| |
COMMENTARY
Why Pakistan needs entente
cordiale with Israel
By Ehsan Ahrari
Watching India and Israel nurturing a strategic
partnership, I frequently wonder why Pakistan is merely
sitting on the fence and not building entente cordiale
with the Jewish state in order to maximize its own
strategic advantage.
Pakistan is a county that I
thought I knew, since it was once part of "British"
India. But I no longer recognize the Pakistan of today.
It is a place where Islamists are busy dragging the
country back to the Seventh century. It is a country
where the government has used Islamist groups to
terrorize Indian-administered Kashmir. It is a land
where democracy has been occasionally given a chance,
and only for a limited duration. It is a place whose
elites have long argued that democracy is a luxury,
which only the Western-educated populace can and should
enjoy, and that Pakistan will not be ready for democracy
for a long time. The same type of elitist malady is
inordinately manifested in Pakistan by its army, an
institution that has sabotaged democracy throughout its
existence as a nation since 1947.
So, why am I
committing political heresy by suggesting the necessity
of entente cordiale between a Muslim Pakistan and a
Jewish Israel? In my judgment, such a development will
be a good thing for Pakistan for two reasons. First, a
move on the part of Pakistan to deal openly with the
Jewish state will break many taboos - most of which
self-created - by that South Asian state and also by its
Muslim neighbors. Islamist groups of Pakistan will hold
a number of demonstrations against it. Once they blow
off their steam, they will learn to live with it.
Second, as the India-Israel strategic partnership is
evolving, Pakistan will find itself facing yet one more
reason why the gap between its conventional military
power with that of India"s will be further widened.
I don't believe that nuclear Pakistan will be
made to rely inordinately on its nuclear weapons for its
security. Ample parity in conventional military power is
a necessity to stabilize South Asia. I am of the view
that the escalating strategic disparity between India
and Pakistan in conventional weaponry is highly
dangerous. That was why Pakistan opted for nuclear
weapons. By the same token, it can be argued that India
also opted for nuclear weapons because of its own
strategic inferiority vis-a-vis China. But all of that
is history.
We now have to face the current
strategic realities in South Asia. And that reality is
that a reasonable strategic parity between India and
Pakistan must be established soon. But the US will not
play a role for its establishment any time soon. There
is little support for it in the US Congress, and
President George W Bush does not attach a high priority
to supplying weapons to Pakistan.
The absence of
diplomatic ties between Pakistan and Israel is based on
the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO) -Israeli conflict has not been resolved. However,
when Egypt - the intellectual capital of the Arab world
- and Jordan - where the Palestinians comprise a
majority of the population - have had formal peace
agreements and diplomatic ties with the Jewish state for
quite a while, it makes no sense for Pakistan to sit on
the fence.
As a country that has drawn its
diplomatic cues from Saudi Arabia regarding this issue,
the Pakistani leadership has become a prisoner of its
own perceptual dungeons. At least that is what I was
once told by a Pakistani official. But the realities of
that conflict might change if Bush's road map for peace
between the PLO and Israel were to result in an
independent Palestine. Even if that plan were to become
a victim of continuing violence and counter-violence,
Pakistan must join those nations that are advocating its
resolution in the secular context. A continued couching
of this conflict in the context of Islam, Judaism or
Christianity will invariably lead to political
cul-de-sacs and unending bloodshed.
Besides, the
group of nations that favors a secular resolution of the
Arab-Israeli conflict does not include Saudi Arabia.
However, after the suicide attacks in Riyadh on May 12,
the Saudi monarchy may be forced to revisit its archaic
notions of religious puritanism that promise to keep
that polity well entrenched in the obscurantism of a
previous era, a phenomenon that is against everything
Islamic.
Even if Saudi Arabia ends up revising
its commitment to the Wahhabi creed, it may still not
decide to change its policy of no diplomatic contacts
with Israel in the near future. Rulers in Riyadh are not
known for their trailblazing policies on heady issues of
that region. Thus, Pakistan will have to take the lead.
After all, in the realms of scientific education,
secular infrastructural development, and its commitment
to globalism, Pakistan is at least several decades ahead
of Saudi Arabia. So, why allow an inward-looking regime
to dictate Pakistan's strategic policies when the stakes
and objectives of Islamabad and Riyadh are so
drastically divergent?
Pakistan is a nuclear
Muslim state, perhaps the only Muslim state that will be
allowed to be nuclear, given the nuclear
counterproliferation policies of the Bush
administration. Yet Pakistan is also a place where
Islamist obscurantists are running rampant, still
determined to revert an enlightened Muslim polity into
another Talibanistan. A sad reality is that Islamist
groups anywhere have not made a name for themselves for
their futuristic vision, or regarding their capabilities
to use the escalating forces of globalization to improve
the plight of millions of ever-suffering and downtrodden
Muslims all over the world.
The government of
Pakistan has mindlessly used Islamist forces to raise
the level and frequency of bloodshed in Kashmir in order
to put pressure on India to resolve the dispute. There
is little doubt that, despite the fact that it is
decidedly more powerful than Pakistan in conventional
military power, India has failed to arrest the level of
violence on its side of Kashmir. And by promoting a
reign of terror in Indian-administered Kashmir, Pakistan
has also failed to win the sympathies of the
international community for a political resolution of
that dispute.
The establishment of diplomatic
ties with Israel will be the first step toward
Pakistan's attempt to yank itself from its traditional
policy of using terrorism to pressure India. It has been
clear for a long time that no government in New Delhi
will be pressured into resolving that obdurate conflict.
The resolution of the Kashmir dispute can only be
carried out through political negotiations. Second,
Pakistan may also be able to make deals with the Jewish
state for the purchase of conventional weaponry, thereby
keeping the balance of conventional military power from
tilting even further in favor of India. Israel will not
have any hesitation about selling arms to a moderate and
friendly Pakistan, along with India. After all, it is
currently selling weapons to both India and China.
What would be in it for Israel? First, the
establishment of diplomatic ties with Pakistan - a major
Muslim state - will be a major achievement for the
Jewish state. Second, by enhancing its diplomatic
presence in Pakistan, Israel will also be able to play
an important role in the geopolitics of South and West
Asia. At the same time, an increased Israeli diplomatic
presence especially in West Asia will also put ample
diplomatic crosspressures on Israel to take into account
the implications of its policies toward the Palestinians
for its larger and complicated diplomatic presence in
that region.
A new century is creating new
realities that all nation-states should tackle by
developing new and iconoclastic approaches. The
establishment of entente cordiale between Islamabad and
Jerusalem may turn out to be one such measure for the
augmentation of peace and stability in South Asia.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria,
Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
