September 21, 2003

‘It took India nearly 42 years to establish full diplomatic ties with Israel because it wanted to maintain a strong relationship with Arab and other Islamic countries,’ says Shahid Amin

THE first-ever visit by an Israeli prime minister to India predictably set the alarm bells ringing in Pakistan. The visit also enraged Indian Muslims and left-wing parties. Pakistan’s Foreign Office dourly declared that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s sojourn in India would be a cause for concern. Islamabad almost listened out for anti-Pakistan rhetoric. And sure enough, a senior Israeli minister termed Pakistan “a major issue” which India could deal with only by acquiring Israeli defence hardware.

Veteran Pakistani diplomat Shahid Amin maintains that the fears expressed by the Foreign Office were not entirely unfounded. Of the 18-year ambassadorial experience that is under his belt, Mr Amin spent 13 years in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dealing with the Middle East. His book, titled Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: A Reappraisal, also draws on his vast diplomatic expertise. In an interview with the Dawn Magazine, he spoke at length about the political and defence implications of Ariel Sharon’s visit to India for the subcontinent. Here are excerpts from the interview:

Q. Before Partition, the Indian National Congress had opposed the creation of a ‘Jewish National Home’. In 1949, India, like Pakistan, voted against the admission of Israel into the United Nations. However, it accorded formal recognition to Israel in 1950. Why did it take India nearly 42 years to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel?

A. India has had a long relationship with Israel. It was formalized in 1992 with the establishment of diplomatic relations. It existed on a lesser plane for nearly 50 years, and that included having consular relations. In addition, there is evidence of secret visits exchanged between the two countries and collaboration in certain areas, including security matters. Of course, with the coming of the present BJP-led government in India there has been an intensification of contacts between the two countries which have now acquired considerable significance in the military field. The visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should be regarded as a high-water mark in these relations.

It was the first formal visit by an Israeli prime minister to India. Of course there are confirmed reports that earlier on there had been visits at various levels, but they did not have a formal character and were not declared publicly.

The question why it took India nearly 42 years to establish full diplomatic relations could be related to the Indian desire to maintain a strong relationship with Arab and other Islamic countries. The desire, however, was not based solely on the importance by itself of the relationship. We know that some of these countries are full of natural resources and that is an economic attraction for India.

In my view, there is another dimension to it: India’s desire to counteract growing Pakistani influence in the Arab and the Islamic world. In other words, India has sought to establish a close relationship with the Arab and Islamic countries so that these countries do not become a bloc supporting Pakistan against India. Now this, of course, meant that India could not have a high-profile relationship with Israel, as that would have prevented India from establishing that kind of close relationship with the Arab countries.

The Indians are still emphasizing that the expansion of their relations with Israel should not be seen as a reduction in their interest in the Arab countries. They would still want to maintain at least the same level of friendship and cooperation with the Arab and Islamic countries as before. However, we know the world has changed in the last 50 years. Some of these Arab countries themselves have a relationship with Israel. Although we know the Palestinian relationship with Israel remains extremely unpleasant and antagonistic, and yet the Palestinians agree in principle to establish peace with Israel and a normalization of relations. The Arab countries are not likely to react as strongly to Indian overtures to Israel today as they would have done, say, 30 years ago.

Q. Of late, Pakistan has been considering extending formal recognition to Israel. And now it is alarmed at the fact that India is seeking to cement its ties with Israel. Don’t you think that the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel eleven years ago has given India a head start?

A. Actually the two positions are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive. There is a school of thought in Pakistan which argues that by maintaining a hostile stance against Israel we have in effect alienated it to the extent where it has been willing to make a common cause with India against Pakistan.

Now it follows from the same line of argument that if we had been less hostile to Israel it might not have gone as close to India as it has, especially in key areas which affect Pakistan’s security like defence sales, security collaboration, etc. So this is one aspect of the question, and whether you agree with it or not, at least there is a certain logic behind it.

The other aspect is that when the Israelis are on the verge of selling military equipment to India which would adversely affect our defence capability, it is natural for the Pakistan Foreign Office to react by expressing concern over such a development which does affect the prospects for peace in South Asia. And that is a matter of concern not only for the countries directly involved, but also for the region and the world, because a conflict between India and Pakistan is something which nobody would like to see.

In my view, the issue of Pakistan extending recognition to Israel is somewhat premature. We do emphasize that a normalization of relations is conceivable only when the Israelis and the Palestinians reach an honourable compromise in which event, according to the Abdullah plan also, the Arab countries would normalize relations with Israel.

Now the logic follows that the Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, would have diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with Israel. At that stage it would be a little odd if Pakistan stands out and refuses to have normal relations with Israel. However, the big catch in the whole argument is: is Israel on the verge of reaching an honourable compromise with the Palestinians? In my view, this looks very unlikely. So the whole argument becomes academic.

With the announcement of the roadmap there was a certain expectation that relations between the Arabs and Israel would be normalized. It can be argued that then Pakistan should fall in line with other Arab countries. However, it is also thought by some people that the United States has suggested or applied some pressure on Pakistan to normalize relations with Israel.

Now we go back to the argument we started with. If we are concerned about growing collaboration between Israel and India, then logically it follows that we should try to take some steps to discourage Israel from doing so (collaborating with India). And that step can only be a reduction in our posture of traditional hostility against Israel. And this is what I think the Israeli deputy prime minister said in India that Israel would very much like to have good relations with Pakistan because Israel had nothing against Pakistan itself.

So the logic is there, but politically it is not possible for the Pakistan government to move forward in the light of the current grave deterioration of the situation in the Middle East viz-a-viz the Palestinians. That situation is key to any progress on this issue.

We also have been saying that the Zionist lobby always works to Pakistan’s detriment, particularly in the United States, but generally in Europe and perhaps elsewhere. Now this argument has some substance. We have suffered due to the machinations of the Zionist lobby. Again it follows that to reduce that kind of anti-Pakistan activities by the Zionist lobby there has to be some improvement in bilateral relations between Israel and Pakistan.

Q. The United States has viewed Israeli arms sales to India with tacit approval. However, in the past it forbade Israel to sell defence hardware to China. Do you think the US would approve of such a sale by Israel to Pakistan? And why is the US allowing India to acquire the latest arsenal when Pakistan has been its faithful ally in its war on terrorism?

A. I think we are quite far away from that situation which must be regarded as hypothetical. But in principle if there is a normalization of relations between Pakistan and Israel, the United States would feel less concerned about the implications of Israeli sale of arms to Pakistan in the context of South Asia. In other words, if Pakistan and Israel theoretically achieve normal relations, then the US would have much less reason to be concerned about any Israeli defence collaboration with Pakistan.

Let me also point out that the US has given the green light to Israel in respect of these Phalcon AWACS. But it is objecting to the sale of Arrow anti-ballistic missile technology because that would have implications for the nuclear strategic balance in South Asia if Pakistan’s capacity to launch a nuclear strike is reduced. It would have grave implications for Pakistan’s security. This is where the United States, according to newspaper reports, is objecting to Israel transferring this weaponry or technology to India.

Q. Are there any constraints on India developing too close a relationship with Israel?

A. Yes, of course. First, the internal factor. Indian Muslims have been agitating and are quite unhappy about too close a relationship between India and Israel, particularly the visit of Sharon, who is seen as an embodiment of anti-Muslim activities.

Even the Communist Party of India and some other circles that have always emphasized the need for close India-Arab relations as highlighting India’s secular credentials, are unhappy to see a dilution of that traditional policy. And the Indian Muslims do have a certain voting power.

Although the BJP has been more active than previous governments in getting closer to Israel, still it cannot disregard these internal factors. Externally, we know that Arafat was unhappy about Sharon’s visit to India. The other Arab countries may not have spoken out publicly, at least to my knowledge, but they must have anxieties in this respect as well. And India has strong economic and political stakes in the Arab world.

As I heard an Indian politician say in a TV programme, five million Indians are gainfully employed in Middle Eastern countries. Arab displeasure can materially affect these overseas Indians. The Arab countries represent a significant political stake for India. India does not have a free hand in the matter.

Q. You insist that Pakistan must not normalize relations with Israel until the Arab countries do so. But India will continue to profit from cordial relations with Israel as long as the Middle East crisis, which is not likely to be resolved any time soon, persists. Don’t you think that Pakistan’s position viz-a-viz Israel should be de-linked from that of the Arab world?

A. I agree with you. But at least we can cut down some of the rhetoric and the ill will that is constantly generated. Even about the Palestinian issue — although this may be a bold prediction — it is not impossible that there will be a dramatic development and progress between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

I recall that near the end of the presidency of US President Bill Clinton there was virtually an agreement between the two sides when at the last minute Yasser Arafat got cold feet and did not sign the agreement. So there can be similar opportunities in the future as well.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)