Daily Times

Politicians are discombobulating,
to say the very least. For decades, the narrative has been straightforward: Pakistan has only one true friend in this world — Saudi Arabia. More importantly, this mantra has forever been followed by all key players in all the spheres of government. For the record, having a true friend in the current, charged, international environment with everyone breathing down each other’s necks is actually something to brag about. The list of nations who can claim friendship with each other would probably fit on a post-it. True friendship cannot be bought. The US has sent over $ 40 billion in aid to Pakistan over the past decade but no Pakistani would publicly assert that the two nations are friends. In fact, a referendum would refute any such claim. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, which lent us $ 1.5 billion last year, is the only friend Pakistan has.
But what does parliament conclude when requested by its one friend to come to its aid? It procrastinates and eventually comes up with gratuitous suggestions accompanied by a palaver of excuses, verging on effrontery, for not coming to their aid. What kind of friends are we? Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen were apparently induced by the exile of its friend, the Yemeni president, effectuated by the rebels. Their stance has been legitimised, even if indirectly, by the recent UN Security Council resolution to impose an arms embargo and blacklist the Houthi leaders. Accordingly, the Saudi alliance’s frustration at its friend Pakistan for backing away at the wrong moment is perhaps understandable.
Admittedly, Saudi Arabia is the aggressor in this case but pre-emptive strikes against perceived threats have been an essential part of war strategies practiced by almost all nations at one time or the other. Under the true friendship doctrine, the enemy of my friend is my enemy. As Niccolo Machiavelli said: “A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a true enemy. When he declares himself in favour of one party against the other, without any reservation, this action will always be more advantageous than remaining neutral.”
The argument that Pakistan is committed to coming to the aid of the Kingdom, if and when Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty is threatened, is weak at best. If and when that were to happen, the entire Muslim world would probably join forces against the aggressor. Currently, the government seems hard pressed to cajole the Saudis and clarify the misunderstanding arising from Pakistan parliament’s resolution. The situation has been made all the more confusing because of rumours that Pakistani forces are already on the ground in Yemen and that Pakistan will eventually accede to Saudi Arabia’s demand of joining their alliance. “The wise man does at once what the fool does finally,” according to Niccolo Machiavelli.
The government is caught between a rock and a hard place on this matter and everyone is convinced that its decision is prescient considering the stakes involved. There is no denying the real risk of escalating clashes between religious sects in Pakistan should the government choose to get involved. With the way things are progressing in the Middle East, it is only a matter of time before the inevitable comes to pass and war comes knocking at Pakistan’s borders, the already continuing domestic proxy wars notwithstanding. The government would be better off focusing on strategies to mitigate these risks, rather than if it were to continue to bury its head in the sand. “There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of other,” says Niccolo Machiavelli.
Perhaps politics is the only profession in which the ability to ride two boats at the same time is an admired quality but even in that case the ride does not last forever. On the humorous side, someone recently sent me a clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stuart about US air strikes assisting ground forces in Iraq and Iran to take back Tikrit from Islamic State (IS) while, at the same time, assisting Saudi Arabia in its air strikes against Houthi rebels, who were being aided by Iran. Stewart’s conclusion was hilarious: after decades the US has finally managed to fight a proxy war with itself. It would be a tragedy if Pakistan found itself in the same situation, which seems rather probable.
On the other hand, the fact that Pakistan is embroiled in a domestic war and cannot afford to risk weakening its eastern border is a potent argument. But this argument should hold even if Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty is threatened. Why would things be different in that case? The argument is that Middle Eastern kingdoms cannot afford to send Pakistani workers packing, even if they wanted to and hence there is no threat to the remittances these workers send home. With oil prices expected to hover at current levels, buying oil from other sources will not be an insurmountable hurdle. Let us keep our fingers crossed and hope that the pundits have a better success rate at predicting future economic scenarios than they did with the cricket world cup.
The situation is definitely confusing but, at the end of the day, friends or not, the deed is done. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from all this: in reality, there are no friends amongst nations. Rational decisions should be, not emotional ones. We had a friend but, not to worry, we now have a new friend, China, which is expected to invest $ 46 billion and usher in an economic boom. But let us just be weary of friendship!

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. He can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com and on twitter @leaccountant