Revisiting foreign policy

WE couldn’t agree more with Sartaj Aziz when he said “patchwork and an isolated approach” wouldn’t do, and that Pakistan needs foreign and defence policies based on a “visionary and integrated” approach. Speaking in the National Assembly on Tuesday, the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Policy and National Security spelled out the four elements which he said would form part of the policies now in the offing — internal security, economic development, benefiting from Pakistan’s geographical location and giving the country a better image. It is true that vision has in recent times been lacking in the foreign policy of a country which has produced such deft handlers of external relations as Zafrullah Khan, Manzur Qadir and Z. A. Bhutto. But for these visionary leaders, Pakistan could not have become Communist China’s friend at a time when it was a committed member of US-led military alliances. The fly in the ointment, however, has been the erosion of civilian supremacy and the chokehold which the military has over the decades managed to establish over the foreign and defence policies. Resultantly, vision gave way to a narrower interpretation of national interests — with consequences both harrowing and systemic.

Crafting a more effective foreign policy constitutes a challenge in a political environment in which non-state actors and their sympathisers have come to occupy a position of strength, to which the beleaguered PML-N government has shown little resistance. Common sense suggests — given the weak economy and the way terrorism is strangling Pakistan — that this country should have friendly relations with all neighbours and with global powers that hold sway. Such a level-headed foreign policy requires realism and has little room for knee-jerk reactions led by populist sentiments. In 2011, for instance, Islamabad’s reaction to a series of traumatic events, from Osama bin Laden to Salala, led to a level of confrontation with Nato powers which was not in Pakistan’s interests. Again, while foreign policy everywhere has to respond to domestic urges, in Pakistan the conduct of external relations seems circumscribed by the government’s dread of rogue elements indifferent to national interests.

Today Pakistan needs a better image and a shot in the arm for a moribund economy. Neither is possible without destroying the scourge of terrorism and disbanding the armed militias that hold Pakistan in thrall. The use of militants as a foreign policy tool has done enormous harm to the country, worsened relations with neighbours and caused Pakistan’s worldwide isolation — friendly relations notwithstanding, is there any country that does not view Pakistan with misgiving? The policies of the past need reversal and this will be possible only when the elected civilian leadership reserves the driving seat for itself. Beyond vision, our foreign policy needs cool-headed realism and common sense.

Dividends of peace

THE problem is not new: instead of working to lift the region’s 1.6 billion people out of poverty, South Asias governments are more focused on external security. This is especially true of the India-Pakistan relationship. Having mutual hostility in common, both establishments’ priorities seem skewed and are not at all people-centric. In the words of Crises, Vulnerability and Poverty in South Asia, a report released in Karachi on Wednesday, militarisation in some South Asian states has come at the cost of the health and education sectors. The report has been compiled by the South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication, a transnational collective of regional NGOs, and contains input from all eight South Asian nations. It is a sad reality that while the region’s countries spend billions of dollars on arms and ammunition, 40pc of the world’s poor are said to live in South Asia. What is more, poverty in India is said to be at 29.8pc, while Pakistan does not fare much better at 22.3pc. The report notes that while there is growth, it is mostly exclusionary. For instance, growth of the Indian economy has come at the cost of the “marginalisation of a vast section of society”, while “bad governance attacks the roots of democracy” in Pakistan. Overcoming these challenges is no easy task, yet the priorities of South Asia’s leaders seem to be on other matters.

In such unstable times, security is no doubt essential, especially for stability. However, in Pakistan’s case internal security has become a much bigger problem than any external threat. In fact, if the internal situation were stable, it would automatically encourage growth and development. In South Asia, it is very much possible to reduce spending on external security and use these resources for improving the lot of the people. For this a shift in thinking is needed at the top, specifically amongst the respective establishments of Pakistan and India. Reducing bilateral tensions and normalising the relationship can free up resources that can then be spent on the welfare of the people. Peace between South Asia’s two major players is bound to bring dividends to the people of the region so that states can then work together to fight poverty, illiteracy, disease and hunger.

Protecting wildlife

IN most newspapers, it appeared as a small news item that merely marked the fact that the relevant authorities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had organised an event to mark World Wildlife Day on Tuesday. In society at large, the day passed as every other, with most of the people no doubt latently more concerned for their own safety in these times of violence than that of the various species of wildlife that also share Pakistan’s soil. That, perhaps, is a true reflection of the prevalent attitudes in this country about wildlife. For as speakers at the KP function pointed out, the biggest threat to the country’s wild animal population is a lack of awareness, in addition to poaching and the rapidly expanding human and livestock population.

It can be argued that the latter two problems are both amongst the consequences of the first. In Pakistan’s context, the conservation of wildlife presents specific challenges that have to do with facts such as rapid urbanisation, a disconnect between the old ways of life and new lifestyles, and even perhaps an underlying but growing fondness for the trappings of modernity. In today’s Pakistan, notwithstanding the conservatism that many believe is on the increase in society at large, steel and concrete exercise more of a pull on people’s minds than wildlife diversity. Little wonder, then, that despite efforts by both government departments and several non-governmental organisations, it has not yet proved possible to put this issue as much on the priority agenda as could have been hoped for. This does not mean, though, that accelerated efforts cannot bring about a shift. An awareness-raising programme through the electronic media in particular would help raise the issue’s profile, and foster an understanding of the long-term importance of biodiversity. On the other side of the coin, interventions are required in areas where poaching is an issue so that people can be induced to finding sources of income other than in the hunting and trade of wild animals.

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !