The writer was Pakistan’s ambassador to the EU from 2001-2004 and to the US in 1999
tariq.fatemi@tribune.com.pk
It is, therefore, not surprising that some political parties have chosen to say little on foreign policy or national security, other than merely reiterating clichés. Others have taken refuge behind slogans such as defence of “national honour and dignity”, which are not only attractive but also enable them to sound patriotic, while ignoring growing international concern that the country has not only become exceedingly corrupt, insecure and chaotic, but continues to be viewed as the “epicentre of global terror”.
Few seem to recognise that thanks to the unprecedented advancements in science and technology, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the US’s increasing inclination to pursue unilaterally its narrowly defined national interests, the classical concept of “state sovereignty”, as had been understood ever since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, has undergone a remarkable transformation. Though “multiple centres” of power have emerged, the above developments have made the task of crafting a meaningful and sustainable foreign policy and thereafter, executing well-defined aims and objectives to promote national interests, far more complex than is generally appreciated. This is especially true of countries that are not only weak and corrupt but thanks to the concessions and privileges granted to foreign powers by their authoritarian rulers, have lost many of the essential attributes of independence and sovereignty.
The consequences of this harsh reality have, however, not dawned on some of our leaders, who suffer from the misconception that mere acquaintance with popular tabloids and magazines equips them to hold forth on the intricacies and subtleties of national security. Sadly, the truth is far more nuanced and complicated. More worryingly, there appears little realisation that no country can have an effective foreign policy unless it is backed by a strong economy and good governance at home. The inherent linkage between domestic policy and foreign policy is lost on them, with many viewing the two as separate compartments, rather than as mirror images of one another.
Even well-meaning foreign friends have emphasised that Pakistan faces daunting challenges because failures on both fronts have reinforced the image that the state has become increasingly chaotic and ungovernable. While some may wish to take issue with such prognostications, there is no denying that the next government will be faced with daunting issues over the entire gamut of foreign relations.
The list is long, but it is terrorism that impacts on both domestic and foreign policies. It demands an unprecedented national resolve and a long-term and comprehensive plan of action that can come about only after a transformed mindset.
As regards relations with India, there is now an appreciable consensus amongst major political parties on the need to promote the normalisation process, but there is also concern at the lack of reciprocal enthusiasm. And, in addition to the existing laundry list of differences, the water problem is assuming alarming urgency for Pakistan.
It is, however, Afghanistan and more particularly, the post-2014 scenario that will surely be the biggest challenge. Unless this issue is handled with great skill and resolve, it could drag Pakistan into an Afghan civil war that would not only threaten our relations with the outside world, but also affect the country’s peace, stability and well-being. These call for a tested and tried leadership, not novices looking for on-the-job training.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 17th, 2013.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Milind: Thank you for your kind words.
Sir, I think India does not want to reciprocate in some rather unacceptable activities that some in Pakistan specialise in. Other than that India has given a lot more than it has had the pleasure of receiving. Group Visa on arrival, MFN, overly generous IWT, agreeing to give up POK, not indulging in MumbaiTaj Hotel like activities and a whole lot more. Pakistan is not on most Indians' mind in daily life. Indian schools do not teach 'hate Pakistan' themes. But you are right, they are too enthusastic about Pakistan. They are too occupied with themselves. "...but it is terrorism that impacts on both domestic and foreign policies." This part of the statement is rather revealing.
@gp65 - As always you shine with your spot on analysis!!! Take a bow!!!
Sir,
Can you please provide evidence of any concrete peaceful actions by Pakistan which have not been reciprocated by India? The reverse is true however i.e. MFN status was provided by India in 1996 which Pakistan is yet to provide. India has liberalised visas for Pakistani senior citizens - a gesture yet to be reciprocated by Pakistan.
As far as water goes @David_Smith's comment represents India's perspective accurately.
On the contrary, we do see hostile actions (words do not count) by Pakistani government:
The task of manufacturing outrage based on lies is being done by Pakistan's lgovernment with senior ministers like Rehman Malik giving statements like TTP is Indian agent, India is stealing water etc.
Funds are openly collected by LeT and JeM. Absolutely no attempt has been made to identify who were the planners of 26/11, let alone punish them.
Pakistan parliament passed a unanimous resolution supporting an Indian terrorist who was convicted by the Indian courts for attempting to bomb the Indian parliament.
Blatant interference in India's internal issues based on magazine articles (e.g. Rehman Malik asking India to provide security to Shah Rukh Khan - of course the irony here is far too much).
Ambassador, why do you throw in the "water problem"? By now, most people have understood that the IWT was an "unequal" treaty that gave away over 80% of the rivers waters to Pakistan, a condition never ever imposed on an upper riparian since then - one of the reasons why Pakistan gets rebuffed at every arbitration hearing that it goes to. Do you want to re-negotiate the IWT, certainly, the mood in India is that we were bullied by the World Bank and the west in 1960 to sign the IWT and this should now be revised. Perhaps, you should study China's position on water sharing and the complications it has caused for lower riparians of the Mekong, Salween, the Brahmaputra etc. to see how well Pakistan has been treated.
An excellent piece of work by the author. Analytically speaking the political parties are right in focusing the domestic issues which can fix the foreign policy automatically for being a mirror image of one another - but they don't comprehend it.
I am not sure I understand why Pakistanis perceive lack of reciprocity from India. Yes, Pakistan originated Kashmir violence is down, but it shouldn't have been there in the first place. You can't claim brownie points for encouraging less violence than before. Probe into Mumbai attacks is now looks intentionally slow and seems vulnerable to politics. Remember that MFN status discussion? That's not going anywhere. Water problem? For every argument your politicians offer, there is another international study that shows your water management is horrible. You can't get more water because your pot has holes.
"As regards relations with India, there is now an appreciable consensus amongst major political parties on the need to promote the normalisation process, but there is also concern at the lack of reciprocal enthusiasm." If such appreciable consensus amongst major political parties of Pakistan to the normalisation process is to succeed, similar concensus should be there towards prosecuting the culprits of mumbai incidents and absolute zero support to state sponcership of terrorism. Else it will end up in zilch.
Dear Author:
India is not showing much enthusiasm because even Indians know, like every Pakistani does, who pulls the strings of foreign policy in Pakistan. Politicians can just make some noises. Indians are waiting for 2014. To see if establishment is serious about rapprochement or just wants to go back to the good old days. The way establishment picked up the "water" issue, signs are ominous.
"These call for a tested and tried leadership, not novices looking for on-the-job training". What exactly is Ambassador Fatemi saying, is he advocating that the same old clique come back which has devastated the country with rampant corruption and incompetence. Yes, the next government will face horrendous problems economical, political and in foreign policy. If the learned ambassador is hinting about the change Imran Khan is talking about, then I should remind him that George Bush, Reagan and Carter were only governors, and they became Presidents and learned the ropes during presidency.The fact is that most of the countries has capable bureaucracies including Pakistan and a capable career foreign service which is right in your alley.It seems that the bureaucracy is running the show anyway, the elected ones come and go and in Pakistan's case the dictators too but the bureaucrats just stay there for ever. If by any chance Imran Khan's party is elected and given the chance to form a government then people like yourself should be helpful formulating future foreign policies of the country.I believe there are lots of people like yourself will be available to guide and advise the new government which as you say will be on job training. By the way thank you for your services to the nation in the past and even now.
Pakistan foreign policy is dictated by the military not the elected Civilian govt. Voters may care about foreign policy but their vote doesn't influence it.