Foreign policy analysis has emerged as a sub-discipline within International Relations, where scholars of the field conduct theory-guided empirical analysis of the subject at different levels, ie state, group, individual. The core area of focus and analysis is human behaviour which probably is the most difficult and challenging entity on account of its oscillatory characteristics. Nevertheless, foreign policy experts develop models to measure policy behaviour at a given unit of analysis. The point I am trying to make is foreign policy making and analysis is taken as a scientific inquiry in the developed societies where the only expert of the field — after years of research — comments on different aspects of foreign policy. In the US, for instance, one sees scholars like Joseph Nye or Matthew Bunn appearing on CNN, MSNBC and even local radio to share their scholarly opinion on, for example, Iran-US nuclear deal or the recent visit of President Donald Trump to the Middle East. Journalists generally in the US or Germany ask questions, not answer questions of mass significance. Importantly, there are examples of top journalists in the United States who got PhDs in international relations and public policy and, out of sheer choice, preferred journalism as a profession.
Quite to the contrary, the foreign policy discourse is overwhelmingly controlled by non-experts in the Pakistan’s case where a battery of TV hosts and guests, who lack the basics of training and theoretical knowledge of the field, are seen every night, fighting with each other over different aspects of our foreign policy. The majority of the televangelists comprise of politicians, whose majority lacks basic know-how of the complexities of the subject; ex-servicemen, the majority of which only carries some inner information on how our power elite work; and a few so called analysts whose terminal qualifications, on average, is an MA in strategic studies from a local university. Most of them who appear on public and private TV channels carry a pro-state, often biased and uncritical appraisal of the contours of the foreign policy of the country.
Resultantly, though the hosts and the guests do make a name and earn money, it is the masses that are misled, and the policy makers that are poorly fed with an often third rate opinion based mostly on emotive jargon skewed understating of the complex structure of regional and international relations and institutional and ideological biases. To understand the preceding clearly, let us take the example of the most recent case of Pakistan joining the Saudi Arabia led 41-member alliance against international terrorism which is supposedly led by former Pakistani COAS, General Raheel Sharif. Our televangelists, with a minuscule exception, yelled day and night to consistently urge the government, both civil and military, to join the Saudi-led alliance.
Joining the alliance was deemed super beneficial for Pakistan. Firstly, it will be means to counter India that has calibrated cordial relations with the Arab states such as the UAE. Secondly, it will place Pakistan at the centre of the Islamic world in particular and the non-Islamic world in general. Thirdly, it will help Pakistani economy as the country receives billions of dollars in remittances, and Saudi Arabia will fund our bills, too as it did with 1.5 billion US$ largesse in 2014. Moreover, the ex-servicemen took institutional pride to see a former chief with experience in counter-terrorism to lead such as large and prestigious alliance. So far, the picture looks beautiful. Now, take a glimpse of the ugly side too.
Since Pakistan has shifted its client status to China and is busy calibrating Russia, which is still viewed as an enemy by the security establishment in the US — it was but natural to be ignored by the US at the summit
During the recently held Arab-Islamic-American summit on terrorism in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, contradictions and shortcomings in our foreign policy discourse became evident to which I pointed to in these pages already. I was not surprised to see the way Pakistan was humiliated at the summit: it was to be the way it happened. Firstly, our policy makers miserably failed to take into account the shifting contours of the US foreign policy under the Trump administration. The US, even before the summit, started preferring Saudi Aria once more in the turbulent Middle East. Since Pakistan has shifted its clientele to China and is busy calibrating Russia, which is still viewed as an enemy by the security establishment in the US, it was but natural to be ignored by the US at the summit. Secondly, our policymakers and the public could not take a dispassionate view of Pakistani-Saudi relations. Indeed, Dr Ayesha Siddiqa had drawn timely attention to it. What we failed to understand is the fact that the alliance is a brainchild of Saudi Arabia in an effort to control the Middle East. It will be naïve on the part of the Saudis to let Pakistan lead and cash it on. Thirdly, our policy makers could not see above and beyond India. The latter has projected itself quite successfully, courtesy its scholars in the US and Europe, as a major power in the region. To add insult to injury, neither Nawaz Sharif, with a history of close ties with the Saudis, nor much hyped Raheel Sharif was invited to address the audience for a minute or so. It is apologia on the part of some analysts to argue Pakistan faced this all because on non-clarity at home. Alternatively, Pakistan did commit to side with the Saudis logistically two years ago and taking it to parliament was and is of no effect as power lies somewhere else in this country.
In a nutshell, this case should suffice to bemoan the failure of our foreign policy, if any. Perhaps this is time to revisit its discourse by preferring to keep it indoors and with scholars than televangelists.
The writer is Head, Department of Social Sciences, Iqra University, Islamabad. He is DAAD, FDDI and Fulbright Fellow. He tweets @ejazbhatty