Ripples in diplomacy

Old facts; new acknowledgments

Pakistan has always been bombarded with a plethora of accusations by the international comity; especially in the world today that seems to be pre-occupied by terrorism and the urge of exterminating it. One of the most compelling reasons behind this is Pakistan’s tricky geography, which can be an asset but has become more of a liability. With India on the east and Afghanistan on the west, Pakistan finds itself between the devil and the deep sea.

Pakistan has been accused of providing sanctuaries to militants, which cause trouble both in India and Afghanistan. Our porous borders and untamed northern areas provide excellent opportunity to everyone who is looking for safe havens. However, the world does not see it this way. Geography is not everything, and what are we doing to eliminate these troubles? Hence we are faced with the famous “do-more” mantra.

Recently, there have been some ripples in our diplomatic statements. We have officially announced sharing intelligence with India, and we are finally talking about how non-state actors have sabotaged us, and how we can and cannot influence the Taliban. Well, the media had always been talking about it, so isn’t it naïve to term it as new ripples? The difference of course is these statements coming from the official sources this time, rather than the unofficial speculation.

While many of us are pretty fond of terming our problems as weak foreign policy, Shamshad Ahmad, seasoned diplomat, a former foreign secretary and the author of Pakistan and World Affairs chooses to disagree, and views the entire problem through a totally different aperture.

“I don’t think we have any external problems,” said Ahmad while talking to DNA.

“All our external problems are just an extension of our internal problems.”

This was a thoughtful comment. However, these changes can also be a paradigm shift. Is that really the case, and if so what are the motives?

Paradigm shift – Really?

To someone, who has been following the news, there is nothing really new with this scenario. The only new thing is the fact that we have finally talked about it. Now should that be called a paradigm shift?

Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi is a renowned political scientist and defence analyst. He does not see it as a paradigm shift. Rather he thinks it is just our orientation that is shifting.

“Well, I won’t term it as a paradigm shift really,” he said.

“You can say there is focus and emphasis on things that we have never said earlier. Obviously, this was unofficially known even earlier, just no statements had ever been made on this. So well, you could say a change in orientation is taking place.”

Dr Rizvi thinks that the only difference between the current scenario and the earlier ones is the presence of acknowledgment that was never there earlier.

“It is an acknowledgment,” he added. “It is a change in the sense that the government of Pakistan never acknowledged such things earlier.”

Shamshad Ahmad, on the other hand, finds hype on these issues very unnecessary, and thinks that media should refrain from speculation.

“Our media creates news stories out of space, and it is advisable not to analyse such stuff without getting thorough information from some inside source,” he said.

So, two experts on this issue think that this is no milestone. This is just some policy shift, and official acknowledgment.

Ali Arqam, based in Karachi, is a journalist and researcher. He too thinks that owing to the involvement of political forces now, things that were never discussed openly are now being said out loud.

“The under the table negotiations that were going on have come out into the open, this time through official sources,” he stated.

“This was not unknown earlier; that there was a shadow government in Afghanistan, and that the sanctuaries and families of Afghan Taliban had been present on Pakistani soil.”

So rather than labelling it as some breakthrough of sorts let us be more thoughtful and more realistic about the entire thing.

The invisible hand

Nothing happens without a reason. Same should be the case here ideally. Adam Smith talks about the invisible hand that drives market economy. Interestingly enough, there is also an invisible hand involved whenever Pakistan takes any kind of diplomatic stance. This invisible hand is a function of the major foreign powers, America and China in our case.

Arqam thinks Chinese ambitions in the region can be a reason.

“The motives are obvious; Chinese influence and the geopolitical scenario of the region. And again, since things are on the political table now, they cannot be kept hidden anymore.”

Chinese investment can be a major reason for this new attempt to normalise relations. Since China wants to invest in the region massively, it cannot afford to do so in an instable environment.

“Chinese investment in the region is there, and in Afghanistan as well,” he explained his analysis. “So yes a paradigm shift is happening because of regional factors, and increasing role of China in Pakistan’s foreign policy.”

And according to him, it is not just China that should be particular about the regional stability, rather the US realisation of the importance of South Asia and the intricacy of Pakistan-India relations is another major in eliciting such kinds of official statements.

“One probable reason is pressure from America, because it is very important to tone down the Pakistan-India conflict in order to sustain stability and peace in the region,” Arqam said.

“The Obama Administration started realising in 2012-13 that even the Afghan conflict is related to Pakistan-India ties and that the conflict between Pakistan and India is badly affecting peace in the region due to the proxy wars going on. If you look at the recent economic aid given to Pakistan, out of a total of $800 million, around $40 million have been allocated to the protection of our nuclear arsenal and normalisation of ties with India.”

Interestingly, what Arqam has said in the above-mentioned verbatim is what Khurshid Kasuri talks about in his book. We have many trilateral relations. Pakistan-India-Afghanistan, Pakistan-India-America and Pakistan-America-Afghanistan ties are the trilateral relations that are emerging in this scenario.

“It was obvious in the Pathankot attack that non-state actors had tried to sabotage the good will created by Modi’s visit,” Arqam further highlighted. A stop had to be put to it, and therefore steps had to be taken. Intelligence sharing between the two countries is an effort to prevent such damage.”

Dr Rizvi, on the other hand thinks, that the current ripples are an attempt to get rid of the diplomatic stalemate that we have been confounded with.

“The motive is to find some way out of the issues that seemed to have been stalemated, for instance Pakistan-India and Pakistan-Afghan relations. So they just desired to see if they have new options available to them, so they tried these kinds of changes for this purpose,” he stated.

“Our image has already been tarnished, so this is really a way to address this dilemma and the trust deficit that we have been facing internationally.”

Therefore, it is safe to assume that the current steps have been taken in order to keep up with international demands.

‘We are not this stupid’

It may appear from the outside as if Pakistan is a war-torn country marred by international pressures. However, it is a strong country when it comes to geopolitics, and obviously is not some damsel in distress.

Shamshad Ahmad thinks there could be two reasons behind the current statements. One is the repetition of something that Musharraf had done.

“During Musharraf’s era, he signed a statement with Prime Minister Vajpayee in 2004, giving an undertaking that Pakistani soil would not be used for any cross-border infiltration against India,” he said.

“He did give an assurance to India that such a thing will not happen in future. On the flip side, he had signed an affidavit in which he implicitly agreed that Pakistani soil had been used for such cross-border activity earlier. And he signed an affidavit about something which he was never sure about. He could not prevent such activity in his own soil, and India has been exploiting this statement since then. This was hence a preposterous affidavit and a sign of weakness.”

However, out of his experience, he does not think this is the way Pakistan’s foreign office really works.

“Second hypothesis is that this was a tactical move by the government,” he sounded confident.

“There has been evidence of Indian involvement in insurgency and terrorism in Pakistan. So just saying that 10 people have crossed border and therefore we are sharing evidence is just a nice way of saying that we have come to know about suspicious activity, and is just a tactical move of asserting that we know what’s going on.”

He further stated that Pakistan could not be blamed alone for any cross-border infiltration. India was equally responsible for any inability to prevent the penetration.

“Yes, the border is porous,” he explained. “Insurgents might have crossed it, but realistically speaking, India has as much responsibility of not letting such actors enter its soil as we have of not letting such actors cross the border. Both have a responsibility to stop the infiltration.”

Again, according to him Pakistani state could not be blamed for any non-state actors. “Obviously, non-state actors are not under the direction of the state. And this is not how states operate.”

He seemed to believe this is just a sophisticated way of saying ‘we know what you are doing.’ There has been evidence of India staging activities herself, and then putting the entire blame on Pakistan.

“So my analysis is we are not this stupid.”

Pondering over Ahmad’s words, it is clearly possible that we are just not aware of what goes behind closed doors and cannot jump to conclusions.

Sustainability of the recent ‘shift’

Let’s not debate on whether the shift is a paradigm shift or not. Rather, let us see how sustainable this shift is and how welcome it should be.

“When it comes to the sustainability question, well it depends,” Arqam said. Again how willing the Afghan government is will be a major factor determining how the issues are settled. Personally I am hopeful for some sort of a settlement.”

Dr Rizvi also thinks that sustainability question is a function of various factors.

“It can be sustainable if they find useful outcomes. But again how far will these shifts be pursued is a matter of policy and a function of willingness to face the consequences,” he commented.

So it is too early to give any conclusive statements. What is rather more important is protecting our national interest through a sound foreign policy and carefully devised steps, as Shamshad Ahmad commented.

“Good foreign policy is the one thing that protects national interests, and that is what I have mentioned in my book. And this is what Pakistan needs to be doing now.”

Time calls for careful actions rather than speculation on whether the shift is a paradigm shift or simply a change in orientation.