The strategic partnership between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia has just become more entrenched. And there appears nothing anyone can do about it. Should this be a cause of concern?
The government has issued the required NOC to pave the way for former COAS Gen Raheel Sharif to head the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT). The latter is a 39-nation bloc charged with countering terrorism in the region, with special emphasis on the rise of the Islamic Sate in the Middle East. Based in Riyadh, it is a most notably a Sunni club.
Many quarters in Pakistan charge Saudi Arabia with exporting a rigid interpretation of Islam to this country. There are also those who accuse it of fostering to some extent Pakistan’s sectarian strife. Yet the government was never going to block Gen Raheel from being the IMAFT’s first commander-in-chief. Not only does the appointment promise a rare chance for Pakistan to shine — for all the right reasons, for once — on the world stage when it comes to anti-terrorism. Pakistan also finds it hard to say no to the Saudi kingdom. Not only is the latter the go-to top exile location for former heads of state here — both military and civilian — it is also a rather generous friend to Pakistan.
Back in 2014, Riyadh ‘gifted’ Pakistan a mysterious friendship loan or grant to the tune of $1.5 billion. It was around this time that it also agreed to buy sizeable amounts of arms from Pakistan. Today, Saudi Arabia represents Pakistan’s biggest arms export market. This has caused concern in the US, which has voiced concerns that Riyadh is not only purchasing arms from Pakistan to arm the Syrians — but also that it may have been preparing to buy Pakistani nukes from “off the shelf”. It was against this backdrop that the IMAFT was born.
Yet as far as this Alliance is concerned these fears likely have no currency, at least for now. The far more pressing point is the exclusion of Iran, Iraq and Syria. With regard to the latter — one can but wonder at the efficacy of a counter-terrorism club that fails to include two of the region’s worst hit countries. And then there is the matter of the operational model on which the IMAFT will function. It has already been dubbed the ‘Muslim NATO’. Yet it remains unclear whether it will adopt the latter’s principle of collective defence, that provide that an attack on one member is an attack on all. Turkey has dubbed the IMAFT as the best response to those who equate Islam with terrorism. And while there is much substance to this — it fails to address the question of Turkish membership of both the Northern Alliance and the Islamic Alliance. It is pertinent to raise this given allegations of Ankara’s role in the ‘red line’ chemical weapons attacks in Syria that the Obama administration insisted on blaming on the Assad regime.
The hope is, therefore, that the IMAFT will in no shape or form comply with the NATO model. For the latter has proved itself an indiscriminate war machine that manipulates notions of humanitarian intervention to further its own agenda. The last thing the world needs is another such Alliance. *