Why Pakistan should speak up on Syria

[VetDoctor]

Why Pakistan should speak up on Syria
Adil Najam

Pakistan will have to speak up on Syria whether we like it or not. We had better make up our mind on what we are going to say. There is nothing we can say that will please everyone we want to please. So why not surprise everyone and take a stand that we ourselves can stand by.

Some seem blissfully unaware of – or uninterested in – the fact that Pakistan is currently a member of the United Nations Security Council; we are, for another four months. Pakistan’s election to the UN Security Council in 2011, despite an international reputation in free fall, was a major testament to the diplomatic skills and determination of our very able diplomats in New York and our then UN Ambassador, Hussain Haroon. Indeed, for a non-permanent member, Pakistan is a seasoned hand at the Security Council; this being our 7th term of service. Apart from the five permanent veto powers on the Security Council, only three countries have served more terms than Pakistan (Japan and Brazil, with 10 each; and Argentina with nine). In case you are wondering, India has also been elected seven times, as has Colombia.

All of this is a singular honour. But it can also be a non-trivial responsibility. It may soon become a test of our diplomatic nerve. Here is how.

Whether it is as a ceremonial rubber stamp or as a real debate, the question of the alleged use of chemical weapons on its own civilian population by the Bashar al-Assad regime will end up at the Security Council. Whatever the UN inspectors find will eventually be reported to and discussed at the council. Of course, it is entirely possible – maybe even likely – that neither the United Nations nor the Security Council will be of great consequence as a real decision-maker in what happens in and to Syria. Such are the travesties of global politics.

Whether it is to discuss what the world should collectively do in Syria or react to what the United States might unilaterally have done even before any discussion happens at the UN, the Security Council is likely to become a fulcrum of global attention. And in that moment, if it comes, the fifteen nations that serve on the Security Council will be judged by what they say – or do not say.

If history is to be a guide, many will choose to remain silent no matter which of these discussions transpire. The impulse for Pakistan to do the same will be strong. One could argue that our own internal demons are so horrific and our international credibility so low that nothing we could say would be taken seriously. That may, indeed, be so. But that is also the most compelling reason why we should seize the opportunity. After all, silence would neither suppress our internal demons nor improve our international credibility. Taking a bold stand may just make at least a few look at Pakistan with different eyes.

As one of the only three Muslim countries that now serve on the Security Council (the other two are Azerbaijan and Morocco), Pakistan will have both voice and standing at such a discussion. An opportunity – some would say, a responsibility – to speak and to be heard. But the temptation to duck the responsibility will also be great. The terms of all three of these countries on the Security Council will end this year. One of them, Morocco, is most likely to be replaced by Saudi Arabia next year. Starting next year the Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) will also be a Saudi. Even without these additional dynamics, Pakistan would not wish to annoy the Saudis. And it is clear where the Saudis stand on Syria.

It is even more clear where the governments of our two most important western patrons – the United States and the United Kingdom – stand. Reluctantly, maybe, but Mr Obama seems just as resolute to “make an example” of Syria as Mr Cameron was. This notwithstanding the fact that most expert and public opinion in the US is no more eager to have another war on their hands than it was in the UK, where parliament has already voted against military action.

However, whatever Mr Obama does he would like to do before Tuesday, when he leaves for St Petersburg for the G20 Summit meeting in Russia. No matter what he does, St Petersburg is going to be an awkward meeting for all. Russia, of course, is the staunchest opponent of any action against Syria. China is not thrilled about that possibility either. Nor are many of the other G20 members, who see the politics of international insecurity as an intrusion to the politics of international economic stability that brings them together.

The diplomatic calculus for Pakistan is confounding. On the one hand, all our major international patrons would want us to lean towards support or silence on possible military action in Syria. Yes, China may not approve, and Iran will be annoyed; but both will eventually understand. On the other hand, public and political opinion in Pakistan will not. Rightly, all of Pakistan agrees with the overwhelming international public sentiment on the silliness of the contemplated military adventurism in Syria. Surprisingly, Syria may be amongst the very few – maybe, only – issues on which everyone in Pakistan is likely to agree; politicians, public, journalists, even judges.

So, what should Pakistan do? Sneak out in silence (neevay neevay, as the Punjabi phrase has it)? Plead distraction (afterall, we have so much more to worry about internally)? Or surprise ourselves and the rest of the world by saying what is actually on our mind?

So, here is my suggestion: Speak up. Speak forcefully. Speak preemptively.

Let us speak not for or against Bashar al-Assad. We have no love lost for Bashar al-Assad or his regime or his tactics. But let that not be the basis of what we do or not do. Let us speak, instead, for the supremacy of international law. Let international law not be reduced into a mere instrument of regime change. As a signatory ourselves to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, let us stand unambiguously against the use of chemical weapons. If violations of international norms have happened, then let those violations be brought before the United Nations and let action be determined there. Let us not let international vigilantism become the norm to deal with violations of international norms.

Let us speak of the role of internationalism in dealing with the breach of international norms. Let us speak about the United Nations. Let us speak of the aspiration and the hopes with which it was formed. Let us speak of the promise that remains unfulfilled. Let us speak of this moment as an opportunity to reaffirm that promise. Is not the desperation that is in the air today the very same desperation out of which the UN was born? A desperation that stems from the recognition that something needs to be done but that no one nation can or should be the sole arbiter of that action.

Who in this Security Council is better positioned than Pakistan to speak of what happens when the best-intentioned intervention goes astray? Who better than Pakistan to identify the monsters that raise their heads when it does? Let us speak, then, with a passion that comes not just from desperation but from experience. But let us speak not in the arrogance of assuming that we know how things can be made right.

Let us speak, instead, in the humility of recognising what happens when things go wrong. Let us speak, finally, of the idea that humility is as much a virtue in the practice of international affairs as it is of individual character. That one idea, if it were to take root, would make the world a better place. Even if no one is willing to listen just yet, let us plant the idea nonetheless.

The writer has taught international relations and diplomacy at Boston University and at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and was the vice chancellor of LUMS.

Twitter: @adilnajam

http://e.thenews.com.pk/8-31-2013/page7.asp