Pakistan’s allies’ dilemma

States operate in an anarchic system based on suspicions and fear. The contributions of the Idealist school of thought are notwithstanding, it is a general consensus among international political scientists that states’ policies are dictated by a cost and benefit approach. In this antagonistic Hobbesian international system, states require allies to balance and counter-balance their adversaries in the geopolitical, economic and strategic domains. Pakistan, being locked in a protracted enmity with its eastern neighbour, also requires allies to achieve its key national interests. Kashmir has been the bedrock of Pakistan’s strategic and political culture and directs its foreign policy choices. It has become an easy way to win Pakistan’s confidence, especially since India revoked Article 370 and altered Kashmir’s status. However, there are ample limitations attached with Pakistan’s allies when it comes to taking a moral stand on the Kashmir issue.

Firstly, Saudi Arabia has always been Pakistan’s trustworthy ally when it comes to the Kashmir issue. However, over the past few years, Saudi Arabia has been retreating from its initial stance owing to its economic engagement with India, changing regional geopolitical realities and the fluctuating social and political dynamics of the Arab World. Moreover, Saudi Arabia does not have any moral standing on the right of self-determination or of human rights, as its own record on these issues is bleak.

Its own population does not have any say in the state’s matters. The plight of women, despite certain improvements brought about by Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman, is still grim. The dissentient voices are not tolerated and an environment conducive to free speech is being suffocated. Hence, Saudi Arabia may be Pakistan’s strategic and economic partner owing to the large number of the Pakistan diaspora in it and the military ties between both countries, but when it comes to Kashmir cause which requires a clean human rights record, Saudi Arabia is hesitant.

Secondly, China, which is also a party to Kashmir dispute, does not have a clean track record on human rights. Forty percent of current Chinese territory is not Chinese. Historically, it belongs to inner Magnolia, Turkmenistan, and the autonomous Tibet region. So, how can China fight Pakistan’s case on Kashmir on the basis of history and culture when it itself occupies neighbours’ territory, or least territory to which neighbours could make a claim. In Kashmir, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while changing the demographics, is not only following Israel’s West Bank model but also the Chinese model of changing demographics in Xinjiang. In Xinjiang, in 1945, the Uighurs population was 82.7 percent while today it is around 45 percent of the total population. It does not end here. The controversial national security law in Hong Kong and ethnic unity law and forced assimilation program in Tibet show the problems and fragility of the Chinese track record on human rights.

The Pakistani establishment must stop fixing complex domestic issues through artificial ways and accept the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country. The grievances of small provinces and population living in peripheries must be resolved by mainstreaming them as it is the only way towards national integration and internal stability. And without internal stability, achieving foreign policy objectives is no more than a utopian dream. 

Thirdly, Turkey, which is considerably gaining influence in Pakistan, also does not have that much better a track record on human rights than China and Saudi Arabia. In Turkey, 18 percent of the population belongs to the Kurd ethnic minority. The Kurdish ethnicity is divided in four countries including Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Everywhere, they live in a grim situation, under constant threat of persecution. Since the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds have been demanding a separate homeland but their legitimate demand is being suppressed by all the four countries they are divided among. Turkish military actions against Kurdish militias and political witch hunt of the Kurdistan Workers Party have left thousands dead or in exile. Nevertheless, abroad, Turkey has been a staunch supporter of human rights and international law.

By contrast, the world at large wants the status quo to be preserved. It does not want to change the current map of the world because it is not only Kashmir where the struggle for a separate homeland is going on, or could go on. In fact, the big powers are apprehensive that if the map of the Subcontinent is changed, there would be a cascade of such new movements and the old ones could get intensified like Uighurs in China, Kurds in Middle East, Northern Irishmen in UK, and many others in North America and Europe. Hence, the world, including Pakistan’s allies, are paying lip service to the Kashmir dispute to win Islamabad’s confidence and thereby fulfill their economic and strategic interests.

What is needed for Pakistan is to accept the realities and adjust its priorities according to those realities. No big power or its ally can resolve the Kashmir dispute. It is Pakistan’s internal strength that could compel India to come on table. Therefore, firstly, Pakistan should develop a strong economy and a robust governance system so that it will not require the others’ influence to resolve its problems. Secondly, as far as the Kashmir dispute is concerned, both India and Pakistan should become friends first and then try to resolve their disputes as two enemies rarely accommodate each other on the negotiating table; it is friends who give concessions to each other. Thirdly, the Pakistani establishment must stop fixing complex domestic issues through artificial ways and accept the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country. The grievances of small provinces and population living in peripheries must be resolved by mainstreaming them as it is the only way towards national integration and internal stability. And without internal stability, achieving foreign policy objectives is no more than a utopian dream.