Off-the-cuff disregard for diplomatic niceties

"The Chinese are very clear; no matter how lucrative an investment is anywhere, if the security issue is there, they do not send Chinese personnel. Your country is the only exception."

These remarks by Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar at a recent seminar in Islamabad triggered an unprecedented near-diplomatic spat between the two countries. Never before did diplomats of the two countries go public with such an expression of "displeasure and discomfort" over what the other side stated.

Only a person with integrity, an acute sense of responsibility and full of pride with a national spirit could say what the Chinese Ambassador, Jiang Zaidong, said in response to the unguarded words that Dar attributed to President Xi Jinping.

"It is very unacceptable for us to be attacked twice in only six months, and these attacks have also caused causalities. President Xi cares about Chinese people's security and puts people's lives first. He especially cares about the security of the Chinese people in Pakistan," Ambassador Jiang said during a speech at a recent seminar (Oct 30).

"Every time when he (President Xi) meets with Pakistani leaders, he asks for taking measures to ensure the security of Chinese personnel, institutions, and projects. Security is the biggest concern for China and a constraint to CPEC in Pakistan," said the Ambassador, highlighting that the safety of every individual Chinese national is of utmost importance to his country's leadership.

The fact that the Chinese ambassador included President Xi's "concerns for the safety of the Chinese working in Pakistan" in his public speech indicates a new approach by Beijing to press Islamabad to enhance the protection of Chinese personnel in the country.

To the shock of many, it was the first time a Chinese ambassador publicly used phrases such as "unacceptable" and "security is the biggest concern" when spelling out the way forward for CPEC.

Was it a strong snub to Dar and other Pakistani leaders who keep touting CPEC as a game-changer without caring for the elaborate planning and security mechanisms required for the volatile environment that Pakistan is in?

But it did not stop there.

"The statement of the Chinese ambassador is perplexing and is not reflective of the diplomatic traditions between Pakistan and China," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mumtaz Baloch responded at her October 31 weekly news conference when asked for her reaction to Ambassador Jiang's scathing remarks.

Ms Baloch's characterisation of "perplexing" too was the first that a Pakistani official scored in what appeared to be an unguarded response to the ambassador of a country that has stood by Pakistan through thick and thin.

This also reflected the reckless, loudmouth and irresponsible behaviour that has become increasingly typical of Pakistani civil-military officials and the political elites.

Only a few weeks earlier, within hours of the Karachi incident involving the death of two Chinese officials, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb indulged in similar casual conduct, only to go back on his statement the following day.

"The ones killed were the Independent Power Producers engineers with whom Energy Minister Awais Leghari and I were negotiating in terms of our request to re-profile our debt and extend (payment) maturities, so that we can reduce power tariff and provide relief to the public," Aurangzeb said in a pre-recorded message.

Aurangzeb obviously forgot that financial matters are not dealt by engineers and he had to issue a clarification next day.

Another example of extremely irresponsible conduct - disregarding diplomatic sensitivities and protocols - involved Khawaja Asif, the then-foreign minister, amid a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) plenary that had just gotten underway in Paris in February 2018.

In his reckless midnight tweet from Moscow, Asif claimed: "Our efforts paid, FATF Paris 20 Feb meeting conclusion on the US-led motion to put Pakistan on watch list….No consensus for nominating Pakistan, proposing three months pause and asking APG [Asia Pacific Group] for another report to be concluded in June."

Within hours, FATF spokesperson Alexandra Wijmenga-Daniel hit back by saying: "All member countries are obliged to keep all decisions to themselves until the FATF itself announces the outcomes, but the foreign minister chose to preempt the final announcements and caused quite a discomforting situation for China, which had been standing firm on Pakistan's side at multiple international forums including the UN and FATF."

The latest Sino-Pakistan spat also reminded me of a similar episode in 2009. As we were discussing terrorism at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, news attributed to President Asif Zardari trickled in: "Pakistan Army will soon launch an operation against terrorists in Waziristan."

During the tea break, two scholars walked up to me and asked how you could get hold of thieves (terrorists) when your President was warning them beforehand that they were coming for them.

This terse remark took me off-guard but did sensitise me on the conduct of our civil, military leadership's loud-mouth, reckless and un-calculated talk on critical issues. For most outsiders, this attitude is akin to unnecessary drum-beating - evident from the banner headlines and news tickers on TV screens on actions and outcomes by the security forces.

During his Pakistan visit in October, Premier Li Qiang also emphasised the importance of security for economic development and cooperation and promised to further deepen economic cooperation with Pakistan, but only if the Pakistani side could create a "conducive and safe environment" for the Chinese people.

Since the Karachi incident on October 6, when two Chinese had been killed in an ambush, China's desire for a joint collaborative security mechanism has grown stronger, if Pakistan is keen on retaining the Chinese commercial and strategic interest.

The message emanating from the Chinese top-tier leadership is increasingly categorical: things cannot go on as usual anymore. CPEC cannot move forward without an elaborate and mutually agreeable security mechanism.