Syria and Pakistan

In the wake of recent visit of Saudi Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Pakistan's policy position on Syria keeps coming up for public debate, as much for the initial obfuscation on the part of government on the outcome of visit as for the spanner thrown in the works by a news agency report. In fact it was the report which set off the debate by claiming that Pakistan agreed to sell anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles to the Kingdom for onward supply to anti-government Syrian rebel forces. And this, the report suggested, was in furtherance of the Pak-Saudi agreement inked by the two sides during the visit to help set up a 'transitional government' in Syria. To the public mind, and rightly so, such a policy shift at a time when most of the challenges to our national security stemming from the growing menace of sectarianism are already on our hands, would add to our woes. All that the government had been saying up till then about the Syrian civil war that Pakistan is greatly concerned over gross violation of human rights and would like the two sides in the civil war to hammer out a peaceful solution. Never ever there was any suggestion made by Islamabad in support of a 'transitional government' in Damascus, which simply stated means the ouster of the Assad regime. That the Kingdom's number two had come, on the heels of a high-profile long-awaited visit by the Saudi foreign minister, at the time their erstwhile guest Nawaz Sharif is in power in Pakistan - perceptibly there was this rich concoction that tended to strengthen the impression that Pakistan was going to join the Syrian opposition. In fact there are even rumours of volunteers being enlisted. So there are now the PM Advisor Sartaj Aziz and Foreign Office spokesperson on job to inform the nation of the truth in the matter. There is nothing new in the Pak-Saudi joint statement, he told the National Assembly, adding 'it was in keeping with the declared position on Syria...the UN-backed Action Group in its Geneva meeting on June 30, 2012 had proposed setting up transitional government including members of government and opposition with executive powers'. And as for the much talked about sale-purchase of arms the Prince Salman travelled on to New Delhi from Islamabad and there too he signed 'defence pact aimed to help defence personnel of the two sides to work closely and learn from each other's experiences'. As for the arms sold to Saudi Arabia making way to Syria the Foreign Office spokesman insists it is not possible given that defence deals invariably carry end-users certificate which ensures that our arms are not resold or provided to a third country. So far so good; but one would have beef with the spokesperson when she rejects public criticism saying ill-informed people are liable to misunderstand the outcome of the Saudi visit, and added that "Bottom line is that foreign policy represents your national interests'. She is right but only to the extent of generality of her remark.

A large majority in Pakistan looks at the Syrian imbroglio in its wider context, both for its regional complexity and its negative impact on the unity of Muslim world. Given that civil war in Syria is increasingly becoming a direct clash between the Iran-supported Assad regime and Saudi-backed opposition it tends to suck in volunteers from the Shia-Sunni divide. Already, as poignantly pointed out by Prince Karim Aga Khan in his speech to a joint sitting of Canadian parliament, the tensions between the two denominations "have increased massively in scope and intensity recently and have been exacerbated by external interventions". "In Pakistan, Malaysia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan it is becoming a disaster". He aptly compared the Shia-Sunni divide with the situation in Ireland with Catholics and Protestants pitted against each other, and warned against being oblivious to this reality. Not that we think Pakistan is being led to the battlefields blindfold, but do detect the shift in our foreign policy on civil war in Syria. That Geneva-I backed the idea of transitional government and therefore this understanding with Saudi Arabia - two years on we find the argument a little hollow. And we want a transitional government in Syria because it would serve our 'national interests' - we need to redefine as to what constitutes a national interest. Only at the risk of being dubbed as grossly obstinate and irrelevant one would refuse to admit that to our blood-soaked sectarian showdown is as much a national creation as the 'kindness' of our foreign friends. No wonder then when Foreign Office justifies shift in policy on Syria in line with national interests the people look around and wonder.