Political battling vs national interests

The 'success' of Pakistan's foreign policy was proved yet again by the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson's statements during his visit last week. While he refused to condemn India's daily acts of aggression across the Line of Control (LoC) and the Working Boundary, he preferred 'Enhanced Strategic Dialogue' (ESD) to promote Pak-UK trade, and British investment in Pakistan.
India's naked threats to Pakistan's security, and Modi's promise of depriving Pakistan of its share of the Indus water too didn't trigger India's condemnation by the US and the European countries. As for the OIC member states, their condemnation of India was ceremonial. Remember how Modi was welcomed in Saudi Arabia and the UAE on his recent visits?
While there is virtual silence in the US and the EU diplomatic circles as well as media over India's prolonged ruthless suppression of the freedom movement in Indian occupied Kashmir (IoK) and its ongoing violation of Pakistan's borders, the statements of British Foreign Secretary's manifested selective British concerns on the issues Pakistan faces, both within and on its borders.
After Brexit, Britain will look to its former colonies to help it confront the economic impact of Brexit, but in the Indo-Pak context, it is amazing how a British Foreign Secretary can ignore dangerously escalating tensions between these former British colonies, and yet expect economic stability in both, which is imperative for benefiting from their economies.
At a press conference after meeting the Adviser to Pakistan's Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, while Boris Johnson expressed Britain's 'concern' over the recent incidents on 'both' sides of the LoC, he said Britain cannot "prescribe a solution or act as a mediator" for resolving the Kashmir dispute that began when the sub-continent was partitioned under the British rule.
To everyone's surprise, he ignored - odd for a British Foreign Secretary - the fact that this dispute that led to three Indo-Pak wars, is the legacy of the British rule; not only that, despite being a permanent member of the UNSC Britain didn't ensure the implementation of the UNSC resolutions calling for a UN-supervised plebiscite in the IoK.
This British conduct ensured lasting tensions between India and Pakistan, avoidable high outlay on defence for decades that prevented both from improving and expanding even the basic public services in line with the demands of their high population growth rates, and thus kept them in the poverty-stricken category. Now Britain wants to benefit from these very countries.
British Foreign Secretary's focus on ESD and his meetings with the leaders of the PPP and PTI conveyed a confusing message; was he here to discuss foreign affairs, ESD, or to dilute the threat these parties pose to PML-N? Removing the doubts about Britain's questionable silence over the Altaf Hussain and Panama Leaks affairs wasn't his priority.
The profile of the OIC, the EU and the US responses reflects the failure of Pakistan's Foreign Ministry led by the Prime Minister, not a Foreign Minister. Isn't it odd that in his speeches during his frequent foreign visits, the Prime Minister-cum-Foreign Minister never pointed to Kulbhushan Yadav's revelations about the networks of Indian agents operating in Pakistan, of which eight were working in India's High Commission in Pakistan?
That said China and Pakistan's determination to materialize CPEC (a Russian dream that didn't crystallize because the US and its allies fuelled an endless civil war in Afghanistan and terrorism in Pakistan) is inducing European states to invest in export-oriented industries in a 'terrorism-afflicted' Pakistan because the CPEC will make Gwadar the entry point for accessing Central Asia.
This trend is an about-turn, though not by the US, and proves how in the past the US forced European countries to pursue fundamentally wrong strategies. While it proves yet again that history repeats itself, it also points to how power-intoxication induces committing blunders - a fact the US refuses to accept despite the failure of all its invasions beginning 1952.
Courtesy the 'Arab Spring' while the Middle East - a huge export market - is now in tatters and the US and the EU find it excessively difficult to produce goods at competitive prices. So the resource-rich and largely stable (unaffected by terrorism that the US interventions nurtured) Central Asian states now seem potential export markets - perception that explains this policy turnabout.Russia - founder of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was decimated by the after-effects of the US-sponsored Afghan civil war - too has expressed its desire to benefit from the CPEC by accessing the warm water Arabian Sea via this corridor to promote its exports, to materialize one of Russia's decades-old unrealized dreams.
That India is doing everything it can to stall the CPEC, is no longer in doubt. Besides the tragedies that struck Balochistan in the last two months, the bomb blast at a shrine in Baluchistan just a day before the formal opening of the Gwadar Port and the intrusion of an Indian submarine into Pakistan's territorial waters on November 14, are undeniable proofs thereof.
Given the destabilising role India (under Modi) wants to play in the South Asia region after entering into "the defining partnership of the 21st century" with the US (whose main aim is to contain Chinese influence in South Asia) and elevation of Donald Trump to the US presidency, Russia's desire to access the CPEC must be fulfilled to make the CPEC more secure.
That said the issue that needs immediate attention of the federal and provincial governments is resolving both real and politically inspired disputes over the route of the CPEC. But the biggest deficit Pakistan suffers from is a visionary (not self-centered) mindset in its leadership, which is the main impediment to quick completion of vitally important infrastructure project.
While some European countries want to set up industrial units along the CPEC route, ambassador of Norway - country with the second largest investment in Pakistan's telecom sector - has rightly pointed to the need for making Pakistan a predictable, secure and profitable destination for attracting foreign investment because doubts on these counts are discouraging investment inflows.
The ongoing political infighting in Pakistan may prevent timely resolution of many issues connected with this project about balancing the Chinese and Pakistani interests during the project completion phase and thereafter, which may delay timely completion of the CPEC, and trigger disputes with adverse consequences for both countries.
Besides agreeing on strategic issues, a mega issue is security of the huge Chinese workforce that will work on this project all over Pakistan, the social issues it could give rise to, and devising a mutually-agreed discipline for resolving them amicably. Can our embattled government spare time for discussing these issues with the Chinese government to ensure trouble-free on-time completion of the CPEC?