10
January

پاکستان ترکی تعلقات، پس منظر وپیش منظر

تحریر: فرخ سہیل گوئندی

ترکی کی سرحدیں تو پاکستان سے نہیں ملتیں لیکن یہ حقیقت ہے کہ ترکی اور پاکستان کے دل آپس میں ملتے ہیں۔ ترکیہ جمہوریہ، دنیا کا ایک ایسا منفرد ملک ہے جس کے باسیوں کے تعلقات سرزمینِ پاکستان میں بسنے والے لوگوں سے قیامِ پاکستان 1947ء بلکہ قراردادِ لاہور 1940ء سے بھی پہلے تاریخ میں نمایاں طور پر ملتے ہیں۔ اس کا سب سے بڑا ثبوت جنگ عظیم اوّل میں تب دیکھنے کو ملا جب بکھرتی سلطنتِ عثمانیہ کو ابھرتی مغربی سامراجی طاقتوں نے ترکوں کو اپنے وطن سے محروم اور ترک قوم کو مٹانے کے لئے سرزمین ترکیہ پر یلغار کردی۔ مختلف مغربی طاقتوں نے بچے کھچے ترکی کو لوٹ کا مال سمجھ کر بندر بانٹ کرنا چاہی اور اس کے لئے جنگ گیلی پولی برپا کی گئی، جس میں غیرمتوقع طور پر ترک لیفٹیننٹ کرنل مصطفی کمال نے مغربی دنیا کی اتحادی افواج کو شکست فاش سے دوچار کردیا اور یہیں سے مصطفی کمال کو پاشا کا لقب ملا۔ اس دوران سرزمینِ متحدہ ہندوستان میں بسنے والے لوگوں نے برطانوی سامراج کے خلاف ایک یادگار تحریک برپا کی۔ تب ترکی آزادی کی جنگ لڑ رہا تھا، اپنی بقا کی آخری اور فیصلہ کن جنگ، جس کی قیادت غازی مصطفی کمال پاشا اتاترک کررہے تھے۔ برصغیر میں چلنے والی اس ترک دوست تحریک کو ’’تحریک خلافت‘‘ کے نام سے یاد کیا جاتا ہے۔ غازی مصطفی کمال پاشا نے جنگی میدانوں میں مغربی استعماری طاقتوں کے تمام منصوبوں کو خاک میں ملا دیا۔


یہ وہ زمانہ تھا جب برصغیر کے لوگ اپنی آزادی کے لئے متحد ہورہے تھے اور مسلمانانِ برصغیر کے قائد محمد علی جناحؒ ، تحریک آزادی کو ایک نئے دھارے پر ڈال رہے تھے۔ بعد میں جنم لینے والی ریاستِ پاکستان کی ترکیہ جمہوریہ سے تعلقات کی بنیادیں یہیں سے اُستوار ہوئیں۔ ترکوں نے اپنی جنگ کامیابی سے جیتی اور عوامی جمہوری انقلاب برپا کرکے 1923ء میں ترکیہ جمہوریہ کی بنیاد رکھ دی۔ یہ مسلم دنیا کی واحد جمہوریت ہے جو کسی سامراج یا نوآبادیاتی نظام کی
Legacy
نہیں۔ مصطفی کمال پاشا نے جہاں ایک طرف مغربی استعماری قوتوں کو شکست دی تو دوسری طرف ایک آئینی جمہوری ریاست کا قیام اپنی قیادت کے تحت مکمل کیا۔ علامہ اقبال ؒ جنہیں ہم برصغیر میں مسلمانوں کی ریاست (پاکستان) کا فکری بانی کہتے ہیں، وہ ترکی میں مصطفی کمال پاشا کے تصورِ ریاست سے کس قدر متاثر تھے، اس پر ذرا غور کرنے کی ضرورت ہے۔

 

pakturktal.jpg’’ترکوں کے سیاسی اور مذہبی افکار میں اجتہاد کا جو تصور کام کررہا تھا، اسے عہد حاضر کے فلسفیانہ خیالات سے اور زیادہ تقویت پہنچی اور جس سے اس میں مزید وسعت پیدا ہوتی چلی گئی۔ مثال کے طور پر حلیم ثابت ہی کا نظریہ ہے جو اس نے اسلامی قانون کے بارے میں قائم کیا اور جس کی بنیاد اس نے جدید عمرانی تصورات پر رکھی‘‘ اور’’پھر اگر اسلام کی نشاۃ ثانیہ ناگزیر ہے، جیساکہ میرے نزدیک قطعی طور پر ہے، تو ہمیں بھی ترکوں کی طرح ایک نہ ایک دن اپنے عقلی اور ذہنی ورثے کی قدرو قیمت کا جائزہ لینا پڑے گا۔‘‘
علامہ محمد اقبال
، (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)
صفحہ 121 اقبال اپنے بنیادی سیاسی فلسفے میں ترکیہ جمہوریہ کو اپنے لئے مشعلِ راہ قرار دیتے ہیں۔مفکرِ پاکستان علامہ اقبال اور بانئ ترکی مصطفی کمال پاشا اتاترک کا سالِ وفات 1938ء ہی ہے۔ جب جدید ترکی کے بانی غازی مصطفی کمال پاشا کا انتقال ہوا تو بانئ پاکستان محمد علی جناح ؒ نے اس عظیم رہبر کے انتقال پر آل انڈیا مسلم لیگ کو درج ذیل حکم نامہ جاری کیا۔
"I request Provincial, District and Primary Muslim Leagues all over India to observe Friday the 18th of November as Kemal Day and hold public meetings to express deepest feeling of sorrow and sympathy of Musalmans of India in the irreparable loss that the Turkish Nation has suffered in the passing away of one of the greatest sons of Islam and a world figure and the saviour and maker of Modern Turkey--- Ghazi Kemal Ataturk."
Date: 11-11-1938 (Quaid-e-Azam Papers, National Archives of Pakistan)
اس سے اندازہ لگایا جا سکتا ہے کہ دونوں قوموں کے تعلقات کس قدر گہری سطح پر قائم ہوئے۔ مفکرِ پاکستان اور بانئ پاکستان، جدید ترکی کے قائد مصطفی کمال پاشا کے حامی ہی نہیں بلکہ اُن کی قائدانہ صلاحیتوں کے مداح بھی تھے، جسے ہمارے رجعت پسند حلقوں نے جان بوجھ کر ڈھانپنے کی کوشش کی ہے۔


قیامِ پاکستان کے بعد قائداعظم محمد علی جناحؒ ، پاکستان کے پہلے گورنر جنرل بنے تو ترکیہ جمہوریہ نے اپنے ایک معروف ترک شاعر و ادیب اور دانشور یحییٰ کمال کو پاکستان میں اپنا سفیر نامزد کیا۔ پاکستان میں ترکی کے پہلے سفیر نے بانئ پاکستان کو 4مارچ 1948ء کو سفارتی اسناد پیش کیں۔ اس موقع پر قائد اعظم محمدعلی جناحؒ نے فرمایا:


’’کئی تاریخی میدانِ جنگوں میں آپ کے لیڈر کے کارنامے، آپ کے انقلاب کی کامیابی، عظیم اتاترک کا ابھرنا اور ان کا کیریئر، اپنے اعلیٰ تدبر سے ان کا آپ کو ایک قوم کی تعبیر دینا، حوصلہ مندی اور پیش بینی، ان تمام واقعات سے پاکستان کے عوام بخوبی واقف ہیں۔ درحقیقت برصغیر کے مسلمانوں میں سیاسی شعور کی بیداری کے آغاز ہی سے ، آپ کے ملک میں رونما تبدیلیوں کا یہاں عوام پوری ہمدردی اور دلچسپی سے مشاہدہ کرتے رہے ہیں ۔‘‘
اس کے بعد تاریخی، سماجی اور روحانی طور پر دونوں قوموں کے مابین تعلقات سفارتی سطح پر بھی قائم ہوگئے۔ ترکی اور پاکستان نے ہردور میں ثابت کیا ہے کہ دونوں ممالک کے مابین تعلقات میں کبھی کمی نہیں آئی۔ اگر ان تعلقات کا جائزہ لیں تو ہمیں معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ جب ترک قوم کسی مشکل کا شکار ہوئی تو پاکستانیوں نے بلا جھجک ترکوں کی حمایت کی اور اسی طرح ترکوں نے پاکستان کی۔ ترکی اور یونان کے درمیان قبرص کے مسئلے پر پاکستان نے روزِ اوّل سے ہی ترکوں کو کسی بھی عالمی رکاوٹ کو خاطر میں لائے بغیر سپورٹ کیا۔ جب 1974ء میں ترکی نے وزیراعظم بلندایجوت (مرحوم) کی حکومت میں قبرصی ترک عوام کو جاری خانہ جنگی سے نجات دلوانے کے لئے آپریشن کیا تو پاکستان نے کھل کر ترک حکومت کا ساتھ دینے کا اعلان کر دیا ۔ اس وقت پاکستان میں ذوالفقار علی بھٹو کی حکومت تھی اور انہوں نے ترکی کی ہر طرح سے مدد کا سرکاری سطح پر اعلان کیا۔ مسئلہ قبرص پر ترکی کے ساتھ تنازعاتی ملک چونکہ یونان تھا، اس لئے پاکستان کی جانب سے ترکی کی بھر پور حمایت کرنے پر یونان نے ہزاروں پاکستانیوں کو بحری کمپنیوں سے فارغ کردیا۔ ایک ملاقات کے دوران میرے دوست جناب بلند ایجوت (مرحوم) نے مجھے بتایا کہ جب مجھے یہ خبر ملی کہ یونانی بحری کمپنیوں میں کام کرنے والے پاکستانیوں کو یونانیوں نے فوری طور پر ملازمتوں سے فارغ کردیا ہے تو میں نے اسی وقت سرکاری حکم نامہ جاری کیا کہ ان متاثرین کو ترک بحری کمپنیوں میں ملازمتیں دے دی جائیں۔ اسی طرح ترکی، پاکستان کے ساتھ ہر عالمی محاذ پر ساتھ کھڑا نظر آتا ہے۔ دونوں پاک بھارت جنگوں 1965ء اور 1971ء اور کشمیر کے مسئلے پر ترکی نے بلالحاظ پاکستان کے موقف کی حمایت کی ہے۔


سرد جنگ کے زمانے میں دونوں ممالک آر سی ڈی اور سینٹو جیسے علاقائی اتحاد میں شامل رہے تو تب بھی دوست تھے اور جب یہ عالمی اتحاد ختم ہوئے تب بھی باہمی دوستی میں کمی نہ آئی۔ آج ترکی، دنیا میں ابھرتا ہوا ایک اہم ملک ہے، اس تناظر میں بھی دونوں ممالک کے درمیان تعلقات کی نوعیت مزید مستحکم ہوتی چلی جا رہی ہے۔ انقرہ، جدید ترکی کا دارالحکومت ہے اور اس جدید شہر کے وسط میں سب سے بڑی اور اہم شاہراہ بانئ پاکستان محمد علی جناحؒ کے نام سے منسوب ہے، ’’جناح جاہ دیسی‘‘ اور دلچسپ بات یہ ہے کہ اسی شاہراہ پر بھارت کا سفارت خانہ ہے۔ ذرا تصور کریں، ترکی میں بھارتی سفارت خانے کی تمام دستاویزات پر جب ’’جناح جاہ دیسی‘‘ لکھنا ہوتا ہے تو بھارتیوں کی کیا کیفیت ہوتی ہوگی۔ پاکستان میں مینارِ پاکستان، فیصل مسجد، داتا گنج بخش مسجد سمیت متعدد عمارات ترک معماروں کا کام ہیں اور اسلام آباد سے لے کر لاڑکانہ تک متعدد شاہراہیں، بانئ ترکی اتاترک کے نام سے منسوب ہیں۔


اس بدلتی دنیا میں جو یک محوریت سے مختلف علاقائی، تجارتی اور سٹریٹجک پارٹنرشپ میں بدل رہی ہے، ترکی اور پاکستان دو اہم ممالک ہیں۔ پاکستان جغرافیائی طور پر جنوبی ایشیا کا اہم ترین ملک اور مسلم دنیا کی واحد ایٹمی طاقت اور مسلم دنیا کی طاقت ور ترین وار مشینری رکھنے والا ملک ہے۔ اس خطے میں پاکستان کی جغرافیائی حیثیت ایک سنگم کی سی ہے جو جنوبی ایشیا، وسطی ایشیا اور مشرقِ وسطیٰ کے دہانے پر بدلتی دنیا میں نیا کردار حاصل کررہا ہے۔ عوامی جمہوریہ چین کے ساتھ تعلقات اور چین کا بڑھتا ہوا عالمی کردار اِن تعلقات کو اوربھی بڑھا رہا ہے۔ ایسے ہی ترکی مشرقِ وسطیٰ کاایشیا اور یورپ کے سنگم پر واقع ملک ہے۔ تعلیم، ٹیکنالوجی اور مضبوط معیشت کے ساتھ ساتھ پاکستان کے بعد دوسری اہم وار مشینری رکھنے والا، نیٹو کا دوسرا بڑا حصہ دار ہے۔ لہٰذا ان دونوں ممالک کے تاریخی تعلقات اب اس بدلتی دنیا میں ایک نیا علاقائی اور عالمی توازن بنانے میں نظرانداز نہیں کئے جاسکتے۔


اگر ہم اس سارے خطے پر سرسری نگاہ دوڑائیں تو اس خطے میں اہم ترین ممالک میں چین، روس، بھارت، پاکستان اور ترکی یک محوریت سے ملٹی پولر دنیا میں فیصلہ کن کردار ادا کرتے جا رہے ہیں۔ اس میں ترکی اور پاکستان تقریباً تمام علاقائی اور عالمی معاملات میں ایک صف میں کھڑے ہیں۔ دونوں ممالک کے یہ آئیڈیل تعلقات درحقیقت ایک فطری اتحادی کے طور پر دیکھے جاسکتے ہیں۔ اگر افغانستان کے مسئلے میں ترکی اپنے ازبک نسلی تعلقات کے حوالے سے اور نیٹو کا رکن ہونے کے ناتے ایک خاص سیاسی مقام رکھتا ہے تو اسی طرح افغانستان، پاکستان کی خارجہ پالیسی کا اہم ترین ستون ہے۔ 9/11 کے بعد ترکی اور پاکستان، افغانستان کے مسئلے پر ایک دوست اور اتحادی کے طور پر بیشتر معاملات میں ایک موقف پر رہے اور ہم نے دیکھا دونوں دوست ممالک افغانستان میں عالمی طاقتوں کی حکمت عملی کے علاوہ اپنے طور پر بھی مصروفِ کارہے۔ یہ اس بات کا ثبوت ہے کہ دونوں ممالک بڑی عالمی طاقتوں کے علاوہ بھی کئی علاقائی اور عالمی معاملات کو سلجھانے میں کوشاں ہیں۔


ترکی اور پاکستان متعدد شعبوں میں شریکِ کار ہیں خصوصاً دفاعی حوالے سے، لیکن ان گہرے تعلقات سے ہم مزید فوائد بھی حاصل کرسکتے ہیں۔ خصوصاً تعلیم، صحت، صنعت، تجارت اور زراعت کے شعبوں میں۔ پاکستان بنیادی طور پر ایک زرعی ملک ہے اور پاکستان کی زراعت کو جدید بنیادوں پر کھڑا کرنے کے لئے ترکی کی زرعی ترقی و صنعت سازی سے مستفید ہوا جا سکتا ہے اور اسی طرح تعلیم و تحقیق کے شعبوں میں بھی۔ میں پچھلی تین دہائیوں سے ترکی کی سیاست، تاریخ، ثقافت، تہذیب اور معاشرت کو سمجھنے میں مصروف ہوں۔ میرا یہ یقین ہے کہ اگر ہمارے پالیسی ساز، درج بالا شعبوں میں، ایک دوسرے سے تیزرفتاری سے تعاون بڑھائیں تو پاکستان اس منزل کو چند سالوں میں چھو سکتا ہے جس کا خواب ہر پاکستانی دیکھتا ہے، یعنی ایک جدید تعلیم یافتہ، صنعتی اور مضبوط معیشت رکھنے والا ملک۔ ضرورت صرف سنجیدگی اور فیصلہ کرنے کی ہے۔ اس حوالے سے ترکی میں پاکستان کے سفیر سہیل محمود کا یہ جملہ بڑی اہمیت رکھتا ہے کہ پاکستان ترکی تعلقات شان دار تاریخ رکھتے ہیں لیکن اہم بات یہ ہے کہ ان تعلقات کو مزید مستحکم اور نتیجہ خیز بنانے کے لئے ہمہ وقت آبیاری کی ضرورت ہے۔ سہیل محمود، انقرہ میں اور ترک سفیر صادق بابر گرگن پاکستان میں سفارتی حوالے سے بے مثال کردار ادا کررہے ہیں۔ ان دونوں سفارت کاروں کو میں نے ان دو روایتی دوستوں کے تعلقات کو سفارتی سرگرمیوں کے حوالے سے عروج پر پایا لیکن ان سفارتی کوششوں کے علاوہ پاکستان کے حکمرانوں کی طرف سے ان شعبوں میں تعاون کے لئے مزید اقدامات کی ضرورت ہے جو ہماری حکومت کے ایجنڈے میں زیادہ نمایاں نہیں، یعنی تعلیم، ٹیکنالوجی، علمی وادبی تحقیق، زراعت اور صنعت۔ اور اسی طرح ہم ترکوں کے ساتھ متعدد شعبوں میں اپنے تجربات شیئر کرسکتے ہیں، خصوصاً اعلیٰ تعلیم یافتہ ڈاکٹرز اور آئی ٹی کے شعبے میں۔ اگر دونوں ممالک میں اہل فکر ودانش سے متعلق لوگوں کا
Exchange
پروگرام شروع کر دیا جائے تو دونوں ممالک جلد ہی اس مقام پر پہنچ سکتے ہیں جس سے یہ اہم مسلم ریاستیں دیگر مسلم دنیا کی رہنمائی کرسکتی ہیں۔

مضمون نگار معروف صحافی ‘ کالم نگار اور متعدد کتابوں کے مصنف ہیں۔

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 
09
January

A New Fairness Needed !

Written By: Syed Muhammad Ali

Obama administration wanted the world to pursue Nuclear Zero while it exceptionally built up India militarily. Similarly, how Donald Trump looks at Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy will not only determine the peace, security and stability of Asia in general and South Asia in particular but also the long-term U.S. economic interests associated with Asia-Pacific.

The tumultuous month of November 2016 will long be remembered in world history. The election victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. Presidential elections led to nationwide protests and stunned Washington’s key allies including the UK, Germany, France and Japan. If Donald Trump manages to keep his promise and actually demands from NATO and other key allies to dig deeper into their own pockets, to ‘do more’ themselves for their individual security needs and depend less on Washington, it would reflect an unprecedented ‘U.S. security commitment fatigue’ and growing significance of domestic economic concerns for the new Republican administration. A declining U.S. security commitment towards both its traditional Western European and East Asian allies by the new Republican administration could encourage them to shed their own nuclear restraint and accelerate their individual efforts towards their heightened national security needs.


Another major event within four days of the U.S. election, somewhat eclipsed by Trump’s historic victory over Mrs. Clinton, is the signing of an extraordinary nuclear deal between Japan and India. The Japanese nuclear deal is unique and extraordinary for five reasons. First, Japan is the only country in the world which has actually suffered two nuclear attacks during war and its sterling commitment towards non-proliferation and principled stance on arms control has traditionally been exemplary. However, the signing of this new deal, despite India possessing the developing world’s largest and oldest unsafeguarded nuclear program, now raises new questions regarding the future of these Japanese commitments. Second, this latest deal would help expedite various additional nuclear deals that the other States have earlier signed with India. Both French company Areva and U.S. nuclear giant Westinghouse use key Japanese components such as reactor vessels for their reactors. Third, this deal has been put together even more hurriedly than the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal by compressing the 123 Agreement, reprocessing, administrative arrangements and NSG into one. This is perhaps to ensure its swift implementation before the Obama administration leaves office. Four, this deal has a cursory mention of principled Indian Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) adherence and hardly expects a significant non-proliferation commitment, sans non-testing of nuclear weapons by New Delhi, in return for exceptional Japanese technological access and support. Five, this deal symbolizes the growing strategic Indo-Japanese partnership and reflects their mutual desire to counter-balance China in East Asia and Asia-Pacific.


Another significant and related event was the NSG’s meeting held in Vienna on November 11 to discuss the “technical, legal and political aspects of Non-NPT States’ Participation in the NSG”. According to informed sources, although the U.S. tried its best to gain maximum support for Indian’s NSG membership, a large number of member States including Russia, said that further discussions were still needed before individual membership cases could be evaluated. This indicates that the support for a criteria-based approach for considering additional members is growing and gaining momentum within the 48-nation group managing the international nuclear trade and cooperation.

 

A declining U.S. security commitment towards both its traditional Western European and East Asian allies by the new Republican administration could encourage them to shed their own nuclear restraint and accelerate their individual efforts towards their heightened national security needs.

The impression some observers have attempted to internationally present is that basically the tussle between the U.S. and China will eventually determine the outcome of the new NSG membership cases. However, the outcome of this latest meeting indicates that the reality is far more complex than popularly presented. The divisions between the three camps supporting exceptional membership, criteria-based membership and swing states are starker and deeper than initially anticipated, and achieving consensus by either group is not likely in the foreseeable future. Therefore, Obama administration’s agenda of hurriedly making India an NSG member before the Democrats’ term runs out has essentially failed.


This provides the incoming Republican administration with an opportunity to look at all Democrat-led initiatives and agendas afresh and with skepticism. Obama administration wanted the world to pursue Nuclear Zero while it exceptionally built up India militarily. Similarly, how Donald Trump looks at Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy will not only determine the peace, security and stability of Asia in general and South Asia in particular but also the long-term economic interests associated with Asia-Pacific. Amidst serious domestic economic challenges, militarizing Asia-Pacific excessively and further escalating tensions with China could increase, not reduce threats to the long-term U.S. vital economic interests associated with Asia-Pacific.


Throughout history the Republicans have traditionally maintained a more careful balance in the delicate and complex U.S. relationship with both Pakistan and India than the Democrats. The presidencies of President Nixon, Reagan, Bush Senior and Bush Junior have demonstrated a better U.S. understanding of Pakistan’s regional security concerns towards India, leading to a relatively more stable regional order, reduced tensions, better crisis management and lower nuclear escalation risks.


One hopes that the new Republican administration will seek and shape a fresh and more prudent security agenda towards both Asia-Pacific and South Asia, which can make the nuclear-armed region more stable and less conflict-prone. It should include a comprehensive review of the U.S. policy towards South Asia and a fresh approach based on supporting a robust composite dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad, sustainable cooperation with Pakistan in its efforts to defeat terrorism and stabilize Afghanistan, and supporting simultaneous NSG membership for both Pakistan and India. This new security agenda will enable the Republican administration to devote its attention, energies, resources and capabilities towards more urgent and graver challenges to the U.S. national security such as terrorism, ISIS, managing relations with China and Russia and putting its own house in order. Like always, ignoring Pakistan instead of working with it, will harm and not improve U.S. long-term national security interests both regionally and globally.

 

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for International Strategic Studies, Islamabad.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 
09
January

The Rise of Nationalism in Europe

Written By: Saad Qamar Iqbal

Are EU’s Days Numbered?

Dramatic changes in the social and political landscape of EU pose serious doubts!

Brexit, and a gradual rise of nationalism in Europe is actively challenging the very idea of a merged European Union. The threat always existed in subtle forms of migration, financial and identity crisis. It has taken a more direct form as far-right, eurosceptic parties are gaining dramatic momentum. Far-right nationalists in Austria and Denmark have won their respective elections. Political entities openly denouncing the idea of European Union are gaining crucial support in Germany, Netherlands and elsewhere. Their progress varies across Europe; but France's Marine Le Pen, presently Europe’s most feared far-right politician is taking a good shot at the presidency, summing up the overall grim situation. With nationalism rearing its “ugly head”, is European Union past its partially-achieved prime?

 

theriseinnat1.jpgFrance and Frexit
France is of particular importance to EU’s integrity. Its historical role in the formation of EU in contrast to Britain’s which always appeared rather disgruntled and the current political might it possesses reinstates how Frexit could put EU in all sorts of jeopardy. What makes this even a possibility? Marine Le Pen, the nationalist leader contesting for presidency has openly attacked the idea of Euro and open borders. In 2015, her party, National Front bagged 6.8 million votes – their highest ever. The presidential elections are to be held in April 2017, and Le Pen is not facing a very convincing opposition. Most polls have rated her chances of success high: IPsos giving her a 14 points lead compared to Nicolas Sarkozy. She is known for anti-immigration policies and has often made headlines with her anti-Muslim remarks. The 48-years old re-established her strength as a politician in 2015 when she expelled the founder of the party, Jean-Marie Le Pen for his controversial statements.


Migration Crisis Forging Strong
Refugee influx is arguably the deepest-seated reason behind the consistent surge of nationalism in Europe. It is linked with other economic and social concerns like unemployment, weak law and order, and identity crisis in Europe. “Open borders” form an active part of rhetoric by the far-right politicians. Germany has been the refugee paradise for long, receiving more than a million refugees in 2015 – courtesy Angela Markel, the German Chancellor and apparently the last flag-bearer of Liberal Europe. The public perception is not equally welcoming. Markel will be seeking 4th term as the Chancellor but her party is losing ground to the opponents promising anti-migration policies.

 

theriseinnat.jpgThe refugee crisis is only getting worse with over 60 million people displaced worldwide. Europe is a relatively easy access for Syrians, with Germany being the favourite country. As Syrian crisis has no end in sight, Europe feels pressed to close the borders.


Anti-Establishment Sentiments
A strong public perception can make or break the government. The rising popularity of nationalistic views among people comes as the most discernible symptom of mounting nationalism in Europe. Interestingly, public sentiments do not always portray the situation on ground. They are often triggered taking little reality in account. Consider France as an example: the common belief is that Frenchmen are worse-off today. An overview of France’s performance suggests otherwise with a stable unemployment rate of 10%, lower than many other European nations. The other economic indicators are not bleak as suggested by the prevailing perception.


Mega Terrorist Attacks
The overall negativity in Europe fueling nationalism is largely augmented by major terrorist attacks since 2014. Charlie Hebdo, Paris; Nice and Brussels attacks reinforced the idea that Europe is gravely vulnerable. It fortifies a thorny opinion that this danger comes from the outsiders and has now seeped deep into the society. Revelations such as the Paris attack terrorists hailed from Brussels, reminded people how open borders are doing more harm than good. Nice attacker was a Tunisian-French, weakening the “multicultural Europe” stance and strengthening the anti-immigration belief now widely-held. Hate-incidents and Burkini bans are contributing to an exceedingly hostile atmosphere. The rising sense of insecurity is cashed-in by the far right political players. Terrorism, however, is not a simple phenomenon. It is a result of decades old policies and wars steering the situation into a vicious cycle. And a social boycott of a certain fraction in society is unlikely to get any favourable outcomes.


The Uncertainty of the Future
As evident from the case of Brexit; leaving EU cannot be an overnight matter. Legal obstacles and economic repercussions make it a lengthy bureaucratic process. Nationalist parties try maneuvering Brexit to their advantage, citing it as an example to follow. However, the subsequent economic crunch and the overall “guilt” sentiment in UK – at least in the short-term – may actually thwart their attempts. Frexit may seem a far-fetched idea, but so did Brexit at one time. Even if Frexit realizes, which is still quite improbable, the EU is likely to hold itself with Germany assuming the sole-leader role. Sub-blocs within EU may spring up and EU could lose its prominence in world politics. That being said, this strong wave of nationalism may recede before a major change is realized. In any case, Europeans remain unconvinced by years-old promises of how globalization will make their daily lives better than before. A rollback was thus imminent.

 

The writer is a visiting student at EDHEC Business School, France.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 
08
February

Race for the NSG

Written By: Zamir Akram

Nevertheless, the discriminatory U.S. approach towards Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs has continued with repeated demands on Pakistan to “cap” its strategic capabilities and to demonstrate “restraint”, while no such demands are being made from India. Moreover, the U.S. has not only denied the extension of a similar waiver to Pakistan as given to India but has also opposed Pakistan’s membership of the NSG.

Pakistan and India are currently in a race to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a cartel of 48 countries that regulates the trade in nuclear materials and technologies. Membership of the group is considered by both countries as acceptance into the nuclear mainstream and recognition of their status as responsible nuclear weapon states – a status that has been denied to them since their nuclear tests in 1998. Membership can also help them overcome their energy crises by easy access to nuclear energy. Since NSG decisions are taken by consensus, all NSG members have to agree to accept Pakistan and India as members but evolving such consensus is both complicated and contentious.

 

racefornsg.jpgNuclear technology is dual use – it can be used for civilian or peaceful purposes such as generating electricity and for developing nuclear weapons. To contain the spread of nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons 'proliferation', the major nuclear powers – the United States and the (then) Soviet Union – negotiated an international treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT in 1968 according to which the countries that had acquired nuclear weapons before 1968 were accepted as Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and the others, the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) undertook not to acquire nuclear weapons in return for assurances that they would receive international assistance for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and that the NWS would engage in efforts towards ultimate nuclear disarmament. Apart from the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the UK, France and China, which had acquired nuclear weapons before 1968, were recognized as NWS by the NPT while the others were forbidden to cross the nuclear weapons threshold. At the time France and China refused to join the NPT while among the NNWS, India, Israel and Pakistan also refused to sign the NPT. Whereas India described the treaty as discriminatory, Pakistan argued that owing to its security concerns vis-a-vis India, it would join the treaty only if India did so. Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), created in 1957 to promote only peaceful uses of nuclear energy, was tasked to ensure implementation of the NPT.

 

This approach is part of a larger Indo-U.S. strategic partnership in which Washington has fully supported and assisted Indian strategic and conventional military build-up including development of short, medium and long range missiles, including submarine launched missiles, Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) and even work on a hydrogen bomb, apart from increasing its arsenal of nuclear warheads. It is worth noting that this increase in nuclear weapons by India has been facilitated by the NSG waiver which, as has been documented by Harvard University’s Belfer Center, has enabled India to divert nuclear fuel from civilian to military uses apart from being able to use its indigenous sources of nuclear fuel for exclusive military use while using imported fuel for its civilian program.

However, the first Indian nuclear test in 1974 demonstrated that despite the NPT and the IAEA, a country could use its peaceful or civilian nuclear facilities to clandestinely develop nuclear weapons capability by illicitly diverting nuclear fuel and technology from civilian to military purposes. As a result, the 1974 Indian nuclear test led to the creation of the NSG in the same year to plug the gaps and prevent clandestine diversion of nuclear materials.


The Indian test also led to the enactment of several laws in the U.S. aimed at preventing further acts of nuclear proliferation through sanctions. However, neither the U.S. nor any other NWS did much in practical terms to punish Indian proliferation. The French even sent a congratulatory message to the Indians! On the other hand, focus shifted towards preventing Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons through such laws as the Glenn and Symington Amendments and then through the Pakistan-specific Pressler Amendment which was used to put sanctions on Pakistan in 1990. Earlier, the U.S. also extended extreme pressure on France to cancel its Reprocessing Plant agreement with Pakistan. This was the start of the discriminatory treatment of Pakistan compared to India by the U.S. and its Western partners which continues till today. Only China has extended cooperation to Pakistan in the civilian nuclear field, even after it joined the NPT and the NSG on the basis of the “grand father” clause that it signed before joining these organizations.


The next major Indian act of nuclear proliferation was the tests in May 1998. Washington was caught totally unaware by these tests as its focus had been entirely on Pakistan despite the newly elected BJP government’s declared intention of acquiring nuclear weapons as well as fore-warnings by Pakistan about the preparations for these tests by India. The Western reaction, led by the U.S., was to pressurize Pakistan not to respond by conducting its own tests. However, Pakistan’s compulsion to ensure the credibility of its deterrence in the face of dire Indian threats led to the tests by Pakistan a few days later. In response the U.S. and its partners made no distinction between the culprit and the victim, imposing sanctions on both and leading the international community in castigating the two countries through a UN Security Council resolution that called for discontinuing all forms of nuclear related cooperation with India and Pakistan.

 

For now, Pakistan, with the principled support of countries like China, Turkey and others, has scored a tactical success in its efforts to ensure that there is impartial treatment for the two applicants for NSG membership. But this race is far from over. We will need to continue with our out-reach efforts and engage in sustained diplomacy in our quest for NSG membership.

Within a couple of years, however, the global strategic dynamics, especially the growing American objective of containing a rising China, brought about a change in U.S. policy towards India motivated by the objective of using India as a counter-weight to China. This trend started by the Clinton administration was taken further by succeeding Presidents Bush and Obama. In a major departure from U.S. non-proliferation policy, Bush engineered changes in U.S. laws and pushed through in 2008 a country-specific waiver for India from the international non-proliferation and safe-guards regime including the NPT and the NSG, enabling India to engage in civilian nuclear cooperation with several countries. Obama has taken this policy even further, promising to ensure Indian membership of the NSG and other technology control cartels like the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. It is, indeed, ironic that the U.S. is pushing Indian membership of the NSG despite the fact that this group was set up in response to the Indian nuclear test of 1974. This approach is part of a larger Indo-U.S. strategic partnership in which Washington has fully supported and assisted Indian strategic and conventional military build-up including development of short, medium and long range missiles, including submarine launched missiles, Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) and even work on a hydrogen bomb, apart from increasing its arsenal of nuclear warheads. It is worth noting that this increase in nuclear weapons by India has been facilitated by the NSG waiver which, as has been documented by Harvard University’s Belfer Center, has enabled India to divert nuclear fuel from civilian to military uses apart from being able to use its indigenous sources of nuclear fuel for exclusive military use while using imported fuel for its civilian program.


Meanwhile, the nuclear sanctions against Pakistan were waived in view of the U.S. need for Pakistan’s assistance in its so-called War on Terror following the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. Nevertheless, the discriminatory U.S. approach towards Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs has continued with repeated demands on Pakistan to “cap” its strategic capabilities and to demonstrate “restraint”, while no such demands are being made from India. Moreover, the U.S. has not only denied the extension of a similar waiver to Pakistan as given to India but has also opposed Pakistan’s membership of the NSG.

As for the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, the fact is that Pakistan has the most robust system of safety, security and safeguards which has been recognized as such by the IAEA and even by U.S. President Obama in the context of the U.S. sponsored Nuclear Security Summit process. As such, the allegations against Pakistan in this negative narrative do not stand up to close scrutiny and lack credibility.

Such discrimination at the policy level has been supplemented by American/Western efforts to build-up a negative narrative about Pakistan’s strategic program through manipulation of the western media, academics and think-tanks. This alleges that Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear weapons program, which is at risk of being taken over by terrorists and extremists and that is destabilizing security in South Asia. These wild allegations are not supported by facts nor are they consistent with existing realities. The fact is that compared to India, Pakistan has far less nuclear facilities and that India has been producing nuclear weapons and fissile material for nuclear weapons as well as their delivery system before 1974, much before Pakistan launched its own strategic program. Moreover, after the 2008 waiver for India, it has been able to use its indigenous sources of fissile material exclusively for nuclear weapons production without needing to divide it between civilian and military use as Pakistan is forced to do. Add to this the fact that India has also been clandestinely diverting nuclear fuel imported under the 2008 waiver from civilian to military purposes. As for the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, the fact is that Pakistan has the most robust system of safety, security and safeguards which has been recognized as such by the IAEA and even by U.S. President Obama in the context of the U.S. sponsored Nuclear Security Summit process. As such, the allegations against Pakistan in this negative narrative do not stand up to close scrutiny and lack credibility.


The question, therefore, arises as to why this discrimination against Pakistan? In my personal view, the real reason is that the U.S. and the western powers in general are uncomfortable with a Muslim country like Pakistan possessing a nuclear weapons capability even though Pakistan has always stated that this capability is for its deterrence against India and not against any other country. With the change in the global strategic environment wherein the U.S. is trying to contain China, an added factor has become the U.S. need to build-up India against China, owing to which Washington is actually helping India’s military build-up while seeking “restraint” by Pakistan.


A critical part of this U.S. strategy and a principal demand by India to partner with Washington is to ensure India’s inclusion and acceptance in the nuclear mainstream which would lead to India’s recognition as a de-facto if not de-jure member of the nuclear club – the P-5. Since Indian entry to the NPT as a nuclear weapon state is time barred and it is extremely difficult to amend the NPT deadline owing to opposition by the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) and China, the next best option is to have India accepted as a member of the NSG. That is the real reason for the concentrated efforts by the Modi-Obama clique to push Indian membership of the NSG.


For this reason it is equally important for Pakistan to ensure its simultaneous membership of the NSG with India and to prevent yet another exemption for New Delhi and continuing discrimination towards Islamabad. If a country like India which has twice thrust nuclear proliferation in South Asia (in 1974 and 1998) can be admitted to the NSG, then Pakistan, which has been forced to react to Indian proliferation for ensuring its security, has a legitimate right as well to be accepted into the nuclear mainstream as a responsible nuclear weapon state and admitted to the NSG. For sure, Pakistan’s credentials for NSG membership are at least equal if not better than those of India. Pakistan did not introduce nuclear weapons in South Asia. It is not responsible for the nuclear and missile race in the region – in fact after the 1998 tests, it proposed a Strategic Restraint Regime in South Asia to prevent further development of de-stabilizing weapons – Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), nuclear Sub-marine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) and Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) – as is being done by India. Nor is Pakistan pursuing India’s lead in developing a hydrogen bomb which it is doing in Karnataka according to Adrian Levy in Foreign Policy (December 2015). Unlike India, Pakistan voted in favour of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the UN and observes a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. It has also offered a bilateral test ban arrangement to India which New Delhi has rejected. Pakistan also has a transparent and robust Command and Control System as well as effective fire-walls for the safety and security of its strategic assets consistent with IAEA guidelines. This has been recognized by the Director General of the IAEA. It is also noteworthy that Harvard University’s Belfer Center report of March 2016 quotes U.S. officials as stating that “India’s security measures are weaker than those of Pakistan” and that President Obama and U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly expressed confidence in Pakistan’s nuclear safety arrangements. As regards the specific work of the NSG, Pakistan has been implementing comprehensive export controls that are fully harmonized with those of the NSG.

It is equally important for Pakistan to ensure its simultaneous membership of the NSG with India and to prevent yet another exemption for New Delhi and continuing discrimination towards Islamabad. If a country like India which has twice thrust nuclear proliferation in South Asia (in 1974 and 1998) can be admitted to the NSG, then Pakistan, which has been forced to react to Indian proliferation for ensuring its security, has a legitimate right as well to be accepted into the nuclear mainstream as a responsible nuclear weapon state and admitted to the NSG.

Since applying for membership last June, Pakistan has reached out to all NSG member states and called upon them to consider its request on the basis of equitable, impartial and non-discriminatory criteria. These countries, while considering requests from both India and Pakistan, confront the central issue of how to deal with countries that are nuclear weapon states but not parties to the NPT, which is the existing criteria for NSG membership. The Obama administration, in its hurry to push through Indian membership before end of its tenure in office, has argued that India is already “like-minded” and should be given membership on that basis. However, sensing reluctance of some states to accept such a biased approach, most notably China, the U.S. agreed to evolve new criteria but advocated that it be no more than the commitments India has already given for its 2008 waiver. Accordingly, using intense pressure, the Americans persuaded the outgoing Chair of the NSG, Ambassador Grossi of Argentina and the current Chair, Ambassador Song of South Korea, to put forward a proposal in December 2016 designed to suit India but exclude Pakistan. According to this formula, the applicant state must separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities; accept an Additional Protocol with the IAEA; not divert any imported nuclear material to unsafeguarded facilities; enter into a safeguards agreement with the IAEA covering all its existing and future civilian facilities; not to conduct any nuclear test and describe its policies in support of the CTBT. These are conditions that India has already accepted for the 2008 waiver or can give without compromising its nuclear program or position on the CTBT. The other elements of this proposal that are designed to virtually scuttle Pakistan’s membership are that it implicitly calls for Indian membership before Pakistan since it mentions that as a member India will not oppose other membership requests, an assurance that would be worthless for Pakistan; and, that even when Pakistan becomes a member it will still need to obtain waiver in order to be eligible for nuclear trade with other NSG members – a condition that can always be denied by India (or the U.S.) since the NSG works on the basis of consensus.


This formula is so fundamentally biased in India’s favour that more than 10 countries have expressed their opposition to it, including China, Brazil, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland and Turkey among others. Consequently, the NSG meeting scheduled for December last year had to be postponed till February-March 2017. These countries have also asked the ‘Chair’ to engage in a transparent consultative process with all NSG members and pursue the two stage process agreed at the Seoul NSG Plenary meeting in June 2016 according to which the group shall first agree by consensus on the membership criteria and then consider the applications of Pakistan and India.


Pakistan’s principled position on the need for an equitable and non-discriminatory criteria has, therefore, been vindicated and the attempt by the U.S. and other Indian supporters to give India preferential treatment has been defeated. President Obama will, therefore, not be able to fulfil his promise to his friend Modi. It remains to be seen whether the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, will carry on with this policy. Given the strategic convergence between the U.S. and India, it is likely that he will.


For now, Pakistan, with the principled support of countries like China, Turkey and others, has scored a tactical success in its efforts to ensure that there is impartial treatment for the two applicants for NSG membership. But this race is far from over. We will need to continue with our out-reach efforts and engage in sustained diplomacy in our quest for NSG membership.

 

Former ambassador Zamir Akram is currently Advisor to the Strategic Plans Division, Government of Pakistan. He remained Pakistan’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN and other international organizations.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Follow Us On Twitter