Why fight them?
It is a stark reality that our ‘hukumrans’ (leaders), so much beholden to their Saudi mentors, simply cannot say no to them. We have not learnt any lessons from being part of such alliances in the past, at the expense of our long-term national interests
Pakistan finally acknowledging being part of the chimerical 41-nation Islamic Military Alliance (IMA) by dispatching its former army chief to head it is not surprising. Last week general (r) Raheel Sharif was finally given clearance to head it. Hence, what was in the realm of informed speculation is now a fiat accompli.
The Saudi-brokered Islamic Military Alliance to fight terrorism (IMAFT) is a brainchild of the young and relatively inexperienced Saudi defence minister, Prince Mohammad bin Salman al Saud. Despite Islamabad joining a controversial alliance, the foreign office spokesperson Nafees Zakria has brazenly claimed that Pakistan still maintains its neutrality in the Middle East.
In the same breath the FO spokesperson confirmed that “the terms of reference guiding the activities (of the Alliance) are yet to be finalised.” How can he say with a straight face that Islamabad is taking no sides in the Middle East cauldron after admitting that the TORs of the alliance are yet to be announced?
What was the compulsion to dispatch General Raheel Sharif post-haste to Riyadh to assume charge of the controversial alliance? This is tantamount to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
It is a stark reality that our ‘hukumrans’ (leaders), so much beholden to their Saudi mentors, simply cannot say no to them. We have not learnt any lessons from being part of such alliances in the past, at the expense of our long-term national interests.
In fact Pakistan, Lebanon and Malaysia were surprised that they were included in the coalition when the Saudi deputy crown prince announced its launching in December 2015. Soon after jointly embarking on a trip to Riyadh, with a brief stopover in Tehran, the khaki and the mufti Sharifs perhaps deliberately tried to create an impression that Pakistan was trying to mediate between traditional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia rather than becoming a part of the Alliance.
At that time it was also claimed that Islamabad will remain neutral and would not commit its troops to fight under its banner.
The ostensible raison d’etre of the Alliance is to combat terrorism in Islamic countries by defeating outfits like ISIS (the Islamic State). But the real purpose behind forming the fractious coalition is perhaps to crush the Houti insurrection in the Yemen with brute force.
It is merely not a coincidence that Shia or Shia majority countries like Iran, Syria, Iraq and Algeria have been excluded from the alliance. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are mortally scared of a radicalised Shia state fishing in troubled waters in their neighbourhood.
Admittedly, Iran has its proxies doing its bidding in Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain and Iraq — all having substantial or Shia majority populations. The Islamic Republic is on the same side as Russia in fighting ISIS by backing the Bashar al Assad regime, both militarily and diplomatically.
But Pakistan has no quarrels with its Muslim neighbour. It also has a substantial Shia population that will definitely perceive this alliance as against Iran and hence will naturally feel alienated.
In fact it is not Iran that is fomenting trouble in Pakistan but other terrorist groups indoctrinated and sponsored by the same countries that are now partners in the so called anti terrorism coalition. But unfortunately the Saudis see terrorism in a single dimensional manner through a purely sectarian prism.
Historically, Pakistan’s perennially pro-western ruling elites have never shied away from becoming part of high sounding defence pacts. As early as 1954 we joined the US brokered SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organisation) with Australia, New Zealand Philippines, Thailand, the UK and the USA as bedfellows. Apart from becoming a willing tool in an anti-Soviet Union alliance and being recipient of Washington’s largesse in the form of military aid and economic assistance, it served no strategic purpose for the country.
The very next year Pakistan joined another US sponsored alliance, the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO). The infamous Bagdad Pact had Iran, Iraq, Turkey and the UK as its members. Our India-centric rulers of the time had hoped that this anti communist defence pact would serve as a bulwark against NewDelhi’s expansionist designs.
However, both in 1965 and 1971 wars with India, CENTO was of no use to combat Indian aggression. The stillborn alliance was finally buried in 1979.
Perhaps Pakistan, choosing the west as its partner during the cold war, indirectly encouraged India and the Soviet Union to foment a closer strategic relationship. This finally led to the India-Soviet friendship treaty that became a catalyst for the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971.
As if this was not enough the dictator General Zia ul Haq made Pakistan a willing tool of the US and the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) ostensibly to thwart the Soviet forces that had invaded Afghanistan from reaching the so called warm waters.
The generalissimos of the day used to do a lot of chest thumping that Pakistan has become a front line state against USSR’s expansionism. In fact the late Hameed Gul, who was DG of the ISI during the later part of the Afghan insurgency, used to boast that in fact it was his strategy that resulted in the final dismantling of the Berlin Wall, marking the demise of the Soviet Union.
Today a lot of outrage is being expressed at the manner in which visas were issued to CIA and Blackwater operatives by our ambassador Hussain Haqqani as a precursor to the Abbotabad raid on Osama bin Laden’s lair in May 2011. Rightly so. But on the late General Zia’s watch Pakistan had become the largest CIA base in the world, with no questions asked.
And of course our badlands became the training grounds for foreign and local jhadists and then jihad all over the world. Only after things had taken a full circle that we belatedly realised that terrorism in the name of a jaundiced version of religion has destroyed the very entrails of a country created in the name of democracy and pluralism.
It will still take a long time (if ever) to rid the country of the menace of terrorism. In this context it seems foolhardy to commit Pakistan to such ghost wars that are none of our business and can only lead to disastrous consequences.
If General (r) Raheel Sharif needs a cushy job the government should arrange one for him. In the meanwhile it should review its decision of dispatching the respected former army chief to Riyadh to head a controversial military coalition.