High Time to Ride the Train of Minilateralism

Pakistan’s foreign policy has always been revolving around securing its borders from the traditional threat of India and more lately the sub conventional threat of terrorism. Despite its focus on engaging with great powers in the 60s through SEATO and CENTO, Pakistan has generally suffered from poor choices on its behalf and at the hands of great powers especially Russia (ex-USSR), UK and USA. The British left the Indian subcontinent with a host of conflicts most notably Kashmir, the Americans continued to engage in a transactional relationship combining sanctions and aid and sometimes both together while Soviets engaged themselves in the invasion of Afghanistan that caused a huge influx of refugees in Pakistan bringing with it the drugs and Kalashnikov culture. This has left Pakistan with few friends in the international arena which has been aptly seen by the last FATF grey listing when even China and KSA both withdrew their support. Financial support from China, KSA and UAE may have continued in the form of loans and their extensions, but its high time for Pakistan to play out its true potential on the foreign policy front and engage with like-minded states in areas where common ground can be achieved. India has torpedoed SAARC and is now defunct. Pakistan also does not have the financial muscle nor the political influence at the world stage to engage with every major state in every region. The best way forward is to identify states with which commonalities can be drawn on the basis of regional connectivity, economic activity, social and religious networks and foreign policy interests. It should be beyond the securitized mindset and be more about people to people contacts.

The recent thaw in relationship between Pakistan and Bangladesh should be taken as a stepping stone to improving its relations with not just Bangladesh but major ASEAN states like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. There are many commonalities that can be taken advantage of and relationships be expanded based on these commonalities. Bangladesh and Pakistan have nothing to lose in terms of improving their relationship. The demise of Hasina Wajid’s government has presented an excellent opportunity to Pakistan to develop a broad based relationship with Bangladesh focussing on covering up the weaknesses and finding reasons to cooperate for the good of each other. It has also presented an opportunity to Bangladesh to build a fairer relationship with India while strengthening its relationships with other states. It is important to develop and consolidate relationships with major ASEAN states such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Thailand, a predominant Buddhist country has always maintained a neutral stance in international conflicts and has continued with its ‘Bamboo Diplomacy’. Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are all ASEAN members and have developed a strong relationship within the ASEAN structure.

Buddhism is the second most practised religion in Malaysia and has influenced Malaysian art, culture and architecture. Malaysians, after the Chinese contribute the most to Thailand’s booming tourist industry. The Thai-Malaysia Joint Development Area in the Gulf of Thailand is a classic example of how pragmatism overtakes security and territorial concerns. This is despite the fact that multiple attacks have killed more than 7300 people in the mainly ethnic Malay Muslim southernmost provinces of Thailand in the two-decade old resurgent separatist movement.

Similarly, Indonesia which although has a very small Buddhist population, is still greatly influenced by Buddhist culture and traditions despite being the most populous Muslim country. Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Pakistan are predominantly Muslim states and have similar view on international issues such as Israel-Palestine conflict and Russia-Ukraine war where all of them believe that a two state solution is the only solution for Israel-Palestine conflict whereas Russian insecurities with respect to eastward expansion of NATO needs to be addressed while ensuring territorial integrity of Ukraine. These commonalities in foreign policy positions can be expanded and used in favour of these states by developing a mini-lateral on the lines of I2U2 or IMEC.

Thailand has been under immense pressure from the western states to align its foreign policy with the west in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Myanmar issue but it has held out against the western stance. Similarly, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Pakistan have continued to not accept Israel as a state despite western desires. There is no doubt that the developed western states will always try to get their way and the only way for middle powers to protect and defend themselves adequately is to develop and bolster close partnerships with each other. The reason for forming this pentangular relationship could be due Indian hegemonic designs but should not be central moot point of this relationship. It should also not be centred in on China or any western nation/ USA. The only central moot should be the common exchange of views, improving understanding amongst the states on various international issues, increase multilateral trade by improving regional connectivity through expansion of air and sea routes, easing of restrictions on seeking higher education, cultural exchanges, religious tourism, information exchange w.r.t non-traditional threats in the maritime domain and cooperation in artificial intelligence and cyber defence.

Pakistan has been in the midst of a poly crises. From economic crunch to political instability to increasing terrorism, Pakistan has been fighting all along its 77 years of existence. It is always said that a state’s internal strength tells a lot about its foreign policy goals, but Pakistan must work out its foreign policy goals while trying to fix the internal situation. A delay would not be acceptable if Pakistan has to progress.