The question of “acquis diplomatique”, which is the realm
of a collective European foreign policy making, and whether “there is a
coherent European foreign and defence policy”, is a relevant one. If it
wasn’t relevant a decade ago,
it is becoming more and more relevant in
the coming decades. This relevance needs to be the guiding force for
Pakistani foreign policy stakeholders going forward. Pakistan must plan
for this eventuality from today. The EU-Pakistan Five-Year Engagement
Plan is just a beginning in this realisation. Its optimal execution is
largely dependent on Pakistan’s fiscal discipline.
There is a
definite realisation within some European countries led by Germany
(11/27) that there is a need for such a unified purpose and this
realisation became clear earlier in September when a 12-page document
detailing recommendations was pushed by this group: “To make the EU into
a real actor on the global scene we believe that we should in the
long-term introduce more majority decisions in the common foreign and
security policy sphere, or at least prevent one single member state from
being able to obstruct initiatives.”
Contrasting to this
initiative is the fiercely independent and nationalistic sovereign
stands of countries like UK and France. These two mostly lead and ‘go it
alone’ on issues which are divisive within the Union. Coupled with this
trend and, in fact, the reason for this trend is the cohesiveness of
the concept of Europe itself. The European countries transformed in 2011
from being the solution to the problem when the European leaders failed
to reassure the world about the sustainability of the Euro. Economics
lead politics as is often said. And there could be no better example of
this than when due to the Euro Zone issues European foreign policy
shifted from being a subject to an object. If Europe was forced to go
with a begging bowl to the IMF and China for contributions for a
bailout, its initiative on a unified foreign policy was certainly lost
in the process.
However, what is uniquely European is the search
for this joint identity. Since there is a belief in this unity of
purpose being most beneficial for member states, there will always be a
strong drive within the EU to achieve this difficult goal. Europe, after
all, is a collection of nations striving for a joint nationhood. It is
unlikely that the sovereign nation concept will melt into a pan-European
nationhood immediately, but when the benefits of a joint
foreign-defence-security strategy outweigh the charms of solo policies,
this will become a reality. When the enemy strikes hard at the European
defence lines, this joint policy will become a necessity.
Pakistan’s
EU Engagement Plan is well meaning and balanced. Let us examine it
critically. What will lead the plan is the “Regular Strategic Dialogue
between the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan.” These meetings are not
just symbolic of a will to work together on trade, investment, good
governance, institutional strengthening, national security related
issues. These meetings are key for providing the right impetus in all
sectors of joint action. The Foreign Minister’s intellect, independence,
initiative, institutional memory and mainly negotiation acumen is as
key as the ability of the rest of the government to implement that
drive. The current outstanding on this relationship are the package of
Autonomous Trade Preferences (ATPs) for Pakistan offered by the EU in
the aftermath of the devastating 2010 floods. And the GSP+ scheme which
Pakistan needs to be considered for in 2014. It is clear that
“comprehensive cooperation in areas related to stability and security,
in particular counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics” are as important as
“cooperation and exchange expertise on the functioning of civilian
democratic bodies and safeguarding fundamental human rights and opposing
extremist intolerance.” All are dependent on having real leadership in
Pakistan to deliver on these grandiose cooperation agendas.
Whilst
Pakistan is clearly lacking on delivering on this Pak-EU Engagement
Plan due to the deficiencies of the current Pakistani leadership, the
Europeans are also struggling with the “acquis diplomatique” for a
coherent foreign policy narrative. The European foreign policy actors
proposed earlier this year the strategy of “money, markets, mobility.”
It was, in essence, the principle of “more for more.” This showcased
their will to build “deep democracy” with their subjects. It has had a
bumpy start, as the EU cohesiveness scorecards clearly demonstrate. The
will of the European powers to deliver a joint strategy in Syria, Libya
and Iran contrast heavily with their failures to react in time to the
Arab uprisings. Their checkered pasts of having supported dictators in
these countries had to fast convert into their support for populist
movements.
Moreover, European interventions in Libya proved that
they were largely dependent on US for military assets such as
refuelling, targeting and jamming capabilities. What needs to be worth
noting from a Pakistan-Afghanistan regional perspective is that European
countries will continue to have this “capability deficit” going forward
due to the drastic cuts in their defence budgets.
Pakistan needs
to factor in the fact that European foreign policy cohesiveness is more
apparent when there is an alliance between big countries and small ones.
And that this cohesiveness is least shown, since big countries like to
go their own way. Examples of such incidences which reduce European
power projections are many. The UK, for instance, led a diplomatic
assault to block the EEAS, which was EU’s new diplomatic service from
speaking on behalf of the EU at the UN or the OSCE. France led the
diplomatic offensive against Turkey on the Armenian issue, which made
the EU-Turkish cooperation difficult. Germany blocked EIB funds, thus
impacting European support for Arab populist movements. We have often
seen “selective diplomacy”, which means that meetings are informal and
selective in their choice of country representatives. The pooling and
sharing of resources for defence exist on paper, but defence cuts in
European countries make this an exercise in futility.
The EU High
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is often accused
of lacking a proactive approach, but to be fair to Ms Catherine Ashton
it is difficult to lead European nations, who are divided on political
issues and who are not eager to commit resources.
There is already
a lot of talk about the German Europe, since Germany is largely seen as
the “geo-economic” power, which uses economic means to pursue foreign
policy goals. Each country in the European Union needs to converge on
this key issue and find similarities on export-driven strategy. Pakistan
needs to respond to this economic strategy by doing a detailed study of
which blocs in EU are best suited for its own export-led strategy. This
is the new paradigm shift that needs to be Pakistan’s initiative to the
European Euro Zone and one nation crisis. And this is what the PML-N
will concentrate on. For reasons which are largely economies of scale
related, Pakistan can win foreign exchange if it successfully executes
“FDI-export cluster strategy” for the EU as a bloc and not just
concentrate on bilateral export strategy.
The economy of the EU
generates a GDP of over Euro 12.629 trillion, according to the IMF,
making it the largest economy in the world. The EU is represented as a
unified entity in the WTO. The EU is the largest exporter in the world.
Instead of Pakistan being in a position to take advantage of this
economic power bloc its own exports to the EU fell to $5.957 billion in
2011-2012 with a decline of 8.87 percent. It is highly regrettable that
Pakistan only managed to get from the EU countries investment during
2010-11 to the tune of a dismal $230 million. Sorting the economic
statistics between Pakistan and EU will be a key priority of the PML-N
when it gets to federal government in the next elections.
Ensuring
that the dependence on aid from the EU is minimised will also be a key
priority of the PML-N. We have often maintained as a party policy that
aid is not the answer to our problems, but the current corrupt
government has made it routine standard operating procedure to syphon of
the aid coming for its poorest.
On the security side, there is
no doubt that a deeper engagement with Europe as far as Nato’s
withdrawal from Afghanistan is necessary to balance the unipolar effects
of US policy. However, the defence budget dynamics of the European
countries will be the main denominators of this equation. Pakistan must
secure for itself an understanding with the EU defence stakeholders the
objections it has to the Indo-Afghan encirclement strategy, as is
clearly demonstrated in the recent Agreement on Strategic Partnership
between Afghanistan and India.
Moreover, the EU commitment to
democratic institutionalisation is something the PML-N considers itself
best poised to undertake, since unlike the other parties its commitment
to democracy is unflinching and consistent. This commitment will be
tested in the by-elections and the elections in the coming months.
It
is clear that whilst the EU undertakes its own balanced scorecard
review of its own cohesiveness on foreign policy, Pakistan will have to
poise itself as an eager customer for EU’s FDI/trade and eager partner
in securing the region with its help. Pakistan cannot afford to ignore
the following trends in the EU: “A radical overhaul of European foreign
and defence policies to create a powerful new pan-European foreign
ministry, majority voting on common foreign policies to bypass a British
veto, a possible European army, and a single market for EU defence
industries.” Pakistan must respond keeping economy and security as key
priorities using the “FDI-export cluster strategy” as the main paradigm.
The writer is a former parliamentarian. Email: marvi.nmemon@gmail.com