(By: Afrah Jamal)
Third world nations that remain
daggers drawn have yet to ascend to that stage of nirvana marked by regional
cooperation and economic reforms; the kind that defines Sino - US relations for
instance. Former US ambassador to China described their emerging relationship
as “controlled enmity.” It had remained on course despite Washington’s concerns
over the militarization of South China Sea, or indictment of Chinese hackers by
a US court. The world’s biggest economy and the largest US foreign creditor and
the superpower had learnt to prioritize and steer their relations towards a
semblance of normality.
No one really knows which direction
they will take under a Donald Trump Presidency. But economic considerations
trumped personal differences at the time. And now judging from the list of
banned nations devised by the White House where some obvious names have been
pointedly left out – at least for the time being, it still appears to take
precedence over security concerns.
South Asian nations operate
differently. Common grounds they have aplenty - common foes too. Yet, Kabul
bickers over trade routes and refugee repatriation while India threatens to
renege on water treaties (which would be an open declaration of war) amid
dubious declarations of ‘surgical strikes’ in Pakistani territory. And
Islamabad’s misgivings about the ever expanding Indian footprint remain in
place especially after India ratcheted up the propaganda against Pakistan and
war hysteria in the region. They have spent seven decades stoking the flames of
resentment while keeping old flashpoints in place. Here fronts multiply on a
dizzying scale, followed by attempts to reach for the nearest nuclear arsenal
to resolve differences. It has never been a healthy relationship.
Such conflicts color their policies
and keep them in a negative holding pattern. While Pakistan and Afghanistan
were embroiled in yet another feud over the transportation of consumer goods,
India went on the warpath after the 18 September 2016 attack on its army base.
No evidence had been provided that tied Pakistan to the terrorists before their
relations went south. The subsequent war of words between Pakistan and India
over the Uri attack quickly escalated, leading to an exchange of fire across
the line of control. Trade talk took backseat. Nuclear war became the lead
headline.
The ties binding Islamabad, Kabul and
Delhi are flimsy, and break easily. The Afghan Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement
– APTTA was signed in 2010 and meant to regulate bilateral trade between a
landlocked Afghanistan and its Pakistani neighbor. It gave Kabul access to
Pakistan based seaports and dry ports including the Wagah border to import duty
free goods. The wordings that allow one-sided trade from Afghanistan to India
via Pakistan and prevent Indian goods from reaching Afghanistan created a fresh
unpleasantness.
Afghan President Muhammad Ashraf
Ghani threatened to return the favor by blocking trade routes to Central Asian
nations for Pakistan. Afghanistan does not have much leverage at the moment so
the loss of these Central Asian transit routes may not register on an economic
level. But the loss of goodwill manifests itself in Kabul’s pivot towards India
through the establishment of an air corridor proposed by Afghanistan and India
– the acrimonious language by its President and the general air of suspicion
that clouds the Af-Pak relationship.
The eastern front is no better. The
retaliatory firing across the LOC (Line of Control) and failed attempts to
breach the parameter from Indian side had been presented as surgical strike on
Pakistani militant camps by Modi to mirror the OBL raid, which is a stretch,
even for India. The collateral damage as a result of a firefight was the only
sign that something was afoot.
Their respective stock market
plummeted in the wake of the stand-off. They then attempted to stifle the few
avenues left standing by banning each other’s cinema and actors. Cable TV’s
came under pressure to follow suit. And celebrities were shamed for not taking
sides.
Pakistan - India trade accounts for
less than half percent of India’s global trade. Their economies will not be
crippled given that trade stands at $ 2.61 billion dollars as of (2015-2016).
But the commotion at the border that allows India to sweep its human rights
record under the mat distracts from more pressing matters – that includes
regional economic uplift and counter terrorism efforts.
But India by its own admission is
also playing the long game. It seeks a higher power differential outgunning
Pakistan in military, economic and diplomacy by 2025. All its energies are
therefore directed at isolating Pakistan. But a few interesting developments
have happened since then that put Islamabad on surer ground. Namely, the BRICS
summit where China and Russia refused to denounce Pakistan; Pak-Russian
rapprochement and joint military exercises by former Cold War adversaries on
Pakistani soil.
Meanwhile, Pakistan, India and
Afghanistan remain deadlocked. What would the landscape be like should these
three nations ever decide to partner up for commerce instead of finding
themselves engaged in a zero sum game? Perhaps they are then less likely to
think sabotage, with major investments on the line. Or burn cultural bridges
that took years to build and devise strategies to undercut the opposing players
in the bid for the brass ring. China, despite the relationship woes with its
neighbor happens to be India’s ‘largest trading partner.’ The Indo-China trade
is reportedly $100 billion dollars (2015).
The region that had been
reverberating with the drumbeats of war has no safeguards in place to check
neighbors with hegemonic designs or encourage conflict resolution. An economic
stake may assure that both nuclear nations would perhaps think twice before dusting
off war slogans to appease national honor and push each other to the brink of
an Armageddon to assuage wounded pride or imagined slights.
