Redefining external policy parameters

Contributing Editor Dr SHIREEN M MAZARI analyses changes in external policy.

It is indeed a sad reflection on the mind-set of successive Pakistani decision-makers that no matter what the ground realities, they cannot rid themselves of a US-centric approach to external policy. Therefore, despite the very clear hostile messages from Washington and Clinton personally, as the US operationalises its New Containment policy centring on India as the South Asian pillar, we find the Pakistani ruling elite gathering once again in the US to “explain” our case! It is as if the rest of the world does not exist for the Pakistani decision-makers and somehow the US must be wooed at all cost. This is unfortunate since there are many alternative options going abegging because of our continued US-centric obsession.

Meanwhile, the US is moving full speed ahead with its efforts to garner support for its India-as-a-major power policy. That is why the now penitent Robin Cook has followed Clinton to New Delhi like a faithful hound to lend support to Indian efforts to make it to a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Cook’s support for India’s permanent membership bid within the Security Council was simply a reassertion of the US position and it is clear that the US and Britain are jointly going to bring India within the ambit of the New Containment parameters.

Given these realities, it is time the Pakistani policy makers gave Washington a miss for a while - despite the lures of a summer visit to the US - to explore more fruitful options for proactive diplomacy in regions such as Latin America, Western Europe beyond Britain and countries such as Syria, South Africa, Iran (even the Saudis are now looking to a strategic cooperation with Iran) and so on. And the focus should be on innovative proposals on substantive issues like Kashmir, terrorism, restructuring of the UN and nuclear stability in South Asia. With the Annual UN General Assembly session approaching in Autumn, we must lobby amongst the diverse UN membership and float new ideas for peace and security, otherwise we will be left reacting to India’s proactive diplomacy on this front.

On Kashmir

Unless we actively float a viable alternative, we are now in serious danger of getting hemmed in the Indian lobbyists - who dominate US think-tanks-efforts to get India out of its impasse on Kashmir. Having seen the futility of directly proposing the notion of the “LoC as the international border” there is now a concerted effort to propose this indirectly through various proposals focusing on “greater autonomy” for IHK through dialogue between the Indian government and the APHC within the “confines” of the Indian Constitution! And the economic adviser to Mr Vajpayee has floated his own version of the indirect approach to the “LoC as the international border” idea with his so-called “three-phased approach to the resolution of the Kashmir conflict”. The absurdity of this proposal has already been commented on in earlier columns but the fact is that Pakistan has yet to offer alternative proposals which operationalise its Kashmir policy based on the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite.

Pakistan could float the notion of Proximity Talks on Kashmir where the UN should act as the third party mediator and the talks should include the APHC and those Kashmiris the Indians have tried to cultivate as “leaders” in IHK, along with Pakistan and India. With indirect talks and negotiations, a zerosum game can be altered to a positive sum game. Amongst the proposals Pakistan can bring to the fore can be the Owen Dixon proposal for regional plebiscites in Jammu and Kashmir. Here Pakistan must invoke the UN Charter and get the Secretary General to play his role of using his good office to mediate. Mr Annan’s present silence on Kashmir is highly questionable given the UN Secretary General’s obligations on conflict resolution under the UN Charter.

Pakistan also needs to deal with the Indian tirade of “cross-border terrorism”. Since the Indian concern is over the infiltration of fighters across the LoC, then Pakistan needs to forcefully propose to India that it place international observers along the LoC to monitor Pakistan’s claims that it is not allowing such infiltrations. After all, the international community needs to ask India why it is so shy of placing some form of international observers along the LoC when it is constantly accusing Pakistan of these infiltrations. After all, if an Indian “peacekeeping” force could be sent to Sri Lanka, why not a SAARC observer force along the LoC?

In addition, Pakistan really needs to accept that diplomatically it has not done justice to the Kashmiri struggle on the ground. We have not highlighted the Kashmiri cause and Indian brutalities to the people or governments of the world. One really wonders what our many delegations that went all over the world did on this front - beyond having wonderful vacations at state expense. An accountability on this score is needed.

Again, one reason for our failure on this front is that we did not move beyond our US-centric obsession - while our international media focus also was “BBC and CNN.” Yet there are countries and people to be wooed beyond and there is a whole network of international electronic media beyond the BBC and CNN! For instance, how many people in South Africa or Brazil know about the Indian army’s use of rape as a weapon of war in IHK? Yet these are critical regional powers who carry great weightage in international fora.

The sad reality is that the image that a large part of the world - which we have by and large neglected - has of Pakistan is of an unstable polity comprising of violence, obscurantism and of women confined to their homes under duress. Of our music, literature and cultural moorings there is a total void, thanks to the bleak legacy of the Zia dictatorship that we have never forcefully tried to reject. Even delegations from friendly states point this out, as I discovered recently when I met some visiting Central Asians. More recently, this point was also made by many friendly European parliamentarians and diplomats who know the image is distorted but find that we are not doing enough to rectify the situation.

On terrorism

Here Pakistan should actively seek support for a unified approach to fighting this global menace which must be isolated from freedom struggles against occupationist forces. After all, such struggles for self-assertion and self-determination have clearly defined characteristics and have normally been given legitimacy through international bodies like the UN - as in the case of Kashmir where UN resolutions recognised the dispute and have demanded a plebiscite to allow the people their right of self-determination. Already in the case of East Timor UN resolutions provided the underlying legitimacy and international support for the struggle.

Pakistan needs to make this distinction the cornerstone of a proposal on terrorism which would commit all states to denying shelter to those individuals wanted for terrorist activities in their countries. There must be a principle of reciprocity underlying the struggle against terrorism. So if the US accuses Pakistan or Afghanistan of sheltering Osama bin Laden, then it must also concede that its allies like Britain are providing shelter and support for individuals wanted for terrorism in countries like Pakistan. Without reciprocity, there can be no international agreement on how to deal with the menace of terrorism.

On restructuring the UN

Pakistan should not allow itself to get bogged down on which states should now be added to the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Instead, Pakistan should float alternative options on restructuring of the whole UN system. The present one was devised to reflect the power realities after the end of WW II which now do not exist - given the demise of the Soviet empire and the present position of Britain and France in the global system, devoid of their colonial power. Even if nuclear weapons are to be the sole defining reason for permanent membership, then there would need to be some additions keeping in mind ground realities! However, since there is a strong presumption against nuclear weapons, the fairest way to deal with the absurdity of the present Security Council would be to restructure it to reflect regional representation even amongst the permanent membership - if there is still to be such a thing. Also, permanent membership should revolve periodically - again with elections on a regional basis. Given the highly evolved integration within the EU, there should now be a seat for the EU rather than individual states. Or, ideally, permanent membership should be done away with all together and instead regions should periodically choose a Security Council on proportionately allocated seats.

As for the General Assembly, it needs to be reformed in a manner which gives its resolutions enforceability. On this point Pakistan needs to brainstorm with other member states because it is the GA that truly represents the world and it is time its resolutions went beyond having moral force.

On nuclear stability  in South Asia

Detailed proposals on this front have already been discussed in earlier columns. Pakistan needs to simultaneously present proposals for establishing nuclear stability in the region and gaining legitimacy for its own nuclear status.

With regard to the former, it needs to do the following:

• Sign CTBT (which in any case will only be operationalised after Pakistan, India, the US and all the other 44 required states ratify it);

• float the notion of a Non-Aggression Pact for South Asia along with a blueprint for a SAARC Strategic Consultative Committee;

• call for a dialogue with India on: Curtailing mutually-specific nuclear missiles and warheads in terms of deployment and development; developing transparency on this front to avoid unintentional nuclear war; building substantive CSBMs in the nuclear field to establish stability and restraint within the realities of a nuclear South Asia;

• suggest mutual reduction of conventional forces on the Paris Treaty model for force reductions in Europe.

• Finally, within the FMCT negotiations Pakistan needs to push for an agreement that deals with reductions in existing fissile stockpiles of states and not just the establishment of a future cut-off point. Here Pakistan should also go for supporting a more comprehensive approach to nuclear arms control which must include an agreement to prevent the nuclearisation of outer space.

With regard to the objective of gradually legitimising its nuclear status, Pakistan needs to take two immediate steps: One, sign Additional Protocol II of the Tlatelolco Treaty and, two, declare its intentions of abiding by the export regime of the MTCR (the Missile Technology Control Regime, which is not a treaty but a Suppliers’ agreement).

Then there is a need for countries like Pakistan to push for the activation of the IAEA’s Committee on Assurances of Supply (created in June 1980), as well as bringing to the fore the 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. If one looks more intently in this field, there are many other opportunities that are there to be exploited.

The point one is trying to make is that it is time Pakistan explored a whole range of options available to it with an aggressive proactive global diplomacy which should not begin and end in Washington.