And Pakistan’s foreign policy conundrum
The recent turn of events in the Middle East has put Pakistan in a particularly awkward position diplomatically. The decision of Saudi Arabia to form this coalition and offhand inclusion of Pakistan in it by the host posits serious issues for us. Pakistan, while enjoying excellent and historical bilateral relations with KSA, has various problems of its own. We are a turbulent country ourselves, with external and internal security threats, troops’ mobilisation and sectarian troubles already. Can we afford further stretch? Meanwhile, Pakistan has to first view the dynamics of the Middle East before taking any decision in this regard.
However, the problem is not with the coalition per se; rather the problem lies in the ambiguous nature of Pakistan’s inclusion. Given the nature of our relations with Saudi Arabia, it comes naturally to the Gulf giants that Pakistan is going to be in. However, have we explicitly said so? The answer is no – not a clear one, but nevertheless a no.
Sartaj Aziz, advisor to the PM on foreign affairs, briefed the National Assembly on Wednesday the 17th that Pakistan was still unaware about the Saudi-led coalition and was awaiting further clarification.
But then what is Pakistan’s army doing in Saudi Arabia? According to Aziz, this was just a part of the military cooperation that existed between the two countries. The Foreign Office has also explicitly declared that Pakistan was not in favour that the Bashar regime be toppled down. But what exactly are we doing? And what should we be doing?
The Syria honeycomb
The centre of rage currently is Syria, where civil war and refugee crisis have become the biggest problems. Since 2011, various Syrian rebels and Free Syrian Army (a faction of the army that went anti-regime) have been making explicit attempts to get rid of the dynastic dictator Bashar al Assad, but to no avail. However, in the wake of the war, various proxy battles have sprung up in the Middle East, with long-standing implications.
Hence, all these various parties to their respective conflicts have further used the Syrian tragedy to suit their own agendas and interests. The Syrian civil war might definitely have fared and ended well had Syria been left alone rather than having outside interruptions. Consequently, Syria has ended up in a honeycomb with various groups supporting different parties to the conflict. For the sake of simplicity, the Syrian stakeholders have been divided into two classes; pro-Bashar and the rebels. The following figure shows the different groups backing each of these:
This whole mesh therefore has led to a number of further confusions, with a lot of vested interests in the region. Before sending or not sending Pakistan’s troops in the military-led coalition into Syria, Pakistan must analyse the pros and cons of this step.
Renowned analyst, civilian military scientist, author and former bureaucrat Ayesha Siddiqa talked about these different parties while giving her comments to DNA.
“Russia and Iran support Bashar,” she said. “US’ position is not clear. But Hezbollah supporting Syria is clearly backed by Iran. So in essence, a proxy war is already going on between Saudi Arabia and Iran.”
By indulging in the region, we would be effectively saying no to our policy of non-alignment and upholding the unity of Islamic world. Furthermore, we will be indulging in proxy wars that do not have anything to do with our national interests. So it is prudent to weigh all the options that we have.
Take your pick – Saudi Arabia or not
Pakistan has historically enjoyed an amicable relationship with Saudi Arabia, and this is due to a number of very valid reasons. Saudi Arabia is the figurehead of the Islamic world. Possessor of the holy cities, one of the largest suppliers of oil to Pakistan, and the importer of Pakistani labour in its territory with open arms – it has proven to be our time-tested friend and benefactor. Few highlights of this relation are given below:
It is no wonder, that after enjoying such historical ties Saudi Arabia may expect some sort of support from Pakistan.
“Given the nature of our relationship with KSA, we might feel that we hardly have any other options,” said Dr Ayesha.
“We have a perceived dependence on KSA, therefore we might want to help them and keep them engaged.”
However, there are many other ways of keeping engaged rather than indulging in the Syrian war. Dr Siddiqa also highlighted this fact. Though we have always been helping KSA whenever military was required, but she said that the reasons and the dynamics were different back then.
“Whenever we have sent army to KSA,” she asserted, “it was always against the perceived threat from Israel.”
And it is not just Pakistan’s indebtedness to KSA that makes us engage our military for its security, rather the strength of the Pakistan army is one of the major causes behind it.
“Saudis do not have a strong army,” she added. “So who will fight on their behalf? They have always kept Pakistan on the forefront. Even when the siege of Makkah was laid in 1979, the French helped the Saudis in getting the siege cleared. However, they gave the credit to Pakistan.”
It is true that KSA enjoys a commendable relationship with Pakistan, but there is a group of Pakistanis who will definitely feel very disappointed if Pakistan takes sides against Iran-backed Bashar regime. A close look of Pakistan-Iran relations is given in the following figure:
And these figures are not enough. We know that the relationships with Saudi Arabia and Iran both have their sectarian perspectives as well. In a country already marred with sectarian bloodshed, such decisions need to be taken very carefully.
Shamshad Ahmad, expert diplomat and former foreign secretary of Pakistan, also expressed his opinions on this issue. He too thinks that this will fuel a proxy war, which is not good for Pakistan either way.
“The sectarian angle is there,” he agreed. “A proxy war will be fuelled, and the sectarian situation is already very delicate in the country.”
So taking a pick is not very easy for Pakistan at the moment. Dr Siddiqa too thinks that an irrational decision will have troubled implications on the internal security situation of Pakistan.
“The internal consequences can be problematic for Pakistan,” she said.
Pakistan’s diplomatic stance – historically and currently
Pakistan has historically been following the policy of non-alignment, and the foreign policy has been more or less uniform no matter which party was in government. The salient features of the foreign policy of Pakistan are given as under:
Ideologically speaking, being partial in this conflict might implies a breach of Pakistan’s own foreign policy. Shamshad Ahmed also shed light on this.
“In any case taking sides on this issue is not in conformity with Pakistan’s foreign policy,” he said.
“There are two policy constants of our foreign policy; our stance on Kashmir and impartiality in intra-Muslim conflicts. We can try to mediate, but we cannot be a party to any of the conflicts that arise in the Muslim world. No government in Pakistan has ever deviated from these constants. In this tension between Arabs and Iranians, we should keep aloof.”
He went on with his analysis.
“In 68 years, we have maintained this stance. Now because of personal indebtedness, if we do not continue, this will be wrong. We have never been any party in any tension between Arabs and Iran.”
Moreover, he believes that Pakistan has not adopted any partiality even now.
“The statement of Sartaj Aziz has highlighted that we are not clear about this coalition,” he added.
But why exactly is Pakistan not negating the coalition is a question that most Pakistanis have.
“It is obvious that we are keeping ambiguity,” said Dr Siddiqa. “We did not say no to the coalition when KSA asked us to join, as we wanted to stay engaged. But we are not becoming a part of any war either. We are just continuing with the ambiguity.”
Hence, impartiality is the only option Pakistan has in light of its own foreign policy and constitutional commitments. And that is what we are doing; by not negating the coalition, but still not giving any commitment to sending troops to fight the Syrian regime either. The last thing Pakistan wants on its plate right now is breaching its own foreign policy commitments and ending up in even more turbulent internal security; by being part of a proxy war. However, the foreign office needs to be careful while issuing any statements. We do not really want to give out a wrong impression either, by sounding to be willing for something we do not intend to do in the first place.
The way forward
The next question is what next?
For any country, its constitution serves as the basic legal document that guides it in most situations. The same holds for Pakistan. So what does our constitution say? Shamshad Ahmad has an answer.
“If you look at the Article 40 of the constitution, it will be clear that we are committed to the solidarity of the Muslim world. Hence it is our constitutional commitment as well.”
Given our constitutional and foreign policy commitments, we need to ensure the unity of Muslim world rather than encouraging warfare. But we know that both sides to this conflict are intent on smashing each other for some balance of power struggle. So how do we handle our Arab friends here?
“You need to be careful but you need to stay engaged as well. We can tell our Arab friends that we do understand the importance of their security, but maybe they need to calm down.” Dr Ayesha Siddiqa said.
