By Dr. Syed Hassaan Bokhari

Uzair Younus (the director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center) has recently written an article titled, “Why Pakistan must side with Ukraine over Russia”. In this article, Mr. Younus declares that “it is in Pakistan’s national security interest to stand with Ukraine”. The chief arguments put forward by Mr. Younus are as follows:

• If Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine results in a successful change of borders by force, then it will set a worrisome precedent for Pakistan as another power (read India) can also trample Pakistan’s territorial integrity and force a change of borders.
• By siding with Ukraine, Pakistan will earn the goodwill of Ukraine’s supporters like the Western countries and Japan. In his opinion, by supporting Ukraine wholeheartedly and helping “avert Putin’s victory”, Pakistan will be seen as an upholder of international norms. So, if Pakistan faces a challenge similar to Ukraine in the future, it will be able to “rally the world to its cause based on its own past conduct”.
• For Pakistan, Russia isn’t an important strategic or trade partner. Pakistan’s exports mostly go to the USA and EU. So, instead of staying neutral, Pakistan should side with its trade partners.

On the surface, these arguments might appear cogent, but if examined a little more closely and deeply, they are found not only to be shallow but also downright dangerous for Pakistan. Let’s take these arguments one by one.

Read moreKey Points from Russian Foreign Ministry Briefing

First, Mr. Younus has very conveniently ignored Pakistan’s own history regarding forcible change of borders. In 1971, India invaded and tore apart East Pakistan, cutting Pakistan in half. India also occupied some territory in Pakistan Administered Kashmir and refused to return it to Pakistan after the 1971 war. Pakistan’s “sacrosanct and internationally recognized” borders underwent a more radical change than Ukraine’s in 1971. At that time, Pakistan had been the key facilitator of the momentous US-Chine détente and consequently was viewed favorably by both the US and China – an enviable position diplomatically. But, as history tells us, on-ground military force trumps diplomacy. Also, in case of an Indian threat to Pakistan (most likely in Kashmir), India can take the line that the LOC is not an international border. The West, already wooing India, will be more amenable to accepting Indian explanations. After all, even in 1971, no meaningful Western support was witnessed during the Indian invasion of East Pakistan and Kashmir.

This brings us to Mr. Younus’s second argument. Does he really believe that a poor country like Pakistan will ever be able to “rally the world to its cause” when attacked by India? Let’s face some hard truths. Ukraine is not being supported by the West because it is a victim of aggression. It is only being supported because it is the victim of Russian aggression. Russia is not the only country illegally occupying vast tracts of territory. Israel has been occupying and colonizing the West Bank for decades. India has been occupying Kashmir and oppressing the populace with impunity for many decades. The USA itself lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before tearing that country to shreds. So, the key point is not aggression per se but aggression by a country considered an enemy by the West. If Pakistan is ever attacked by Russia, the USA will be ready with support in order to bleed Russia dry regardless of the Pakistani stance on Ukraine. But India is a different story altogether. India is not a US ally, it is a country being courted by the US into becoming an ally! That arguably gives India more leverage over the US than even an ally! So, it is my painful duty to inform Mr. Younus that even if Pakistan bleeds itself dry in Ukraine, the West won’t do much more than mere lip service (if even that) in case Pakistan is ever attacked by India. After all, how much support did Pakistan, a member of military alliances (SEATO/CENTO) with the West, receive from the West during the 1965 war? As for Mr. Younus’s suggestion for Pakistan to “help avert Putin’s victory”, I can only say that how can a country suffering the worst economic crisis in history and facing myriad security threats of his own “avert Putin’s victory”? With a limited industrial capacity and a large home defense requirement, I doubt Pakistan can do more for Ukraine than what it is already doing.

Mr. Younus’s third argument about Russia not being a significant trade or strategic partner for Pakistan is also quite fallacious. A little context is required here. How is Russia managing to stay afloat despite crippling military and economic losses in Ukraine? The largest factor is Chinese support. China is backing Russia as a bulwark against the West. China is also the major arms supplier of Pakistan. Almost all the sophisticated military technology Pakistan possesses is of Chinese origin, the sort of technology that the West has always refused to share with Pakistan despite Pakistan fighting vigorously for the West during the Cold War and the War on Terror. China is also the leading foreign investor in Pakistan. Can Pakistan really afford to signal to China that it is not a reliable partner for China in the evolving multi-polar world? As for Pakistani exports to the EU/USA, they haven’t expressed the slightest inclination to boycott Pakistan for its “neutrality” over Ukraine. A poor, beleaguered, and threatened Pakistan can’t afford any enemies, be it the West or Russia/China. But Pakistan’s bond with China is such that contrary to the West (which has always preferred India over Pakistan for strategic and economic reasons), Pakistan cannot even afford Chinese indifference toward Pakistan.

In summation, Pakistan shouldn’t side with anyone in the Ukraine conflict and avoid aggravating all the parties to the conflict as well as their allies. Pakistan must only focus on putting its own house in order, which seems to be crumbling as rampant inflation causes a ballooning poverty rate, as 20 million children remain out of school, and 40% of Pakistani children experience stunted growth due to malnutrition. Mr. Younus says, “Staying neutral in the current context is folly. It risks Pakistan’s own security and sovereignty in the long run”. On the contrary, I think putting our belief into a security “insurance underwritten by the West” is folly and risks Pakistan’s own security and sovereignty in the long run. If Pakistan wants to safeguard its security and sovereignty, it must learn to throw away the begging bowl and rely on itself. Painful structural reforms carried out by a government elected by a people via free and fair elections is the only way for Pakistan to save itself. All other recipes are peddled by those charlatans who only want to sell some snake oil!

Mr. Younus ended his article by saying, “Pakistan’s elites must look at the evolving global situation pragmatically and recognize that a strong Ukraine that defeats Russia is in their country’s interest.” I will amend it by saying, “Pakistan’s elites must look at the evolving global situation pragmatically and recognize that a strong Pakistan that defeats poverty, undemocratic forces, and a psychological urge to prostrate itself to a would-be protector is in their country’s interest!”