Foreign policy dilemmas
Saarc is hostage to the strong desire of the ruling elites of India and Pakistan to play tough towards each other in order to make political gains in their respective domestic contexts. Prime Minister Modi wants to demonstrate that India is powerful enough to adopt a punitive disposition towards Pakistan. This helps him not only to mollify hardliners in and around the BJP, but it also expands his support in non- BJP circles.
Prime Minister Sharif was keen on fostering trade and economic relations with India when he assumed power, but this came into conflict with his main support base, which is the political right wing, which does not want Pakistan to appear weak under Indian pressure. Furthermore, Indian rebuffs to Prime Minister Sharif, through the cancellation of the foreign secretaries’ meeting and the subsequent violent incidents at the Line of Control (LoC) and the working boundary have made his task difficult. He also faces domestic difficulties because of the ongoing confrontation with Imran Khan’s PTI and Dr Tahirul Qadri’s movement that challenge his political credibility. The army establishment and a section of public opinion have reservations about the prime minister’s keenness for trade and economic ties with India at a time when that country is not willing to address any issue that is of concern to Pakistan. The chances of resumption of meaningful talks between Pakistan and India are minimal, if any, in the next couple of months. The major reason is that India wants to hold talks on its agenda and insists that Pakistan must satisfy India on terrorism as a pre-condition for holding talks.
A strong section of public opinion in India thinks that as India is on its way to becoming an active player in the bigger global power league, it should not let Pakistan become an obstacle to its drive for pre-eminence at the global and regional levels. Pakistan can be neutralised by putting strong diplomatic and military pressure on it either by carefully managed military activity on the LoC or by massive propaganda campaigns or by exploiting its internal dissensions and conflicts to India’s advantage. Given India’s strident approach, Pakistan should hold back its keenness to revive the dialogue. It should put this relation on hold till India agrees to a mutually acceptable agenda for condition-free talks on all contentious issues.
Meanwhile, Pakistan should pay attention to four issues on a priority basis: increased diplomatic interaction with other countries, especially with Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and the Central Asian states; control religious extremism and terrorism on its soil; streamline foreign policy management; and improve governance and salvage its faltering economy.
Pakistan must strengthen its diplomatic interaction with states other than India to strengthen its diplomatic clout. Special attention should be given to strengthening its ties with Afghanistan for adopting a shared approach for countering religious extremism and terrorism. Pakistan must offer financial and technical support for Afghanistan’s reconstruction and economic development. Similarly, economic and diplomatic interaction needs to be strengthened with Iran and the Central Asian states. It should respond quickly and positively on expanding relations with Russia in the fields identified during the recent visit of the Russian defence minister. This option should not be allowed to drift away.
Pakistan cannot develop a positive interaction with the rest of the world without controlling extremism and terrorism in the domestic context. In order to achieve this objective, the current military operation in North Waziristan and other tribal areas must be supported. However, the civilian government does not appear to be keen on building political support for the operation against militant groups. With the exception of periodic statements in support of the operation, the top civilian officials avoid taking a categorical stand in public on a regular basis in its favour.
There is a lot of confusion in foreign policy management in Pakistan. Several federal ministers make contradictory statements that cause confusion about the direction of foreign and security policies. The foreign affairs portfolio is with the prime minister but at least five people make foreign policy statements as and when they like. They are Sartaj Aziz, Tariq Fatemi, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Khawaja Asif and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif (for Turkey and China). While the army chief was in the US on a trip meant to strengthen Pakistan-US security relations and assure US officials that the military was pursuing a security operation against terrorists in a non-discriminatory manner, Aziz and Asif made remarks that raised doubts about the credibility of the army chief’s trip. The prime minister should limit the number of his colleagues who can venture into foreign policy and they need to speak in harmony with one another and with the army top command.
The issues of the economy, especially shortages of electricity and gas, should get priority over the federal government’s high profile and media-oriented projects of building roads, highways, bus services, free distribution of laptops and giving vehicles to people on soft loans. Use all these funds to address the energy shortage, which will generate new jobs and thus reduce economic pressures on the people. Furthermore, the federal government cannot continue to sleep over the demands generated by Imran Khan and his party. This policy will in the long run hurt the prime minister badly. If the Sharif government and parliament cannot resolve the current political conflicts, both will become dysfunctional and irrelevant to problem-solving in Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 1st, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (31)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732434981-0/BeFunky-collage-(10)1732434981-0-405x300.webp "article")
@Ravindra Sharma: But Pakistan does not agree with this. It will not ignore the problem.
@Rashid: Correct. Start with the most pressing actions. Other outcomes are dependent on these two.
@unbelievable: One of the best posts.
Author is mistaken if he thinks that Modi wants to demonstrate that India is powerful enough to adopt a punitive disposition towards Pakistan to win favors with hardliners inside. Modi and hardliners want to resolve issues with Pakistan but not succumb to its evil tactics that Congress had been all these years. So you are reading the situation incorrectly. Proportionate response by Modi givt on LOC or otherwise is not hard stance if that is the right stance. Hence political right wing is also mistaken if they think that India wants to make Pakistan look weak by putting pressure.
2nd biggest wrong conclusion is that India rebuffed Pakistan by cancelling foreign secy. level meeting. Modi govt had conveyed quietly (without making a spectacle as Pak does of anything) through Jt Secy to your Jt Secy that Pak is requested (read requested) not meet with Hurriyet leaders wjile we talk. Nothing wrong in this. Just because past cong or BJP govt allowed it doesn’t mean- a)they did the right thin or b)that Modi govt has to follow in the footsteps. This was not even a major request given that India has placed no prohibition on meetings at any time and therefore the Pakistan can always talk to them outside the Pak-Indo talk time frame. But Pak is (as usual) intransigent.
Regarding incidents at LOC, let it be clear that there is a contention a) who started it (India believes Pak started it as is routine to facilitate terrorists entry or just to needle India before any VIP visit in the area) b) Just because the impotent Cong regime would stop firing when Pak stops and Pak was free to start and stop when they wished, Modi govt. rightly should not encourage wrong behavior by doing the same, hence when Pak commanders refused to pickup the hotline phone when Indian commanders called, the Indian side escalated and also did not pick up the phone when Pakistan side called.
It is wrong to suggest that India is not willing to address any issue because India has already made several gestures in the past on its own and at initiatives of Nawaz and Musharraf. The fact that it is willing to let go of POK which is 1/3rd of Kashmir is a major concession. The fact that India facilitated Pak textile exports to Europe and other such things should be clear signs that India wants to work with Pakistan. The problem is that Pakistan wants to give nothing but take all. That is not the way to negotiate or resolve conflicts. Your army is dead wrong that trade be made contingent upon resolution of age old disputes- because nowhere in the world this happens. Your army is out of the line in main stream thinking.
Some minimal actions on terrorism as a pre-condition for holding talks is but obvious given the huge number of instances. Again no where in the world, anybody says that we will continue with terrorism while we continue to talk and until we achieve results. Just saying your military is occupied against Taliban in North West doesn’t cut much ice since this action is too little too late and does not even address many other aspects- such as hosting of other terrorists on its soil.
Your thinking is correct that because of the impression that Pakistan does not change and in fact it is sinking deeper into problems that are becoming even more complex, India must work on its own development and with other nations. That is a common sense given. It is your wrong belief that India is trying to neutralize Pakistan internationally because it doesn’t have to as Pakistan has neutralized itself long ago through its own actions and inactions. Hence if Pakistan holds back its keenness to talk to India, India cannot keep going after a reluctant Pakistan. Hence your conclusion that “Pakistan should put this relation on hold till India agrees to a mutually acceptable agenda for condition-free talks on all contentious issues” is absolutely wrong. India has a right to ask for minimal conditions. Pakistan will ignore India at its own cost.
" Foreign policy dilemmas" +++++++++++++++++++++ How to project telephone call to Paki PM as more important than a Second Presidential visit to India. Thats the proverbial horns of a dilemma!
@Fahre Afghan: Pakistan has gone too far to accommodate Afghanistan or the latter would have suffered immensely due to being landlocked. But Afghanistan was never reconciled with the reality of Pakistan and opposed it in the UN and have usually if not always sided with India in Indo-Pak disputes. So now and then if Afghanistan gets treated with its own medicine it has no right to complain.
Was that a mid summer day's dream or its equivalent in another season.
Building the infrastructure and overcoming the energy crises should be the priority of the government but who will eliminate the everyday corruption which is sinking the economic development. On the same page Pakistan being the nuclear state has to change its foreign policy now, by including the broader national interests. Cooperation with all countries is necessary, Russian cooperation in energy and defense sector is much beneficial along with the Chinese assistance. In the coming arena of international politics, unilateral world is slowly moving towards the major center of powers and there is a need to include ourselves among the states that play a part in the global economic and strategic stability.
until unless voters are uneducated and insensible,all effort would be directed to fetch and attract votes, there would be no foreign, economic,security policy workable,
There is a dire need for the two neighbours viz India and Pakistan to review their foreign policies specifically in the context of their bilateral relationship. The relationship that had turned reasonably amicable and cordial during the recent past have started reverting back into the valley of antipathy, distrust and a level that is not very cordial. The diplomatic gestures of handshakes and summits are more of a diplomatic ritual that does not really decide or display the real spirit of any relationship nevertheless the real truth cannot be overlooked. Pakistan as a nation is deep into their own problems of terrorism, religious fundamentalism that needs to be put an end to and the brewing political unrest while India too has their own internal problems. The most prudent and appropriate approach that both the nations must adopt although a difficult move to be taken is towards developing the real confidence and making a sincere effort towards a relationship more amicable and cordial. Developing a congenial environment at this juncture is a challenging task but that is perhaps the only way there can be a longer lasting peace in the region. The South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is noble concept and making it a success story will need as a prerequisite a closer, more cordial Indo-Pak relationship. It is far easier to share the distrust and antipathy with the neighbour and define it within the parameters of patriotism but not very easy indeed to rise above the narrow paradigm of negative patriotism for the provocative darts of diplomatic rhetoric further aggravate the passions of antipathy and distrust towards the neighbouring country. This has been the most unfortunate chapter of Indo-Pak relationship for which both sides share a responsibility in equal measure. India as a nation is much bigger as far as size, economic and human resources are concerned but economic relationship between Pakistan and India is possible for each nation has something to offer that can be acquired through an economic relationship. India being a much bigger market when compared to Pakistan can afford to become one of the leading importers of Pakistani good while Pakistan too has a lot to take from India in terms of import wherein an economic balance as far as Indo-Pak trade is concerned is mandatory. This is a way of improving bilateral relationship that is gradually moving on a downslide.
You might find that the steps you need to take to become friends with other countries and gain diplomatic clout aren't much different than the steps you need to take to make friends with India. Like it or not your perceived as part of the terrorism problem and the solution to that is going to require more than speeches/articles.
Indeed, Pakistan's domestic unrest in the form of militancy and extremism has over shadowed many positive developments inside the state. Our foreign policy has been India centric because of heredity disputes. We are living in one of the hostile regions of world and we should have a robust policy to deal with issues pertaining in our region. Pakistani decision making center should act preemptively to counter emerging threats.
extremism and terrorism/lawlessness make all the way to the hindrance to bilateral relations and subsequent economic development at domestic and exterior level ,
A. Special attention should be given to strengthening its ties with Afghanistan for adopting a shared approach for countering religious extremism and terrorism.
USA has sunk in billions in Afghanistan, even poor India has spent 2 billion USD on building infrastructure. What has Pakistan done? Apart from hosting the Haqqanis and the Quetta Shura, that is. Looks like the author missed this yesterday. http://tribune.com.pk/story/799849/what-should-pakistan-want-in-afghanistan/
B. With the exception of periodic statements in support of the operation, the top civilian officials avoid taking a categorical stand in public on a regular basis in its favour.
And have the other guys been taking a clear stand on the Tsunami and Tabdeeli dharna or what? Moreover, why does this sound like a Domestic and not Foreign Policy issue to me?
C. The foreign affairs portfolio is with the prime minister but at least five people make foreign policy statements as and when they like. They are Sartaj Aziz, Tariq Fatemi, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Khawaja Asif and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif (for Turkey and China).
This is hilarious. While the Federal Ministers are making speeches the COAS Pakistan Army is discussing 'Regional Issues ' with John Kerry. Are you sure the PM has the authority to talk Foreign Policy?
http://tribune.com.pk/story/800022/army-chief-john-kerry-discuss-regional-security-issues/
Moderator ET may please note- The rebuttal is not only factual but based on ET reports too.
Pakistan and India are not ready to negotiate their hard line stand then the only way out is Pakistan look west and India look east and both should reside side by side as unknown entity with a promise not to interfere in each other matter . I think this is the simplest solution of the problem otherwise no solution but to remain in the state of war and drain precious resources on foolish generals .
The author wants Pakistan to turn from obsessing about India to obsessing about development? Lose no time in making him Prime Minister! He has sensed the elephant on his eyelashes!
Since the post Cold War period, Pakistan has been in the face of diverse challenges. No doubt, the relative stability and predictability of that era has disappeared and a large number of regional and global alignments have lost significance as well. The country needs such a national security and foreign policy where economic development gains privilege. The solution of the problems of Pakistan lies within home, the only thing required is the “courage and political power”. There is no doubt that Pakistan has the capability to develop and also has the resources. But due to poor policies country seems to b lagging behind in many respects.
So the author is saying that our governing elite ( military, polticians, bureaucrats ) should embrace common sense. High time.
All good wishes in the article, nothing concrete. Take for instance in SAARC conference Afghanistan was expecting to have complete trade link with India to buy low cost high quality medicine & other thousands of items but Pakistan stopped it. Though it went ahead with Energy deal because that is what it is good for Pakistan. So much selfishness & so much claim of Muslim brotherhood but in reality Indian are for better people & country. Do you think Afghans will forget or ignore this? Not in thousand years.
@author. If army chief has NO role to play in foreign policy, how does it matter in what Aziz said or did not say? Aziz made sure Gen Raheel has no room to maneuver during his US trip.
The author of the article has very kindly listed a number of tasks for Pakistan, but given the situation that the Prime Minister is involved in deciding on the prices of petrol and attending roads opening ceremonies while many others are claiming to represent Pakistan in foreign relations, who exactly has he in mind to tackle the new tasks?
Rex Minor.
Pakistan can never have good relations with any neighbor, China included.
Wow!!!! Why didn't anyone think of that before?
"Pakistan must offer financial and technical support for Afghanistan’s reconstruction and economic development. Similarly, economic and diplomatic interaction needs to be strengthened with Iran and the Central Asian states. It should respond quickly and positively on expanding relations with Russia" Are you for real? Pakistan doesn't have financial and technical support for its own people forget helping others. You financially benefit from Saudi Arabia to infiltrate terror into Iran and the Central Asian States don't expect anything to change on this front until you are the hub for the world terror and Russia isolated in the international arena and becoming beggar by the day as crude prices will be falling until 2016.
Dr Rizvi's suggestions about greater interaction with Russia is not going to get much traction as Russia is not likely to part with any hard cash or sell large large volumes of military hardware. Nor is Pakistan likely to be able to afford switching to Russian weapon systems. The two way trade is a distinct impossibility. So exactly what is possible sir? Afghanistan is obviously Pakistan's western yard and some progress is happening there because Dr Ghani is also making serious efforts but the relations with Iran are going south. Of course Dr Rizvi's is right in suggesting a change in foreign policy. Well it should be under the control of one authority and that should be the foreign office after Mr Aziz is advised a long rest and an office space is allocated to the military there as well.
@ The author: "Prime Minister Modi wants to demonstrate that India is powerful enough to adopt a punitive disposition towards Pakistan." So besides diplomacy and "...increased diplomatic interaction with other countries..." what strategic and/or military policy do you propose, as a last resort, to counteract India' punitive policy towards Pakistan? @Rashid "...anti-India obsession...'' is partly (a logical) consequence of India's "punitive disposition" against Pakistan.
" Foreign policy dilemmas: Furthermore, the federal government cannot continue to sleep over the demands generated by Imran Khan and his party" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So thats whats covered under Foreign Policy dilemmas.
Good that Dr Rizvi points out we need to put our house in order. We cannot simply assume we can improve our standing in the diplomatic arena simply through lobbying or campaigning. Improving the economy and law and order should take precedence over anti-India obsession.
'Meanwhile, Pakistan should pay attention to four issues on a priority basis: increased diplomatic interaction with other countries, especially with Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and the Central Asian states; control religious extremism and terrorism on its soil; streamline foreign policy management; and improve governance and salvage its faltering economy.'
Why don't you guys do that and leave India alone.
"Meanwhile, Pakistan should pay attention to four issues on a priority basis: increased diplomatic interaction with other countries, especially with Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and the Central Asian states; control religious extremism and terrorism on its soil; streamline foreign policy management; and improve governance and salvage its faltering economy." Easier said than done. What exactly should Pakistan undertake with "other countries" named here through "diplomatic interaction?" Specif proposals here are missing!