Zafar Hilaly
All three heads of state should have been pleased with the outcome of the recent Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan summit. For a beleaguered Iran, which is reeling under layers of UN sanctions and faces a boycott of vital oil exports as well as a looming threat of attack, Islamabad’s promise to stand by Tehran come hell or high water must have been welcome.
In Pakistan’s case too, Iran’s assurance to provide energy-starved Pakistan with as much oil and gas as it needs at a rate lower than the current market rate would have clearly pleased Pakistanis as would the promise of boosting bilateral trade from $2 to $10 billion. There should be a lot of opportunity for that as the UN/US/EU sanctions bite and Iran seeks to diversify its trade.
As for Hamid Karzai, he finally got to vent all the bile he has accumulated against the Pakistani military, whom he accused directly of two timing Afghanistan by protecting the Taliban while denying any control over them. That must have been quite a high for him.
In reality, though what happened at the summit doesn’t add up to much. In fact, the opposite may be true. For example, Mr Zardari’s boastful support to Iran in case of a US attack is just so much hot air. Pakistan can do precious little to help Iran militarily in the event of a war with the US, while it would risk being blown away, as all are well aware. Raising unrealistic expectations merely for effect can be very counter-productive.
As for importing oil and gas from Iran, Pakistan is broke and even if it somehow manages to raise funds to complete the pipeline, there won’t be much left to pay for the gas. True, the pipeline itself may no longer be a pipedream, provided the US does not turn nasty, but the gas expected to be piped through it won’t be nearly enough to make up for the anticipated shortfall. But yes, it’s a good start.
On the other hand, Hamid Karzai’s outburst against the Pakistani military has probably further muddied the prospects of a rapprochement. Ms Khar’s claim that ‘candour and hard talk’ are good for relations was nothing more than a diplomatic gloss. Had someone on the Pakistani side retorted by accusing Karzai of conniving with India, the exchange could have gotten uglier. The trouble is that most people consider Karzai to be a quisling. In fact, he is a part of the problem and an impediment to Afghanistan’s solution.
It is also unrealistic to expect much from the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan summit as none of the three presidents on view in Islamabad really control anything. They are boxed in and their moves scripted by more powerful forces at home and, in the case of Karzai, by Washington.
Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan too – under representative and inclusive regimes – could, of course, form a commonality of interests to evolve a structure for peace in the region but all of that is still over the horizon. Presently, an occupied Afghanistan, a destabilised Pakistan and an Iran facing the possibility of war are far too preoccupied with saving their skins. We, in Pakistan, have to first get out of the mess we are in at the moment before we can think of planning for the future.
To do this we need a paradigm shift in our thinking because the situation we are in today has the stench and feel of a quagmire. And that means first and foremost accepting that Afghanistan should be in no one’s sphere of influence. That concept belongs to a world which no longer exists nor can be recreated. Otherwise history will keep repeating itself until we hit rock bottom and find ourselves trapped, unable to get out of the deep hole which we are largely responsible for digging ourselves into.
A regional framework is about the only way the complexity and contortions that afflict Af-Pak can be managed. Most importantly, a regional framework that is based on economic cooperation and collaboration (for which stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be critical) will by its very dynamics prevent any one country from becoming politically dominant in Afghanistan.
Commercial interests will also shift the focus of attention and ambition away from crude power politics. Economic growth will change the internal dynamics of both these countries away from the culture of confrontation and extremism.
Such a tectonic shift will also require Afghanistan to become politically non-aligned, which implies that the US will have to give up any ambition of maintaining a permanent military presence in Afghanistan, while India’s importance will lie more in the commercial field than in backing one political coalition against others in Afghanistan. Of course, Pakistan will also have to give up any ambition it may still harbour of establishing strategic depth for itself in Afghanistan.
China’s economic role both as a major long term investor with a huge domestic market will also limit the influence of India and the US. At the same time, Pakistan’s geostrategic location will ensure that it remains a critical country in any such regional scheme. By definition, a regional framework based on economic cooperation will be inclusive, providing all the regional and extra regional players with some space. Afghanistan being land locked means that Pakistan will always be more important to Afghanistan than any other country.
Infrastructural development (oil/gas pipelines, roads, railways, etc) for regional economic interaction alone will give an immediate boost to jobs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the commercial activity that will follow on its heels will substantially raise revenues for their impoverished governments.
That will, in turn, unleash huge internal investments in Pakistan, where a lot of money is locked up for lack of stability and certainty. As a result of such changes, the ambience/atmosphere will change dramatically in the Af-Pak border region.
But somebody has to take the lead, and we should do it only because it will be our life-line to a much better future in contrast to the doom that awaits us. In such a scenario US trade/aid will become almost completely irrelevant. The military too will be buying its toys, like India does, rather than beg for them as at present.
The question is do we have the will and the imagination to work towards such a structure or are we condemned to get repeatedly carried away by narrow parochial considerations and age-old animosities and neurotic fears. The portents are not good.
Sadly, our politicians count for little on such issues while the military apparently caught in a 20th century rut continues to play its game with the cards close to its chest. It continues to be far less transparent than others and far more reactive than proactive which will not do.
The military’s perspective must shift from that of the 20th to the 21st century, away from the deadly and outdated game of sphere of influence. That game has played itself out historically and any attempt to revive it will spell doom for Af-Pak.
Email: charles123it@hotmail.com
-The News
