The European Union’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status has once again come under scrutiny, with recent political maneuvers raising questions about the EU’s impartiality and the legitimacy of its concerns. Recent developments, including civilian trials in military courts and the proposed Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) Amendment Act 2025, have been cited as reasons for potential hurdles in Pakistan’s renewal of GSP+ status. However, a deeper analysis suggests that the EU’s actions are not purely driven by human rights concerns but rather by politically motivated interference, allegedly influenced by lobbying efforts from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party.
The EU has voiced strong opposition to Pakistan’s handling of cases related to the May 9 riots, specifically condemning the military court trials of civilians involved in violent attacks on state institutions. The condemnation aligns with statements from PTI, which has continuously pushed the narrative of human rights violations and political repression, despite the legal justification provided by the state. Similarly, the proposed PECA Amendment Act 2025 has been framed as an assault on freedom of expression, yet its primary objective is to address misinformation and digital crimes. These concerns, while valid in broader human rights discourse, appear to be selectively amplified in ways that serve political interests rather than genuine advocacy.
Pakistan has held GSP+ status since 2014, benefiting from preferential trade terms in exchange for commitments to international human rights conventions. Despite Pakistan’s efforts to align with these commitments, the EU has hinted that the upcoming review may not guarantee Pakistan’s continued status. The EU’s increasing scrutiny appears to be linked more to political developments than actual human rights compliance, raising concerns about the bloc’s impartiality in economic policymaking.
A crucial question arises: Is the EU truly acting as a guardian of human rights, or is it being influenced by external actors with vested interests in Pakistan’s internal politics?
Several indicators suggest that PTI is actively lobbying within the EU to shape the narrative against the current government. PTI leaders and their foreign affiliates have engaged in multiple high-profile meetings with European policymakers, consistently pushing a portrayal of Pakistan as a country backsliding on democracy. The timing of these interventions coincides with significant political and legal developments within Pakistan, including the military court trials and digital regulations.
Moreover, recent revelations about European lobbying mechanisms have exposed how policymakers can be swayed through financial incentives and strategic campaigns. The ongoing controversy surrounding MEP Maria Arena, who faced criminal charges over foreign influence allegations, has reignited debates on how lobbying influences EU policymaking. Given these revelations, it is not far-fetched to question whether PTI has leveraged similar lobbying channels to manipulate the EU’s stance on Pakistan.
European delegations have made several visits to Pakistan in recent months, ostensibly to assess human rights and governance conditions. However, their engagement appears to be highly selective. The EU’s representatives have prioritized meetings with PTI-aligned individuals while largely ignoring perspectives from other political and civil society actors. This selective engagement further strengthens suspicions that the EU’s stance is being shaped by partisan interests rather than an objective assessment of Pakistan’s human rights situation.
The EU’s response to the events of November 26—the so-called ‘Islamabad Massacre’—further exposes its inconsistency. While quick to condemn the trials of civilians involved in the May 9 attacks, the EU has remained largely silent on the violence that targeted security personnel and state institutions. This disparity in response suggests a biased approach, wherein only certain incidents are amplified to fit a predetermined narrative. The EU’s selective condemnation undermines its credibility as an impartial arbiter of human rights.
The people of Pakistan have consistently rejected foreign interference in their domestic affairs, whether through political coercion or economic blackmail. While engagement with international bodies is necessary for diplomatic and economic reasons, it must not come at the cost of compromising national sovereignty. Pakistan must assert its right to handle internal security and legal matters without undue external pressure.
As the debate over GSP+ status continues, it is crucial for Pakistan to engage diplomatically while remaining vigilant against politically motivated interventions. The EU must be held accountable for ensuring that its decisions are based on genuine human rights concerns rather than external lobbying efforts. If the EU fails to maintain impartiality, it risks not only damaging its credibility but also undermining its own principles of fair international engagement.
The EU’s stance on Pakistan’s GSP+ status raises important questions about its decision-making process and susceptibility to political lobbying. With mounting evidence suggesting PTI’s role in influencing the EU narrative, it is imperative for Pakistan to challenge these maneuvers diplomatically. Economic agreements like GSP+ should not be weaponized for political coercion, and Pakistan must safeguard its economic interests against undue foreign interference. The people of Pakistan will not tolerate external actors dictating the country’s internal affairs under the guise of human rights advocacy.
