View Point: No lessons learnt

Whosoever said “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it” obviously did not realise that some, such as our rulers, cannot learn even from current history to keep from repeating mistakes of the past. As it is, this country faces an existential threat from violent extremists of the Taliban brand because of Islamabad’s past policy of lending mercenary services to the US in its two Afghan wars in exchange for dollars; and from sectarian terrorists for letting financially helpful Gulf kingdoms to fund, for their own purposes, sectarian seminaries that are playing havoc with lives and generating social tensions.

Addicted to rent-seeking our rulers are getting ready to invite more trouble, this time by adopting a confrontational posture toward Iran at the behest of a third country, Saudi Arabia. During the recent days, there has been a flurry of exchange visits between the high and mighty from Riyadh and Islamabad, with the kingdom showing keen interest in buying defence equipment from Pakistan and promising economic assistance. What Pakistan to do in return is obvious from the joint statement issued at the end of talks between the visiting Saudi Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif: contain Iran’s influence in the region.

As a first and formal step in that direction Pakistan has made a key change in its policy towards the Syrian crisis in which the Assad regime is actively backed, aside from Russia, by Iran. So far Islamabad had maintained a neutral stance saying it does not interfere in other countries internal affairs. Informing the policy were two good reasons. One, that the conflict does not affect Pakistan in any way. Second, supporting the armed resistance would have set a precedent which could be used by Pakistan’s detractors, such as US Congressman Louie Gohmert who has been calling for an independent Balochistan. But Syria policy has since undergone change. The joint statement devotes substantial attention to Syria, starting with a call for “the formation of a transitional governing body with full executive powers enabling it to take charge of the affairs of the country.” This far there is nothing controversial since it is in accord with the Geneva-I Conference agreement on Syrian crisis that called for the formation of a transitional government – something the Assad regime continues to resist despite saying it is committed to the agreement.

The joint statement then goes on to tread the sensitive territory calling for withdrawal of “all foreign armed forces and elements” from Syria. This is diplomatic parlance for demanding that Russia should remove its naval base from Tartus, and Iran along with its Lebanese ally Hezbollah stop providing material/physical support to the government. There of course is no mention of the jihadists who have been armed and financed by the kingdom and some of its Gulf allies to fight the Shiite Assad regime killing, like our Taliban, Shias and Christians to establish a fundamentalist Sunni state in order to check Iran’s influence in the region. None of those involved stands on high moral ground.

So, why should Pakistan change its long-standing policy of observing neutrality, and annoy its next-door neighbour? It promises to bring financial rewards both on a personal and country level. The Prime Minister may be wanting to pay back Riyadh for helping him during a difficult time, but he also has a son running a flourishing business in the kingdom. He would surely benefit from the new partnership. For the country, the Saudis have held out attractive deals, as noted earlier, both for the government and the military. There is the offer of one-year deferred oil payments facility, trade expansion and investments in the energy sector, purchase of military equipment and training services, hiring of skilled and semi-skilled manpower, and a lot more.

Trouble has started already with Tehran. Early this month, ie, on February 6 a Pakistan-based terrorist organisation calling itself Jaish al Adl claimed responsibility for kidnapping five Iranian border guards from the adjoining Iranian province of Sistan-Balochistan. US-sponsored terrorist organisation, Jandollalh, has also been using our soil in the past to launch terrorist attacks in Iran creating tensions between the two countries. That problem seemed to have been resolved after Pakistan handed over Jandollah head, Abdul Malek Rigi, to Iranian authorities back in 2010 to be executed. It is not known yet where Jaish al Adl gets its training and finances. What is known is that during the recent months this group has been active in the border area. Last October, it killed 14 Iranian border guards and kidnapped three others. That was reason enough for Tehran to get angry. It now has plenty to worry about.

Although there have been incidents before, like the one in October, Iran’s tone has never been as aggressive as it is now, apparently because it has begun to suspect intentions. It has adopted an uncharacteristically tough line, telling Pakistan to secure the release of its guards, failing which the country’s Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazil warned “we will send our forces onto Pakistani soil.” And the deputy chief of armed forces Major General Hossein Hasan Sa’di, while insisting the guards were still alive, came out with the threat that Iran would “show tough confrontation in this case. … We will have no soft stand in this case and our neighbour country… should account for its lack of action.” The harsh tone is indicative of a growing lack of trust based on real concerns.

Our civil and military establishments need to rethink the pros and cons of the new policy. Enhancing co-operation with another friendly country must not mean stepping on the toes of a third party. It can have disastrous consequences. Already of the four countries with which Pakistan shares its borders two are hostile. We have no issues of conflict with Iran, which is located next to our troubled Balochistan province. If it feels threatened enough, it too might want to adopt an adversarial stance and retaliate by providing support and shelter to Baloch insurgents and/or Afghan elements sympathetic to it. Our policy makers have not thought through all the risks the policy shift presents. Sadly, once again the lure of money overrides this country’s peace and security interests.

saida_fazal@yahoo.com