Should Pakistan be party to the Saudi-Yemen conflict?

There are contradictory signals regarding Pakistan’s involvement in the Yemen conflict. Going by earlier statements of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, one clearly got the impression that Pakistan has joined the coalition of the Arab states in fighting the insurgency led by the Houthis. This was further collaborated by the statement made by a Saudi minister that Pakistan has agreed to join the coalition. Reports appeared in the international media that Pakistani F-16s were seen in Saudi Arabia. To what extent are these reports authentic, only the government would be able to verify or we could get some definite information from other sources too, as something like this cannot remain a secret for too long. What is baffling is that a decision of this level is taken by circumventing the cabinet, and the national security and foreign affairs committee, and also while keeping parliament in the dark. It is only after opposition parties, the media and civil society expressed their strong reservations that there appears to be some backtracking. This was evident from Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s statement that no final decision has been taken so far.

Look at the present predicament of Pakistan. It is guarding a volatile eastern border, is deeply immersed in fighting an insurgency on the western border, coping with sectarian killings across the country and combatting terrorist and criminal militias in Karachi and elsewhere. When the military is already stretched to its limits, it is dangerously naive to take sides and join the Saudi-led military campaign to dislodge the Iranian-supported insurgency in Yemen.

As it is, the Saudi and Iranian governments are fighting their shadow wars in various Muslim countries, including Pakistan, for several years. Any leaning towards one side will sharpen the sectarian conflict within our country. The proxies of these countries will ignite the flames of hatred, risking serious internal cohesion. A nation torn by sectarian divisions will find its resolve weakened in fighting the insurgency against the TTP, al Qaeda and their variants. Already, there are clear indications that the TTP and al Qaeda, by targeting Christian churches and by launching sectarian attacks, are provoking the communities that are targeted to retaliate, hoping that it would create fertile ground for a civil war. We tend to forget that as a nation we are far more diverse than either Iran or Saudi Arabia and being a soft state, we are vulnerable to the machinations of regional and global players. Taking sides will provide an opportunity for the Islamic State (IS) to make inroads in Pakistan.

There is no doubt that Iran’s influence has increased in the conflict-ravaged states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The Saudis are understandably nervous and are hoping that the alliance that has been forged will counter the growing Iranian military power and diplomatic clout. For us, both countries are extremely important. Saudi Arabia is our most important strategic ally, an energy superpower, the custodian of the holiest places of Muslims and leader of the Arab world.

Iran is no less significant for us. It is an important neighbour with whom we have religious, historical and cultural ties that bind us closely. In such a situation, taking sides could lead to serious consequences.

This is also a conflict where alliances are fluid and mostly tactical, formed to meet the immediate security challenge. Expediency and shifting dynamics have given rise to inconsistency in alliances and policies, with unexpected implications for the region. Iran is an ally of the US in Iraq and if the Iran nuclear deal gets through, it is likely that the wall that stood between them would come down. Arab countries and al Qaeda are on the same side in any sectarian conflict, but are otherwise, arch-enemies. Iran is backing the Houthis which are strong enough to overthrow the Yemen regime but do not enjoy enough support to rule the whole country. This, now, is the real challenge of the region, where foreign intervention, armed insurgencies or popular movements are capable of removing tyrants, but the vacuum that follows creates other monsters. The US policy was aimed at removing Bashar al Assad from Syria without determining what would follow his removal. Similarly, when Saddam Hussein was removed, Iraq paid a huge price in blood and money and has yet to recover. There is no doubt that most regimes in the Middle East are corrupt, inefficient and authoritarian, and have failed to serve the interests of their people.

To expect that the coalition of Arab countries, or Iran and its allies, will protect the interests of the ordinary people in Yemen will be a folly. In Yemen, a pure power struggle, which is combined with a reinvigorated manifestation of a centuries-old sectarian schism, is being given a sectarian colour. Even though the conflict in that country essentially consists of tribal alignments designed to gain power. It is not the first time that the Saudis have intervened in Yemen. They invaded Yemen in 1962, too.

Uprisings in the Middle East, whether led by the IS or the Houthis, are also an expression of the extreme frustration of the masses. The earlier Arab spring was a more modern and progressive movement, reflecting the same frustration of the people who were trying to define their new identity. The Arab spring was despised and opposed by the Arab rulers and was subsequently crushed. Egypt’s security establishment, Saudi Arabia and many countries in the Gulf were also very uneasy when the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections in Egypt. Ironically, this was the first time in Egypt’s history that a democratically elected government had assumed power. The situation in the Arab world today is caught between authoritarian regimes and disgruntled masses. Unless these regimes do not see the writing on the wall and adjust to the challenges of the 21^st century and the aspirations of their people, alliances or no alliances, the region will be in turmoil and vulnerable to manipulations by outside powers.

To expect a lame-duck organisation like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to play any positive role would be unrealistic. A more rational approach for Pakistan and Turkey should be to jointly play a conciliatory role rather than take sides.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 1^st,  2015.

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