Breaking the foreign grip

The leaders of five emerging markets that are categorised as Brics countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – met in Xiamen to discuss trade, economic cooperation, the crisis in the Korean Peninsula, global terrorism and other global and regional issues.

A 43-page joint declaration was issued at the end of the summit. The document emphasised the need to improve cooperation, make the UN Security Council more democratic and representative, fight against protectionist trade policies and combat terrorism in all forms across the world. But one paragraph of this declaration has received much attention.

The Brics nations have for the first time mentioned militant groups that are allegedly based in Pakistan as a regional security concern. The declaration mentions 10 militant organisations involved in terrorism and are mainly based in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the hype was created through the inclusion of two names in this list: the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). This provided an opportunity to the Indian media to declare a diplomatic victory over Pakistan.    

While the Xiamen Declaration fell short of mentioning Pakistan, it named militant organisations like the LeT, the JeM and the Haqqani Network. Both India and the US have blamed these organisations for launching cross-border terrorist attacks in India and Afghanistan.

This declaration is not as strongly-worded and Pakistan-specific as Trump’s speech on the new Afghan policy. But if we listen closely, the message is loud and clear. The world powers are not buying our arguments. They are asking for sterner action against the India-specific groups that are based in the country. This is a ‘do more’ mantra proposed in far more articulate and diplomatic language.

Many foreign policy experts and security analysts are blaming the foreign policy failure of the current government for this diplomatic setback. This is a simplification of a complicated issue. A country’s foreign policy is linked directly with its domestic policy. It’s not possible to change a country’s foreign policy without a change in its domestic policy.

Diplomatic power arises primarily from economic position. Economic strength determines the international standing of a country. Our failures lie in our domestic political, security and economic policies. We are wrongly focusing on just foreign policy without reviewing our domestic policies.

We are still wondering why the world is not recognising our sacrifices against terrorism and militancy. There is a contradiction at the heart of our efforts to fight militancy, terrorism and extremism. We are still not ready to acknowledge that our past policies and selective approach towards militant organisations have brought us to this situation. We are not ready to accept the fact that our past policy to promote jihad and allow the formation of militant organisations and lashkars in the country to fight a civil war in Afghanistan has failed us. As a result, we have suffered for more than three decades.

Our economy, society and culture have suffered enormously. This policy has turned our country from a relatively liberal, progressive, tolerant and peaceful nation to an epicentre of religious militancy, extremism and religious bigotry. The Afghan war may have ended in the late 1980s but our policy to militarise society has continued without anyone thinking about the consequences.

If we want to change our policies, we need to conduct an honest review of our past policies. We need to recognise the failures and shortcomings of past policies. We need to reorient the state to abandon self-harming policies, begin a journey towards peace, prosperity and national economic development and find ways to strengthen democratic institutions. 

We need to prepare a comprehensive strategy and plan to wipe out militancy and religious extremism. We need to adopt both political and military strategies to deal with this problem. So far, we have just focused on the military strategy and done little on the political front to develop a counter-narrative.

According to Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: “Our foreign policy is one of friendliness and goodwill towards all the nations of the world. We do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe in the principle of honesty and fair play in national and international dealings, and are prepared to make our contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter”.

Quaid-e-Azam was in favour of an independent foreign policy. But our military and civilian rulers have followed a foreign policy that is completely dependent on the US. We have paid a heavy price for this dependent foreign policy.

The foreign policy of any country is the true barometer or litmus test of its sovereignty. To ensure a free and independent foreign policy, a country needs to be free of any yolks or strings of any sort. The most irksome pressure is imposed when a country is financially dependent on other countries. Before Pakistan can pursue an independent foreign policy, it must work towards making its economy free from any form of foreign strangulation.

The strength of an economy determines the prosperity of its people, the power of a state and the diplomatic importance and muscle of a country. Therefore, Pakistan’s foreign policy ought to be determined primarily by economic interests. For the first time in three centuries, a historic shift is taking place in the centre of gravity of the global economy from the West to Asia. This has provided a unique opportunity for Pakistan to build a prosperous future for its people and emerge as a strong and economically independent state.

 

The writer is a freelance journalist.