Israel: question of recognition

I AM going to add one more metaphor to the mixed metaphors I have already used as the basis of this series of articles on what should be Pakistan’s approach to the world outside. I believe that Pakistan sits atop a number of faultlines that, left unattended, will periodically shake the state’s edifice.

The most serious of these is various sects and interpretations of Islam that rub against one another in the geographic space that Pakistan currently occupies. Tolerating the rise of extremist Islam will produce a clash between these tectonic plates and create a chaotic situation not in just in Pakistan but in the entire Muslim world.

At the same time Pakistan’s geographic location puts it at the natural crossroads of international commerce. Pakistan could help connect the energy-rich countries in Central Asia and the Middle East with the energy-deficit China, India and Japan — Asia’s three economic giants. This will not be the first time that the space currently occupied by Pakistan connected the East with the West. It was the fabled Silk Road that brought the twain together centuries ago. It could happen once again and to Pakistan’s great advantage.

Finally, I am of the view that the pillars on which Pakistan has rested the structure of its foreign affairs are basically shaky. These were built when the country was young and had many fears that go with growing up in a difficult environment. Pakistan is now nearly sixty years old and it needs an edifice built on more sturdy pillars.

This faultlines-crossroads-pillars mixed metaphor suggests that in designing economic policies and relations with the world outside Pakistan’s policymakers should factor geography into the equation. They should take full cognizance of the fact that the faultlines that exist below the surface pose a series of serious dangers against which the country needs to be protected. At the same time the prospect of turning the country into a hub of international commerce should be fully taken into account in crafting domestic policies.

Unfortunately for several decades Pakistan’s policy makers let history trump geography. Four pillars were constructed over which a structure was built that proved to be particularly fragile. The first of these was persistent hostility towards India, justified on the ground that several generations of Indian leadership had not reconciled themselves to the emergence of Pakistan as an independent state, carved out of the land that Hindu fundamentalists regarded as their god-given domain. Pakistan shivered in anticipatory pain whenever some powerful groups in India talked about Hindutva as the philosophy of the Indian state.

The second pillar was erected to correct the mischief done by the departing British rulers of India as they partitioned their empire on religious grounds. The British used their well-tested divide-and-rule formula for governing other people while assigning Muslim and non-Muslim areas to Pakistan and India respectively. There is no reason why they should have left the choice of joining one of the two successor countries to the princes that ruled hundreds of states that were an integral part of their Indian empire.

After all London had never permitted the princes such discretion when it was in charge itself. The British decision was aimed at sowing the seeds of conflict in the area they had once governed so that they could retain some influence, perhaps as arbitrators. This was the genesis of the problem of Kashmir that has engaged Pakistan and India for close to sixty years and sapped so much energy out of Pakistan.

The third pillar was erected to take care of the felt need to define a Muslim identity for the country that was created in the name of religion. While there is no doubt that Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founding father, did not wish to create an Islamic state, he nevertheless wanted to give the country a Muslim identity. This would have involved close relations with the Muslim world. It was never clear — and it is not clear to this day — how Pakistan should anchor its “Muslimness” in a world in which individual nation states seek to maximize their own interests rather than promote those of some abstract identity such as an Islamic Ummah.

Several other Muslim states — in particular those that were carved out of the Ottoman Empire — also struggled to answer the same question. Some of them sought to do it in terms of Pan-Arabism as advocated by leaders such as Egypt’s Gamal Nasser. Some other tried to create a loosely defined arrangement within the context of Pan-Islamism. None of these attempts really succeeded. As the French Islamic scholar Olivier Roy has observed in his book, Globalized Islam, while most Muslim states moved away from this preoccupation with finding a supra-national identity, this quest was never fully abandoned by Pakistan.

Islamic parties in Pakistan continued to weigh in with the demand that the state should even sacrifice its own interests in order to pursue a Pan-Islamic agenda. These parties are prepared to call out their supporters to agitate violently on the streets whenever there is a hint that the country may be about to define its foreign strategy only to take care of its own narrow interests.

The fourth pillar of state policy was constructed on the ground that supported the third pillar. This was to oppose Israel, the only other country besides Pakistan to have been created with religion as the defining concept. Given the circumstances of their birth there should have been greater empathy and understanding between the two countries. Instead Pakistan chose to oppose the Jewish state. For a long time Pakistani passports informed their holders that the documents they carried were valid for all countries of the world but the state of Israel.

Pakistan’s opposition to the Jewish state was based on what its leaders viewed as a conflict between Islam and Judaism. That was not the reason why most of the Arab states withheld recognition from Israel. I remember a conversation at Harvard University in 1967 with a Palestinian student who asked with some puzzlement as to why the Pakistanis were prepared to shed blood in their support. His question came following rioting in the streets of Lahore demanding active participation by the Pakistani state in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. “We are fighting the Jews not because of religion but because they have expelled our people from our land and occupied it. This is a war over land; it is not a religious war,” he told me. But Pakistan never understood the difference; it doesn’t even today, a point to which I will return in a moment.

It was on these four pillars that Pakistan over time built a shaky structure. This structure was costly to maintain and would have come crashing down unless some new pillars were erected to support it. This is what the government headed by President Pervez Musharraf seems to be doing at this time. The only problem with the new strategy is that it is undertaking a massive shift in policy by using stealth as the instrument for demolishing an old structure before building a new one. President Musharraf should state openly and boldly that this is now the time to bring about a massive change in the way we look at the world outside.

It is wise on his part to begin to define Pakistan’s foreign policy in terms of the country’s long-term strategic interests and not on the basis of correcting the wrongs done in the distant past or on the basis of some romantic notions about creating a multi-state Ummah. But bringing about this long-needed shift in policy stance by stealth will consume time whereas the need for change is urgent. Also I don’t believe that it is prudent to explain this shift in policy in terms of old cliches rather than one based on realism and pragmatism.

The Istanbul meeting on September 1 between the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Israel was extensively reported in the mainstream American press. “Pakistan believes that by engaging Israel diplomatically, it can help resolve the Middle East crisis,” Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, explained to the press in a telephone interview from Istanbul. The minister said Pakistan had no immediate plans to formally recognize Israel, a step he said would come only “following progress toward the solution of the Palestinian problem”. This is precisely the wrong position to take.

There is no reason that Pakistan should carry on its shoulders the weight of the problems that confront the Middle East in defining its relations with an important country and an important community. Pakistan’s relations with Israel and the Jewish community should evolve on the basis of its own interests rather than on the basis of the interests of a vaguely defined Islamic Ummah.

Unfortunately, the Jewish community is also casting the evolution of its relations with Pakistan in light of Israel’s approach to the Muslim world. On September 17, President Musharraf is speaking at a dinner hosted by the Council for World Jewry. Some people of Pakistani origin have been invited to attend the dinner. The letter of invitation from Jack Rosen, Chairman of the Council, mentions a visit to Islamabad by him and Phil Baum and David Twersky which was undertaken “to find authentic political and religious leaders in the Muslim world with whom we can engage in a serious dialogue.”

The address by the Pakistani president is described as a historic opportunity “which will be carefully scrutinized in many parts of the world. It will have consequences.” It is an important event since President Musharraf is the “head of a large and devout constituency”. He has “repeatedly spoken out against extremism in the Muslim world. His doctrine of ‘enlightened moderation’ encourages Muslims to embrace pluralism, openness and tolerance”.

In sum, the reason why Pakistan should evolve a working relationship with the Jewish state and the Jewish diaspora is not because of the large size of its Muslim population. It should not even try to serve as a bridge between the Muslim populations around the globe and the Jewish people. This is a heavy burden to carry for a country such as Pakistan. Instead of spelling out these grandiose objectives, Pakistan should develop relations with Israel and the Jewish community in the United States and Europe since that would bring it many rewards. It is in Pakistan’s interest to steer itself in the extremely turbulent international waters of today, focusing only on its own goals and minding its own interests.

When Bush comes to shove

PRESIDENT Musharraf has left to perform what might be called a pilgrimage in the United States.

It is a journey that many of his predecessors have made before in an attempt to obtain solace. At one level, they have felt the need to be reassured that the United States still cares for the country they represent. At another, it is to demonstrate to their friends and more so to their foes that the United States stands for them rather than against them.

And at its most self-serving level, it is to obtain, on an Oval Office letterhead, a talismanic chit of approval which they can carry home to continue in power. Ayub Khan did it in his time, Yahya did it, Ziaul Haq did it, every elected leader has done it, and now General Musharraf is doing it.

There is no shame in this. Better statespersons than them have done the same thing, even though they ran the risk of being labelled insultingly as an American pet. Despite his imperial bombast, the Shah of Iran had been effectively domesticated by the Americans, as had been his equally vulnerable contemporary Sadat of Egypt. The British Prime Minister Mrs Margaret Thatcher was accused by her detractors of being Ronald Reagan’s poodle, and more recently, Tony Blair has had to shake a similar accusation apropos to Bush off his back as it were dirty rainwater.

It cannot be easy in today’s world to get close to the class bully without seeming to curry favour. It cannot be easy to do his bidding without question and without losing one’s self-respect. Ever since General Musharraf was confronted with the choice of siding with the United States in its war against terror that he had helped incubate, and he chose to listen to America, he has taken what might be called all the right decisions, even if on occasions they have been for the wrong reasons.

His latest agreement to address the World Jewish Congress and then to permit his foreign minister to establish contact publicly with Israel in Ankara is just such a decision. It may well enhance his status as a Muslim leader who preaches a personal brand of enlightened moderation. It will definitely show him to be a daring innovator, prepared to take incalculable risks. At the same time, though, domestically, it demonstrates his contempt for the opinions of his fellow-Pakistanis in whose name the actions are being taken.

By peremptorily altering the course of his nation’s foreign policy, he is metaphorically shifting its qiblah. Once before in history, the qiblah had been shifted when during the ministry of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), Muslims were instructed to pray not towards Jerusalem but towards Makkah. Today, the city of Jerusalem has once again become kosher. More than that, the King of Saudi Arabia — the custodian of the two holy shrines — has officially endorsed Musharraf’s acknowledgement of Israel. Such an endorsement might have contained more meaning had the Saudi monarch extended his own hand towards Israel rather than pushing Musharraf’s elbow.

Similarly, Musharraf’s gesture might have contained more substance had Pakistan — created like Israel on religious grounds — as a symbolic gesture of reconciliation restored the Jewish synagogue that once stood off Burns Road in Karachi and is now a roofless empty shell.

No doubt, when researching for Musharraf’s speech before the World Jewish Congress, his speech writers must have searched the Holy Quran for the appropriate ayat to quote before the Jewish audience. Perhaps this one might spare them the time: “It may be that Allah will establish friendship between you and those whom ye now hold as enemies.” [Surat 60: Al-Mumatahana, verse 2.] In effect, my former enemy being my friend’s friend has become now my friend. A near-impossibility after sixty years has become a neo-diplomatic reality. Interestingly, India and the United States which recognize Israel and Pakistan which intends to now stand on the same side so far as Israel is concerned.

That such recognition will benefit Israel is obvious. It will have one less notional enemy, however distant and ineffective, to contend with. How Pakistan will benefit on a bilateral basis is less clear. By acknowledging the existence of Israel, are we flaunting a new-found maturity as a modern-minded Muslim nation? Will we be lauded by the international community as a nation that has not simply turned a corner in its foreign policy, but is capable of turning its back on its own past? If so, what have we lost or gained over all these years by barking noisily on behalf of the Arabs at Israel when they themselves were so reluctant to bite it?

There was a time in history when rulers were absolute monarchs and state policies were the personal prerogative of princes. There are some who suspect that such medievalism has sprung back to life from the history books. Pakistan’s foreign policy has that same whimsical feel about it. A personal change of opinion can alter Kashmir’s position from being ‘a core issue’ — a sine qua non for dialogue with India — to a position of lesser significance, slid quietly towards the backburner. A sudden quixotic shift can result in a handshake in Ankara. Our foreign policy is no longer a reflection of national interest but of international imperatives, a foreign policy that is still foreign to many Pakistanis.

Leaders of great nations can afford to make such dramatic gestures without looking over their shoulders. President Nixon managed it with China, President de Gaulle achieved it in Algeria, Mrs Thatcher strove for it with Gorbachev’s USSR. President Sadat thought he had done it with the Camp David peace accord. But in each case, they launched their initiatives from a secure domestic base, confident that they could survive a domestic reaction.

Such luxuries are best tested rather than assumed. While every thinking Pakistani welcomes the increasing thaw in Indo-Pakistan relations — South-Asia’s version of global warming — there are some who wonder whether anyone in the government has read the far-sighted speech made by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the Joint Houses on July 19. He made three significant points: bilateral economic cooperation between the US and India, the structure of a new balance of power in Asia (to allow space for India’s expanded role in international and therefore regional affairs), and the obligation both India and the US as the world’s largest functioning democracies have to spread the virtues of democracy.

Dr Manmohan Singh’s exact words were: “The most important common concern is the threat of terrorism. Democracy can only thrive in open and free societies. But open societies like ours are today threatened more than ever before by the rise of terrorism... President Bush and I agreed yesterday on a global initiative to help build democratic capacities in all societies that seek such assistance.”

If we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that the loss of East Pakistan in 1971 was because of our failure to implement an electoral mandate, democratically expressed. Eventually, a child conceived in a Pakistani election was delivered in a Caesarean operation by India. One wonders whether what will be the reaction of the present government should the pressure come from either side to build democratic capacity, should such assistance be sought for example by political parties frustrated by the present impasse?

Our image abroad

THERE has been much debate in the country recently about Pakistan’s image abroad. One side has lamented that Pakistan has an “image problem” implying that the reality may be far better.

The other has insisted that Pakistan’s image is indeed its reality. And in the middle you have a great mass of people who may have been critical of the conditions in Pakistan but, without a second thought, denominate similar criticism in the international media as a conspiracy.

The fact is everybody in Pakistan at one time or another has felt that Pakistan is hard done by the international media, and there is a grain of truth in it. The reality of Pakistan’s image abroad is thus quite complex.

A country’s image abroad has many facets, such as impressions of its history, religion and culture, and profile of its politics, social order, governance, national institutions and foreign relations, and behaviour of its citizens broad. And above all, how its conduct and demeanour affect other countries and their interests.

In assessing other countries, or international issues, the western media is not necessarily fair or just. It is not meant to be. In addressing an issue the media, American as much as ours, essentially looks through the prism of its own set of ideas, inherited attitudes, ethnic bias, religious prejudices, and cultural perspectives, indeed the self image, and core national values and interests of the society.

In covering international issues and foreign countries, the American media thus naturally ends up highlighting moral and cultural superiority, modern political institutions, and humanitarian concerns of the West, and by the same token moral bankruptcy of “inferior” cultures.

For the last several years, Pakistan has attracted an overwhelmingly disproportionate attention of international media as it has bristled with multiple subjects of irresistible media interest. And unfortunately Pakistan has made for only a negative story for radiating a wide array of troubling impulses on several issues of serious concern in the West. In the 1990’s it was Kashmir, fundamentalism, Taliban, terrorism, risk of a nuclear war with India, political instability, corruption, economic failure, instability, institutional break down and human rights, etc. And currently, terrorism, Al Qaeda, madressahs, religious extremism, safety of nuclear weapons, A.Q. Khan, and democracy. From the media’s point of view thus Pakistan has been an unending story.

The American society has shifted to the visual image, that is the TV, away from the printed word, as the prime source of news. To this end, the news has to startle, if not alarm, or be the nearest thing to entertainment; and issues have to be presented in black and white, or stark terms, not beyond average understanding. This often tends to trivialize serious issues and magnify triviality. As a consequence Pakistan’s negative image, already negative by any standard, comes out even worse than the reality.

The reports are, by and large, factually correct. At least they have been no more correct or incorrect than what has already been widely reported in our own media. We cannot challenge their veracity any more than we can question our own media’s truthfulness and credibility. If they seem exaggerated, that is because of the cumulative impression of constant repetition, and the distortion they undergo being packaged for sound bytes.

Based on what is generally factual, the media then goes on to interpret and express its opinion. And that is where the image gets further degraded. Even then on some of the issues, like democracy, gender issues, and basic human rights which have become universal values, our media’s projection of Pakistan’s image is not much different from that of the West.

Of course, for a discerning audience or readership, there are also erudite analyses in the Western media, more often in the print rather than the electronic media, but they too are written often from a perspective — political, moral, civilizational or sometimes purely personal. It is a rare analysis or a story that reflects an unbiased and purely academic enquiry.

To be fair, social and political issues do not lend themselves easily, if at all, to objective analysis. There is no scientific truth involved — there are only opinions, perspectives and moral or didactic impulses at play. That is why even in the academia and the thinktank community you have well meaning and exceptionally smart scholars sharply disagreeing with each other.

The disagreement is even more pronounced as they engage in dialogue with other cultures and religions, let us say the Islamic world. The two sides’ terms of reference are different; their concepts, philosophies and values irreconcilable.

In the US, the dividing line between media, academia and the thinktank community is getting somewhat blurred. The journalists are writing books like academics, and academics are writing books that read like news stories.

Just as the media audience is not interested in cold news but stories, the readership of books is interested in more than erudite analysis and research. It wants stories. As a consequence, the academia whether in universities or thinktanks has also been smitten by the story bug. It must, like the media, use catchy phrases, dramatize events, cause a scare, and “sex up” the issues.

The media is also exploited by the policy community, for turf wars and for testing public reactions to policy changes. Dissidents within the establishment use it for their own purposes. In foreign affairs this is specially true of high profile US policies like the current US relations with Pakistan.

Traditionally whenever Pakistan has had close ties with the US, it has come under greater scrutiny over a host of issues by non-proliferation high priests, democracy activists, Indophiles, and human rights groups. Pakistan was literally stripped naked. It is not conspiracy — this is how the open and pluralistic political system works in America — through competition, dialectics, contention and challenge.

To sum up, Pakistan has over the years become a favourite hobby horse of diverse and complex forces. It interests media, which finds a lot of things to criticize. It provokes the academia which is idealistic, and generally liberal, and finds many issues in Pakistan that offend its world view.

It is the focus of campaigns by civil society which is by nature anti-establishment and revisionist. Finally, Pakistan attracts the attention of dissenting voices within policy makers. As all roads pass through the media, the media ends up providing a launching pad to the “slings and arrows” of a whole array of forces that have been provoked by developments in Pakistan for varying reasons. And since their target of advocacy is often policy making community, the issues end up getting dramatized or exaggerated, and imparted a sense of urgency to stimulate action.

There are reports suggesting that the government is looking for a public relations firm to refurbish Pakistan’s image abroad. Before such a firm is hired the government will be well advised to keep in mind that it will only make a marginal difference, if any.

Over its image, Pakistan is in an unequal contest which is not winnable. First and foremost, the improvement of image must begin with the improvement of reality at home. Then in America, which I guess would be the main target, you need to have more Pakistani academics or policy practitioners in thinktanks and universities, in Pakistan Chairs or otherwise, who can establish high academic credentials and earn access to the media as independent experts and analysts, hopefully to project a more balanced view of Pakistan.

And finally we need to organize the community to play a supporting role. But the community which tends to be liberal and thus disaffected will not be involved till it itself is conciliated and befriended by more benign changes within Pakistan.

Pakistan is no doubt turning the corner, especially in the economic sector, due to the economic policies and management of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, but much more needs to be done to improve the social structure, to bring justice to citizens and educate and modernize the society’s outlook. For the media it is a society’s failings not so much its successes, economic or otherwise, that make headlines.

The writer is a former ambassador and senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, a Washington-based thinktank.