In conversation with Ambassador Abdul Basit: We do not have the luxury of taking sides

Of late, Pakistan has come under increasing pressure on the external front. Things with India have gone from bad to worse since the Modi administration set up shop in New Delhi. Things have not been good with Afghanistan for quite a while as well. And with the Trump administration also tightening the screws on Islamabad, we seem to have a tough ride ahead of us.

To make sense of the complicated situation, DNA talked exclusively to former ambassador Abdul Basit. Former high commissioner to India as well as former ambassador to Germany, Basit is a seasoned diplomat who has held positions in Moscow, New York, Geneva and London.

Question: While Hurriyat Conference in specific and Kashmiri freedom struggle in general have arrived to a closed tunnel and more and more youth in utter desperation are taking up arms and giving up their lives, what is the way forward in your view for the Kashmiri youth?

Abdul Basit: I would not agree with you that Hurriyat leadership has become irrelevant. Since martyrdom of Burhan Wani, the three important leaders — Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz Omer Farooq and Yasin Malik joined hands under the joint resistance leadership. So whenever they announce a schedule of strikes and protests that is strictly followed by all Kashmiris. So to say that Hurriyat has become irrelevant is slightly out of place for me. Hurriyat is still relevant and still represents the political aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. And I don’t think, given my own experience, that you can achieve peace or resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute without taking the Hurriyat onboard.

So sooner or later, India will have to understand this reality that no matter what they do, no matter what steps they take to undermine the Hurriyat, they will continue to be relevant. Especially in context achieving the political solution to the problem. So to my mind, the Hurriyat is a still relevant and would continue to be relevant in the foreseeable future.

Kashmiris have shown amazing, unprecedented resilience which proves how anti-India they have become. There have been massive protests. India understands that they have been trying all possible measures to undermine the Hurriyat. All sorts of brute force have been used against innocent Kashmiris in wake of Burhan Wani’s martyrdom. From July 2016 to august 2017, 1.3 million palettes were used by Indian forces resulting in loss of sight of hundreds of Kashmiris. Thousands have been injured. So this shows the intensity of the resentment of India against Kashmiris.

So no matter what India does, India cannot win the hearts and minds of Kashmiris. This India needs to realise that it can never suppress the struggle for freedom of Kashmiris. History is replete with such precedents that you cannot win hearts and minds through the barrel of a gun.

This struggle may take long, may be 50 years, or a hundred years but eventually India will have to liberate Kashmir.

Q: Do you think that the appointment of former director IB as an interlocutor is going to be a non-starter?

AB: It is a non-starter already. I have already tweeted that he is to work within the Indian Constitutional framework, it would remain a non-starter. We are already hearing from different sources that he would not engage different groups.

The Hurriyat has already stipulated four, five conditions for any dialogue, including that India first needs to accept the Jammu and Kashmir is a dispute between Pakistan and India and it needs to be resolved according to the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

And secondly, how can you achieve peace without engaging Pakistan which is one of the major parties to the dispute. So this all in my view a hogwash. It was done immediately before Rex Tillerson’s visit to India.

India perhaps wants to show how serious they are to resolve this dispute and to show concern to the plight of Kashmiris. And at the heart of it, I think they just want to delay dialogue on Kashmir with Pakistan. They want to show to the world that it is not a legitimate struggle for self-determination but it is terrorism which is causing problems in Jammu and Kashmir.

And this is not credible step on their part. Moreover, this is not the first time that the New Delhi has appointed an interlocutor on Kashmir. Even in 2010, three interlocutors were appointed but all their recommendations were consigned to the dustbin.

And more specifically, how could India appoint a former intelligence guy to deal with such an intricate political issue? So that again betrays India’s lack of sincerity and lack of seriousness.

Q: With Rex Tillerson’s visit not bringing the expected thaw in Pak-US bilateral relations that grew cold since Donald Trump’s recent Afghan policy speech – quite to the contrary, in fact – how do you see the Pak-US equation settling in the medium to long term?

AB: No, I think there are fundamental divergences or strategic divergences. So I don’t see this transaction relationship moving from this to strategic partnership. First, we have problems when it comes to Afghanistan. Our foremost objective in Afghanistan is to see how peace can come to that unfortunate country. Then, we need to make progress towards implementing CPEC as well.

US for its own reasons cannot leave Afghanistan because it would like to have permanent presence there for a variety of reasons. They also have reservations vis-a-vis the C-PEC. So there are problems. The challenge for our own diplomacy is how to convince the Americans that our long term interests are not at conflict with each other.

If indeed the US is interested in having peace in Afghanistan, then we are also working for the same. So it’s just a matter of tactics so as to achieve our shared objectives.

So we perhaps need more diplomatic engagements with the US in order to bring our positions together. I do not see that happening anytime in the near future. But we should not give up. US is an important country, we need to engage more and more with them in order to convince them that we have legitimate interest in Afghanistan and India should appreciate those legitimate interest of ours.

I was not expecting anything substantive coming out of Tillerson’s visit. From what I read in the media, I get the impression that we reiterated our positions and so did the US side. So it was kind of reiteration our expected positions but I was not expecting much because fundamental difference are there. Unless we work on those things, such visits would not really deliver much.

Q: Although the dye has long been cast, Tillerson’s visit has cemented India as Washington’s principal gate-keeper in South Asia. And it’s not as if Pakistan has not moved any pieces on the board during this time. Other than China, have we made working relationships with other powers in the region i.e. Russia, etc?

AB: No, I think we do have strong relations with China; that goes without saying and we also lately have been able to involve some good understanding with Russia at least in context of Afghanistan, if not on other issues.

Similarly, we need to work out how to enhance our understanding with Iran, at least on Afghanistan, among other issues. So by engaging with regional countries doesn’t mean that we should ignore or we can afford to ignore the US. There is no either/or option for us. We need to very, very careful that every step should be taken with utmost circumspection.

Because we do not have the luxury of taking sides. We need to be very careful, chart a course for ourselves, based on our strengths, also cognizant of our weakness as well. So, Pakistan is in a very delicate situation right now. And it proactive, focused diplomacy. This position we are in today is far more difficult than the Catch-22 situation, given what is happening externally or internally, the political instability, and the chaos. We need to avoid the chaotic situation because it could inevitably effect our foreign policy, if not diplomacy.

Q: Given the reports suggesting the CIA, NDS and RAW are assisting Daish and TTP to destabilise Pakistan, would you agree that Pakistan should take new initiatives to woo influential neighbours like China, Iran and Russia to counter these terrorist outfits which are threatening the entire region?

AB: I agree with you because on these terror issues, the positions of Pakistan and China and Russia converge. But the problem is that all these terrorist outfits finding space inside Afghanistan. In order to deal with these issues and in the larger context to address larger issues regarding Afghanistan I have my doubts that only a regional approach can work.

The US is the most important player in Afghanistan. Unless you have US onboard I do not see any process delivering. Hence, in my humble view, the Quadrilateral Consultative Group (QCG) is perhaps the forum which under the current situation is capable of delivering because there you find all important players — China, US, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The problem is at present US relations with India are quiet intense, they are improving and while on the one hand US is trying to protect and promote its interests in Afghanistan, it is also playing to the tune of India and then Indian RAW and NDS have very close relationship with each-other.

Q: How do you view Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s recent statement that Afghanistan would only support CPEC if Pakistan allows transit trade between India and Afghanistan? Is it reasonable to ask Pakistan to give India transit route?

AB: No, this is disingenuous in my view because Afghanistan, which is a brotherly country, should understand how things between Pakistan and India are.

There are serious issues between our two countries and unless those issues are resolved; Afghanistan should not expect Pakistan to be giving this facility to India.

I am not saying that should not happen. But that will happen at its own time — at the right time. Afghanistan needs to understand what problems exist in India. But it should not create artificial linkages.

After all, Pakistan-Afghanistan relations are not one sided. They benefit both our countries. So first priority of Afghanistan should be to see how to normalise relations.

If you have peace within Afghanistan and make Afghanistan peaceful so that we can have more economic cooperation between Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics.

For example, TAPI is not going any where because of the situation in Afghanistan. CASA 1,000 is facing problems because of the situation in Afghanistan. There other reasons as well but Afghanistan is also one factor.

Q: In the international context, do you see Pakistan drifting towards a grand alliance that has been forming between China, Russia and Iran; which casts a long shadow from Asia proper to the Middle East?

AB: Rather than a grand alliance I feel all parties should put their faith in the Quadrilateral process, because the core issue on the ground remains peace in Afghanistan. So we need to focus on that. I am not for a moment arguing that these other Moscow format or processes are not relevant.

They are also relevant since we are trying to find out possibilities for a peaceful Afghanistan. So we need to engage our all friends in all areas tendency but QCG to me appears the most effective forum.

Q: For all our tough talk, we remain a country dependent on foreign aid – loans, grants, etc – even for the government’s basic, day-to-day functioning. Would this not deter potential allies, especially since few can dole out consistent cash like the Americans?

AB: Yes, this is a kind of perennial problem for us because we have not been able to put our economy on irreversible trajectory of high growth, so there have seen ups and downs. Pakistan has been blessed with countless resources and it is just the matter of putting our house in order.

And I think it is more about our internal management of economy, rather than any other regional or external factor. So what we need to do is to manage our economy well, and then to reduce our dependence on loans and foreign aid and so on.

Whether a not it will happen is a different matter; as Pakistani economist are saying that soon a return to IMF might be required. All these have linkages, so one hopes and one would wish that Pakistan puts its economic house in order. That way we can have a more independent foreign policy and run our diplomacy more freely and independently, firmly rooted in our national interests.