It’s an economic multiplier
Foreign policy of any country draws strength from the political, security and economic stability at its domestic front. The resultant success in the foreign policy reinforces the three factors further. Successful democratic transition in Pakistan during 2013 has added modest strength to the political, security and economic domains and enhanced credibility of the country’s policies
Not many people envy the position of the foreign ministry’s spokesman in the present setting. For one thing, the ministry never hears the end of not having a dedicated minister; even though it is in no way the ministry’s decision.
Then there’s all the headlines about Pakistan’s ‘isolation’ at the regional, and wider, level. The Afghans haven’t liked or trusted us for a while. The Indians have probably never liked or trusted us. And the Americans, again, no longer seem to like or trust us.
And with the cabinet not very vocal in its response, it falls on to the foreign ministry’s spokesman, at the end of the day, to explain the policy position.
The ministry has always been fortunate to draw from the finest of the civil service. Its big boys have stood shoulder to shoulder with bureaucrats and diplomats from across the world. And it is a very well functioning machine. Former Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri, in one of his interviews with DNA, called it the country’s best working institution, most likely, after the military.
That is probably whey it has kept up its good work even in the absence of a full-time minister. And it has been fortunate (since Feb ’16 at least) according to observers, to have Nafees Zakaria as its spokesman.
Needless to say, he brings a ton of experience to the job. National Security and War Course at NDU, Consul General Toronto, Minister and Consul General London, DG Europe, service in Bangkok, Jakarta and Dubai, just to name a few.
And he was generous enough to talk exclusively to DNA regarding Pakistan’s current foreign policy challanges.
Question: Who is really responsible for Pakistan’s foreign policy crisis? Is it the prime minister, who refuses to appoint a full time foreign minister and retains the portfolio, even though he’s neck-deep in politics of survival and cannot give foreign affairs enough attention? Or is it the ‘establishment’, which took over foreign affairs and now has little to show for it?
Nafees Zakaria: There is no foreign policy crisis. People are reacting to what they see on the surface_the momentary changes and recalibration owing to changing regional and global political scene. In the recent developments and emerging trends of power politics and geo-economics in the Asia-Pacific region_ the region of relevance and primary importance to Pakistan, new power centres and new partnerships are shaping up.
Foreign policy of any country draws strength from the political, security and economic stability at its domestic front. The resultant success in the foreign policy reinforces the three factors further. Successful democratic transition in Pakistan during 2013 has added modest strength to the political, security and economic domains and enhanced credibility of the country’s policies, thereby opening up more opportunities, enabling us to play a greater role in the global affairs. Adviser, Mr Sartaj Aziz, has twice in his media briefings outlined Pakistan’s adaptation in foreign policy focus and related achievements.
Let me recount it for you. The path breaking transformation in Pakistan’s partnership with China as manifested, inter alia, in CPEC, enhanced cooperation with the Central Asian states reflected in the finalisation of CASA-1000 and TAPI, and Pakistan’s full membership of SCO, a landmark which signifiesunprecedented strengthening of relations with Russia. In the standing diplomatic domain, the effectiveness with which Kashmir issue has been projected with strengthened OIC membership’s backing, success in Pakistan’s claim of 150 Nautical Miles of Exclusive Economic Zone, which was not a small feat, resumption of strategic dialogue with the US, gaining EU’s GSP+ status, joining of Muslim countries’ military coalition for CT, and winning of 17 of the 18 seats at various UN and other international bodies are some of the reflections of our achievements at the foreign policy front.
With regard to absence of foreign minister, I recall what the Adviser had said the other day. “It is not unprecedented, many prime ministers of a number of countries did not have de jure foreign ministers. Even when you have a foreign minister, prime minister is a de facto foreign minister, because a nation’s foreign policy is directly linked to the country’s national security.”
Foreign policy is also a consultative process between a country’s multiple institutions, viz foreign office, defence, commerce, and other sectors, which vary from country to country in terms of significance. I think if you analyse the changing trends of new emerging partnerships with bearing on our region and interplay of geopolitics and geo-economics in the regional context, Pakistan’s calibration of its foreign policy will pay the dividends in the long run. The policy direction may have challenges for the time being but it serves our national interests best in long term.
Q: Is Pakistan playing catch-up with India? How would you rate PM Modi’s personal touch to diplomacy while trying to lobby support for India’s entry into the NSG?
NZ: I would not prefer to comment on the efforts and strategy of others. I would rather like to reflect on what our policy is, what our principled stance is and how we may endeavour to achieve what is important for our country. We are not in competition but in pursuit of our own national goals and interests, amidst all the challenges we are facing on both the fronts, external and internal.
I think Pakistan has done more than enough. It is time that those at the helm in Afghanistan and the international community, especially the west, do their part. Though we have done enough yet we remain committed to the collective efforts and shared responsibility towards restoring peace and stability in Afghanistan
It has been our consistent position that the question of NSG membership for non-NPT states must be dealt with in accordance with a single, uniform, non-discriminatory and fair criteria. Therefore, it is absolutely essential for NSG to consider the Indian and Pakistani applications simultaneously and in an even-handed manner. The applications of Pakistan and India cannot be considered in isolation from the goal of maintaining strategic stability in South Asia. I think our principled position has resonated at Seoul among the NSG members.
At the same time, we firmly believe that our country’s NSG application stands on solid grounds of technical experience, capability and well-established commitment to non-proliferation and nuclear safety and security. Pakistan’s NSG membership will promote NSG non-proliferation objectives by the inclusion of a state with nuclear supply capabilities and its adherence to NSG Guidelines. Pakistan will continue its efforts to meet international standards since it is an undertaking that Pakistan itself takes seriously as a responsible nuclear power. We will continue to make efforts to muster the NSG members’ support.
Q: Do you think the Chabahar Port pact between India, Afghanistan and Iran was a ‘stab in the back of Pakistan’, like some analysts have tried to portray it?
NZ: I understand that you have mentioned Chabahar with an obvious reference to CPEC. I have heard people’s views that supposedly it is an attempt to bypass Pakistan with a view to have a direct access to landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asia.
I wouldn’t take it in that sense. I would rather see it, in part, as a race for grabbing greater economic share of potential that our region offers or holds for those who wish to venture in and exploit it. Implementation of CPEC is the most important priority of this government. From Pakistan’s perspective, CPEC has economic significance and conforms to Pakistan’s vision of regional connectivity paradigm.
Our policy of peaceful neighbourhood is very important because our policies will complement those of our neighbours in the future. When our connectivity with China will increase, it would also open opportunities with Central Asia. If the route through Pakistan is the shortest and the least expensive transit route, people will use it. It’s about market forces and competitiveness. There is so much potential in terms of development of infrastructure for connectivity in the region that Gwadar and Chabahar are not enough — we will need more such ports in the region. After that, economics will take over — efficient ports will attract more traffic. There are many ports in the Far East but Singapore attracts more traffic because it is more efficient and provides better services. If Karachi and Gwadar ports are efficient and provide better services to both importers and exporters, they will attract more traffic.
If CPEC is successfully implemented, it will fundamentally improve lives of the people in the region. It’s not just a corridor, it is a major infrastructure project attracting investments in industrial sector and generating employment. CPEC is an economic multiplier. This will become more and more evident as the project progresses.
Q: What, in your opinion, is the way out of the Pak-Afghan logjam? Could we really have asked more of President Ghani, who staked his presidency on a thaw with Pakistan? Or is it that Pakistan really did not do enough this time? We did promise bringing the Afghan Taliban to the talks but were eventually unable to do so.
NZ: Our relationship with Afghanistan is multi-dimensional. We share the longest border with Afghanistan than with our any other neighbour. The common religion and culture, linguistic affinities, economic inter-dependence and competing strategic interests are the bonds that keep the destinies of the people of the two countries intertwined. Historically, thousands of people, on both sides of the border, cross into each other’s territories every day for a variety of reasons, including trading, social, family ties, religious, cultural, education, economic opportunities, etc.
Pakistan has highest stakes in peace and stability in Afghanistan since it directly impacts us. I would invite your attention to a November 2009 report presented to the members of US Congress Foreign Relations Committee, entitled: ‘Tora Bora Revisited.’ I’ll reproduced an excerpt from the report to strengthen the argument that why stability in Afghanistan is important for Pakistan. The Report read: “Removing the al Qaeda leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat. But the decisions that opened the door for his (OBL) escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity thatforever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism,laying the foundation for today’s protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan…”
As to your remarks regarding what Pakistan has done to support Afghans, I would draw your attention to the millions of Afghan refugees we are hosting without the international community’s assistance in substantive terms for 35 years. During this period we were subjected to economic sanctions as well. Pakistan has been facing the brunt of 37 years of turmoil in Afghanistan. As a responsible member of the international community, Pakistan also allowed logistical support to the ISAF forces in Afghanistan, for eventual restoration of peace in Afghanistan. Sustaining ISAF would not have been possible had Pakistan not extended the cooperation. Unfortunately, all those who benefitted from Pakistan’s assistance, hospitality, cooperation and sacrifices shy away from expressing their gratitude.
I think Pakistan has done more than enough. It is time that those at the helm in Afghanistan and the international community, especially the west, do their part. Though we have done enough yet we remain committed to the collective efforts and shared responsibility towards restoring peace and stability in Afghanistan.
The agreement on evolving an institutional mechanism for bilateral consultation at the recent meeting on border management is expected to iron out differences and bridge communication gap. It may be pertinent to underline that border management is key to our counter terrorism efforts, which is beneficial for Pakistan, Afghanistan and the coalition forces in Afghanistan and, therefore, their cooperation in this regard is also essential.
Q: Yet another great Afghan war is ending with the Americans “abandoning us”, like some people in the military are saying. Do you think it’s as simple a matter as the US simply getting what it wanted and walking away, like last time?
NZ: It is a matter of grave concern to us to see that 15 years of military intervention by the major powers’ collective efforts has not changed the security situation in Afghanistan. We maintain that there should be concerted efforts and major thrust on negotiated settlement between the Afghan warring factions. While Pakistan remains committed to seeing peace in Afghanistan and calls for international community’s support, we believe that any process should be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned. We are willing to help in peace process whenever the Afghan government is ready.
Q: NSG fever gripped the international community during the last few weeks. Numerous media discourses also remained focus on the issue. How has Pakistan seen the outcome of the Seoul meeting?
NZ: Firstly, there is a misunderstanding that there was discussion on only one country’s membership application. The discussion was largely on the issue of membership to non-NPT signatories. As I mentioned earlier, the position taken by the NSG members resonated Pakistan’s principled stand with reference to the strategic stability in South Asia, which could only be ensured through adoption of a non-discriminatory and criteria based approach. However, we since believe that our credentials merit our membership without discrimination, we are continuing our efforts to acquire the membership of NSG.
