Why international community is silent on the Pakistani Army’s torture in Balochistan

 The international community’s silence on the Pakistani Army’s torture in Balochistan is a troubling phenomenon, especially given the scale and severity of human rights violations. Despite reports of abductions, torture, extrajudicial killings, and mass displacement in Balochistan, global powers, international organizations, and even many human rights institutions often remain muted or reluctant to act decisively.

This elaborate analysis explains why the world remains silent on Pakistan's actions in Balochistan, examining the issue through geopolitical, economic, strategic, legal, and institutional lenses.

---

1. Geopolitical and Strategic Interests

1.1 Pakistan’s Strategic Geographic Location

Pakistan is situated at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, making it strategically crucial.

It borders Afghanistan, Iran, China, and India—all hotspots of global interest.

Major powers, especially the United States, China, and Gulf nations, view Pakistan as a valuable geopolitical ally.

Balochistan, in particular, borders Iran and Afghanistan and lies along the Arabian Sea, making it even more critical for regional strategies.

1.2 War on Terror and US-Pakistan Alliance

Since 2001, Pakistan has played a central role in the War on Terror, especially in Afghanistan.

The U.S. has relied heavily on Pakistan for intelligence sharing, logistics, drone operations, and supply routes.

In return, the U.S. has often overlooked Pakistan’s internal human rights abuses, including those in Balochistan, to keep military and diplomatic relations stable.

1.3 China’s Investments in CPEC

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes through Balochistan and is valued at over $60 billion.

China has strategic interests in the Gwadar Port, which lies in Balochistan and provides China access to the Arabian Sea.

To protect these investments, China has supported the Pakistani military crackdown on Baloch resistance, labeling it as a fight against “terrorism.”

As China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, this shields Pakistan from strong international condemnation.

---

2. Economic Interests and Trade Dependencies

2.1 Arms Sales and Defense Ties

Many Western countries, including the U.S. and the UK, have strong defense cooperation with Pakistan.

These ties involve arms sales, joint training exercises, and military aid.

Condemning Pakistan’s human rights abuses would jeopardize defense contracts worth billions.

2.2 Trade Relationships

Pakistan has trade relationships with the EU, China, Gulf countries, and others.

The EU’s GSP+ (Generalized Scheme of Preferences) grants Pakistan preferential trade access.

Many of these countries avoid upsetting bilateral trade by criticizing internal issues like Balochistan.

---

3. Lack of Media Coverage and Information Suppression

3.1 State Control over Journalism

Pakistan suppresses domestic and international media reporting from Balochistan.

Foreign journalists are denied access to the region.

Baloch activists and reporters are often killed, abducted, or silenced, reducing the visibility of atrocities.

3.2 Global Media Disinterest

The global media tends to focus on more “strategically visible” conflicts like Ukraine, Gaza, or Syria.

Balochistan remains underreported, which affects public opinion and pressure on governments to act.

---

4. Fear of Destabilizing a Nuclear Power

4.1 Nuclear Deterrent

Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state, and the international community fears its collapse could lead to global instability.

Any strong action (sanctions, pressure, or isolation) might destabilize Pakistan and push it toward radical elements or military coups.

This fear leads to a policy of strategic patience and quiet diplomacy, rather than open condemnation.

---

5. Labeling Baloch Resistance as Terrorism

5.1 Pakistan’s Narrative Control

The Pakistani state has effectively labeled Baloch freedom fighters as “terrorists” and accuses them of being backed by India.

This narrative is accepted or unchallenged by many international actors.

As a result, resistance movements are delegitimized, and human rights abuses are justified as counterterrorism efforts.

5.2 Global War on Terror Paradigm

Since 9/11, the global focus on counterterrorism has allowed states to repress dissent under the guise of security.

Pakistan has used this paradigm to escape scrutiny for its actions in Balochistan.

---

6. Absence of Strong Baloch Lobbying Abroad

6.1 Limited Diplomatic Representation

Unlike Tibetans or Palestinians, Baloch activists have limited representation in global institutions.

There are few Baloch lobbying groups in Washington, Brussels, or the UN.

This lack of presence in international policy-making circles results in weak advocacy and fewer allies.

6.2 Fragmentation Among Baloch Groups

Baloch nationalist groups are often divided, which weakens their ability to form a united front internationally.

This makes it difficult to build global solidarity movements or conduct effective advocacy.

---

7. Selective Human Rights Activism

7.1 Western Double Standards

The West is often accused of selective human rights enforcement, acting on violations in rival countries (e.g., Russia, Iran) but ignoring abuses by allies.

Balochistan suffers from these double standards. Despite ample documentation of violations, countries like the U.S. or UK do not impose sanctions or conduct fact-finding missions.

7.2 UN’s Limited Powers and Influence

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) can issue reports, but its actions are often symbolic.

Powerful countries like China and Saudi Arabia back Pakistan in international forums, blocking resolutions or investigations.

Without enforcement mechanisms, the UN often remains ineffective.

---

8. Religious Politics and Regional Sensitivities

8.1 Sunni Muslim State Solidarity

Many Sunni-majority states, especially in the Gulf (Saudi Arabia, UAE), support Pakistan diplomatically.

Pakistan is a key member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

These countries rarely criticize Pakistan’s internal affairs, including Balochistan, due to shared religious and political affiliations.

8.2 Fear of Encouraging Separatism

Several countries fear that supporting Baloch demands might embolden separatist movements in their own territories (e.g., Catalonia in Spain, Kashmir in India, Kurds in Turkey).

This leads to a universal reluctance to support secessionist causes, even when they are rooted in genuine grievances.

---

9. Legal Barriers to International Action

9.1 Sovereignty vs. Human Rights

International law upholds the sovereignty of states, and interfering in “internal matters” like separatist conflicts is often avoided.

Unless there is genocide or crimes against humanity, the threshold for external intervention is high.

9.2 No International Criminal Court (ICC) Access

Pakistan is not a signatory to the ICC, so the court has limited jurisdiction.

Without Pakistan’s consent or a UN Security Council referral, prosecuting military officials for war crimes is nearly impossible.

---

10. Conclusion: A Conspiracy of Silence

In summary, the international silence on the Pakistani Army’s torture in Balochistan is not due to ignorance, but rather a calculated decision based on power politics, economic interests, strategic alliances, and legal constraints. Balochistan’s cries are drowned by oil politics, nuclear fears, and superpower rivalries.

To break this silence, several things are needed:

Stronger diaspora advocacy and international awareness campaigns.

Pressure on global media to cover the crisis.

Alliances with human rights defenders and legal experts.

Support from sympathetic states and international NGOs.

Legal documentation for future prosecutions.

Until then, Balochistan remains a victim of the world’s strategic indifference.

---