By Asad Durrani*
When Shehbaz Sharif and Asim Munir offered to mediate peace in the Middle East, I prayed for their success, though I am no fan of either, or of the road they took to win this role. The undertaking was noble, and a compulsion of geopolitics.
There was never any doubt, however, that our Big Two had plunged in where angels fear to tread. It was still worthwhile, and we therefore reminded our hybrid heads that once you choose to take a risk or start a hard task, you must not fear the troubles that follow. Jab okhli mein sir diya to moosli ka dar kya. (When you’ve put your head in the mortar, why fear the pestle?)
The fact remains, however, that good intentions or brave actions were never enough to clinch an issue. And for someone who has seen first-hand how the best-laid plans come to naught, there were reasons to sound the alarm.
Every year in Oslo, they gather some of the best expertise to resolve conflicts. The success rate is close to zero. Even their flagship projects, like the mid-1990s accords on the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum, which bagged three Nobel Peace Prizes, were virtually dead-on arrival.
The fate of our own Composite Dialogue, which withstood bolts like Kargil, the nuclear tests and 9/11, has not been much different – hardly anyone remembers what it was all about. The stumbling blocks ahead of our latest effort to save the world from going over the edge are far more complex.
By all accounts, Israel was the instigator of the war that started on the February 28. To survive as a Zionist state, the country has to live in a state of conflict, or risk getting buried in the sand or drowned in the Red and the Dead Seas. Ceasing hostilities without a reasonable claim of success would sound the death knell for Tel Aviv.
Trump may not be in that desperate a situation, but he was still reluctant to end the war without some so-called face-saving. With many of his closest allies unable to endorse his rhetoric, he is certainly in a pickle.
In view of all these complexities, how did we come to think of the Mecca Pact? Wasn’t it obvious that for our mission to succeed, acting neutral – as an honest broker, in other words – was the sine qua non? Any bias towards an American favourite like the MBS-led Kingdom was bound to deal a fatal blow to our standing.
I have no idea what led the two countries, Pakistan and Turkey – not exactly known for any profound thinking – to take the bait. But the cardinal sin they committed was ignoring the first principle of war: the maintenance of aim. A military-led dispensation was expected to pursue that at all costs.
What, for example, could happen if the Iranians were compelled to bomb Prince Sultan Air Base, used against them, or the Houthis found reasons to drone some targets in Saudi Arabia? It was not too difficult to figure out, nor how to rationalise any lack of response.
Since we did not, the chances of our joining the war on the Saudi side grew brighter, and our mediatory role less credible. It is immaterial why we got sucked in – to defend the sacred shrines, to fulfil a historical commitment, or to get more money. A holy mission was jeopardised.
It may still be possible to step back from the brink. Wars are the preferred option for many a power that finds the price of peace less affordable. Let the peace lovers think of how best to raise the cost of conflict. The American-Israeli nexus seems to believe that it hasn’t yet bled enough.
If that is too tall an order, please remember that peace is a process and the path is the target. This one is full of thorns all the way. Don’t take your eye off the ball.
(*Asad Durani is an author, commentator, and Retired Pakistani Army General. He served as a Director General of the ISI and former Director General of the Pakistan Army's Military Intelligence.)
Have you liked the news article?
Support us now:
https://www.gofundme.com/manage/jammu-kashmirs-sole-independent-voice-under-threat