It is foreign policy failure

It appears that India’s politics of deceit, deception and hypocrisy is successful at least for the time being, as Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal has expressed concern over Al Qaeda operatives and Taliban fighters’ activities in Pakistan. One would not have taken exception to such statement if it had come before the successful military operation in Swat, Malakand Division and South Waziristan. But at this point in time, when Indian Prime Minister is on Saudi soil and he wanted to use Saudis’ clout to persuade Pakistan to take action arguably against Hafiz Saeed, then there is cause for alarm.

One could call it a foreign policy failure and of course failure of the inept leadership also, as both major political parties are involved in internecine conflicts. In fact, they are power hungry and do not want to share power with other. They are more concerned in undoing 17th amendment and destabilizing each other’s government in centre and Punjab province rather than focusing on foreign policy and solving the problems of the people. It is a sad reflection on our leadership when Saud al Faisal urged the politicians to unite to take on the challenges facing the country. Indian leadership’s craftiness, demonstrated by being skilled in deception, is hallmark of Indian diplomacy. At the heels of his three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday said India sought a peaceful and normal relationship with Pakistan, saying there was no alternative to dialogue to resolve the issues that divided the two countries. In an interview to Saudi journalists ahead of his visit to Riyadh, he said: “There is no alternative to dialogue to resolve the issues that divide us. Today the primary issue is terrorism, and we are ready to discuss all issues with them in an atmosphere free from terrorism.” Even a cursory glance of this statement showes that there is an in-built condition that the dialogue cannot take place unless Pakistan guarantees that no 26/11-like incident would take place in India, and that Pakistan would take action against those who are considered by India as the masterminds of the terrorist attack. It goes without saying that Pakistan has suffered from terrorism more than any other country of the world. Therefore, how can it guarantee that no non-state actor would carry out terrorists acts in other countries?

Meanwhile, India’s Minister of State for External Affairs Sashi Tharoor said in Riyadh on Sunday that Saudi Arabia, with its close ties with Islamabad, could be a “valuable interlocutor” in improving India’s ties with Pakistan. Responding to a question on whether India will seek Saudi Arabia’s support to influence Pakistan to address India’s concerns over terrorism emanating from Pakistan territory, he said: “We feel Saudi Arabia has a long and close relationship with Pakistan and that makes Saudi Arabia a more valuable interlocutor to us”. The fact remains that India has always shown aversion to any mediator or ‘interlocutor’, be it European country or America, but since India wants to benefit from Saudi Arabia’s market, its resources and investment, Indian leadership has come out with such statements only to curry favour with the Islamic country. It is true that extremism and terrorism are major threats not only to India, but also to Pakistan, and all its other neighbours, but Pakistan should not be blamed for creating the monster of terrorism. In the backdrop of Afghan jihad in 1980s, the US and the West should share the blame and the responsibility to eliminate the spectre of terrorism. And it has to be said, that Saudi Arabia had sent Osama bin Laden to wage jihad against Soviets

Since, India has taken the initiative to involve Saudi Arabia and use its influence over Pakistan, our leadership should immediately follow it up and ask Saudi government to persuade India to implement United Nations Security Council resolutions on the Kashmir dispute and honour commitments made by it with the international community. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution of 21 April 1948 - one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir - stated that “both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”. Subsequent UNSC Resolutions of 3rd August 1948 and 5th January 1949 reinforced earlier UNSC resolutions. In his address to the Parliament on 12th February 1951, first prime minister of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru had declared: “We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations that we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide”. Pakistan should also furnish proofs of India’s involvement and support to insurgents in Balochistan and terrorists in FATA.

It is unfortunate that Muslim countries did not exert pressure on India in 1950s and 1960s. Had they done it, India perhaps would have resolved the Kashmir dispute, as India had then badly needed the enormous resources and the market of the Muslim world. It is because of their patronization of India, that India has attained a strong economic position today. The fact of the matter is that Muslim world faces leadership crisis unparalleled in the history since advent of Islam, and in most countries the leadership is unimaginative. The OIC or for that matter Arab League have failed to provide leadership or collective wisdom to extricate Muslim Ummah from the multifaceted crisis. If they had shown unity among them; ensured socio-economic justice, strengthened the institutions and fostered the spirit of tolerance in their societies, they would have been spared the ignominy they face today. The countries with enormous oil resources should help the less fortunate ones to enable them to alleviate poverty so that impoverished and hapless people do not fall a prey to the designs of extremists and terrorists. Unfortunately, most Muslim countries are deviating from the ideological track and are following shadows of opportunism or adventurism.

One does not see a semblance of Islamic brotherhood so far as the foreign policy pursued by them is concerned. Sometimes, they are vying for the contracts and competing with each other instead of sharing with each other. In the past, majority of the Muslim countries had supported Pakistan’s just stance on Kashmir that the UN resolutions giving the right of self-determination to Kashmiris be implemented. Now they advise Pakistan to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations with India, knowing full well that the latter did not do it during the last 60 years.

Up to 1970s, Iran used to support Pakistan’s stance, but since then its interests converge in Afghanistan, and Iran gives overriding consideration to economic interests. It has to be mentioned that despite Pakistan’s involvement in defence pacts with the West, people and the government of Pakistan have always stood by Iran be it Iran-Iraq war or its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. On the other hand, India had voted against Iran in IAEA board meeting, and buckled under pressure from the US to implicitly withdraw from Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. India has strategic relations with Israel, and Israel’s intentions about Iran are not hidden, yet Iran considers India a friend ignoring the maxim that ‘friend of your enemy is your enemy’.