Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Egypt: what do these countries share in common? Aside from carrying a Muslim majority, a poor economic status, a civil war like situation, numerous external threats and internal chaos, they also share an ‘ideal’ strategic location. According to the ‘ideally-placed-Pakistan’ doctrine, our geopolitical position makes us so important in world politics that without us the international affairs will stay incomplete. For instance, if US has to win a war against Russia or later on China, it needs Pakistan. If it has to fight terrorism, it needs Pakistan. If it has to curb international nuclear threat, it needs Pakistan. Even today, if it has to make Afghanistan stable, it needs Pakistan. Our location should therefore work as an impetus for economic growth, political stability and prosperity. The ground situation, however, contradicts their assertion. Along with many other factors including corruption, nepotism and incompetence, the ‘strategic location’ of Pakistan, I believe, has played a role in causing us to lag behind our cohorts. Yes, we attract foreign powers because of our location but that interest pulls us down, not push us up. Let us look at Afghanistan first. The landlocked country connects India with the Central Asian markets providing them with the shortest route to establish trade with each other. What could be better than that for a country to prosper? A gas pipeline piercing across its North East towards India generating revenue and a motorway winding through the mountains to join the Grand Trunk Road providing a permanent source of income could be everything a country would want. But, can we call Afghanistan prosperous? Of course, not. It would rather be described as a mess consumed by terrorism, civil war, tribal feuds, Islamic radicalism and foreign intervention, the only country occupied by two super powers in less than fifty years. Similarly, the strategic locations of Yemen and Somalia, flanking the Bab of Mandeb in Bay of Aden (Red Sea), cannot be overstated. Every ship that leaves Asia for Europe or enters Asia from the West has to pass through it. Like Afghanistan, the economy of the two countries should be bristling with trade and job opportunities. However, the reality shows us a different picture. Both Yemen and Somalia are considered among the poorest countries in the world, marred by complex civil wars, religious extremism and poverty. March on to Egypt. From the revenues generated by Suez Canal alone, it earns billions of dollars. Sitting at the opposite end of the Red Sea from Somalia and Yemen, Suez Canal connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, a passage for the ships to travel between Asia and the West. Technically, it should have opened the door of economic success for the Egyptians as well. But has it done so? The country has plunged back into dictatorship soon after it had emerged from it briefly as result of Arab spring in 2011. Egypt is ruled by Abdel Fateh El Sisi, the Chief of the Army Staff since 2014. Before him, it was Hosni Mubarak who ruled for thirty years. I am not sure how long it will take — if ever — before normalcy and democracy would hold ground in the country. Pakistan, just like Egypt, has never been politically stable. Moreover, except for a few years of sustained growth during Ayub Khan’s tenure, the country has never shown economic resilience Pakistan also possesses similar strategic advantages. Pakistani analysts brag about Pakistan’s access to warm waters in the Indian Ocean, its connection to China through the Silk Road, its proximity to the Persian Gulf, its border with Afghanistan, and so forth. However, the truth holds that Pakistan, just like Egypt, has never found itself in a politically stable condition. Moreover, except for few years of sustained growth during Ayub Khan’s tenure almost fifty years ago, the country has never shown economic resilience. On the contrary, economy of India, its next-door neighbour, has taken a giant leap in the last two decades. What Pakistan has shown though to the world is its close association with Islamic radicalism and religious extremism just as we see in Afghanistan, Egypt, Yemen and Somalia. Can the problem lie with the strategic location itself then? Most Pakistanis differ with this point. They say the problem does not lie with their location; it is the foreign interference that causes instability. They explain: Afghanistan was invaded by Russia first. Pakistan had nothing to with it. The war afterwards threw the landlocked nation into a downward spiral of civil war fuelled by religious extremism. Yemen faces the same challenge today. Isolated internationally, it cannot even raise a voice against the attacks launched by the ruthless Saudi forces that are bombing hospitals, mosques and funerals, killing hundreds of children and women without a single scorn from the world community. True, the same situation does not apply to Pakistan since it invited foreign interference itself to earn US dollars against Russia in 1979 through Afghan Jihad. Somehow, that economic assistance did not bring peace or political stability. Instead it made Pakistan one of the most dangerous and unwanted countries in the world. The bottom-line is: the geographic location at best is a double-edged sword for any country having both the potential to help grow or to drag down. Focusing too much on it, as we do, only guarantees turmoil. I compare that with religion in its utility. If one uses geographic location to its advantage like Protestants have used religion in the United States, it can become a powerful motive to lead the world. If one misuses it however, like Pakistan has misused its location, by promoting Jihadism, it becomes an obstacle, a liability in the road towards prosperity. The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com Published in Daily Times, May 8th 2018.