Pakistan’s foreign policy – Going somewhere?
Given that “war is too important to be left to generals,” to quote George Clemenceau, it is also true that foreign policy is too important a subject to be left to diplomats only. The Mandarins of the Foreign Office would have us believe that the intricacies of external relations require experience and sophistication in the art of diplomacy which is well beyond the intellectual capacity of lesser mortals like us, that issues are not so simple as they seem and behind-the-scenes activity is the prime contributor to relations between nations and as such are much more complicated than they would appear to be. Frankly, this is both true and false. It is true because there are always issues between nations that are best debated and solved without public scrutiny but false in the sense that the basic relationship between nations is very much like that between human beings, it is a simple equation where necessity transcends likes and dislikes.
Pakistan’s geographical position places it at a crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, the non-Arab and the Arab Middle East. As such we face a severe identity crisis right at the outset in establishing our actual place in the comity of nations. Historically Pakistan is taken to be part of the South Asian sub-continent which includes India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives. At the end of 1971, we found ourselves almost frozen out of South Asia but more a part of the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) and Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD), in affinity with Iran and Turkey as a part of the non-Arab Middle East. In the meantime we had a considerable number of expatriates working in the oil-rich Arab Middle Eastern kingdoms, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, etc. This number increased considerably after the oil boom of 1973 by the augmenting of the existing Pakistani workforce. Central Asia opened out to us after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the advent of Alexander the Great in 325 BC into what is now NWFP and Punjab (his host thereafter followed the Indus River down to Sindh and the Mekran Coast), successive waves of invaders came from Central Asia, the only exception being Mohammad Bin Qasim who came to Sindh from the Arab Middle East. The area now comprising Pakistan, adjacent to Muslim Iran and Afghanistan while being in the proximity of Muslim Arab lands, became almost solidly Islamic though the invaders in many cases went right upto Delhi where they established themselves before fanning out to successfully conquer the rest of the South-Asian sub-continent. Our Muslim heritage originates from these countries but does spread through the sub-continent, particularly in Muslim majority areas of Bangladesh, Kashmir, Kerala, Assam, etc. Till 1971, given the two wings of Pakistan, it made a whole lot of sense to be part of South Asia, in our present configuration this identity is up for debate.
In South Asia, our historical relationship remains with the former Eastern wing of Pakistan, Bangladesh. The last quarter century has seen an evaporation of the bitterness and hatred that peaked in 1971. Today our relationship is as strong as it was in the first years of Pakistan. Reinforcing complementary economies the Pakistan-Bangladesh trade has increased considerably but the Bangladesh-Pakistan has decreased and needs to be enhanced upwards from its present level. It is not in the interests of the two countries to go as far as to call for a Confederation but removal of visas and lifting of all mutual tariffs would make for a much closer mutually beneficial relationship. With our great neighbour India, our relations can never improve while the Kashmir dispute remains unsettled. It is not a matter of territory but of economic survival given that the five major rivers that emanate from Kashmir eventually make up the great Indus, these waters flowing like lifeblood through the great agrarian delta. For both India and Pakistan it may be an emotional matter but for Pakistan it is a matter of life and death. Given the great Hindu revival under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which should culminate in a rout for Congress in the next general elections one does not see any change in the anti-Muslim stance for the foreseeable future. Without a strong government in the Centre, the rulers can only play to an anti-Muslim gallery for votes and survival. On the ground inside Kashmir the situation is becoming rapidly untenable for Indian Occupation Forces, that by itself becomes a possible flash point further exacerbating Pakistan-India relations. This background makes our membership of SAARC look hypocritical, though with Sri Lanka and Nepal we have excellent relations. Instead of making an anti-Indian group within SAARC we could cooperate with Bangladesh on a Level ONE priority and with Sri Lanka and Nepal on Level TWO bilaterally, with trade as the main platform between the foursome. Bhutan and the Maldives have become Indian Client-States while the others have been browbeaten, though yet not quite subdued. There is no doubt about the benefits of trade between all the countries of South Asia including mainly India, but we cannot compromise on our legitimate interests and security because of crass business interests.
We need to immediately re-assess our deteriorating relationship with our two immediate neighbours to the west, Iran and Afghanistan. Iran has remained our friend through the change of government from Shah to Ayatollah Khomeini. Whereas we are a Sunni majority State in contrast to Iran’s Shia majority, despite the best efforts of the lunatic fringe on both sides, there is basic amity between the two sects which can only be deepened with more inter-action and dialogue. Iran’s ports, roads and railways provide for an excellent alternate communications route through Quetta if Karachi Port is blockaded, as such peacetime use of this land route as a conduit to the Arab-Middle East as well as to Turkey and beyond Europe must increase. The Indian lobby in Iran is led by the Hindu business tycoons, the Hindujas (of great help to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, very much like the Gokals). The Hindujas were the prime influence behind Iran’s proposal for a Iran, China and India trading bloc. This was a major blow to our complacency that Iran would always remain a staunch ally where India could make no inroads. Similarly our Afghan policy is an unmitigated disaster. Instead of maintaining strict neutrality between the Afghan Mujahideen factions post-the Afghan war and allowing them to sort out their own problems, we got involved in supporting one faction or the other in a grave musical chorus. The bankruptcy of our policies can be assessed from the fact that after a decade of supporting the legitimate right of genuine Afghan freedom fighters we are now supporting, among others, a Soviet-created mercenary (self-styled General Rasheed Dostum). Through the years, Afghanistan’s government was confined to Kabul and the major cities with the guerillas running wild in the countryside, however since the Soviet puppet government controlled Kabul they were the ones legally acceptable to the world. Instead of supporting President Rabbani, we tried to unseat him and thus threw him into the lap of the Indians. Net result is that after ten years of struggle and sacrifice, we are still outsiders in Kabul but India that vociferously supported the Soviet puppet Government in Kabul during the entire war materially and morally is now firmly ensconsed on the side of the victors. Similarly we gave reason to believe to everyone that we were supporting the Taliban when in fact this was an indigenous uprising peculiar to Afghanistan, this further alienated us from the Mujahideen factions. With Javed Ashraf Qazi no longer DG ISI, one hopes we can correct this hotch-potch policy (another blunder being to try and resuscitate old King Zahir Shah) and be on the side of the victors for once. For Pakistan it is of vital importance that peace is restored in Afghanistan as soon as possible and the government in Kabul will build on the sacrifice and commitment of the 80s decade when the Afghans depended on Pakistan.
In a meeting of foreign Heads of government and business leaders in Istanbul in 1993, both President Suleyman Demiril and PM Ms Tansu Ciller stressed that while Turkey was keen to enter the European Union their only regret at turning away from Asia was that they would leave Pakistan behind. In contrast it is amazing how insensitive we have been to Turkey’s legitimate interests in Cypress and their road contracts in Pakistan. Our relationship with Turkey should only be based on supporting Turkey wherever and whenever, right or wrong. With the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia we continue to have a strong relationship but not of the level that used to exist during the days of late King Faisal becoming less important to Saudi security interests than we were a decade or so ago, a weakness that emanates from our domestic problems. In a way Saudi Arabia represents all the oil-rich states, they will only respect Pakistan as an equal if Pakistan is strong. Our rulers should not fall over themselves to please the Arabs. Nobody respects grovelling, unfortunately we have institutionalized this in dealing with the Arab States.
Nobody should be in any doubt about the importance of Pakistan maintaining a good relationship with the only (for the moment) remaining Superpower in the world, the US of A. It is true we have certain differences that seem to be irreconcilable but the US is a pragmatic nation that can adjust principles to circumstances as the Afghan decade has shown. Our negotiations have to impress upon the US that they have only to gain by maintaining Pakistan geo-political status as a cornerstone of US policy in the Middle East. If we were forced into a bloc with Iran and Iraq out of a mutual sense of survival, this would be a disaster for US long-term policy. A strong Pakistan is a sure guarantee for the smaller oil-rich nations of the Gulf, a stable Pakistan is good for the entire Central Asian Region. If US dealings with Pakistan remains mutually beneficial based on sovereign equality, it could encourage countries like Iran to soften their anti-US stance. The present targeting of Pakistan by the US on various “sins” despite our 80s close relationship makes Iran suspicious of US long-term relations with anybody to be that of convenience of business, a policy of hire and fire. The cold war may have finished, the forecast is that as Russia consolidates its economy and its former empire (the near abroad as they call it), it may well start domination of its neighbours all over again. To repeat Chou En Lai’s admonition to Henry Kissinger in July 1971 during his initial secret visit to Beijing to establish US-China relationship, “do not forget the bridge (sic Pakistan) that you have crossed, you may have to cross it again!” unquote. Instead of becoming hostage to the F-16s issue, let us take the relationship beyond to a more mature plane, that of mutual necessity. Can the US take the chance that forced into a corner out of the necessity of survival, Pakistan may well go the way of Iran, from a staunch US ally to an indomitable US foe? Such a happen-stance would neither be good for Pakistan and the US, the sooner we narrow the gap of perceptions, the better for both countries, no doubt not a matter of life and death for the US but certainly for Pakistan.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment