.
Trump told reporters during a meeting in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that he was very disappointed with Britain.
“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” he said, comparing Starmer with Britain’s revered ⁠wartime leader.
Trump also criticized Starmer’s decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos ‌Archipelago, home to the US-UK air base of Diego Garcia, ‌saying they have “been very, very uncooperative with that stupid island.”

Starmer has ‌been criticized from all sides at home for his decision, with opponents on the left calling ‌for him to condemn the military action while on the right, opposition leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage attacked Starmer for failing to back Britain’s key security and intelligence ally.
Britain has long prided itself on its relationship with the US, aided by British leaders such as Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair cultivating strong relationships with their counterparts, ‌Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Starmer, a center-left former lawyer, surprised his critics when he too struck up a solid relationship ⁠with Trump, but that has ⁠been tested in the last year as the US leader became more combative on a number of fronts. Trump earlier told the Sun newspaper he never thought he would see Britain become a reluctant partner, instead heaping praise on France and Germany.
“This was the most solid relationship of all,” he said. “And now we have very strong relationships with other countries in Europe.”
“France has been great. They’ve all been great. The UK has been much different from others.”
Britain, France and Germany released a joint statement in response to Iranian attacks on Saturday, saying they were in close contact with the US, Israel and partners in the region, and were calling for a resumption of negotiations.
Starmer has defended his response, telling parliament on Monday he had to judge what was in Britain’s national interest. “That is what ​I have done, and I stand by ​it,” he said.
Polling published by YouGov on Tuesday showed people in Britain were opposed to the US strikes on Iran by 49 percent to 28 percent.