Pakistan’s walking a very thin tightrope as the world braces for an Arab conflict, and there’s no safety net in sight
Henry Kissinger once noted that ‘you can’t make war in the Middle East without Egypt, and you can’t make peace without Syria’.
Saudi Arabia, it would appear, did not get that memo. In fact, the Muslim monarchy may well be about to start a fight that many fear could drag Syria, much of the Middle East, and Pakistan, in to war.
The announcement of its 34-member anti-ISIS coalition was a surprise in itself, more so when some of the “member” countries denied having agreed to the formation of said alliance, or to their membership. Soon after came news that Saudi Arabia would not be averse to participating in a western-led ground operation against the self-styled Islamic State. In fact even after the US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed for “cessation of hostilities”, Saudi Arabia’s government remained adamant: according to an AFP report in December 2015, Saudi Arabia and Turkey could soon launch a ground operation against ISIS militants in Syria, potentially further destabilising a country whose government is struggling to maintain control, while making a power play in the conflict ridden Middle East. In related news, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al Jabeir went on record stating that the Assad regime would be removed “either by political process or by force”. Recently, a multilateral military exercise being held in Saudi Arabia – better known as “Northern Thunder” – also raised hackles, particularly when reports emerged that KSA may be using the exercise to prepare for aforementioned “anti-ISIS” operation in Syria. Turkey, by all accords, also has its own interests in the area, and a strong resentment against the Kurds. The Turkish military has launched hits on Kurdish and Syrian targets and just this week reportedly sent over 500 armed fighters to retake Azaz (a town in Aleppo) from the Kurds. Riyadh has also pledged to send warplanes to Turkey to aid in this fight.
This spells trouble not only for the Syrian government, but for other regional actors, including Pakistan.
Whose side are we on?
After a confusing few weeks, in which the PML-N government alternated from assuring the Saudi government of Pakistan’s full support and ducking questions regarding what that support would encompass to denying any association with the said alliance, Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz finally announced that Pakistan was not “formally” a member of the alliance. He also added that details regarding the role of said alliance had yet to be disclosed.
Pakistan is, to put it simply, sitting on the fence and, to quote a prominent analyst Ayaz Mir “playing it both ways”.
“We’re not actually doing anything,” he noted. “That’s our stance so far.”
Pakistan and KSA have shared warm relations since the former’s conception. Bilateral military relations have seen deployment of Pakistani troops in the kingdom while KSA has been one of Pakistan’s most generous allies in terms of financial assistance and investment. Its religious significance to Pakistan’s predominantly Muslim population has also ensured that Pakistan’s public leans heavily in its favour. Pakistan has also had good relations with Turkey – cultural, religious and geopolitical links helped create increasingly close bilateral relations between the two nations.
On the other hand, Pakistan’s Foreign Office, in a statement in December 2015 clearly stated its recognition of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government. In addition, the Pakistani Foreign Office also stated that it is against any attempt to topple the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which KSA has increasingly been demanding the termination of.
Much like the situation in Yemen, explained Hassan Askari Rizvi, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Punjab University, KSA would, and did, desire “a more active role” from Pakistan, but wouldn’t receive much.
“We’re doing the barest minimum to please the Saudis, but we’re not crossing any red lines,” added Ayaz Mir.
In doing so, Pakistan is taking care to avoid committing to any involvement in the Middle East. Whose side are we on then? No one’s; the reason, quite simply, being that Pakistan can’t afford to get involved in an Arab war.
The Saudis and Turkey aren’t the only actors at play; there are at least three nuclear powers with vested interests in the region’s power play and its stability. USA and Russia have both agreed to a cessation of violence with Russia pressing Assad’s regime to come to some sort of political settlement. China also has ties with KSA, Turkey and Iran and would hardly favour a war in the region, or Pakistan’s involvement in one. Combined, this leaves Pakistan in a precarious position. Relations with Russia have been improving recently, with a potential visit from Vladimir Putin and a promise of billions of dollars worth of investment in Pakistan’s gas pipeline marking the beginning of closer ties. Relations with Iran – never cordial despite the proximity of the two neighbours – have also shown signs of improvement, at least in terms of business relations.
Destabilising ties with any of these countries is out of the question. Neither can Pakistan, to quote Ayaz Mir, simply give a “complete no” to the Saudis. So why doesn’t Pakistan simply take a third route and declare its neutrality?
To put it bluntly: we can’t.
Hassan Rizvi’s explanation was more elaborate.
“We’ve always had difficulty maintaining a balance between conservative and liberal Arab states,” he explained “Traditionally, Pakistan leans more towards conservative Arab states – it always has.”
In addition, said Professor Rizvi, there is another obvious problem. In a tragic case of “too many cooks spoiling the broth”, when it comes to Pakistan’s already ambiguous foreign policy, there are just too many people making decisions on matters they didn’t agree on. Pakistan’s shared history with KSA, combined with the kingdom’s generous financial assistance means we’re wary of upsetting our larger, richer friend. But the Prime Minister’s own, personal relations with the Saudi government means Pakistan definitely doesn’t want to annoy KSA.
Where does Pakistan stand?
“We’re walking a tightrope,” stated Ayaz Mir, “and we’re playing it both ways.”
Sartaj Aziz’s statement may have been meant as clarification regarding Pakistan’s stance on the proposed alliance, but criticism and questions from the opposition and media have still rained down on the PML-N government. How could the government “welcome” the alliance and pledge its “complete support” to it without any details? Ayaz Mir had an explanation regarding that that made sense.
“Our problem is that Saudis want to do something in Syria. They’re very angry with Bashar al-Assad. But they’re not sure what they can do, what they’re capable of doing. They talk vaguely of commando operations, Turkey has permitted them to station aircrafts at an air base, but beyond that, they’re not clear.”
So what kind of a “more active role” could Pakistan play?
“We don’t want to annoy Saudis,” admitted Ayaz Mir, “but at the same time, I think Pakistan is not going to get committed in a ground operation in Syria.”
Professor Rizvi concurred:
“The troops are there (for the military exercise), but they are not expected to go to Syria to fight. On that Pakistan’s foreign policy is clear that (Pakistan) will not be party to any Arab conflict.”
Professor Rizvi admitted that there was still a great deal of confusion at the home front- but with good reason. Pakistan’s refusal to pick a side means we’re left with a slew of questions at home, but that’s better compared to dealing with the international fallout. In the event that the ground operation does become a reality, the analysts agreed, Pakistan should, and most probably will, continue to maintain its difficult yet necessary balancing act in maintaining its ties with other nations.
To put it simply, we’ll do what we’ve always done: we’ll walk the tightrope, playing both ways.
