The four main themes which are
important ...
1- Poor Branding Is Not Pakistan's Biggest Problem.
2- Pakistan-US nuclear deal ruffling quite a few feathers.
3- A Possible Coup in Saudi Arabia Signals the End of US Dominance in the
Mideast.
4- Iran says Saudi, not Tehran, destabilizing Middle East.
(i) In anticipation of the visit to Washington by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif,
scheduled for October 21-23, Pakistan's public relations machinery has gone into
over-drive to build expectations of a new partnership between Pakistan and the
United States. Americans are expected to overlook everything that has happened
in the past -- from the notorious Dr A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation to
support for the Afghan Taliban to the discovery of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad
-- and embrace this 'important, valuable and strategic ally' of the United
States.
A recent piece on the Forbes website, titled "Pakistan-U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Talks May Lower Chance Of Nuclear War With India" argues that Pakistan should be
given a civil nuclear deal similar to the one given to India in 2005. The
article builds upon a Washington Post column by David Ignatius who sought to
remind Americans that they cannot afford to forget Afghanistan and Pakistan and
in the process hinted at a civil nuclear deal, much coveted by Islamabad, as a
means of winning over the trust of Pakistan.
The Ignatius piece was clearly an attempt to reignite interest in Pakistan at a
time when Washington appears almost to have forgotten the nuclear-armed country
where US marines located and killed Osama bin Laden only four years ago. But the
Forbes article went farther in painting Pakistan as a victim of American foreign
policy amnesia and was written by a University of Baltimore Professor, Charles
Tiefer, who is not exactly known for direct expertise on South Asian affairs.
Forbes.com allows contributors to write and post directly on the website, which
is why an expert in government contracts, as Prof. Tiefer is described on the
University of Baltimore website, could indulge his love for Pakistan without
editorial scrutiny. In the last five months, Forbes.com has had four articles on
Pakistan and all of them have been positively disposed -almost to the point of
being puff pieces. That is absolutely the opposite of how other media outlets
have been reporting on Pakistan for a while.
An earlier Forbes piece by Tiefer, in 2015 titled 'Today's India-Pakistan Armed
Tensions - Will New U.S. Military and Nuclear Aid to Modi Inflame Them?' argued
that the United States should not see India as a counterweight to China as that
would "inflame India-Pakistan armed tensions." Had the professor known as an
expert in government contracts argued that it would be bad for U.S. government
contracts, at least he would have been simply making a wrong argument about his
own subject. In this instance, he only revealed his ignorance of the history of
U.S.-Pakistan and U.S.-India relations.
The Americans provided Pakistan with weapons to fight communism from the 1950s
to the 1980s. The Reagan administration hoped a militarily strong Pakistan would
feel sufficiently secure to keep its promise of not building nuclear weapons.
Instead, Pakistan used American weaponry to initiate wars against India in 1965,
1971, and 1999, failing to win any of them and running back to the US to ask for
more assistance. Pakistan's covert war against India continues unabated.
Since 9/11, Pakistan has received $23 billion in civilian and military
assistance ostensibly to fight terrorists while the US State Department remains
unable to certify to Congress that it is, in fact, acting against all terrorist
groups operating from Pakistan's soil. Unlike Pakistan, the US has no complaints
against India of harboring global Jihadi terrorists or of exporting nuclear
material to third countries. India's bilateral trade with the US ($50 billion in
2014) is ten times the size f Pakistan's trade with the US ($5 billion). Still
Mr. Tiefer argues that the US should not give 'military aid' to India to keep
Pakistan on America's side.
Ironically, India has rarely sought or received American military aid, with
notable exceptions like in the aftermath of the 1962 India-China war. India is
not asking for and the US is not giving India military and nuclear aid. Instead
India is purchasing American defense equipment that will help American companies
and provide jobs to Americans. More importantly India has never used any weapon
- bought or given- through a terrorist proxy ever, even against China or
Pakistan.
Moreover, no Indian military operation has ever caused the death of Americans,
whereas Pakistan's policy in Afghanistan has led to numerous American deaths,
both civilian and military. Mr. Tiefer nonchalantly writes that the various
Pakistan jihadi groups like Lashkar e Taiba and Haqqani network "work with
Pakistan's powerful intelligence service, ISI" but does not see that as reason
for the US to shun Pakistan.
He argues that if the United States continues siding with India against China
this will "antagonize Pakistan" and lead "the potentially scariest confrontation
in the world." In effect, he is saying that Pakistan's sponsorship of jihadi
groups should not come in the way of it being an American ally but the US must
not ally with India because of Pakistan's fear of India!!
The naiveté is hardly limited to the security arena. In August 2015, Forbes ran
an article asking for a dramatic overhaul of US-Pakistan ties and pitching a
US-Pakistan Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). Another Forbes article attempted
to sell Pakistan's threat of going deeper into China's embrace, changing the
entire region around it, and insinuating that the United States should compete
with China in currying Pakistan's favor.
The author of the first article, titled 'Pakistan: The Next Colombia Success
Story?' Daniel Runde, too was a novice as far as knowledge of Pakistan is
concerned. Had he worked on Pakistan for any length of time he would have known
that Pakistan is the only American ally that has failed to sustain significant
growth or human development even after receiving more than $40 billion in US aid
since 1950.
Mr. Runde should have examined why US aid to Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and even
Europe under the Marshal Plan catalyzed their economies into self-sustaining
growth while the largesse towards Pakistan only increased Pakistan's dependence.
The reason lies more in how Pakistan spent that money, in how its military and
intelligence service view their ties with the US and in how disproportionately
large the military is to the size of the country's economy and any real threats
it faces.
Mr. Runde suggests, that Pakistan suffers from "a terrible country brand." But
certain harsh realities persist and are not just a 'branding' problem. The
politicized Pakistan army may have conducted some military operations against
militants responsible for attacks inside Pakistan but the Pakistani army is
still following its old policy of sparing terrorists targeting India,
Afghanistan and the United States. Sartaj Aziz, advisor to Premier Sharif on
National Security and foreign affairs, has openly asked, "Why should Pakistan
target militants that do not threaten the country's security?"
Despite dealing with Pakistan for decades some Americans still seem to believe
they can change Pakistan's behavior by giving in to its demands or responding
favorably to its PR efforts. Pakistan needs to change its militarized national
mindset and is more likely to reform under fear of international isolation than
in response to praise based on falsehoods. Both the U.S. and Pakistan might
benefit more from recognizing the history of the relationship and correcting
their course substantively instead of obsessing only about appearances.
(ii) For Pakistan, becoming a nuclear power was never an agenda item until it
was forced to add it to its to-do list when its neighbor India started a nuclear
arms race in South Asia in 1974 by conducting a nuclear explosion.
Islamabad was left with no other option and to ensure security of the country
and maintain a balance of power in the region, it started its own nuclear
program to maintain deterrence. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the-then Prime Mister of
Pakistan addressed the nation and said “even if we have to eat grass, we will
make nuclear bomb. We have no other choice”. An enemy with a track record of
employing coercive means to challenge its neighbor on a regular basis, becoming
a nuclear power was perhaps the safest bet at that time.
However, despite poor economic conditions, Pakistan became a nuclear power in
May 1998 after successfully carrying out tests in Chaghi, Balochistan.
As a consequence, Pakistan’s decision of making nukes for maintaining deterrence
and balance of power has been proven right, as both states never went on a full
scale war after acquiring WMDs.
Since the end of Cold War and the ensuing reshuffling of the international
system, US maintained its presence in the region after ensuring that South Asia
did not fall to the whims of Communism. Islamabad played a significant role
during USA’s war with USSR at a time when Indian inclination was more towards
the Soviet Union.
However, as soon as Washington’s target was achieved, it left Pakistan and the
region in general, to its own devices, thus allowing circumstances to shape the
respective destinies of both South Asian countries. India however, was still
able to get due rewards for its loyalty towards the new Russia and was able to
achieve greater heights in its nuclear program than Pakistan.
That was not the first time Pakistan was left as a hopeless case by Americans,
despite its services. And to further compound on the misery, in 2005, US signed
a civil nuclear deal with India, which was seen as another step toward hampering
the balance of power in the region by many policymakers and analysts in
Pakistan.
Pakistan’s stance over the 2005 civil nuclear deal was crystal clear right from
the start – Islamabad wanted closure from US as to what particular mechanism it
used in a bid to sign a civil nuclear deal with India when just like Pakistan,
it had refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indeed, one can
forgive Pakistan for feeling left out by its oldest ally.
Making an effort to convince the safety of its nuclear program
Though, Pakistan kept on pursuing in the same channel by doing its best to
convince the west that its nuclear program is secure and is in safe hands, it
was to no avail. Moreover, being a nation with an acute energy shortage crisis,
Pakistan badly needed to utilize reactors for peaceful purposes.
Furthermore, it is very clear that India will always oppose such action at every
level, as they would never want to see Pakistan on equal footing. But the
international scenario started to change and US was forced to consider tying up
a deal with Pakistan in a bid to revive an alliance that has been weakening in
its intensity for the past several months.
And while talks of Pakistan and US civil nuclear deal have been grabbing regular
media attention, so far, nothing has been finalized and everything is still up
in the air. It is a long process, as both parties have to pave out a way to seal
the deal with positive outcomes and of course it is a matter of national
security, which means that Pakistan will be looking to ensure that it is not at
the end of a wrong bargain.
A nuclear deal after a lot of bargaining?
On the other had the secretary, Josh Earnest while speaking to the media
expressed his concerns that such a deal will happen in a quick fashion
considering the fact that there are a lot of complications. “A deal like the one
that’s been discussed publicly is not something that’s likely to come to
fruition next week. But the United States and Pakistan are regularly engaged in
a dialogue about the importance of nuclear security. And I would anticipate that
that dialogue would include conversations between the leaders of our two
countries.”
Islamabad has to analyze this move from every angle, as this can be a move to
limit Pakistan’s nuclear program. However, up till now Islamabad has not signed
NPT, CTBT or FMCT, which doesn’t make it honor-bound to cut down on its
stockpiling of WMDs.
It has been speculated that Pakistan has been stockpiling fissile material
rapidly, which has raised concerns of western powers, especially US and this
deal can be a step to put a lid on Pakistan’s recent nuclear activity.
However, if this deal happens one thing is for sure, Islamabad will not settle
for anything less than India is enjoying through this deal which means that US
will be forced to make a few concessions which in past, it hasn’t been willing
to make when it comes to offering Pakistan any type of support.
US trying to balance its act in South Asia
It is not really surprising to see US trying to work out such a deal with
Pakistan. With the likes of Russia and China already taking a lot of advantage
out of USA’s hesitance in catering to Pakistan’s needs, Washington knows that it
will only be a matter of time when Pakistan would simply free itself from its
influence.
India on the other hand, has had quite a lot of reservations regarding the
prospect of a civil nuclear deal happening on the other side of its border. New
Delhi feels that a state that has been harboring terrorists for years should not
be given such liberties. However, the fact that it has never been able to give a
conclusive proof of Pakistan’s suspected activities in any international
platform, renders its argument meaningless. Moreover, the fact that Pakistan has
been stockpiling WMDs and small warheads for ages without letting any slip out
of the facilities, means that the argument of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal not
being in safe hands is also a far-fetched notion conjured by those who are not
aware of the ground realities about the country’s nuclear program.
(iii) If Saudi Arabia didn't already have enough worries in a fast-changing
Middle East, yet another crisis hit home for the desert kingdom: alleged
hospitalization of King Salman, thought to have Alzheimer's disease or some form
of dementia. He only assumed the throne in January.
While the 79-year-old monarch's hospital stay surprised many in the West, the
question global affairs and security analysts ask is: What might the future look
like for Saudi Arabia now that the controversial king is sidelined? Will the
rest of the royal family accept and allow Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef to
lead? Or will the kingdom's royal family see division within the ranks?
These events could coalesce into a major political storm, significantly
increasing the risk of instability not only within the kingdom but across the
greater, strife-torn Middle East (if that's even possible).
This turn of events comes on the heels of shocking news. London's Guardian
credits claims by an anonymous Saudi prince who states that two letters have
circulated among senior members of the royal family encouraging them to stage a
coup against King Salman. The rationale is the king and his powerful 30-year-old
son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, have pursued dangerous policies
that are leading the kingdom to political, economic and military ruin.
Disclosure of these memos raises serious concerns. I find myself recalling the
assassination of King Faisal in 1975.
Should royal infighting reveal itself to the outside world, it'll mark the start
of the end for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we know it. Far-reaching
consequences will resound not only economically and politically but religiously
and geopolitically. How?
War in Yemen: The kingdom finds itself entangled in a conflict with a next-door
neighbor with no end in sight. King Salman and his son miscalculated. The longer
Saudi forces continue to engage the Houthis, the more likely internal dissension
within the kingdom itself grows. Images broadcast on al-Jazeera show Saudi
Arabia, an outrageously rich country, pummeling Yemen, one of the poorest in the
Arab world. All this generates criticism of the Saudis and sympathy for Houthi
rebels.
The driving force behind the kingdom's engagement in Yemen is the king's son,
serving as defense minister, who wants to show the world that, despite his
youth, he can make tough calls. However, his actions in Yemen thus far
demonstrate his reckless approach to international affairs, lack of experience
and the absence of an exit strategy, leading to mounting costs for the kingdom
in blood and treasure and growing international criticism.
Economic chaos: The drop in oil prices by more than 50 percent the past year is
sending the kingdom's economy into a tailspin. Thinking among Saudi elites was
to (a) maintain the kingdom's level of global oil production; (b) fight for its
global market share; and (c) allow oil prices to collapse. Theoretically, this
would eventually drive the competition -- especially the United States -- out of
the energy business, paving the way for a subsequent return to higher oil
prices. But the strategy proved to be ill-conceived. The result is the kingdom's
deficit approaching 20 percent -- more than $100 billion. This outcome compels
the kingdom to deplete its huge foreign exchange reserves at a record rate
(about $12 billion per month).
Tension with Iran: While Saudi Arabia is home to Islam's two holiest sites
(Mecca and Medina), the latest tragedy -- a stampede at the Hajj in Mecca that
resulted in the deaths of at least 239 Iranian pilgrims (among many others) --
has only fueled tensions between Iran and the kingdom. The two were already
crossways over the nuclear issue and Iran's destabilizing activities throughout
the region. In addition, both countries are fighting through their proxies in
Syria and Yemen.
I'll argue Russia's military intervention in Syria has escalated the political
tensions to higher level. Of interest is the Iranian-Russian military coalition
to keep the Assad regime in power and battle rebels that the kingdom and the
United States support. Recently, Saudi Arabia shipped 500 TOW antitank missiles
to the Free Syrian Army (FSA). These missiles, unlike other projectiles such as
RPGs can be used from significant distance. This support, however, would not
change the outcome.
Where from here? Russia's airstrikes in Syria underscore a broader threat to the
kingdom: Put all the problems together and Saudi Arabia, more than ever, looks
politically vulnerable. Its dependence on the United States for its survival the
last 70 years seems to be near an end. The United States is no longer in
position to play its traditional role as the only guarantor of Middle East
stability. One can only imagine the scenario in which the house of Al-Saud is
forced to relinquish power to another entity from within that does not share
Washington's aspirations and/or agenda. That means our next president will face
one more serious geopolitical headache: an unstable Saudi Arabia, the world's
largest exporter of oil, site of Islam's holiest sites and a country equally
bountiful in advanced American weapons and very angry Wahabi Sunni Muslims.
(iv) Saudi Arabia, not Iran, is destabilising the Middle East, an official in
Tehran said Tuesday, rejecting claims from Riyadh that Iran is acting like a "colonising
state".
The comments from foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham come after Saudi
Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir on Monday accused Iran of "meddling in the
affairs" of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.
Relations between Iran, the region's dominant Shiite Muslim power, and Saudi
Arabia, its Sunni rival, have been fraught since an uprising against Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad broke out in 2011.
Iran openly backs Assad and is also accused of supporting Shiite Huthi rebels
who overran large parts of Yemen last year and early this year.
Relations soured further after Saudi Arabia's decision to launch an air campaign
in Yemen.
The deaths of at least 464 Iranian pilgrims in the recent hajj stampede in Mina
and further Iranian military activity in Syria saw ties plunge again, with
increasingly abrasive statements from both sides.
Afkham described Jubeir's remarks -- he had said the kingdom would use all its
"political, economic and military powers" to defend itself -- were "despicable,
arrogant and non-diplomatic".
"This destructive and non-constructive approach leads nowhere," Afkham said of
Jubeir, who had demanded that Iran pull fighters out of Syria, stop supplying
arms to Assad and cease to act like a "colonising state" there.
Afkham responded: "The Saudi foreign minister, whose country has a military and
extremist approach to crises... and bombed continuously for seven months in
Yemen, is not qualified to talk about the role of Iran in the region."
(Special thanks to David Oualaalou, Taimoor, Aparna Pande & AFP about these
subjects)