On the sidelines of developments at home in the context of political infighting between the various political factions; and the rounds of talk with the IMF; the most important development, strangely, has not caught the attention of the news desks. The renewed strategic defence dialogue between the USA and Pakistan, with staff level participation by the PAF and Navy, led by the Army, is in fact the proverbial ‘breaking news’ which will set the pattern for the general direction of the battered nation state of Pakistan. As a matter of fact, the dialogue is reminiscent of the 1950s inclusion of Pakistan into the ‘Baghdad Pact’ security arrangements, Americanization of weapon systems as well as adoption of a complete economic growth model, based on the ‘American’ development paradigms as practised in the pre-WTO era of capitalist development. At that time too, the political factions’ behaviour was no different from that at present.
The type of regimentation available in the 1960s is nowhere. Pakistan is riding a wild horse of centrifugal undercurrents, which can only be pacified through an economic turnaround. Failing in that task can endanger the nation-state, its survival, economic viability or its standing in the comity of nations. While the political circus, leaks and proverbial ‘punctures’ will keep the bewildered countrymen busy in ‘gutter gossip’ the deal for the next war is being done quietly in the background
It has been a generally accepted truth in the corridors of international finance that, as far as the nation state is concerned, is on the right side of the political divide; all things objectionable as overlooked, until the time when things get different. Every student of international finance knows that it was the controversial BCCI, which was the conduit of transfer of funds from the western banks until it fell out of favour
Returning to the discussion in hand, there is the somewhat surprise resumption of the IMF dialogue. Soon to be followed by the ‘confusing’ information about top brass visits to important international capitals. These all point out that the country is being taken back to the development paradigm first adopted in late 1950s and early 1960s, when the newly independent nation state graduated into the western bloc courtesy the top military leadership of the country personified in the shape of Ayub & Co.
A runthrough of the deep state handles on social media spills the mood at that level. The Pakistani audience is being fed the rosy picture of getting the ‘latest blocks’ of the F-16s; obviously for another ‘defence contract’ whose only fallout for the common Pakistani will be the dismembered limbs in the aftermath of a suicide blast; again by the same deep state ‘forward linkages’.
Given the new ground realities, at the geopolitical level, the choices are not as easy as they used to be in the case of the 1960s and 1970s. During those decades of cold war, there was still not the culture of absolute enemies or absolute friends. Pakistan was able to ‘flirt’ with Communist China while still remaining in US-backed pacts like SEATO, especially, which could have asked for Pakistani participation in the US South East Asian conflicts.
Likewise, in 1967, when Pakistan was busy participating with the pro-US air arm of Iran under the Shah in the CENTO exercise, its policy was still independent to lend pilots to report to any of the Arab air arms at the height of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. One such pilot had the honour of fighting the Israeli air force onboard Iraqi and then Jordanian air force Hawker Hunters.
Even in the case of inter-regional cooperation, monarchist Iran, despite being staunchly pro-USA, was able to dodge the United States, when it bought the used West German Air Force F 86 jets on its vouchers and made them available to the PAF. Likewise, Pakistani pilots were to again participate in the 1973 conflict, when in one such engagement, a Pakistani pilot actually shot down an Israeli Air Force Mirage variant Kfir, onboard a Soviet- made Syrian Mig 21.
Today, things have changed a lot. After 9/11, the American security paradigms have acted unilaterally in the specific case of Pakistan. Unlike Turkey, which despite being a NATO ally has been able to take independent economic and strategic decisions, when it has suited its interests, Pakistan compliance to Washington has been ‘shamelessly’ meek. Despite the fact that Pakistan was fast turning into an energy-deficient economy in the first decade of the 2000s, with periodic CNG station load management, Pakistan was not able, or was not willing, to make the most of the gas pipeline available upto the international border between Pakistan and Iran. Likewise, the law of the land specifically treats the Islamic Republic in the follow-up of the FATF regulations as a high-risk and prohibited area, along with Afghanistan and India; the only choice made by Pakistan; itself.
While the domain of trade is not felt in the arena of the geopolitical scene; partly thanks to decades-old smuggling routes across the sub-continent and with West Asia, any strategic partnership is seldom forgotten. The animosity between Pakistan and Afghanistan spilling over now and then has much to do with the baggage the Pakistan nation-state accrued for itself, firstly in 1979, then in the aftermath of the 1989 developments and finally the post 9/11 developments until the ascension of the Taliban in August 2021.
Imagining Pakistan’s role in any US initiative in the Middle East aimed at ‘setting things right’, war with Iran, can potentially put Pakistan in an embarrassing situation, diplomatically. While a run through the two decades since the Iranian nuclear programme became the West’s target suggests that such a moment has never arisen, the unilateral entry in the March 2015 Yemen war by MBS exposed Pakistan to risks imposed, if not of its own making. Here it is pertinent to note that the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani had no bearing whatsoever on the Pakistani grassroots situation, the Mike Pompeo tweet then, that he ‘discussed’ the strike with the then Pakistani Army chief, reflects a callous approach by the Americans, without any realization of its fallout.
With knives out for all the players in the international conflicts; best symbolized in the Ukraine conflict, rising tensions with the other bloc; China/Russia and Iran, with one side sending suicide drones to one power, while the other power arranging supply to the other player in the conflict, the battle lines are becoming clear day by day.
If the ordinary Pakistani visiting a bank branch has to go through terror financing screening, favourites of the ruling coalition, with backing from the local and international established order, are roaming around ‘Eiffel Tower’ in their clothing of choice, without any queries on their ‘fourth schedule status’ or established image as hatemongers. It is not a coincidence that international security experts were prompt in identifying the happening through their Twitter pages, while the local media for ‘obvious’ reasons has been mum. It also reflects badly upon the writ of the state in enforcing what it calls initiatives to stifle ‘terrorism’ and ‘hate’ in the society.
Consequently, Pakistan seems to be inches away from another global security arrangement, like the one it experienced during the Ayub era. Quite coincidentally, the economic cycle, which was initiated with a paradigm in the closing years of the 1950s, has come full circle. During that period, the economic realities of the international world and Pakistan have itself changed a lot.
