PAK UNSC Seat

Good news has become such a rarity these days that when it comes it seems too good to be true even if its promise is by no means certain. That said Pakistan’s recent election to a Security Council seat is heart-warming especially as it comes in the midst of hectic efforts by Hilary Clinton et al to unravel the big mess in which the Pak-US relations are bogged down today.

And that is not all. Just the other day, on the eve of Hilary’s visit to Islamabad India’s Foreign Minister Krishna, made an intriguing statement saying ‘as friendly powers the US and Pakistan should sit across the table and sort out their differences to prevent any devastating consequences for other countries, particularly India’.

Yet there was a downside to our election to the Security Council. The tight voting in the General Assembly showed just how much ground we have lost diplomatically among the UN member states in recent years. We have barely scraped through in the voting.

Without India’s support, we would have failed to muster the required two third majority to win the election outright. True, India only voted for Pakistan because both countries had decided that Pakistan would not oppose India’s election to the Council a year earlier. So, reciprocity worked for both sides but far more critically for us. Nevertheless the novelty of the situation was refreshing, to say the least.

Clearly, Ms Khar’s claim that our election demonstrated the high regard in which we are held by the world community is hogwash. Except for those whose job it is to put a gloss on our international standing no one has any illusions about that. Ms Khar will learn that reputation is a bubble which usually bursts when you try to blow it up yourself.

As for our permanent representative, the rotund, bon vivant Hussein Haroon, his shouts of joy, arms akimbo, when the results were announced, were reminiscent of villagers reacting to their fancied wrestler flooring his opponent at the village fest.

Actually, our first round of victory could not have been any narrower. Imagine tiny, strife-torn Kyrgyzstan, the location of which a few in the UN would be aware of, securing as many as 53 votes while contesting against Pakistan, a nuclear power and a frontline state in the war against international terrorism. That says a lot about our international standing.

In contrast, insignificant Guatemala obtained as many as 193 votes in securing its seat. Even poor Haiti, struggling to emerge from a chronic breakdown, received 143 votes. And to think there was a time when we could prevail over mighty India in a straight contest.

Thus the exhilaration over the Security Council seat was amateurish given the embarrassing circumstances in which it happened. Instead of crowing over what is essentially a pyrrhic victory, our foreign minister should have been scratching her head wondering how, if our popularity continues to plummet at this rate, we will fare in the future or when contesting for slots against more weighty opposition in other international bodies.

As for Krishna’s remarks, positive signs from India are a bit of a mystery. But since Krishna’s first meeting with our charming foreign minister, Delhi has been a lot more moderate and even engaging in its tone. Admittedly, not for the first time, but seldom so pithily and directly, we have an Indian leader acknowledging not only the importance of Pak-US collaboration for India, (which Delhi has traditionally viewed with great suspicion and hand-wringing) but also how important the outcome of Pakistan’s fight against terrorism is for India and, implicitly, how crucial it is for India that Pakistan prevail in this fight.

It is possible that Delhi has finally come to the conclusion that we are in a serious difficulty and rather than watch our predicament with glee it realises that if we go down the tube, it too will face more serious challenges. Investors require calm and India needs peace to maintain its impressive pace of growth to see it through its proverbial poverty. And, above all, peace on its borders, especially with Pakistan, is a prerequisite for its future economic prospects.

Yet, it remains to be seen if what is obvious and is also a widely shared belief among many Indians will impact on those who decide its strategic policy. New Delhi is still unable to cast off its suspicions about Pakistan.

Hence, it stubbornly refuses to ease its threatening military deployment on Pakistan’s eastern border which in turn restricts Pakistan from concentrating more fully to meet the threat posed by extremism on its western border. Instead there is continuing evidence of Indian interference in Balochistan and in the tribal bad lands bordering Afghanistan.

That said our own reaction has been to treat friendly signs emanating from Delhi positively, and rightly so. There is nothing to be gained by mouthing familiar anti-India rhetoric especially when India is not doing it. It is very much in our interest to encourage India to rebuild its ties with us. Both sides have much to gain from it and its importance for us is even greater since we have much bigger and more existential problems than they do.

Actually at a time when the Af-Pak situation is nearing a make or break point, it is all the more important to deepen the India-Pakistan dialogue. Kashmir is important but so are other issues, most notably the Afghanistan imbroglio. Without a serious and sustained dialogue there is little hope of stemming the distrust that has grown over India’s role on our western border.

The fact that both India and Pakistan are now members of the Security Council (India for another year and Pakistan for the next two years) will be particularly important for us as we brace up for the Af-Pak challenge, which is our most urgent issue. Council membership provides them with high level points of contact which could prove an invaluable asset to assist in the strengthening of dialogue and building confidence. These points of contact could also double up as a significant back channel.

There are a number of international issues, political and non-political, on which they could work together, while facilitating their dialogue at the same time. Precisely for this reason a solid professional diplomat rather than an amateur with domestic political connections, should be assigned to the UN post.

It is also encouraging that despite some loud opposition, the government has for once displayed some spunk and is making a determined effort to normalise trade relations with India. For too long we, far more than India, have been guilty of cutting our nose to spite our face on matters of trade and commerce with India. Too much has been made of fears that cheaper Indian goods would flood our market leading to mass unemployment. Such fears did not however prevent China from flooding our market with its goods, some utterly shoddy.

Unfortunately those who make and influence decisions are least concerned about the plight of others – in this case the vast majority – who stand to gain from more competitive quality and prices. Policies are made ostensibly on grounds of national interest but in reality most people suffer while some groups and individuals benefit from continued protection.

How to finesse unresolved old world problems while bracing up to tackle new world challenges will continue to test diplomacy and vision on both sides. Pakistan and India cannot afford to live in a time warp without paying a much heavier price for their lack of foresight and realism than they have in the past.

The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com