A Catch-22 Situation

We …….. express concern on the security situation in the region and violence caused by the Taliban, ISIL/DAISH, Al-Qaida and its affiliates including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. We deplore all terrorist attacks worldwide, including attacks in BRICS countries, and condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations wherever committed and by whomsoever and stress that there can be no justification whatsoever for any act of terrorism. We reaffirm that those responsible for committing, organizing, or supporting terrorist acts must be held accountable. Recalling the primary leading role and responsibility of states in preventing and countering terrorism, we stress the necessity to develop international cooperation, in accordance with the principles of international law, including that of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs. (BRICS Leaders Xiamen Declaration, SEPTEMBER 4, 2017)

For the first time in its somewhat chequered history, the leaders of the BRICS nations explicitly spelled out that the militant groups supposedly based in Pakistan posed a threat to regional security and urged that the benefactors be held responsible. The remark was made in the context of the situation in Afghanistan, a geo-strategic asset for connectivity projects and a nation waiting anxiously to join the club.  The remark as expected aroused a considerable degree of attention, consternation and apprehension in both China and Pakistan.  There was as they say, a churning within.

The Dawn in its immediate appraisal of the BRICS declaration urged the state to embark on a comprehensive and concerted policy of combating insurgent groups operating from within its soil if it wants to “remain on the right side of international opinion”. While there was a consensus that India’s presence in the forum must have persuaded the semantic however, there was also the realization that Brazil, China, Russia and South Africa could have echoed the same only if it were based on a genuine degree of conviction and apprehension of their own. Pakistan would therefore benefit in not treating it as an anomaly that could be attributed to  the misgivings of the United States, Afghanistan and India. While acknowledging the effort and advances made by Pakistan in fighting radicalism and insurgency within, there was recognition and admittance of the fundamental incongruity at the crux of the nation’s efforts to contest militant violence, radicalism and fanaticism that is, a reluctance to accept the policies of the past, and a continuing discriminatory method to combat militancy, which is perceived to have compounded the problem. The suggestion therefore was that devoid of a candid “reckoning with the past”, the repositioning of the state from one that reinforced jihad under the aegis of the Cold War to one that recognizes and acknowledges the great price that it exacted on “Pakistan’s economy, society and position in the international community” could not be accomplished. Besides without admitting that Pakistan’s performance in combating violence, militancy and fanaticism within its soil has been rather inconsistent and insufficient, any substantive and real success in all probability is highly unlikely. The opinion piece could be an aberration in the midst of a plethora of nationalist and parochial responses to the BRICS statement, it however does indicate anxieties regarding Pakistan’s global standing; an inclination towards a self-critique as well as a suggestion and desire to introspect.

China’s assent in stating that militant groups within Pakistan pose a threat to regional peace and security has become a subject of  analysis within the country.  There have been criticisms, somewhat unusual in the country as well as appreciation for the same. According to Hu Shisheng, director of the state-run China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, the decision could annoy Pakistan and could very well affect its relations with China. It also implies testing times for the Chinese diplomats as a great amount of convincing may be required to appease Pakistan, a crucial player in the Belt and Road Initiative by way of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor. Shisheng questioned the decision and the logic behind identifying the Haqqani network, symbolizing the Afghan Taliban that functions in Afghanistan as it could make “China’s role in Afghan political reconciliation process more difficult”, or in fact impossible. His primary contention and criticism was the lack of preparation and consultation with Pakistan citing that groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi al-Alami that operates from Pakistan were in fact more lethal as well as responsible for the attack on Chinese nationals in Baluchistan. Shisheng assumed that this may have been an instance of a tradeoff so as to include terror outfits such as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, “which is active in its restive Xinjiang region”. What irked the Chinese academic was what he perceives as a success for India. Conversely, another Chinese analyst, Wang Dehua of the Institute for South and Central Asian Studies at the Shanghai Municipal Centre for International Studies, was supportive of the BRICS declaration, stating “to successfully counter all kinds of terrorism, the first important concern is violence caused by the Taliban, ISIS, al-Qaida and its affiliates” and that a consensus was imperative with regard to which terrorists should be targeted. In his opinion the BRICS nations would be well advised to embrace an inclusive attitude to counter terrorism.

The fact of the matter is that it is uncertain times for the BRICS initiative in terms of its economic prowess as a bloc as well as that of its constituent members, the supposed key factor in bringing the otherwise somewhat dissimilar group together. Political differences were a given. To add to the uncertainty is China’s global aspirations commensurate with its economic weightage within the forum and otherwise and the regional competition with India over connectivity. While India has begun its pursuit of alternative allies such as the United States and Japan in a bid to neutralize the ‘China factor’, even as its age old ties with Russia appears to have encountered an adversary in the form of the changing Sino-Russian relations, it would be interesting to observe how China contends with the situation and its probable consequences for its “all weather” friend Pakistan.   

Priya

20th September 2017