Is Pakistan a geo-political football between China and the US? No one knew of this term until FM Zardari revealed it while commenting on the recent statements issued from Washington and Beijing. Secretary Blinken had urged Islamabad to engage China on issues of debt relief and restructuring so that Pakistan could recover from floods quickly. China retorted angrily to this out-of-context statement. Terming Pakistan as a genuine friend and brother in times of need, Beijing desired Washington to desist from passing unwarranted criticism on Sino-Pakistan cooperation. It was suggested that the US side might as well do something real and beneficial for the people of Pakistan. Refusing to be treated as a ‘football’, Pakistan would instead wish to play the role of a bridge between China and the US for working together, so said FM Zardari in the same breath. Perhaps, the famous American football player, Terry Bradshaw, was right when he remarked: when you’ve got something to prove, there’s nothing greater than a challenge. Perhaps, FM Zardari has taken the Sino-US détente as a challenge. In the recent past, Pakistan has been expressing its desire to be a bridge between the two giants. The question is: how would Pakistan play this ‘role’? What kind of parleys would it hold to bring the two enemies together in a way that suits both sides? Would there be secret talks? If yes, what exactly would Islamabad’s role be in conveying messages to and from Washington? Does Islamabad have a proposed plan of action? Another question: if both countries need to talk, is there any dearth of venues for them or, an absence of means of communication?
To begin with, if at all Washington and Beijing choose to accept any offer of mediation, would Islamabad be their first choice? Considering Islamabad’s obvious tilt towards China, would the US believe in the ‘fairness’ of the mediator? Last but not least, what would Pakistan gain if, by a stroke of a miracle, such an event actually takes place? Look at the obvious paradox…!! How could a country which is being made a football be elevated to the status of a mediator by the same countries that are playing ball? One is at a loss to understand the mindset of the present-day Foreign Office. A geo-political football? Seriously? Let us presume that Pakistan is actually being made a geo-political football by China and the US. Straightaway, at least four questions arise in one’s mind. Firstly, who made Pakistan a football? The answer is no one but Pakistan itself. Clearly, it was an extension of the Sino-US’ own animosity that triggered such remarks. Pakistan, being the victim of recent floods, provided both Washington and Beijing an opportunity to score a point or two against each other. That is all. Secondly, should the statements emanating from two countries be a matter of concern for the concerned country? Yes, but there are ways to go about such situations. Just imagine if India had to respond to a similar predicament. To start with, would New Delhi even allow anyone to treat it as a geo-political football? The possible response from India might be in the following words: keep India out of your politics. India is a player and not a geo-political football like Pakistan.
Thirdly, what kind of diplomatic mileage has Pakistan gained by coining the term or playing the victim card? None whatsoever. In fact, by imagining itself as a geo-political football, Pakistan has exhibited its plight rather than any point of strength. Lastly, does a country like Pakistan have a choice if it is being made a geo-political football by big powers? No, unfortunately, it doesn’t have any choice. Come to think of it, would it not play to the tunes of bigwigs if they so desired? Unless the house is put in order and the country is able to stand on its own feet, there seems no choice. Givers choose. Not beggars. Hence, in the absence of any response from either Washington or Beijing, it would only be advisable if Islamabad desisted from repeating the offer of mediation. Remember, in a fight between elephants, the grass invariably suffers. Secondly, Pakistan has seen the fate of its offer of mediation between KSA and Iran. One wonders what prompts Pakistan to make such offers. What exactly do we want to achieve here? What purpose do such ‘free’ offers serve? Why don’t we come out of the CENTO & SEATO era and breathe in present times? The world has drastically changed since 1972 when Pakistan helped China in re-establishing formal ties with the West. Instead of offering any such mediatory roles, Pakistan may prepare for the inevitable. A possible clash of the Titans? What kind of role would Pakistan be required to play to safeguard its own national interest? How would it stay comfortably neutral in the meantime? What language would suit it to look fair in its diplomatic stance? Instead of offering its services for bridging gaps between others, the country may focus on its own issues. Wouldn’t it only be prudent if Pakistan found a way to normalise relations with India first? Try finding ways and means to coexist with its own enemy? A number of future challenges are awaiting Pakistan’s response. What if Iran goes nuclear tomorrow? And God forbid, what if Pakistan goes into default? Meanwhile, let the two superpowers tread the path that suits them.
Author Bo Bennett once remarked, ‘diplomacy is more than saying or doing the right things at the right time; it is avoiding saying or doing the wrong things at any time.’ In the world of diplomacy, one needs to be very careful with one’s words. Your words are counted. See, how just two words have made a whole nation pay so dearly…!! And if you think the trajectory of Pak-US relations particularly with regard to trade and commerce will soon be back to where it should be? ‘Absolutely not’.