We will keep the moral high ground with regard to India
To say Pakistan faces a number of foreign policy challenges amounts to stating the obvious. Tension with India is at its highest in years, if not decades. Whatever designs of peace and trade the ruling party had when coming into power have long since evaporated. There was considerable progress with Afghanistan, but the momentum generated by the Murree talks has also all but dissipated. The Americans were happy when Pakistan got everybody talking about Afghanistan, but now they are also becoming unhappy with a number of developments related to Pakistan’s role in the war against terrorism.
The regional landscape is changing in other ways too. Chinese investments in the Corridor can, if carried out correctly, really change the region. And with Iran moving out of the sanctions era, there is no telling what enhanced Pak-Iran trade can do; not just for the two countries but the whole region.
To sort through this foreign policy maze, DNA talked exclusively to Masood Khan, one of the brighter spots in Pakistan’s diplomatic cadre.
Question:Pakistan received a fair bit of appreciation from the US after the Murree talks. But then the news about Mullah Omer caused all sorts of controversy. And very quickly Washington asked Pakistan to “do more” again, especially about the Haqqanis. Where do you think the relationship stands now and where is it headed?
Masood Khan: The relations between the US and Pakistan are doing well. In regard to Afghanistan, on a number of issues Washington has taken fair and objective positions and recognised the singularly pivotal role Pakistan played in bringing the representatives of the Afghan government and the Taliban to the peace table. The US has also acknowledged Pakistan’s own limitations, challenges and preoccupations.
The invocation of “do more”, in the present circumstances, applies to all key countries and actors — the US, Afghan government, the Taliban; and not just Pakistan. In fact, a ‘to do’ list will be more apt. The US, because of its proven clout with President Ashraf Ghani and CE Abdullah Abdullah, should persuade them to resolve their internecine differences and make a pitch for the resumption of the dialogue. Afghanistan itself should be proactive in pursuing peace and reconciliation with the Taliban and other factions to put an end to violence and bloodshed. The people of Afghanistan deserve that after going through prolonged turbulence and suffering. And the Taliban should stop infighting and give a signal for coming back to peace talks.
Pakistan, for its part, needs to continue to engage its interlocutors to bring them back to the path of negotiations. Despite numerous provocations and accusations, Pakistan should stoically stay the course. This is in our interest, without a doubt
Pakistan, for its part, needs to continue to engage its interlocutors to bring them back to the path of negotiations. Despite numerous provocations and accusations, Pakistan should stoically stay the course. This is in our interest, without a doubt.
And China must stay in the play to build confidence and create a conducive environment.
Q: Afghan President Ghani staked his reputation on reaching out to Pakistan. No doubt he faced a lot of internal pressure, both from the Karzai camp and the Abdullah Abdullah faction of government. Do you think he caved in prematurely? What is the future Kabul-Islamabad scenario under his watch?
MK: The entente between Pakistan and Afghanistan must be salvaged and protected. Once again, the Afghan leadership has gone to the media with blistering accusations against Pakistan. This has inflamed sentiment. But Pakistan has acted responsibly. It is evident that President Ghani is under immense pressure; but we expect high statesmanship from the Afghan leadership; not brinkmanship. Afghanistan and Pakistan will have to craft their own future scenario. It is not a given. It is a difficult pathway consciously chosen by the two sides despite all the risks. Nobody said that this would be an easy ride. The two sides need to re-engage energetically to remove all the irritants.
As the two sides address hard core security issues, they must simultaneously work on their economic agenda and follow up on the decisions they have taken.
Q: The Indians are clearly not going to play ball, at least till this government occupies office. But doesn’t its extremism surprise you? India is a diverse polity, and such extreme right of centre positions can’t possibly find backing nation-wide? What do you think is at play and what is Modi’s long term plan?
MK: The extremism in the Indian polity does not surprise us. It dates back to the pre-Independence days. But the doctrinal centrality of extremism and its backing by ascendant political and militant forces in India is worrisome primarily for the Indian citizens, including minorities. It could, in the long run, play havoc with regional peace and stability. We say so as we too fight different forms of violent extremism which ought to be ostracised. I add this because extremism begets extremism and starts a vicious cycle of hatred and violence. We should avoid this at all costs.
We do not know what long-term plans the Modi government has. One thing is clear: engagement with Pakistan is not on their cards; otherwise they would have not wasted Pakistan’s repeated overtures. They want to dispatch the Jammu and Kashmir dispute to the back-burner and make Pakistan a party to this approach; and they want to tune out on Pakistan’s narrative, backed by evidence, regarding India’s involvement in terrorist and subversive actions in Pakistan. Pakistan will not let that happen. Pakistan will continue to insist on a fair and just dispensation for the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and we are taking all necessary steps to counter Indian-backed terrorism and expose it. There is another and more virulent story on terrorism; and that is Pakistan’s story on India’s designs to destabilise and isolate Pakistan.
That said, we won’t abandon moral high ground for dialogue; and our quest to resolve all outstanding issues with India peacefully.
Q: The Chinese seem to be the silver lining on the foreign policy cloud. How do you see their Corridor playing out? Should dangers to their economy concern us? Also, do you see any political or security bottlenecks along the way?
MK: China’s is a colossal economy growing at a steady pace and it has enormous absorptive capacity. It will be able to deal with cyclical fluctuations, to which all major economies are susceptible. China will continue its march towards becoming the largest economy in the world. So we need not worry on account of China’s economy. In fact, China deliberately slowed down its economy to rein in its galloping speed. The emphasis is now on quality, what China chooses to call ‘new normal.’ The CPEC and its funding will remain on course. There could be political and security risks, but all would depend on the dexterity and ingenuity with which we manage them. There is already political consensus behind the CPEC. A new security division has been created by Pakistan to protect Chinese investments, facilities and personnel. The preparation is there; but we have to be constantly vigilant.
Mr Sartaj Aziz is a very capable diplomat and he is delivering on foreign affairs. So we have a full time foreign minister, minus the title. We mustn’t forget that the prime minister holds the portfolio of foreign affairs
Q: The west is beginning to open up to Iran, and so are we, even if just a little. There has been a border security arrangement recently and Pak-Iran trade is set to rise to $5b in five years. Other than that, what areas can the two countries cooperate in? Of course, there is always the gulf angle. Do you think that will be in irritant?
MK: In addition to a rapid boost in our trade from the present US$217 million to $ 5 billion in the next five years, the real bonanza would be the completion of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. We are planning to increase import of electricity from Iran from the present 100 MW to 1,000 MW, and lay a transmission line for its supply. We would also need Iranian oil for our industry and consumers. Pakistan government has announced its plans to set up industrial sites near the Pakistan-Iran border for petrochemical storage. Appropriate banking mechanisms are being established to facilitate transactions. This is not going to be one-way traffic from Iran to Pakistan. There is an appetite in the Iranian market for Pakistani textiles, sports goods, surgical instruments, and agricultural produce. So as you can see, a raft of avenues would open up.
Q: Why is Pakistan still without a full time foreign minister? Does this affect the working of the foreign office in any way?
MK: Mr Sartaj Aziz is a very capable diplomat and he is delivering on foreign affairs. So we have a full time foreign minister, minus the title. We mustn’t forget that the prime minister holds the portfolio of foreign affairs. Besides, the government has attained major successes in foreign policy except in Pakistan-India relations and that too because of the intractability of the issues involved and the intransigence of Indian leadership.
Q: Pakistan expects to raise Kashmir at the UN General Assembly shortly. How do you think it will impact the politics related to Kashmir, and how does the world view this problem in this day and age and, more importantly, with India’s belligerent PR outreach?
MK: The prime minister will raise the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, like last year, in the UN General Assembly. Kashmir is already on the agenda of the Security Council but it has remained dormant over the past several decades. The situation in Kashmir, and the impasse in the bilateral talks on it, would also be a key talking point in the prime minister’s conversations with other world leaders gathered in New York and the UN Secretary General. This is going to have a profound impact on the situation in the Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and international public opinion. The world does not want to see the two South Asian nuclear armed states drifting towards war; nor should India and Pakistan themselves. By cancelling the scheduled talks between the two national security advisers, India has inadvertently given a new prominence to Kashmir. But this by itself is not a decisive advantage for Pakistan. We need adroit diplomacy to rivet the international attention on the continuing plight of Kashmiris and India’s refusal to address the issue. There is no such thing as fatigue in regard to a conflict situation as long as it threatens peace and security. The issue of Kashmir does not have the limitation of a shelf life; the UN Security Council resolutions are still valid and operative. The political will behind the advocacy of the Kashmir cause will determine the degree of the international community’s response and interest. Realpolitik is, however, always a hampering factor and we mustn’t lose sight of that when embarking on any diplomatic campaign.
