It is strange to see the American and British ambassadors conducting normal diplomatic business in Pakistan. They are rather conducting politically intrusive diplomacy in Pakistan by negotiating a political transition with important political players, including former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Yousaf Raza Gilani and former President Asif Ali Zardari. This is happening at a time when Britain and the United States have emerged as staunch political and military backers of Israel in its atrocities and brutalities against the people of Gaza.
In Pakistani society, the anger over events in Gaza is palpable. The entire Pakistani political leadership has at one time or another, given voice to their feelings of anger over Israeli atrocities. Occasionally, they sometimes invoke the idea of a Muslim world as a single political unit—an idea that resonates in Pakistani society at a deeper level. Pakistanis, however, are extremely poor in translating political trends into concrete political changes. Maybe in this particular case, Pakistan’s political leaders are too familiar with the cost of making the diplomatic environment in Islamabad seem like “not business as usual” for western diplomats.
After all, we still need Washington’s nod in obtaining loans and financial assistance from international donor agencies and institutions. Both Washington and London have historically played a key role in shaping the security architecture of our region. Pakistan’s security paradigm is deeply indebted to Washington and London. Therefore, it is understandable that Pakistani political leaders, while realizing the dependency factor in our relations with Western nations, would welcome intrusive political diplomacy from the US Ambassador and British High Commissioner. This is not happening for the first time.
Washington and London brokered an understanding between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto in 2007, because they considered the Benazir-Musharraf deal as crucial to Pakistan's transition to democracy and its effective campaign against Islamic militancy. The deal, however, floundered after Musharraf ordered the imposition of emergency in the country. There was even an attempt by US officials to revive the broken dialogue between the two sides. First, the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte publicly urged both Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto to "move away from the path of confrontation and resume dialogue for putting an end to the atmosphere of brinkmanship and confrontation."
Without American military and political support, there was no possibility that Israel would have carried out such a heinous murderous campaign in Gaza.
Secondly, Washington's Ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Petterson, after meeting the PPP chairperson in Karachi, told journalists that the prime reason for her meeting with BB was to revive the dialogue process between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. Washington’s fears about the emerging polarization between the "moderate forces" in Pakistan seem to be the driving force behind their diplomatic endeavors to revive the Musharraf-BB dialogue. In the words of foreign policy experts, both Washington and London were pursuing the Musharraf-Benazir deal in order to provide Musharraf with "credible political support within the legal and constitutional framework." Musharraf's growing unpopularity in Pakistani society was directly hampering his capability to take on the militants and extremists, and in such a situation it was extremely important for Musharraf to enlist the support of popular and moderate leaders like Benazir Bhutto.
Is a western ambassador’s intrusive diplomacy something akin to 2007 back door diplomacy by US and British diplomacy to bring moderate forces closer in Pakistani politics? There are unconfirmed reports that the US ambassador also met Former Prime Minister Imran Khan in Adiala Jail. This diplomatic activity is taking place immediately after reports surfaced that 11 US lawmakers have written a letter to the US Secretary of State demanding the suspension of military assistance to Pakistan in the wake of the incarceration of Imran Khan and other human rights abuses in Pakistani society. There is a strong possibility that the Western diplomats picked this time for this kind of intrusive diplomacy to create an impression of “business as usual” for western diplomats in Islamabad when Pakistan society is simmering with palpable sense of anger over Israeli brutalities and the naked and shameless support Washington, London and Paris are providing to the Zionist regime. Vice versa, it could be an idea of some old hand in the foreign office or someone trained there to launch high-profile diplomatic activity in Islamabad and the aim again would be nothing other than creating the impression of “business as usual” in the time when Pakistanis are only discussing two things: the Pakistan cricket team’s humiliating performance in the ICC Cricket World Cup and the genocidal actions of the Zionist regime in Gaza.
Apparently, Pakistani people across the country are displaying a strong sense of emotional attachment with the people of Gaza. But nothing more than emotions and brotherly feelings based on a common religious are involved. Gaza, Palestine or Israel has no strategic significance for Pakistan. In our short history, we have come across this moment umpteen times—when the population’s emotions didn’t match our strategic interests.
Let’s give the devil its due—it was Washington which assisted Pakistan’s continuation as a financially viable state.
Occupation in a land 3,000 kilometers away from Pakistan does not carry any strategic significance for Pakistan. But Palestine is a land of prophets—all of them holy for the people of Pakistan. Pakistanis have always shown great attachment to the Palestinian cause—our emotions have always been with them. But can we or should we tell our old friends and former masters that we cannot engage in business as usual with them because they are supporting a murderous regime in the Middle East that is killing our brothers and sisters in faith?
Before I answer this question let me explain two things. First, without American military and political support, there was no possibility that Israel would have carried out such a heinous murderous campaign in Gaza. Second, if Muslim countries and societies will remain a place where western diplomats and governments could carry on “business as usual,” there is no possibility that we will see the campaign of Israeli brutality coming to an end any time soon.
Now the answer: the Muslim world as a single political unit is not a very old political idea. In the words of Turkish historian Cemil Aydin in The Idea of Muslim World: A Global Intellectual History has conclusively proven that the Muslim World is a political concept, and it is not akin to the idea of an Islamic Ummah. The Ummah is purely a religious concept and it is completely distinct from the modern idea of political unity that provides the foundations for the Muslim World as a political unit. He states in the book that the idea of a Muslim World took birth during the high politics of the First and Second World Wars and in the interwar period when world powers and imperial states like the Ottomans, Britain and Germany were engaged in the battle for world dominance. All these three powers used the religious solidarity of Muslims across the world to push their imperial agendas.
The First and Second World Wars saw the dissolution of great empires and the formation of multiple nation-states, most of which were located in the Muslim lands. During the Cold War, and in the post-Cold War era, these Muslim nation-states developed their own strategic and national interests, which again were heavily influenced by the rivalries between super powers. Some of these Muslim nation-states also found themselves engaged in territorial disputes.
Pakistan is one such state: our strategic interests as defined by our strategic community are an amalgamation of two elements—the first element consists of how super power rivalries and American grand strategic strategies influenced our perceptions, and the second element is how our territorial disputes with Indians influenced our perceptions and decision-making process. In our dealing with the political west, we must keep in mind that our security architecture contains elements that have been placed in this edifice by Washington. For instance, on numerous occasions since the 1990s, Washington and other western powers diplomatically intervened to save South Asia from the horrors of war.
Anyone supporting the murderous Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is standing on the wrong side of history and cannot continue to go around the world preaching human rights and civil liberties to other regimes.
Nuclear optimists in Pakistan would counterargue that it was Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent which prevented war. This, however, remains debatable to this day, and the debate remains inconclusive on whether nuclear deterrence or western diplomacy saved Pakistan from Indian military might. Secondly, our decision-making process in the wake of 9/11 and the security structures we built to fight terror and militancy are highly influenced by Western assistance - financial, intellectual and military.
Let’s give the devil its due—it was Washington which assisted Pakistan’s continuation as a financially viable state. Besides, Pakistan’s political, military and bureaucratic elite is highly westernized in their outlook and worldview. Their cultural tastes, political inclinations and mental models of understanding the world around them are all borrowed from the west.
Here lies the answer: emotions are not a very good tool to frame foreign policy or security strategy. Just like Pakistan, other nation-states in the Muslim world have distinct security, strategic and foreign policy perceptions and interests. These interests are defined partially by Washington’s influence on them and partially by their geostrategic locations. This does not mean that emotions in the Muslim societies are worthless. It only means that Muslim societies and some 56 predominantly Muslim nation-states don’t have the required political, economic or military wherewithal to assert their emotions and feelings on the grand stage of world politics.
Some cynics in our society have put forward the argument that Pakistanis were never as vehement when Americans were bombing villages in Afghanistan. To them, I say your argument is outlandish. From the depths of my heart, I would say I never supported the American occupation of Afghanistan. But look at the difference—from day one of their occupation, Americans never indicated that they would stay in Afghanistan longer than absolutely required. In fact, they showed great haste in withdrawing. They were not carrying out any ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan. They built state structures, which are benefiting Afghan society to this day.
The Israelis have made it clear through their acts that they want to push the people of Gaza into neighboring countries as refugees and consequently occupy the land left behind permanently. It is clear that the murderous Israeli military is carrying out ethnic cleansing in Gaza and Palestine. Anyone supporting the murderous Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is standing on the wrong side of history and cannot continue to go around the world preaching human rights and civil liberties to other regimes.
Our political and ruling elite, in the meantime, continue to provide opportunities to western diplomats for performing “business as usual” acts in our midst.