Pakistan’s changing foreign policy will suffer collateral damage at home initially
For the first time in its history, Pakistan has taken a neutral stance and has avoided any sort of involvement in the Middle East crisis
Non-state actors may have been irked by the calm in Pakistan. On the other hand, it might have been a repercussion due to Pakistan’s paradigm shift in its foreign policy
Repercussions are inevitable in politics. Pakistan’s paradigm shift towards strengthening ties with its neighbours, namely Iran, has opened new avenues of extremism, which need to be nipped in the bud otherwise this emerging wave of terrorism will create a number of problems for the state. The recent security lapse leading to the Lahore Attack might have been caused by the shift in foreign policy. Global powers have often criticised Pakistan for its unconvincing strategy for effectively curbing terrorism. This lack of clear direction in terms of strategy has often put Pakistan in a difficult position, as it has been accused of state-sponsored terrorism at multiple occasions.
The Middle East is going through a major restructuring of geopolitical power dynamics, which has compelled Pakistan to rethink its staunchly held foreign policy of subservience to dominant powers only. The current geostrategic scenario revolves around Iran, Saudi Arabia, US and Pakistan. Pakistan and the US are strengthening ties with Iran, which is a cause of concern for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).The Iran-Pakistan pipeline might recover after the lifting of sanctions on Iran. Iran and KSA have fought several proxy wars across the globe since the start of time. The Sunni-Shi’a divide has been creating problems on the global front because both these countries are promoting sectarianism as well as extremism. KSA and Iran have been sponsoring opposite sides of terrorism and waging proxy wars through religious entities, spreading their self-sanitised versions of Islam respectively. Currently, the Saudis are fighting a battle with the Houthis in Yemen, while Iran is tackling the proxy situation in Syria.
For the first time in its history, Pakistan has taken a neutral stance and has avoided any sort of involvement in the Middle East crisis. Pakistan has been deeply affected by sectarian wars itself. Pakistan’s involvement in this crisis would jeopardise its internal stability. It does not have the capacity to engage in other countries’ proxy wars, as it struggles to guard its own turf. It was a wise move to remain neutral.
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center in 2015, the Pakistani population has been ‘extremely critical’ of terrorist factions and is ‘supportive’ of government’s efforts to combat extremism. Pakistani people had a ‘very negative view of the Taliban and the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)’. A majority of the population refused to comment according to the survey.
A group disintegrated from TTP carried out the Lahore attack, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar. The Lahore attack killed at least 76 people. Jamaat-ul-Ahrar claimed that Christians were the target of this attack. On the very same day, supporters of Mumtaz Qadri gathered outside the parliament. The protesters sparred with the police. The situation became extremely violent and was brought under control in the end by the military. The coincidence of these two events happening on the same day cannot be overlooked. This shows us that the Pakistani state has not been able to annihilate terrorism despite military operations and is still suffering the repercussions of its own doings of the past. The military’s magnanimous claims regarding Zarb-e-Azb seem doubtful after the attack. Perpetrating a strategic attack in Lahore and Islamabad at the same time gives us an insight regarding the hostility of the situation. This means that terrorists are being openly defiant against the state while challenging the writ of state, and declaring it openly. It further implies that the state is becoming weak and cannot protect its own people against extremism.
There are several conflicting possibilities, which may explain the weakening security situation. Sharif’s amicable policies towards improving relations with India might not be appreciated by the extremist elements, since they thrive on creating hatred. Until recently, the military was not in favour of Sharif’s policies towards India. Non-state actors may have been irked by the calm in Pakistan. On the other hand, it might have been a repercussion due to Pakistan’s paradigm shift in its foreign policy.
Despite all these inter-mingled geopolitical factors coupled with internal rifts within the state, the Lahore attack was a vivid example of the state’s lack of ability to protect its citizens. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, especially minorities, as they need this protection the most. The state has utterly failed in the line of duty. The civilian leadership is slacking in effectively implementing anti-terrorism policies whereas the military needs to stop differentiating between various types of Taliban. Taliban is the not the name of a certain terrorist faction but it is the name of an ideology, which has rampantly spread across Pakistan and the globe. This ideology of extremism needs to be annihilated from the very core if Pakistan desires to survive this new onslaught of terror.
