Brotherhood’s Role By Owen Bennett-Jones: New Age Islam's Selection, 15 June 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
15 June 2017
• Brotherhood’s Role
By Owen Bennett-Jones
• Pakistan’s Role in the Mideast Crisis
By Talat Masood
• Doha to Astana: Insulate and Integrate
By Prof D. Suba Chandran
• Political Crises in US and UK
By Harlan Ullman
• May And Might
By F.S. Aijazuddin
• West’s Divided Middle East & Task Ahead
By Syed Qamar A Rizvi
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Brotherhood’s Role
By Owen Bennett-Jones
June 15th, 2017
THE Jamaat-i-Islami might consider itself a vanguard party in the Leninist style but there is no escaping the fact that its Islamist platform has never found great electoral resonance in Pakistan. Even if it can claim to have had a disproportionate influence on the development of Pakistan’s polity, its election results have never put it close to winning power.
In the Middle East, it’s a different story. There the Muslim Brotherhood — also committed to achieving an Islamic system of government through, for the most part, parliamentary politics — attracts the support of countless millions. Before Egypt’s Gen Sisi threw it out of power, the Brotherhood had won every election it contested in the post-Mubarak era.
The Brotherhood’s popularity helps explain the current crisis concerning Qatar which, time and again, has given sanctuary to members of the Brotherhood chased out of other countries. That’s not to say the Muslim Brotherhood is the only issue driving the diplomatic stand-off. There is also Al Jazeera which, from the day it was set up, has irritated governments throughout the Middle East. Its role in fomenting the Arab Spring has been neither forgotten nor forgiven. And then, there is the growing sectarianism in the region that means any suggestion of Qatar having a less than hostile relationship with Iran is bound to cause problems.
Anxiety About The Muslim Brotherhood Runs Deep In The ME.
But the Brotherhood poses a particularly profound challenge to not only the Middle East’s autocratic rulers but also to violent jihadists and Western governments. Both Al Qaeda and the militant Islamic State group denounce the Brotherhood, fearing that its more peaceful approach to achieving Islamist goals might attract too much support. For them, the Brotherhood is too moderate. The West, meanwhile, wonders whether it’s too extreme. Critics point out that even if most Brotherhood members have, for most of the time, in most countries, remained committed to parliamentary politics, there have been times and places where the organisation has embraced violence. Then there are the final goals that it espouses. The West worries that the Brotherhood remains committed to Islamic punishments and to the eventual achievement of Sharia more broadly. It wonders whether any election won by the Brotherhood would be the last, as it moved to clerical government. But, at the same time, it fears that if the Brotherhood were completely closed down, Arab youth might be driven into the arms of Al Qaeda and IS.
A multi-year review of the Muslim Brotherhood, commissioned by former prime minister David Cameron, concluded that, as far as the UK was concerned, the Brotherhood should not be described as a terrorist outfit. But, perhaps for fear of upsetting Middle Eastern governments with large defence budgets, he did not give it a completely clean bill of health. “The main findings of the review,” he said, “support the conclusion that membership of association with, or influence by, the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.”
Many in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf — thought to be any to have insisted on the review in the first place — lamented that fudge. For them, the issue was rather starker. Muslim Brotherhood activists, after all, have long been trying to take power off them: and given the degree of support they enjoy, they are a genuine threat.
The poster boy for an Islamism acceptable to the West is Tunisia’s Rashid Gannouchi. His variety of the Brotherhood — Ennahda — is a political party, or indeed movement, which, in the face of considerable provocation, has held on to the idea that if Tunisia is to be Islamicised, it should be through persuasion rather than force: “through the heart”, as he puts it.
President Trump, however, is not convinced. When he said that Qatar should “stop teaching people to kill other people, stop filling their heads with hate”, and stop funding terror, he showed that he had listened to the concerns raised by the Middle Eastern leaders he met in Riyadh last month. Given permission by President Trump to give voice to their long-standing grievances against Qatar, they haven’t hesitated to do so.
Given that it is home not only to a US military base but will also host the 2022 football World Cup, Qatar must have thought it was pretty much immune from the sort of buffeting it is now receiving. But anxiety about the Muslim Brotherhood runs so deep that no amount of deft diplomacy and strategic positioning has been enough to protect Qatar from the isolation it is experiencing.
It seems as if profoundly important new alliances are emerging with military leaders and royal families opposing a Turkish-led Islamist bloc which take in Qatar, Tunisia and maybe others in the future. The Brotherhood may have been kept out of power but it still managing to shape the future.
Source: dawn.com/news/1339591/brotherhoods-role
----
Pakistan’s Role in the Mideast Crisis
By Talat Masood
June 14, 2017
The decision by Saudi Arabia and its allies to boycott Qatar was in the making for some time, although it was not expected to be that harsh. There is a strong feeling that it was the Trump factor that emboldened Saudi Arabia to take the tough stand.
While on the one hand President Trump continues to support the policy of isolating Qatar and on the other, wants to play the role of a mediator. Perhaps, President Trump was initially unaware, until reminded by his staff that Qatar is home to CENTCOM, US biggest military base in the region with 8,000 troops stationed there. Not surprising that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson took the opposite position that sanctions against Qatar be eased as it is causing unintended humanitarian consequences and hindering military action in the region and affecting the fight against the Islamic State. German Chancellor Merkel has echoed similar support for lifting sanctions on Qatar.
Secretary Tillerson has sought the cooperation of Turkey in defusing the crisis. It is, however, not clear whether the different positions taken by the president and the secretary of state are by design or reflect the state of confusion in US policy.
In a region where free speech is considered criminal activity Al Jazeera has become highly contentious. Its more vocal and independent reporting of events is unacceptable to insecure and authoritarian regimes of the Middle East. Qatar’s political and moral support and providing asylum to Muslim Brotherhood leaders is another bone of contention. What is troubling the Arab regimes is also Qatar’s relation with Iran and support of Hamas.
By adopting an independent and balanced policy Qatar aims at increasing its leverage. Moreover, its policies are dictated by economic considerations. A demonstration of this is sharing a gas field with Iran. But Saudi Arabia and its allies find Qatar’s independent stance quite unacceptable.
This is not to overlook the ambitious designs of Iran in the Middle East conundrum. Its support for Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, despite its flagrant violation of human rights, unwavering support of Hezbollah and military and political dominance of Iraq give rise to a clash of interests and invite a response from Arab countries.
The latest decision by Turkey to support Qatar gives a new twist to how regional countries are positioning themselves to protect and advance their interests. Ankara may be seeing it as an opportunity to establish its foothold in an Arab country to enhance its influence in the Middle East. Sending its troops is a clear signal that Turkey will defend the territorial integrity of Qatar. By supporting Qatar, Turkey also aims to moderate the influence of Iran and act as check against the growing footprint of Israel in the region.
What makes Qatar vulnerable is its heavy dependence on imports. Eighty per cent of food necessities come from Saudi Arabia. And the main land route connects Qatar with Saudi Arabia. That should normally restrict taking independent positions. But with Iran flying over 450 tons of food necessities and Turkey equally keen to win over Qatar the blockade is unlikely to make an impact. This measure would also hurt Saudi businessmen, as they would lose the attractive Qatar market. Despite external support Qatar would eventually have to extend some concessions and Saudi Arabia and its allies will have to soften their position. Prudence demands national decisions should be compatible with national power. Apparently, Hamas leadership is relocating itself either in Sudan or Iran.
It is truly an irony that the rivalry of the Sunni regimes against Iran is so intense that there are no qualms in accepting Israel as an ally. Indeed, Tel Aviv is one of the main beneficiaries of this confrontation.
All these ominous developments reinforce the deep and expanding crisis in the Muslim world. It makes a mockery of the stated objective of the Islamic military alliance to forge a united front to fight terrorism and extremism. Differences between Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not between its people as much as these are between the ruling families. In fact, the people of both the countries have so much in common and are like one society with different rulers.
The Arab divide places Pakistan in a delicate and challenging situation. Saudi Arabia is Pakistan’s staunch strategic ally. It has stood steadfast with Pakistan in crises and extended financial and diplomatic support. Nearly 1.8 million Pakistani expatriates are working in the Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is home to Makkah and Madina, the holiest places for Muslims. Nawaz Sharif personally owes a lot to the Saudi monarchy and enjoys a strong personal relationship.
With Qatar Pakistan enjoys close fraternal relations. It is the primary source of supply of gas. About 80,000 Pakistani expatriates are in Qatar. The prospect of nearly an additional 100,000 Pakistanis being hired before the World Olympics is an added attraction.
There have been voices raised for calling back General Raheel Sharif. I do not foresee any immediate role for him in the Saudi-Qatar confrontation. The Saudi alliance is not planning any military action against Qatar; the thrust is in persuading it to change policies and if possible force the present ruler to quit through diplomatic isolation and economic coercion. In any case it would take a year or two before the military force that is planned by Prince Mohammed would be operational.
Historically, Pakistan has never taken sides in intra-Arab feuds. In the Yemen conflict too Pakistan took a neutral position. It realises confrontation among Arab countries has consequences for Muslims worldwide. It will undermine the fight against Islamic State and further weaken the voice of Arab countries at international forums. However, the recent visit of a Qatari delegation to Lahore and its meeting with Shahbaz Sharif and Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Saudi Arabia this week suggest Pakistan’s efforts at defusing the crisis. If Pakistan, along with Turkey, can contribute in bringing peace to the region it would be a great achievement.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1434745/pakistans-role-mideast-crisis/
----
Doha To Astana: Insulate And Integrate
By Prof D. Suba Chandran
15-Jun-17
Two diverging developments in South Asian’s western neighbourhoods — Gulf and Central Asia, calls for two different approaches especially by India and Pakistan. While South Asia should try to insulate itself from the ongoing crisis in the Gulf, we should try to integrate further with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and pursue it as an Indo-Pak opportunity. Except for Maldives, none of the other countries so far have taken a stand on the ongoing crisis in the Gulf. The public opinion within India and Pakistan predominantly expects the two countries to play a balanced role and not take sides. While the stakes may be high for India and Pakistan in the Gulf, other countries in the region — Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka also do have a stake and cannot afford to take sides.
For India, the sheer presence of its citizens in various Gulf countries is substantial. So is the case for Pakistan and the rest of South Asian countries except Bhutan. The number of daily flights from various cities of South Asia into the Gulf would reveal the movement of people between these two regions. Qatar Airways and the Emirates are preferred over the national airlines in South Asia while flying to the Gulf destinations and through Doha and Dubai elsewhere into Europe and beyond.
For smaller countries — Nepal and Bangladesh, this is sizeable; even for India, the remittances from Gulf form an important source for regional economies within. Strategically, Gulf is important for South Asia, especially for India and Pakistan. Outside the oil and gas, during the last few years, New Delhi has made adequate political inroads into the Gulf. So is Pakistan, especially its relations with Saudi Arabia. From Gen Musharraf to Nawaz Sharif — political and military elites in Pakistan enjoy a special relation with the House of Saud.
Given the extensive interactions between South Asia and the Gulf — at the State and popular level, it is important that the region insulates itself from the ongoing crisis. It is easier said in paper, than to practice at the real politic level. Lately, Pakistan joined the Islamic Military Alliance led by Saudi Arabia, and also allowed its former Chief of Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif to head it. Despite best efforts by the political leadership to convince rest of Pakistan, a substantial section is worried about the blowback of not remaining neutral.
When there was a debate about Pakistan staying out of the Islamic Military Alliance in the initial stages, there were significant statements from at the highest levels from various Gulf countries almost threatening with consequences. Islamabad had to cave in.
At least then, the alliance did not have a stated opposition to Iran. Now, especially after Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, it is clear that the alliance does have Iran as a primary objective, and Saudi Arabia would like to take a lead role in that process. This means trouble for Pak-Iran relations and sectarian equations within. Insulating from the Gulf crisis is going to be a tough call for Islamabad.
If developments in the Gulf do not bode well, recent summit in Astana and the entry of India and Pakistan into the SCO led by China and Russia with Central Asia being the pivot — opens a new chapter for regional cooperation.
Realists should try to maximise gains from opportunities like Pakistan and India’s joining of the SCO
There are China and Russia taking the lead in SCO and making enormous political and economic investments. India and Pakistan, hopefully should leave their baggage behind; else, they would be left behind within the SCO.
SCO is certainly an opportunity for India and Pakistan because both countries have been talking about entering into Central Asia. SCO provides an institutional arrangement for both Islamabad and New Delhi to engage with Central Asia, than any other regional network.
SCO also provides an opportunity to engage with Afghanistan in a substantial way. Although Afghanistan is also a part of the SAARC, unfortunately, internal politics and geographic position of Kabul in a corner did not allow South Asian regional cooperation to play any meaningful role. In SCO, unlike in SAARC, Afghanistan is the centre and a bridge between two regions — South Asia and Central Asia.
Third, SCO is a ‘happening’ network with so much potential for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both TAPI and CASA 1000 have its source in Central Asia, which forms the bulk of SCO. With China already making a huge investment with its One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative, an innovative project could get the much needed funding for the above two projects relating to gas pipelines and electricity corridor. Both projects — TAPI and CASA 1000 will make Pakistan and Afghanistan as recipient and transit countries, thereby increasing their importance and relevance.
If developments in Gulf is a bad news for India and Pakistan, both joining the SCO is an opportunity. If the hawks find ways to scuttle every positive move and the doves are keen on dancing with candles at the Wahga Border, realists should attempt to look at the opportunities and suggest how to maximise it, irrespective of Indo-Pak reluctance at the state level. Let us keep pushing. Remaining cynical and hopeless is not an option.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/15-Jun-17/doha-to-astana-insulate-and-integrate
----
Political Crises in US And UK
By Harlan Ullman
15-Jun-17
Make no mistake: Two explosive charges were set off in Washington and Great Britain last week that have created the beginnings of what could become political avalanches or tsunamis of potentially gargantuan proportion. The riveting testimony of former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was an accelerant to the on-going already smouldering investigations of the Trump administration over Russian interference and potential collusion in the 2016 presidential elections. These investigations could, and the operative word is could, become 21st century successors to the Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon to resign his office in 1974 especially if these turn out to be surrogates for the continued incompetence shown by the White House and the damage it is inflicting on the nation.
In Great Britain, the snap elections ordered by Prime Minister Theresa May shocked more than just the Conservative Party who expected to increase single digit control of Parliament by as much as 50-60 seats. Instead, the Tories lost their slim majority winning only 318 of 650 seats. A coalition government will now be formed. And that coalition government has no clear mandate over how it will extricate itself from the European Union after 52 percent of Britons voted last June in favour of Brexit.
In his sworn testimony, Mr Comey called the president a liar in mischaracterising the reasons for his firing as FBI chief and painted a picture of a chief executive who could not be trusted to tell the truth. Hence, Mr Comey has reinforced the basis of what could be criminal charges filed against the administration. Other portions of his two and a half hour public appearance were also significant. First, Mr Comey was adamant in asserting that Russia had actively interfered in the US political process and would continue to do so. For anyone doubting this interference including the president, Comey’s statements were compelling.
Second, Mr Comey revealed that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was the subject of a criminal investigation. Comey also inferred that people in this position could be squeezed to provide evidence of wrong doing against their superiors. This cannot be good news for the White House.
Third, if Mr Comey’s testimony was accurate, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in trouble. Mr Comey swore that President Trump cleared the Oval Office so he could have a private session with the FBI Director. The last two to leave were Sessions and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and perhaps closest adviser. Mr Comey also said he asked the Attorney General to keep himself between the FBI Director and the president in order to maintain the bureau’s independence. Sessions, according to Comey, did not respond.
The issue that will not fade away, of course, is whether or not the president obstructed justice in ‘hoping’ Mr Comey would drop the investigation of Mr. Flynn. Since indicting a sitting president is probably constitutionally forbidden, determining obstruction or other criminal conduct is inherently a political not a legal matter. Until Special Counsel Robert Mueller finishes his investigation that will take months, there can be no definitive answer to the question of did the president commit any wrongdoing or crime in carrying out his duties both before and after his inauguration. However, if a political avalanche or tsunami results, Comey’s testimony will be a principal ignition point. And until Mr Mueller concludes his investigation, the administration remains in jeopardy.
About Mrs May, as with her predecessor former Prime Minister David Cameron who decided on holding the Brexit referendum and lost, she greatly miscalculated in calling an early election. This misjudgement cost the Conservatives three more years of a Parliamentary majority. While the Conservative senior leadership is unlikely to dump May as Margaret Thatcher was pre-emptively replaced by John Major in late 1990, May is now politically weakened.
Every political system has potentially fatal flaws. The Soviet Union is the premier example. Neither America nor Britain is yet in danger of imploding. However, until sound governance is restored, both democracies remain at risk
After the terrorist attacks at a Manchester rock concert and again in London that shook the island nation and the uncertainties in negotiating Brexit, Conservatives understand that the party must demonstrate a high degree of stability and confidence in dealing with these difficult times. With a coalition government, that will not be easy although Prime Minister Cameron managed an alliance with the Independent Party under less tortuous circumstances. However, these twin shocks in Washington and Britain do not presage happy outcomes.
This column has argued that the American democracy is in crisis. The combination of a political system of checks and balances that seems permanently deadlocked and a political environment that is poisonously septic raises the question of whether a government designed by the best minds of the 18th century can survive the rigors of the 21st especially when the future survival of the administration may be at stake. A similar question applies to Great Britain in which strategic mal-judgment has produced what will be the folly of Brexit and the unnecessary loss of a clear-cut Parliamentary major at a time of great uncertainty and danger.
How America and Great Britain deal with these political ground zeroes could be the most significant challenges for both countries since the Cold War ended. Every political system has potentially fatal flaws. The Soviet Union is the premier example. Neither America nor Britain is in danger yet of imploding. However, unless or until good and sound government is restored, both democracies will remain at risk.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/15-Jun-17/political-crises-in-us-and-uk
----
May and Might
By F.S. Aijazuddin
June 15th, 2017
ANY pundit of contemporary politics expecting a good night’s sleep during the past fortnight had not contended with US President Trump, UK Prime Minister Theresa May and with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman. Their countries cover three time zones, more than half of the world’s working day. Between them, they have ensured that no one anywhere in the world gets any peace or rest.
President Trump lives besieged in the Trump White House Towers. Despite the protective moat of privacy he has built around him, his enemies have managed to penetrate his stronghold with wounding but not fatal barbs.
The latest attack came from his former FBI head James Comey, staggered in three separate volleys. The first was in the form of a statement issued by Comey ahead of his appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The second was his public testimony on June 8, and the third the evidence he gave in camera the same afternoon.
Each word of Comey’s reeked of insubordination aforethought. He knew that every word of his would undergo the finest mesh of scrutiny — by the Senate committee itself, by the press, the attorney general’s office, by the White House, and by Trump’s personal legal counsel. Not surprisingly, Comey’s carefully crafted statement reads like a case study on how to traverse a minefield barefoot.
The Issues Are Too Complex To Be Handled By An Insecure Leader.
Comey began by telling the committee, just as he tried to warn Trump (then president-elect) on Jan 6, of “Russian efforts to interfere in the election” and “some personally sensitive aspects” of information about Trump himself collected by US intelligence agencies, “even though it was salacious and unverified”.
He recalled the telephone call he received from Trump two months later: “On the morning of March 30, the president called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as ‘a cloud’ that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia.” An intriguing admission by a US president.
If Trump is a president with a murky past, Theresa May is a prime minister with a bleak future. Exuding an overconfidence bordering on hubris, she called for a snap election.
The British electorate punished her by reducing her majority, forcing her to appeal to the 10-MP-strong Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to help her form a government. On her knees before the DUP, May now has to approach Europe on crutches.
It is quite possible that the Conservative party will oust her before Brexit negotiations begin to jell. There’s too much at stake. The issues are too complex to be handled by an insecure leader looking over her shoulder to check whether cohorts are still behind her. This is not Brexit with determination; it is survival in desperation.
The EU’s genesis lay in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Neither that nor any subsequent treaty contained a prenuptial agreement, which is why Great Britain’s divorce is likely to create such a messy precedent. Matters as sordid as the UK’s disengagement from the EU budget have financial implications for about 60 billion euros and involve the division of shared assets and liabilities, the relocation of various citizens, the renegotiation of at least 50 important free trade agreements, collaborative defence, shared security and the impact on UK’s land borders including Northern Ireland (home of the DUP).
Today, on the brink of Brexit, Britain needs not May but Might. William Wordsworth’s lament about London in 1802 comes to mind: “Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour:/ England hath need of thee:/ she is a fen/ Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,/ …We are selfish men;/ Oh! raise us up, return to us again;/ And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.” Experienced subcontinentals might paraphrase that differently: ‘Mountbatten! England hath need of thee.’
The late King Ibn Saud (founder of the House of Saud) was once asked who was the greatest Englishman he had ever met, to which the canny king replied without hesitation: “Shakespeare!”
Had King Salman followed his father’s preference, before boycotting Qatar, he might have thumbed through the old man’s copy of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, annotated by Samuel Johnson. In a note to the play, Dr Johnson quotes a fable: “Every man has a bag hanging before him, in which he puts his neighbour’s faults, and another behind him in which he stows his own.”
Ironically, Emir Tamim bin Hammad al-Thani of Qatar was invited as a neighbour and GCC member to attend the Riyadh conclave last month, where he enjoyed a private dialogue with President Trump. Today, Qatar is accused of sponsoring terrorism. Lordy, like James Comey, the emir must wish he had taped their conversation.
Source: dawn.com/news/1339590/may-and-might
----
West’s Divided Middle East & Task Ahead
By Syed Qamar A Rizvi
June 15, 2017
GIVEN the growing complexities in a volatile ME which today represents the worst from of political mayhem, to handle such an appalling situation with political acumen— advocated by a policy of via media vis-à-vis Qatar and Saudi Arab— remains one of the gravest foreign policy challenges posed to Pakistan in present time. Last Monday, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates announced that they are breaking up all ties with Qatar, alleging the country fuels extremism and terrorism. Yet, the current conflict also exposes the glaring paradoxes of Western diplomacy in the Middle East.
As for this Western-Arab standoff with Qatar, the apparently chartered reason is Qatar’s irresponsible—and today impractical—acceptance of terrorism, connection to Iran and promotion of destabilizing forces in the region. The new fissure in the Persian Gulf is in and of itself a big political turmoil — which is already being called by some political observers as the biggest diplomatic conundrum in the region since the Gulf War in 1991.
The western critics also argue, Qatar has now been scapegoated for funding Al-Qaeda and IS, something most have known for years, a question arises: does this mean that Saudi Arabia — another controversial political actor in the region and around the globe — is now off the hook. But an insight into the Mideast affairs indoctrinates that the consequences will ripple beyond the region’s internal politics and seriously imperils US military operations in the region. In Middle East, Qatar is core to the US CENTCOM , which manages all military operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
The big breakup— between Doha and Washington on the one side, and Doha and its Sunni neighbors on the other— exposes the vexing dual role Qatar has long been playing for the US in its fight against radicalism in the Middle East. On one hand, the US takes part with a Qatar which is a large source of support and funding for groups it considers to be terrorist organizations, like Hamas, or adversaries, like the Muslim Brotherhood. But on the other hand, Washington has also been allowing the Pentagon to operate bases in its territory and to serve as an intermediary between Washington and Islamist groups across the region. Is it not true that Qatar helped broker the deal with the Taliban that won the release of the imprisoned US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl?
That logically means the past US administrations have had been willing to work with Qatar out of a belief that the positives outweighed the clear negatives, including its unofficial support for militant activities in the region. And how paradoxically it is and it has been in the US’s interest for all the countries in the region to be on good enough terms to be able to join the US-led campaign against IS. That’s why the initial response by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was to call for calm and dialogue. “We certainly would encourage the parties to sit down together and address these differences,” Tillerson said in Australia on last Monday. “If there’s any role that we can play in terms of helping them address those, we think it is important that the [Gulf Cooperation Council] remain unified.”
As for Pakistan, nothing seems so much demanding than to rebalance its ME policy. For decades, Pakistan’s Middle East policy has been shaped by two competing legacies: religious thinking and the priorities dictated by the post-colonial order. But the rise of new power poles in the Middle East accompanied by the international response to curbing terrorism— in the post IS (Daesh) phase, now precipitating the Qatar-Saudi rift—urges that Pakistan would have to give a second thought to its present Mideast policy notwithstanding the fact that Islamabad has already joined a Saudi-led Islamic Military Alliance.
As to the West, Qatar’s role in facilitating an intra-Afghan reconciliation process and hosting a de-facto Taliban office makes it an increasingly important stakeholder for Pakistan to engage with smartly. On the commercial side, Islamabad hopes a deal to import Qatari liquefied natural gas for the next 15 years will supplement a separate, Russian-sponsored, $2 billion Karachi-Lahore gas pipeline that will feed Pakistan’s energy-starved industries. (The GCC is the club of Persian Gulf nations that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and Qatar are a part of.) In 2014, Pakistan turned down a request by its most allied ally in the Middle East to deploy troops against Bahrain and displayed the same reservations over its joining to Saudi Arabia’s fight in Yemen.
And yet, what may be an upping the ante situation for Islamabad to resolve is that in a divided Middle East where a quasi- Cold War déjà vu between US -Russia already persists, the situation could further be complicated by China’s direct entry— into this complex game changer matrix— after maintaining neutrality in most regional feuds, is compelled into picking sides in the conflict, especially when Washington allies with Riyadh. While Islamabad’s position is already baffled because of its joining the Saudi –led Islamic Military Alliance , a political-cum-diplomatic harmony in Islamabad- Tehran- Istanbul could significantly and pragmatically increase Pakistan’s diplomatic leverage in this strategically vital part of the world and capitalize on the strategic as well as commercial potential of three million Pakistanis working in the Gulf.
As transnational warfare and migrations largely affect the origin dynamics of the twentieth century nation-state boundaries across the Middle East and North Africa, Islamabad badly needs a revisiting in its partnerships within the region. For Islamabad, finding China and Saudi in opposing alliances would be an unprecedented foreign policy challenge. In this backdrop, to carve out a comprehensive diplomatic strategy— that could simultaneously protect Pakistan’s geo- strategic, geo-economic and geo political interests—seems a mammoth task ahead.
Source: pakobserver.net/wests-divided-middle-east-task-ahead/
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/brotherhoods-role-owen-bennett-jones/d/111544