KARACHI: Bringing Pakistan’s current foreign policy chief on stage with two former foreign ministers, the finer points of this country’s foreign affairs were discussed in detail — from the respective political perspectives — at the inaugural Foreign Ministers’ Forum hosted here on Saturday by the Institute of Business Administration at its City Campus.

The consensus of the house seemed to hinge on two major points: the need for Pakistan to set its own house in order, as well as the importance of greater regional connectivity.

Representing the government was the Adviser to Prime Minister on National Security and Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz, while former foreign ministers Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri and Hina Rabbani Khar brought their insights from the Pervez Musharraf- and Asif Ali Zardari-led periods, respectively.

As Mr Aziz put it, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor was “not just a road but a network of ideas, initiatives and projects”, while Ms Khar highlighted the fact that Pakistan could play a key role in bridging the resource-rich Middle East and Central Asia, with resource-hungry China and South Asia.

Sartaj Aziz discussed in some detail the global, regional and domestic factors affecting Pakistan’s foreign policy calculations. He said the recent Iranian nuclear deal with the P5+1 had “increased tensions in the Gulf” while adding that “the global economic recession had serious implications for us”. Coming to the regional scenario, the PM’s adviser said the “rise of China” and Russia’s growing interest in South Asia were very important developments for Pakistan, though these were counterbalanced by India’s ambitions to become a major power with “Western help”.

The de facto foreign minister said Narendra Modi’s election as prime minister of India had brought “belligerence” to the bilateral relationship as things had been made “difficult” for Pakistan. Coming to Afghanistan, while Mr Aziz admitted that the level of hostilities between Kabul and Islamabad was “large”, there were “good prospects of resuming the dialogue process”.

As for Pakistan’s internal problems, he listed terrorism, sectarian and ethnic tensions, subnationalism and chronic poverty as major obstacles.

Foreign policy objectives

“Safeguarding Pakistan’s internal security is the first foreign policy objective,” Mr Aziz stated, adding that pursuing a policy of non-interference in other countries’ affairs was also a primary goal. “The second objective is economic revival and sustainable development as with a weak economy you cannot achieve foreign policy objectives. The third objective is a peaceful neighbourhood; you cannot achieve economic revival if you have trouble with your neighbours.

“The fourth objective is taking Pakistan’s geostrategic location from liability to asset,” said Mr Aziz, while observing that connectivity between China and South Asia was key to achieving these goals.

Referring to Kashmir, Sartaj Aziz said it is “our duty to give the people of Kashmir diplomatic and moral support”, while adding that “we hope India realises that its economic goals cannot be achieved” unless Pakistan is on board. “India remains a question mark, but we are not giving up — it is up to India to respond. We hope to continue to strive for dialogue with India with no preconditions and with national dignity.”

As compared to the more guarded approach of Sartaj Aziz, Hina Rabbani Khar was more forthright in her foreign policy prognosis, perhaps indicating the ease with which one can speak once out of office. Ms Khar said foreign policy was an extension of a country’s internal dynamics. She said that while in office she was often told to project a ‘soft image’ of the country, to which the minister would respond: “give me a soft image, change the realities.”

No more enemies

Ms Khar said foreign policy should be proactive, not reactive. She disagreed with terming India as “the enemy”, while admitting that Narendra Modi was playing a game of “mutually assured destruction”. She said Pakistan’s foreign policy should not be defined by hostility to others. Coming to the “national interest”, Ms Khar went philosophical, asking what was the national interest and who would define it — the people, the bureaucracy or the military?

She said national interest should reflect the interest of the common people. The former minister said Pakistan is a potential land bridge between “energy-hungry China and South Asia, and the Middle East and Central Asia, which are bursting with energy. But we have created barriers at our borders. Instead of opening our borders we have closed them. If we close our borders our strategic importance will be negative”.

In a thinly-veiled critique of the security establishment, Hina Rabbani Khar said that “other people” were not relevant to economic decision-making, specifically when it came to trade with India and granting Most Favoured Nation status to our eastern neighbour, and that only the relevant industries, lobbies and ministries should be concerned. Commenting on Afghanistan, she said “it is no business of Pakistan to have certain people ruling Afghanistan. You don’t need Pakistan-friendly people anywhere; you need Pakistan to be friendly”.

Khurshid Kasuri observed that most of our relationships revolved around our relationship with India. He was critical of the PML-N government’s handling of the Yemen crisis, saying it was “mishandled” and that while he agreed with Pakistan not becoming a party to the conflict, “how you do what you do” is equally important. He also disagreed with the notion that the Pakistan Army opposed peace with India, and that the Foreign Office was a mere “post office”, with real power lying with Inter-Services Intelligence. He claimed that former general “Musharraf had the courage to listen to me as well as the ISI.”

Limited war

Coming to the Indian front, he said, “It is in our interest to have excellent relations with India, but internal weaknesses have to be addressed.” As for the notion of “limited war” that has been touted by some in India, Mr Kasuri recalled a luncheon meeting he had with then presidential candidate John McCain and the late US AfPak point man Richard Holbrooke after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. The Americans, who had just returned from India, informed him that the Indian Air Force was considering limited attacks on Muridke [the Lashkar-e-Taiba headquarters]. “I was stunned. [I told them] this will trigger war. Within five minutes there will be a reaction. Luckily that didn’t happen.”

As for the Indian Cold Start doctrine, Mr Kasuri termed it “infantile. You are challenging a nuclear power. This is what led to the development of tactical nuclear weapons in Pakistan.”

During the question and answer session, when Mr Kasuri quipped that the lack of a full-time foreign minister was hurting Pakistan and that the prime minister should not be the foreign minister, Mr Aziz responded that he did not see this as much of a handicap.

IBA Dean and Director Dr Ishrat Husain conducted the programme.

Published in Dawn, September 13th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play