Our Saudi dilemma
Possibly the price we eventually pay would be higher than the short term gains we expect from our involvement
The writer is Editor of The Express Tribune
The decision by our political and military leadership to make a quick dash to Saudi Arabia and “explain” things to their government may have bought us some time it seems. The question of course is, how much time.
The Saudis are already fuming on our dilly-dallying and have expressed their displeasure to our PM in so many words. Similar to the “you are with us or against us” doctrine promoted by President George Bush Jnr, the Saudis want to know where we stand.
Many in the Arab world are puzzled and upset at Pakistan’s stance. Shortly after our parliament passed a resolution that advised negotiation as against military involvement, the Chairman of the Arab Parliament in the Arab League, Ahmad Bin Mohammad Al Jarwan, described the decision as ‘inconsistent’ with Arab and Islamic stances.
Who can forget the tweets by UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr Anwar Mohammad Gargash, who is often seen as a friend of Pakistan, saying that Pakistan is required to have a clear stance for the sake of its strategic relations with Gulf states. Positions that are contradictory on such a fateful issue have a high cost, he warned.
One can recall that it was on April 10 that our parliament unanimously decided to stay out of the war. Within a few days, on April 13 our PM reaffirmed the decision while also pledging Pakistan’s commitment to Saudi Arabia.
Since then we have been in a diplomatic dance with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. What we need to remember is that after five days of debate in parliament, not one speaker apparently supported sending ground troops.
While many praised Saudi Arabia as a friend of Pakistan, almost all called for a political solution and diplomacy to end the crisis. But do we have the credentials and the wherewithal to take this line of action? We seem to think we do. But the question is whether the Saudis think so too. So far, we have not received any positive response on this.
Why the decision? For practical reasons possibly. Our army is already busy fighting a war against militants within the country. Operation Zarb-e-Azb is not a small undertaking and given that we also have to keep an eye open to ensure that things remain under control on the other border, this means we cannot commit a large number of forces anywhere else.
The visit by the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the parliamentary debate may also have helped the leadership take the line that it did. But at the same time, the Pakistani response to the Saudis is a big setback for our relationship with not only Saudi Arabia, but with many in the region. Like Oman, we have opted so far to sit this one out.
Given that our PM personally owes a lot to the Saudis, this is a decision that must have been hard to make. It is not a question of military commitment but the size of the commitment that matters. There is now talk of limited involvement.
We already have an unwritten agreement with the Saudis over coming to their aid as and when required. That was the basis of Saudi largesse earlier as the Sharif government came to power. Now we are expected to honour our side of the bargain.
So far, the Saudis have reacted graciously. Their minister for Islamic Affairs, Sheikh Saleh bin Abdulaziz, told the media in Pakistan on a recent visit that the decision of our parliament was an internal matter and every country has the freedom to make such decisions.
From the recent visit of our PM, we are now getting the indication of committing ourselves to some involvement for a ground offensive. In exchange for this, our PM has managed to extract a number of concessions from the Saudis, we are told.
Whether we like it or not, we are being sucked into a larger conflict. Aside from the military commitment, we also have a sectarian conflict at home so we are aware of what we are getting ourselves into. Possibly the price we eventually pay would be higher than the short term gains we expect from our involvement. This is for our leadership to ponder over.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 27th, 2015.
The Saudis are already fuming on our dilly-dallying and have expressed their displeasure to our PM in so many words. Similar to the “you are with us or against us” doctrine promoted by President George Bush Jnr, the Saudis want to know where we stand.
Many in the Arab world are puzzled and upset at Pakistan’s stance. Shortly after our parliament passed a resolution that advised negotiation as against military involvement, the Chairman of the Arab Parliament in the Arab League, Ahmad Bin Mohammad Al Jarwan, described the decision as ‘inconsistent’ with Arab and Islamic stances.
Who can forget the tweets by UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr Anwar Mohammad Gargash, who is often seen as a friend of Pakistan, saying that Pakistan is required to have a clear stance for the sake of its strategic relations with Gulf states. Positions that are contradictory on such a fateful issue have a high cost, he warned.
One can recall that it was on April 10 that our parliament unanimously decided to stay out of the war. Within a few days, on April 13 our PM reaffirmed the decision while also pledging Pakistan’s commitment to Saudi Arabia.
Since then we have been in a diplomatic dance with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. What we need to remember is that after five days of debate in parliament, not one speaker apparently supported sending ground troops.
While many praised Saudi Arabia as a friend of Pakistan, almost all called for a political solution and diplomacy to end the crisis. But do we have the credentials and the wherewithal to take this line of action? We seem to think we do. But the question is whether the Saudis think so too. So far, we have not received any positive response on this.
Why the decision? For practical reasons possibly. Our army is already busy fighting a war against militants within the country. Operation Zarb-e-Azb is not a small undertaking and given that we also have to keep an eye open to ensure that things remain under control on the other border, this means we cannot commit a large number of forces anywhere else.
The visit by the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the parliamentary debate may also have helped the leadership take the line that it did. But at the same time, the Pakistani response to the Saudis is a big setback for our relationship with not only Saudi Arabia, but with many in the region. Like Oman, we have opted so far to sit this one out.
Given that our PM personally owes a lot to the Saudis, this is a decision that must have been hard to make. It is not a question of military commitment but the size of the commitment that matters. There is now talk of limited involvement.
We already have an unwritten agreement with the Saudis over coming to their aid as and when required. That was the basis of Saudi largesse earlier as the Sharif government came to power. Now we are expected to honour our side of the bargain.
So far, the Saudis have reacted graciously. Their minister for Islamic Affairs, Sheikh Saleh bin Abdulaziz, told the media in Pakistan on a recent visit that the decision of our parliament was an internal matter and every country has the freedom to make such decisions.
From the recent visit of our PM, we are now getting the indication of committing ourselves to some involvement for a ground offensive. In exchange for this, our PM has managed to extract a number of concessions from the Saudis, we are told.
Whether we like it or not, we are being sucked into a larger conflict. Aside from the military commitment, we also have a sectarian conflict at home so we are aware of what we are getting ourselves into. Possibly the price we eventually pay would be higher than the short term gains we expect from our involvement. This is for our leadership to ponder over.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 27th, 2015.