Involving allies to resolve the crisis?

Is it such a bad idea?

The Times of India in an article published on September 3, 2014, states, “Amid escalating political crisis in Pakistan, the US has ruled out any mediation in that country and asked all stakeholders to work together to resolve their differences through peaceful democratic means.” “We’re in no way involved in the process or discussions between parties,” State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters at her daily news conference yesterday.

Pakistan’s relationship with America has been one based on love-hate, based on conflicting expectations from one another. I quite support the idea of USA refraining from interfering in a manner that is direct and may allow Pakistanis to claim the entire unfortunate development as a written script by them.

That of course will not do.

However, the question whether or not to gently prod or act as a go-between in a stalemate between parties in confrontation in another country is a delicate one. Intervention can have many faces like war, diplomatic pressure and negotiations. The face I talk about here is of diplomatic pressure. It is pointless philosophising whether or not diplomatic pressure to resolve a situation that may be an internal one but has the seeds within to blow into a regional catastrophe, be used or not for larger benefit. Academically speaking, yes it may be deemed as overstepping boundaries but sometimes in an on-ground deadlock leading to death of innocent people, damage to private and public property, destruction of the law and order fabric of the society, to name a few situations, the exertion of diplomatic pressure through foreign office of a friendly state may be a good idea if all else fails. To those who oppose the thought, remember that the role and concept of arbitration in law is as old as the law itself and acceptable by countries of the world.

Dr Milan Jazbec, a practitioner and researcher in diplomacy, defines it as, “Diplomacy is a skill. A skilful diplomat is nothing but a persuasive one. How to persuade would be the next question. Persuasion, understood as an approach, method, and skill, for sure easily – or at all – stands out because of personal qualities of a diplomat in question i.e., the one engaged in a process. Here, we could refer to Nicholson, who claims that an efficient, or even an ideal, diplomat (meaning also a negotiator) should derive their success from moral influence, which is founded on seven specific diplomatic virtues: truthfulness, precision, calm, good temper, patience, modesty, and loyalty. (Source: Persuasion, the Essence of Diplomacy. Published 2013)

In the scenario presently prevailing in Pakistan, the parties in confrontation having failed to come to a reasonable understanding, does it make sense for a friendly country to give a nudge in the right direction?

On a personal level, I do not support army acting as a guarantor as it politicises the institution and may be accused of being less than partial at some point. One name that crops up in mind of a country that may play a decisive role in breaking the political logjam is Saudi Arabia. It is a fact that Saudi Arabia enjoys a special relationship with Pakistan and had played host to the present Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif in the years Pervez Musharraf reigned supreme. Iran’s desire to go nuclear and Saudi Arabia’s obvious reasons of discomfort with this makes Pakistan a favourite. The military cooperation between the two nations has strengthened as a result and includes training of Saudi pilots by Pakistan Air Force.

Quoting Kokab Farshori in his piece for Voice of America, “Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif also enjoys exceptionally close ties with senior members of the Saudi royal family. When Sharif was toppled in a bloodless military coup in 1999, Saudi Arabia intervened and military chief, Pervez Musharraf allowed Sharif and his family to travel into exile in Saudi Arabia. Mehmood Shah, a former Pakistani army brigadier and senior official in Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, says those close ties will only strengthen ties between Islamabad and Riyadh.

“During former President Asif Ali Zardari’s tenure, relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were not really warm but as we know that PM Sharif has good relations with the Saudi ruling family and that further strengthens the bilateral ties.” (February 19, 2014)

Saudi Arabia recently gave a gift of $1.5bn for Syria support recently i.e., a surety that Pakistan will not sell arms to Syria. (Arabian Business.com March 18, 2014)

Can Saudi Arabia gently guide Sharif to defuse the situation? One, Sharif will be more open to an advice from Saudi Arabia. Two, if Saudi Arabia helps Sharif extricate himself from the corner he has managed to paint himself in, this may give Saudi Arabia an advantage over the relationship.

Can Saudi Arabia influence Imran Khan?

Imran certainly has a favourable view of Saudi Arabia placing its relationship with Pakistan on the same footing as China. Going through his interview in Asharq Al-Awsat (a pan-Arab daily newspaper) published November 3, 2008, one can read:

“Q: What are your views of how Pakistan’s relationship should be with the following countries: India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, USA?

A: India: One thing for sure, we will always be neighbours so we should have good relations, Kashmir will always be a problem but I think we should listen to what the people in Kashmir say.

Saudi Arabia: It has been a long time supportive friend of Pakistan, as was China.

USA: No doubt a superpower, I would rather our relationship with them is on a friend’s basis and not on a master/slave basis.”

With the revolution ebbing in no measure due to torrential rains and harsh weather, this may peter out on its own. If not, the need for diplomatic pressure to ease off mounting tensions and civil anarchy may be the need of the day.

If all else fails, is there any harm in resorting to this measure?