In a candid discussion, former Foreign Minister of Pakistan Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri discussed several daunting issues faced by Pakistan on regional foreign policy front. The conversation focused on shaky ties with India, potential relations with Israel and the future of the Afghan endgame. In terms of foreign policy, these issues have placed Islamabad on strategic crossroads which has become one of the most important middle-power states in Asia.
On India, the discussion focused on historical aspects and recent escalation in the post-Pulwama attack scenario. In Kasuri’s opinion, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has deeply polarised the region through a directionless yet jingoistic attitude towards Pakistan. From an erratic behaviour in Kabul right before heading to Lahore in December 2015 to war posturing on several occasions, Modi’s actions have been nothing short of crossing diplomatic red lines.
Regarding the post-Pulwama attack escalations, the former foreign minister clearly stated that it turned out to be a war of narratives which Islamabad won by a considerable margin, especially when New Delhi’s reckless violations of Pakistan’s airspace are taken into context. On diplomatic and military front, India had no edge which faced an embarrassing defeat at the hands of its eastern neighbour since South Block overestimated itself.
Kasuri explained that the international media was largely unfavourable to the Indians whose military’s fighting capabilities were not only questioned but its conventional arms were considered obsolete when compared to Pakistan.
Of course, the two countries have professional armies who know the dangers of escalation. From India’s point of view, a long war suits it economically but it’s the military which had become a key hindrance to success.
Kasuri emphasised that during Operation Parakram, the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was wise enough to know the horrors of a full-scale conflict. Hence, chose to opt for a sustainable ceasefire in the end. Modi seems to be a complete opposite who thought he could bluff and get way with the posturing behaviour. This didn’t go down well as planned, not mentioning how warmongering was being forced upon the Indian public through a hyper-nationalist media.
The veteran diplomat also opined that Indian opposition may be disorganised, but the country is multi-party and multicultural unlike Hitler’s Germany which essentially became a one-party state owing to lack of diversity. Subsequently, Modi cannot have his own ways no matter how much he wishes for. Recent trends indicate that notion of a Nehruvian/Gandhian concept of secularism is receding which is alarming.
A ‘’win-win’ Kashmir solution needs compromises from all sides: ex-FM
According to Kasuri, Modi may find some wisdom from Vajpayee’s Kumarakom Musings which stated that there were two reasons why India couldn’t the place it was ought to be given in the international community. They were the destruction of the Babri Mosque in December 1992 and relationship with Pakistan in light of the Kashmir dispute. Modi, having been prime minister for five years, has tried escalatory measures such as border skirmishes and alleged surgical strikes to no particular advantage. There’s a war of narratives ongoing and India severely jeopardised its case when it tried to escalate tensions after the Pulwama attack.
The former foreign minister strongly perceived that the international community responded meekly after the Balakot strikes but immediately intervened when Pakistan reacted by shooting down two Indian fighter jets. It knew that the two nuclear-armed nations cannot sustain hostilities for long. It was comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis but there’s a stark difference: Unlike the US and the Soviet Union, Islamabad and New Delhi shot at each other which was far more dangerous. The situation has essentially internationalised the Kashmir dispute and brought it on the forefront much to Modi’s annoyance.
Kasuri feels that there’s no need to reinvent the wheel and there’s a solution to Kashmir. Nothing can be ideal from either Pakistan’s perspective, India’s perspective or the Kashmiris themselves. ‘But it must be according to the aspirations of the Kashmiris otherwise the people would reject it,’ he emphasised.
The proposal on Kashmir was discussed in his book ‘Neither a Hawk nor a Dove’ and no Indian or Pakistani expert or official had ever raised objections over it as per his personal assessments. It was further mentioned that the proposal was worked in the backchannels through consultations with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, General Ahsan Saleem Hayat and Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan for three years.
Similarly, the then Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s key adviser Sanjaya Baru in his book mentioned that on Siachen talks, Singh would discuss matters with not only serving Indian generals but those who had retired as well.
The former foreign minister points out that a win-win solution on Kashmir is evidently achievable in the long-run, but compromises have to be made by all stakeholders. Moreover, the Indian opposition will clearly realise the situation and would wish for peace with Pakistan in light of Modi’s haphazard approach.
Coming to potential relations with Israel, the veteran diplomat discussed how it’s a sketchy area to consider given the situation in Palestine. Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed desires to have ties with Pakistan on several occasions, it’s unlikely to materialise anytime soon.
When Kasuri met the Israelis through Turkish mediation back in 2005, it was considered historic. When the Israelis asked him that why Pakistan is more pro-Palestinian than Palestine itself, he explained them about the similarities between the Kashmiri and Palestinian struggles which are conjoined to each other.
Kasuri mentioned that there were two reasons for this meeting to take place in Istanbul. Firstly, the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal was becoming alarming for Pakistan and the US was already hesitant to provide similar concessions to Islamabad owing to the exposure of the infamous AQ Khan network involved in proliferation of nuclear technology. Hence, Pakistan wished to neutralise the Israeli lobby in Washington DC through informal interactions.
Secondly, India was cosying up with the Israelis for defence contracts on which even the US was hesitant at the time. Since the Israelis withdrew from the Gaza strip, which was welcomed by the international community, Islamabad thought it was a good opportunity to convey its concerns regarding the two issues.
However, it was already decided that Pakistan would only recognise Israel if the Abdullah Plan, proposed by the then Saudi Crown Prince and later King Abdullah, is duly implemented. Essentially the ‘Land for Peace’ solution which promised a two-state solution with Palestine coexisting with Israel. When Kasuri expressed these views to the Israelis, they were dismayed.
Kasuri reminded that foreign policy objectives cannot be pursued in isolation and the masses need to be taken onboard since shaping public opinion is difficult. In this case, having ties with Israel would not be in Pakistan’s interest despite all the advantages it may get in terms of technological and scientific exchanges which were discussed in Istanbul meeting. For Islamabad, a solution for Palestine is of much greater importance.
Finally, when talking about the Afghan endgame, the former foreign minister believes that despite strong resistance from the Pentagon and the US State Department, President Donald Trump seems to have decided that enough is enough and wishes to announce withdrawal from Kabul by the next US presidential elections. He wishes to convince his base supporters that funds being utilised for external wars would be used for the welfare of the American people.
‘Even the Afghan Taliban have decided to opt for talks since they cannot win the war. But they won’t be allowed to take Kabul since it would result in Afghanistan’s partition. If they acquire power at the expense of others, it would be a recipe for civil war. The core objective of some regional countries is to ensure sustainable peace who are at the time are not keen for a long-term American presence but don’t want it to leave in a jiffy,’ Kasuri stated cautiously. He mentioned that ensuring ceasefire and talks with Kabul are other factors of high importance which require fine tuning.
On the other hand, Kasuri strongly emphasised that a sovereign Afghanistan would be in Pakistan’s best interests since it would become its natural trading partner and, by extension, for Central Asia. At the time, Islamabad should not be scared of New Delhi’s close ties with Kabul which are based on economic factors. The key aspect is that hostilities on the western front need to subside which would ensure stability. However, India will certainly need to end its hostile activities along the western border on which a tangible guarantee would eventually have to materialise.
‘Whether it is Afghanistan or Kashmir, only talks are the way for ensuring stability in South Asia,’ Kasuri conclusively remarked.
