Beyond diplomatic isolation

Pakistan is in a tight spot and it must dig itself out of it. For a country that is already fending off America’s cutting remarks about its alleged role of a show-spoiler in Afghanistan, the declaration issued at a recent Brics summit has added insult to injury.

Without naming Pakistan, the 10-year-old bloc, which represents major developing countries, has for the first time termed militant outfits that are allegedly based in the country a regional security concern. Referring to the situation in Afghanistan, paragraph 48 of the declaration states: “We, in this regard, express concern on the security situation in the region and violence caused by the Taliban, ISIL/Daesh, Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including [the] Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, [the] Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani Network, [the] Lashkar-e-Taiba, [the] Jaish-e-Mohammed, [the] TTP and [the] Hizbut Tahrir”.

Para 49 adds: “We deplore all terrorist attacks worldwide, including attacks in Brics countries, and condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations wherever committed and by whomsoever and stress that there can be no justification whatsoever for any act of terrorism. We reaffirm that those responsible for committing, organizing, or supporting terrorist acts must be held accountable”.

The strongly-worded declaration issued at the Brics summit, which was hosted by Pakistan’s all-weather friend China, may have cut the country to the quick. At the 2016 Brics summit that was held in India, China had opposed the incorporation of a similarly-worded text in the joint statement. However, the impression that Beijing has ratted on Islamabad by agreeing to include the text in a statement issued at the recent summit a year later is wrong.

As China inches closer to becoming an economic superpower, one of the most potent threats that it faces is militancy. The declaration prefigures that China is toughening its stance on supporting subterranean outfits regardless of where they are based. At any rate, bilateral relations involve taking the rough with the smooth. At the same time, Islamabad will be ill-advised to put all its eggs in one basket, regardless of whether it is Beijing’s or Washington’s. Whether it is in the East or the West, inter-state relations are shaped by perceived national interest.

Pakistan has sallied forth in the war on terror, with thousands dead and billions lost. But it has not been able to make a persuasive sales pitch that it is set against militancy in any shape or form. Hence, its commitment to fight terrorism remains under question from both its friends and foes. With the situation in Afghanistan going downhill, the pressure on Pakistan to do more in the war on terror is racking up.

In any event, the growing Taliban militancy can’t be set down to the alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of Pakistan. The Afghan predicament is too complicated to warrant such a skin-deep diagnosis. The narrative that support and sanctuaries provided by Islamabad to the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network in the pursuit of strategic depth in Afghanistan are the principal reason that the country is bleeding is short on substance.

Pakistan is not the villain of the piece in Afghanistan. Other players are also present on the scene, each trying to hit the bull’s eye in pursuit of its perceived national interest. This has made the country a theatre of divergent and often incompatible interests. The US has fought as well as encouraged reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban and has backed the now largely futile quadrilateral peace process.

American presence in Afghanistan has been actuated less by the fear of the Taliban and more by the apprehension that after Al-Qaeda, the war-torn nation may become the stronghold of another transnational militant organisation, such as the IS. It is only now that Washington has announced to go all-out against the Taliban. But in case the US has to choose between an IS-like organisation and the Taliban, it’s not difficult to conjecture who it would prefer.

For India, a friendly Afghanistan is an instrument of outflanking Pakistan, both politically and economically. New Delhi has set upon itself to have a strong commercial and political presence in the unstable but strategically important country. Given the zero-sum game that New Delhi and Islamabad are engaged in, any gains made by India anywhere are seen by both countries as a loss for Pakistan and vice versa.

Iran, which provides an alternative transit route for Afghanistan’s overseas trade, also wants a friendly government in Kabul. The Chabahar Port in south-east Iran, which is being developed with New Delhi’s assistance, will provide India a long-cherished market access to Afghanistan and beyond that to Central Asia. Tehran may not like Afghanistan to provide sustenance to transnational terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda and the IS. At the same time, it would not mind if the Afghan campaign eats up more US resources. It may even like the US to pull out of Afghanistan on a losing note.     

There are also internal forces of instability at work in Afghanistan. Years of infighting have ravaged the Afghan economy. On the other hand, a feeble economy has thwarted efforts for peace and reconciliation and encouraged corruption as mighty warlords compete for meagre resources. It has also reduced Afghanistan to a vassal state that serves the often mutually incompatible foreign policy objectives of key regional and international players.

Amid this clash of interests and conflicting objectives, the US, with all its might and main, has failed to stem the rot in Afghanistan. It will be grossly unfair to expect Pakistan to take the rap for US failure in Afghanistan. Pakistan also has a valid point that the US has sold its sacrifices in the war on terror short.

Be that as it may, Pakistan can’t just shrug off the mounting criticism of its counter-terrorism credentials. Far from pleasing Washington or even Beijing, coming clean on the issue is in Islamabad’s own interest. Religious extremism has put the nation’s future at risk. Even higher education institutions are in the thrall of the diabolical ideology on which extremism rests. 

The foreign minister hit the nail on the head through his comment on the Brics declaration. He emphasised the need for Pakistan to set its house in order. Evidently, this entails more than erasing negative perceptions about Pakistan. Quite a few banned outfits continue to operate under different names as the National Action Plan remains largely unimplemented.

Trump’s threats may be viewed as either a form of sabre-rattling – implying that Pakistan should not care a hoot – or a reality. In either case, Pakistan should not wait to find out what they mean. It is unlikely that Pakistan will go bankrupt or its people will starve without American aid.

At the same time, a cash-strapped country like Pakistan is always in need of foreign assistance to keep the wheels of the economy moving and to move up the ladder of economic progress. Contrary to the claims of a few rabble-rousers, external aid is not a Greek gift. Instead, foreign capital supplements domestic savings, which in the case of Pakistan are quite low.

However, more than the aid, it is a question of fending off the growing diplomatic isolation. As a result, the government ought to get around the problem by engaging all the stakeholders – including the US – and putting across its own viewpoint.

The writer is a freelance countributor.

Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com