Does a foreign policy mean foreign tours? Does a foreign policy mean foreign affairs? Does a foreign policy mean foreign delegations? These are perhaps the most visible parts of Pakistan’s foreign policy components but are also the most trivial parts of any foreign policy. Foreign policy is a major part of a government’s performance, exhibiting its ideology and approach to international relations. It can vary from peaceful co-existence to exploitation. Pakistan’s inability to position itself with a clear stance regionally and globally has contributed in a significant way to the problems we face today politically, financially and socially. The lack of vision to develop a competitive advantage based on its geographical position and its demographical prominence has made it a caddy boy in the political power golf being played by the big boys around.
A foreign policy, by definition, is the planned effort of a country to develop international relations with other countries to serve its self-interest. The policy document has to have a vision and guiding principles of how a nation sees itself in the world order and what ground rules it will obey in matters of international relations and conduct. The guiding principles of Pakistan’s foreign policy as stated by the Quaid-e-Azam are protection of independence and sovereignty, cordial relations with Muslim countries, promotion of world peace, implementation of the UN Charter, nonalignment, support of self determination, opposition to discrimination and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. These are very clear guidelines and need to be translated into policy direction for Pakistan’s relations with countries in South Asia, the west and the rest of the world. Under these regions we need country-specific policies not only covering areas of conflict and military cooperation but economic and trade cooperation, social and cultural relations. These then can be translated into specific objectives given to the foreign office and foreign missions to follow and implement. Even in the absence of this planning, by just glancing at the governing principles, we see how successive governments have been violating them at the cost of national interest. The principle of an independent and sovereign Pakistan has been violated by allowing the US to operate in the country, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries has been violated by supporting the US in Afghanistan and the support we are planning to provide for the Saudi-Yemen conflict is dangerously tilting in the same direction.
In the absence of a foreign policy, every single country that Pakistan has had to interact with in the recent past has been able to use the country to its own advantage. In the neighbourhood, our cross-border clashes with India have been in strange contrast to our nebulous political response on their diplomatic and media aggression. Our relationship with Afghanistan has been based on distrust and conflict. With Iran it is always a dictated relationship under duress by the US and the Saudis. Even the cordial relations we enjoy with a few countries are subservient to personal interests rather than national interests. Friendship with China is more on mega projects and mega deals rather than on lobbying to develop counter-power structures to India and the US. Friendship with Saudi Arabia can be better described by bonded labour contracts where money gifted in times of need is expected to be paid back in fighting other people’s wars. For terms of engagement with the US, if ever there was a lose-win deal made in diplomatic terms, from Ziaul Haq to the present era, it has been as inept and as one-sided as you can ever imagine a deal to be.
The present confusion of ‘to be or not to be’ part of the Saudi-Yemen conflict is a consistent example of how the indecisiveness and lack of transparency in declaring our true posture has made the country vulnerable to local and international exploitation. As a country, we have suffered enough in the past due to foreign intervention in our affairs and the cost of getting embroiled in an international conflict at a time when we are unable to manage conflicts at home is total insanity. The Saudi-Yemen conflict is not new and neither is the US’s interest in propelling the Saudis to tame the growing influence of Iran in the Middle East. Almost constantly since its foundation in 1932, Saudi Arabia has been involved in Yemen politically and sometimes militarily, often with negative consequences for Yemen. The border dispute between the two countries has been interspersed with US interests in the region due to al Qaeda’s war in the region. US intervention in Yemen has been identical to Pakistan where their massive drone attacks have been allowed in return for military and logistical support to the Yemen government to fight the US war on terror with many reports of collateral damage in the form of innocent human lives. Underlying all these battles is the fact that Pakistan has faced the failure of successive governments to lift the country out of poverty due to leaders whose corruption make them easy targets for outsiders to exploit. Poverty has and always will fertilise the seeds of rebellion. The Houthi movement has gained momentum due to the failure of the Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi government. This rising rebellion has been exploited by Iran and it is this fear of growing Iranian power over the region that Saudis have overreacted to with air strikes on Yemen.
Iran has had very structured foreign posturing in a region going through uprising and discontent. It has positioned itself as anti-US, anti-Israeli and pro-Palestine with support from Hezbollah and Hamas, capitalising on the resentment in the Arab world against authoritarian monarchies’ suppression. Added to that is the sectarian clash of Saudi Wahabiism and Iranian Shiaism, which has played a part in this battle that has seen Syria, Egypt and many other countries being caught in this regional power conflict.
In the absence of a clear-cut policy and an empowered ministry, or for that matter even a minister, foreign policy in Pakistan has become a matter of the whims and fancies of ministers, advisors and diplomats. While the prime minister issues statements of providing safe passage back to Pakistanis stranded in Yemen, the Pakistani ambassador in Yemen, Dr Irfan Shami, and his staff were the first to return on the special flight back to Pakistan while almost 2,000 Pakistanis are still waiting for some help to come back to the country. Meanwhile, the minister of defence and the advisor on foreign affairs went on a tour to meet their Saudi counterparts for a briefing on the conflict with Yemen. On their return things have started to look as they normally do in every major crisis situation: vague, indecisive, non-transparent and, to put it crudely, fishy. The prime minister meanwhile decides that Turkey is the place to go for all and sundry. Leaders must understand that foreign policy is a matter more significant than foreign tours though the prime minister has broken all records by being on these tours 21 times in 18 months, declining foreign investment and diminishing political influence, all evidence of these just being purposeless travels. As they say, if you do not know where you want to go, any road will lead you there.
The writer is secretary information PTI Punjab, an analyst and a columnist,
and can be reached at [email protected]