Foreign policy blues
The Indian external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj flanked by John Kerry snubbed Islamabad by ruling out any dialogue with Pakistan unless it takes steps on the Pathankot terror attack
While the opposition’s putsch against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif over Panamagate is now in full swing, internationally and in the region as well, Pakistan looks increasingly isolated. The American Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent visit to the Indian capital for another round of India–US strategic dialogue was one manifestation of this stark reality.
Another was the US and India the same day, in Washington, signing a defence agreement that will have a direct impact on both China and Pakistan. The Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) allows both countries to access each other’s military bases for checkmating China’s perceived growing influence in Asia and also in the fight against terrorism.
The Indian external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj flanked by John Kerry snubbed Islamabad by ruling out any dialogue with Pakistan unless it takes steps on the Pathankot terror attack. She also reaffirmed “urgent necessity for Pakistan to dismantle safe havens for terrorists and criminal networks including Lashker-e-Taiaba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and D Company”. Of course the US secretary of state more or less parroted the same mantra.
Ups and downs in India-Pakistan relations is nothing new. Perhaps owing to the deteriorating security situation in Indian Held Kashmir, the BJP government led by Narendra Modi finds Pakistan as a convenient scapegoat for India’s own gross human rights violations to quell a largely indigenous movement of the Kashmiri youth.
Nonetheless the present dip in India-Pakistan relations is one of the lowest of lows. While Sharif prefers to remain mum about his Indian counterpart the army chief General Raheel Sharif has chosen not to mince his words. Addressing a two-day seminar on CPEC in Gilgit, the COAS roared: whether it is Modi or RAW or anybody else, we fully understand the tricks of the enemy.
Coming from the military chief this is a rather harsh denouement of Indian designs and perhaps the growing India-US nexus. It also sharply contrasts with a very meek response of the foreign office in the backdrop of these adverse developments.
The foreign office spokesman Nafees Zakria, the same day General Raheel Sharif spoke, while reacting to the India-US defence deal mildly expressed the hope that it will not affect the strategic balance in South Asia. In sharp contrast, the Indian foreign ministry spokesman Vikas Swarup pooh-poohed Prime Minister Sharif writing a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on atrocities in Indian held Kashmir, brazenly claiming that “they (Pakistan) can write as many letters as they want to, to the UN, it won’t change the fact that J&K is an integral part of India. “
The spokesmen of the foreign ministries of both India and Pakistan reflect the policies and approach of their respective governments. The Indian spokesperson mirrors the sentiments of its belligerent and hawkish prime minister, while the Pakistani spokesman amplifies the mealy mouthed approach of its prime minister. Incidentally Sharif also keeps the foreign ministry portfolio with himself.
Of course like any other country, Pakistan’s foreign policy is a reflection of its internal strength, weaknesses, as well as contradictions. In a democracy the civilian government should be running foreign policy and providing leadership. Foreign and security policies however cannot be run in a vacuum, as it is axiomatic to take the military establishment on board on vital national security matters.
But of course after weighing all options the veto power should still lie with the civilian government. However, unsurprisingly, in the Islamic Republic the shoe is on the other foot. Clearly the military leadership is calling the shots.
In fact the Sharif government has developed a hybrid model of its own. Had there been a more pliant government in New Delhi instead of the present BJP lot, the benign approach of the government towards India might have worked.
However, this is not the case. Modi has no option but to put the blame on Pakistan for the deteriorating security situation in Indian Held Kashmir. In his frustration he went too far equating Baluchistan and Gilgit Baltistan with the situation in held Kashmir.
It was a calculated move, as the speech was carefully calibrated for the Indian Independence Day. Virtually being a policy statement, Pakistan should have reacted more unequivocally than it did.
Instead of Sharif and his foreign office the military leadership is performing the task of giving a befitting response to the Indian leadership. There is no gainsaying that cordial relations with India are in the best interest of both the belligerent neighbours. But it takes two to tango.
Sending scores of parliamentarians on junkets at state expense “to highlight the Kashmir cause” is not the answer. It lies in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Unless Pakistan has a coherent Kashmir policy with a modicum of consensus between the civilian and military leadership what are the parliamentarians going to sell abroad?
The recent India-US defence deal and Washington’s promise to get New Delhi a seat on the NSG (nuclear suppliers group) is a reflection of India’s growing clout. Thanks to its booming economy, despite the warts, the west finds it an attractive partner to literally do business with. The US, to the detriment of Pakistan, clearly sees New Delhi as a bulwark against China’s growing influences, especially in the South China Sea.
In the meanwhile Pakistan is wallowing in its own contradictions. Our relations with New Delhi and Kabul remain frayed. Perhaps the only friend we can rely upon is China.
We claim (perhaps with some credibility) that we are the victim of terrorism rather than its perpetrator. But our neighbours, including Iran and to some extent even China, believe otherwise.
So far as the economy is concerned the only thing going for Pakistan is CPEC and low oil prices. Dwindling exports, remittances and negligible FDI (foreign direct investment) are somehow hidden in small print while Finance Minister Ishaq Dar incessantly crows about ‘the booming economy’.
Despite all the claims, the bottom line is Pakistan’s dismally low annual GDP growth rate. In the vicinity of 4.5 to 5 per cent annually, it is simply not sufficient to even have a handle on eliminating poverty by creating enough jobs. Without spending more on education, health and a better living standard, eliminating terrorism will remain an elusive dream.
Pakistan can boast being a nuclear power and having a professional fifth largest army in the world. But are these prerequisites enough for peace, security and economic prosperity?
After all the former Soviet Union was competing with the US in both the conventional and nuclear arms race. But it finally disintegrated under the weight of its own contradictions, and a planned underperforming economy that simply could not support its military might.
Perhaps Pakistan is not a failed state. But we need to tailor our policies according to the dictates of the twenty first century rather than continuing to punch above our weight and incessantly whining about how unfairly the world is treating us.