The writer is an independent political and defence analyst. He is also the author of several books, monographs and articles on Pakistan and South Asian Affairs
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Foreign Office officials have rejected the concern that Pakistan would get actively involved in any interstate power politics in the Middle East and the Gulf region. Pakistan’s official circles have also maintained that regular troops would not be sent to Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.
Despite the repeated statement of Pakistani officials about its non-partisan disposition on Middle Eastern affairs, strong doubts persist regarding whether Pakistan can maintain a nonpartisan disposition given the favours being showered on Pakistan by the conservative Arab states. If Pakistan’s foreign policy and domestic choices are influenced by American economic and military assistance and military sales, how could the Arab largesse have no impact on the country foreign policy at a time when this assistance is much needed by the Nawaz Sharif government?
The doubts about Pakistan’s Middle Eastern policy were created by the desire of the federal government to act mysteriously about the donation of $1.5 billion by Saudi Arabia. Initially, the federal government refused to name the donor country. However, as the media tracked the name, the federal government admitted it. The policy of not disclosing the name of Saudi Arabia created a suspicion about the motive of such a gift.
Earlier, Pakistan endorsed the Saudi position on the replacement of Bashar alAssad’s government in Syria with an interim arrangement in the communique issued at the conclusion of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia’s visit to Pakistan.
The visit of the ruler of Bahrain between March 18 and March 20 within a month of high-level Saudi visits, raised eyebrows as to what is happening.
Current Saudi-Bahrain interest in Pakistan has to be understood with reference to the countries’ efforts to expand their influence in the region and contain Iran’s anti-monarchical ambitions in the region. They also want to support their favourites in strife-ridden countries in the Middle East such as Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Egypt.
Saudi Arabia is now building a role in the Middle East, which is autonomous of the United States. This reflects Saudi Arabia’s disappointment in US policies towards Syria and Iran. Initially, the US was supportive of the demand for the removal of Bashar alAssad’s government in Syria. However, as al Qaeda linked groups and anti-US militant groups have gained ground, the US has become cautious in supporting dissident groups because it did not want hardline and anti-US groups to replace Bashar alAssad. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia began supporting some Salafi groups that had pro-Saudi orientation. But these pro-Saudi groups or pro-al Qaeda groups could not succeed against the Syrian government without the US support which was not forthcoming.
The other development that perturbed Saudi Arabia was the US decision to seek a negotiated solution of Iran’s nuclear programme. The interim agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear programme to peaceful purposes in November 2013 began to change the relations between Iran and the US. Now, the US and Iran are negotiating the final agreement to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme to peaceful purpose. This is not a welcome development for Saudi Arabia because the withdrawal of US pressure on Iran after the signing of the final agreement would give the later the opportunity to devote more attention to economic development and it could become more active in pursuing its political agenda.
These factors have led Saudi Arabia to cultivate more active relations with other states in and around the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain began to work together to contain liberal politics that grew out of the Arab Spring and Iran’s influence. They also worked towards restricting the role of the al Qaeda-linked groups and promoting those religious hardliner groups in Salafi tradition that were linked with their regional agenda.
This cooperative move received a setback when Qatar supported the Muslim Brotherhood after the Egyptian Army’s overthrow of President Morsi’s government (2013). Annoyed by Qatar’s move, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar. This caused a temporary breach among the conservative Arab kingdoms, which weakens their efforts to contain the influence of Iran and adopt a unified stand on Syria. Qatar has a strong American military presence.
Saudi Arabia views Pakistan as an important country for security and stability in the region. It views the Pakistan military as a professional force that can be relied on for Saudi Arabia’s internal security. Pakistan’s defence industry is more developed than that of any Arab country. Moreover, Pakistan also has highly professional people in the science and technology sector who can be used for civilian and military purposes.
Even if there is no formal deployment of Pakistan’s regular army troops in Saudi Arabia, it can directly recruit retired military personnel. Some Pakistani military personnel may seek retirement for a security-related job in Saudi Arabia. It is possible that Saudi Arabia buys small weapons, arms and ammunition from Pakistan for strategic purposes. Some of this equipment may be passed on to pro-Saudi rebels in Syria.
Bahrain already recruits Pakistanis for its police and paramilitary force. It can easily increase recruitment from Pakistan. While pursuing relations with the conservative Arab states, Pakistan should not entangle itself in dynastic and power politics in the Middle East. It must also maintain equally friendly relations with Iran. The reality of geography and economic considerations make it imperative to maintain friendly relations with Iran. The criteria for relationship with the Middle Eastern states should only be bilateralism and mutually beneficial considerations.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 24th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713853507-0/MalalaHilary-(2)1713853507-0-270x192.webp)
1200 years ago the Middle East interfered in South Asia . History has come a full circle. Go for it Pakistan !
@Qaisrani:
Unfortunate that strategy and financial aid economy is seen through the same myopic views pivoted around anti-Indian loathing and sectarian prejudice. Opposing Iran, our neighbour, on the Syrian conflict is one thing, but to adopt a hostile agenda with another brutal regime is insane. Its clear hypocrisy not to take note of Saudi Arabia's own intervention in Bahrain and Islamist militants they've pumped into Syria, killing 1000s too (spilling into Iraq and Lebanon), and not see how this may blowback in Pakistan, since we suffer the same local and foreign militant.
This sectarian bias disingenuously puts the onus on Iran, when documented evidence shows Saudis as chief exporters of sectarianism in Pak, if not globally. Their ideology radicalized some in our majority sect, producing violent sectarian/religious extremist groups who have monopoly on sectarian and terrorist attacks against the minority sect and other Pakistanis. Its like comparing the Klu Klux Klan to Black Panthers, but worse. Knowing how Pak suffers from this, why aren't we scared of KSA? If Iran has good relations with India, that justifies a conflict with Iran? Does this extend to all nations globally that have relations with India? This would also mean conflicts with KSA and other Gulf Arab countries due to their good relations with India, or are they exempt due to certain religious/sectarian ideological privileges?
"unbelievable, Its a Holy land and non muslim soldiers gonna be problems so best option is pakistan ..
@bigsaf: Maybe it's just the officers and air force that train in the USA? The point I was trying to make is that weapons, training and just about anything associated with military/defense is readily available for a price and the Saudi's are not lacking for money.
@unbelievable:
I'm very surprised you're not aware of the Pak Saudi relations military history, which includes initial setup of Saudi defence and training since Pak's inception, and particularly the partnership since the 80's, which has included the Afghan adventure and the Saudi export of ideological radicalization to create sectarian militant proxies against Iran (with the local Pakistani Shia Muslim minorities bearing the brunt), and in turn regional militant assets for Pak against India. What other nations are willing to bend backwards and grovel at the feet of the Saudis, detriment to its own society, as compared to Pakistan?
For being mercenaries-on-demand for despot Arab regimes to oppress their local Arab populace...yes, Pak is a historic top choice for such services. The only times Pak has disappointed was in regards to wars involving Iraq, or staying out of national wars among Arab states. Why wouldn't Pak's retired military personnel want to earn some income from the Gulf? Why assume that the Pak army is sincere or thoughtful in tackling a local insurgency and still not continue in seeking financial gain or some sort of strategic favour by stationing some recruits in the Gulf?
Unless you can show a Saudi royal member visiting a restricted nuclear facility in any other foreign nation, then yes, Saudis do rely on Pak for internal or external security, including nukes-on-demand.
"Qaisrani 100 % agreed...
Saudi arabia is much better than those iranian/syrian regimes and they allways help pakistan even during pakistan building of wmd or any hardship whether its earth quake or war with india then why not we help them during this time when mis east getting out of control.
Why Pakistanis are scared of Iran?? If Iran has the right to intervene in Syria and kill thousands of innocent people, maintain good relations with India and promote sectarian violence, then Pakistan too is independent to devise its own strategy keeping in view financial gains for Pakistan economy.
Well Pakistan needs money and to be fair a lot of it. Iran and Saudi both are fascist countries with no respect for human value and Pakistan should use it to draw maximum favour out of it.
It appears very likely that the unnecessary and unwanted violence and consequential disaster may be in the making. We all can see as to what is happening in Libya, Egypt and Syria all leading to tragedy for the unfortunate humankind. We need to be very careful as we already have trouble at hand. Yes all the trouble we see is more because people at large do not come forward in large number to join hands and work for peaceful living.
Fishing in troubled waters for the sake of a few scraps and handouts may prove counter productive.
When these monarchies accomplish their missions therefore they would declare our state as terrorists as they have done with rebel groups in Syria. They were supporting them when they saw they can not achieve their desired results therefore they gave fatwas against them!
Nawaz Sharif Government and Pakistan's Army both being beneficiary of the pursued middle-east scheme seems like on the same page but they would not listen to these words of wisdom - which makes everyone believe that Pakistan has become a rental state.
So exactly why does Saudi Arabia need Pakistan? Are you seriously trying to propose that the Saudi's can't buy weapons from someone other than Pakistan? Are you serious when you imply that Saudi has to rely on Pakistan for internal security when Pakistan's military seems to have trouble providing internal security to Pakistan?
Pakistan is heading for Shia /Sunni disaster under the leadership of Nawaz Sharif and dictated by Arab brothern Saudi Arabia God help us
Interesting to see Pakistan getting more and more mired in the Middle East Sectarian politics. This was only to be expected- as Pakistan sees itself as a "Middle Eastern" / Turko / Persian country rather than the reality - South Asian. I am sure there is a large constituency in the establishment that support this. Regardless of the petro-dollar rewards and the socio-religious satisfaction of supporting the 'custodians of the Holy Places'; in the long run this is a retrogressive development. It is always better to befriend, emulate and indeed learn from countries that are better, more developed, more enlightened and more progressive than oneself rather than to get unnecessary involved and get sucked into the inner workings of retrogressive regimes, their thought process, culture and their narrow politics.