It is safe to say that post Second World War, the world was divided into two big sections: the US and the former Soviet Union. Both wielded their power, and the rest of the countries tried to find their positioning under these two big umbrellas. I remember growing up in those days when US-Pakistan relations were very strong. The neighbours were in the Soviet camp, even though the neighbours were known to be part of the Non-Aligned movement. The British influence was receding in our country, and American terminology was becoming a part of our daily lexicon. We used to read about the austerity measures, the population control and the self-reliance on locally manufactured products in India.
On an intellectual level, there was strong resistance in India towards the capitalistic economic model. The anti-American sentiment was prevalent among most Indians. Conversely, our leaders especially military dictators, leaned heavily towards building strong alliances with Washington. The Cold War between the Soviet Union and United States was being fought through many different countries. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s tenure in the early 1970s saw some decline in the US-Pakistan alliance, and part of it was Mr Bhutto’s efforts of tapping China, the Middle East, and also reaching out to the Soviet Union.
Mr Bhutto was a genius in terms of diplomacy, and did some remarkable things in building and nurturing foreign relations. Despite his charismatic and friendly personality, Mr Bhutto at times said things that were politically incorrect, and which were perhaps received quite unfavourably in Washington. Ironically, when he went through his trial and sentencing, his external close allies could not do much to save him from the gallows. His successor, General Zia-ul-Haq, toed the line, and served as an American conduit to help the Afghans defeat the invading Soviets.
I was very young when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. A child of my age was unable to comprehend why the Soviets had invaded that landlocked country, and even at that tender age I was able to form the opinion that it was complete idiocy on their part. Come to think of it, that was the turning point of modern history. The world has not been the same after that godforsaken and nonsensical invasion.
Fast forward three decades or so, and it looks like things are relatively similar. The world is somewhat segmented, and countries are being shifted here and there on this giant chessboard. Russia is not as dominant as it used to be, but is, nevertheless, a major player on the board. China has emerged as a mega player with its economic interests in the region. Our neighbours have gone through a major paradigm shift, and have built a sustainable bond with Americans. This has been a brilliant strategy on their part to weaken American interest in Pakistan. The Indian landscape is changing, and it is emulating the blueprint from Washington. The US sees tremendous potential in India to contain and counter the Chinese influence in the region.
In a recent interview to a Pakistani channel, Afghan President Dr Ashraf Ghani, very bluntly, told his interviewer that countries do not have friendships or brotherly relations but shared interests. These interests are very fluid, never permanent, and change or shift based on prevailing conditions and circumstances.
We hear the usual chatter that some countries are conspiring and undermining Pakistan’s tilt towards its all-weather friend China. All of its adversaries are rallying to make the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project a failure. I am not a Wharton graduate like our minister of planning and development, but as an ordinary business graduate I am aware that every project, especially of this capacity, goes through a SWOT — Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat — analysis before being launched. Brainstorming and strategy sessions meticulously cover all the ‘what ifs’, and plan every single move and its possible response.
On the domestic front, this project is being sold as the “game changer.” My limited understanding from what I can decipher is that China’s interest in Gwadar is to use that port to shorten the distance between point A and point B. Therefore it is a passage to transport goods. The sooner the goods reach the intended destination the sooner the economic activities would occur.
Very interestingly, Iran is building a similar project at Chabahar. India has signed agreements with Iran, and hence a ‘great game’ has begun. In the world of foreign relations, things are not so straight. Interests of various countries overlap with one another, and relationships are not linear at all.
I am not a foreign policy expert, but conventional wisdom dictates that any project that has a sole benefactor and a seemingly sole beneficiary is risky. Perhaps engaging all the neighbours of this region including our adversaries would bring some long-lasting returns. Rather than competing with one another, mutual sharing and gaining would be a better option. Borrowing from my limited business knowledge, a simple cost benefit analysis would endorse this scribe’s opinion.
The writer is a Pakistani-US mortgage banker. He can be reached at [email protected]. He tweets at http://twitter.com/dasghar