Policy contradictions vis-a-vis Syria

In response to probing questions about the $1.5 billion worth of Saudi ‘donation’, Adviser to the Prime Minister on National Security and Foreign Affairs Mr Sartaj Aziz argued in several interviews that nothing was wrong in getting financial donations from a country where, “two million Pakistani workers reside and annually remit about four billion dollars.” He had also justified the renewed warmth in Pakistan-Saudi relations, saying the relations had cooled down during the Zardari government and there was a need to revive it.

But interestingly, Sartaj Aziz posed a counter-question to the critics I interviewed, “Saudi Arabia gave us a lot of help after the nuclear tests in 1998, what did we do for them? Nothing”.

Detractors raised objections and expressed reservations about Saudi-Pakistan relations in the context of the rumours that Pakistan was being used to recruit fighters for the war against Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Now, the government’s denials notwithstanding, a gradual shift in Pakistan’s stance on the Syrian crisis is clearly discernible, moving from a strictly neutral player to a tacit supporter of the rebels.

Back in 2012, Islamabad had sought a peaceful political solution, opposing the military option altogether. However, it took a turn in February 2014, when a Saudi delegation visited Islamabad. Islamabad openly supported the formation of a transitional body with executive powers to run the affairs in Syria. What accompanied these reports were speculations in the media that Saudi Arabia wanted Pakistan to supply arms for the Syrian rebels. Although the government gave some clarifications, yet it was reluctant to transparently explain what the purpose behind $1.5 billion by Saudi Arabia was.

This has not only politically polarised Pakistan, but also, once again, strained relations with Iran, a country which supports the Syrian regime, presumably because of sectarian and geopolitical factors. Most political parties are opposed to this paradigm shift and insist upon neutrality.

The MQM, for instance, wants the country to remain neutral in its own interest instead of taking sides with Saudi Arabia. “If Pakistan supports rebels in Syria, then it would be indirectly supporting al Qaeda there,” says MQM senator Syed Tahir Hussain Mashhadi.

The Awami National Party leader senator Haji Adeel says it appears Pakistan hasn’t learnt from the past. “At the end of the day, Pakistan will be the loser as much as it has suffered the consequences of proxy wars among Pakistan, India and Afghanistan”.

Mian Raza Rabbani, the PPP senator, says that a pro-Saudi shift in the policy on Syria would amount to playing with fire. “It’s important for Islamabad to keep equal terms with all Muslim countries otherwise it’s going to be harmful for Pakistan.”

While the government assured the Senate that it would not abandon its ‘stay-neutral’ policy on Syria, Rabbani is sceptical of such assurances. “We have got to learn from past experiences. That (change in policy) could trigger internal security concerns,” the PPP senator said.

Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Syed Khursheed Shah pleads ignorance as to what exactly was the government’s position on Syria, a fact even more lamentable because he occupies an extremely important position in the legislature, representing several other parties. All he comes up with is, “change in our position will definitely harm our role as a neutral country”.

This also reflects lead parliamentarians’ ignorance and indifference towards those crucial policy issues which present existential challenges for the country. They enjoy perks and privileges but their mandated function hardly goes beyond shallow rhetoric and hue and cry — witnessed during the recent budget session as well.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 18^th, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.