What's new

Why Pakistan Said No to King Salman of KSA

Daneshmand

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Dec 5, 2014
Messages
3,109
Reaction score
43
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Pakistan
Why Pakistan said no to King Salman - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

GULF PULSE
globe.png

نبض الخليج
RTR4WS99.jpg

Soldiers walk past the parliament building during a joint sitting of the parliament in Islamabad, April 10, 2015. (photo by REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood)

AUTHOR: Bruce Riedel


Why Pakistan said no to King Salman


Saudi Arabia's request for tangible Pakistani help for Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen has led to an unprecedented rejection by Islamabad. In response to a direct face-to-face request from King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud for ground troops and aircraft for the war against Zaydi Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen last month, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif took the issue to the Pakistani parliament, which on April 10 unanimously decided to stay out of the war. On April 13, Sharif reaffirmed the parliament's decision while also pledging Pakistan's commitment to Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan's unanimous decision to stay out of the conflict brewing in Yemen, and to push for a political resolution rather than a military one, puts significant strain on bilateral relations, complicating Saudi-Pakistani diplomatic relations.
After five days of debate, not one speaker apparently supported sending ground troops. While many praised Saudi Arabia as a friend of Pakistan, almost all called for a political solution and diplomacy to end the crisis. Some even blamed Riyadh for starting the war. Every political party opposed sending troops. The consensus was to stay neutral while reaffirming friendship with the kingdom.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif visited Pakistan during the debate. He met with both Prime Minister Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif. The army has argued that it is stretched too thin with a counterterrorism campaign against the Pakistani Taliban and tensions with India to send troops to Yemen. Nawaz Sharif said April 13 that he urged Zarif to rein in the Houthis and support a political solution.

The Pakistani response is a potentially big setback for the bilateral relationship. Given that Sharif owes his life to the Saudis, who helped save him from execution after the 1999 Gen. Pervez Musharraf coup and provided him exile (with a little help from Washington), it's a remarkable development. No Pakistani politician knows the Saudis better than Sharif or has more access to their inner circle.

Why did Sharif send the issue to parliament? A revealing editorial in the Pakistani press suggests the prime minister had already concluded that the Saudis have blundered into a war they cannot win and for which they are unprepared. Their goals, restoring the Hadi government to power and preventing the creation of a pro-Iranian regime on the Arabian Peninsula, are not matched by the resources available. Sharif met with the king and his advisers on the eve of the war and judged they "had made a strategic error led by an untested leadership that panicked" at Iran's role in Yemen.

In this account of Sharif's decision, the Pakistani leader reportedly believes that if the Saudis enter into a ground war in Yemen — with or without Pakistani forces — it will become a quagmire. They have simply "bitten off more than they can chew." The Egyptian experience in Yemen, in which Egypt had up to 20,000 casualties in the 1960s fighting the same Zaydi tribes that back the Houthis, figures prominently in Pakistani thinking, especially in the army.

But Sharif also does not want to endanger Pakistan's close ties to the kingdom. He will note that strong military and diplomatic relations will continue between Riyadh and Islamabad. Pakistani experts and advisers are already in the kingdom in small numbers. One died in a training accident in Saudi Arabia last week.

Sharif will also argue that he had no choice but to consult the parliament. Once a consensus emerged, he also could not go against it.

Already, close Saudi ally the United Arab Emirates has threatened that the no vote will have negative consequences for Pakistan's relationship with the Gulf states. The kingdom and the UAE provide sizable amounts of aid and investment to Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis live and work in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states.

The episode also has implications for the long-standing issue of whether Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have a secret unwritten agreement for Islamabad to provide a nuclear weapon or several weapons to Riyadh if the kingdom felt threatened by an Iranian bomb. The Yemen crisis suggests any such vague nuclear "promise" may be worthless. If Islamabad won't deliver conventional ground and air support when the kingdom is at war with an Iranian proxy (the Saudi view of the Houthis), it can't be relied on to provide a bomb.

The episode also raises concerns about Iran's clout in the region. Much of the debate in parliament had been about avoiding further sectarian violence in Pakistan (which is 20% Shiite), which intervention in the war in Yemen would stoke (perhaps with Iranian help). Zarif had a big stick behind his back. Without ever mentioning the threat of Iranian meddling in Pakistan's already fragile domestic stability, Zarif could remind his hosts they don't want more trouble at home.

Zarif visited Pakistan after a stop in Oman, the other big no-show in the Yemen war. Oman is the only GCC state to stay out of the air war. Like Sharif, Sultan Qaboos is wary of the Yemen conflict expanding beyond Yemen's borders. Just west of Oman's Dhofar province both Houthi and al-Qaeda fighters have expanded their control since Operation Decisive Storm began. The Houthis seized Shabwa province last week and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has taken much of Hadrawmawt province. The sultan is also wary of a quagmire that only benefits al-Qaeda.

There is now talk in Islamabad of Pakistan playing a mediator role to find a way to end the fighting. As a major Islamic power, Pakistan could potentially help engineer a face-saving solution to achieve a cease-fire and end the war. But that requires a willingness to compromise that as yet does not look apparent either in Riyadh or Sanaa.
 
. .
@Irfan Baloch @Oscar @Desert Fox @Serpentine @waz @WAJsal @haman10 @rahi2357 @Shahryar Hedayati @scythian500 @Cheetah786 @WebMaster @haviZsultan and others.

Your views please!

how many troops are the Saudis asking anyway ?

I don't know. But I guess it depends on what they want to do there. If they want to defeat Houthis and their allies and put back Hadi in charge, that would mean significant numbers of troops. Since in modern military history a conventional army has never been able to defeat an insurgency on a foreign land. With such a bleak precedent, if they go in, they need to go heavy and they will need to stay a long time. Still the odds will be overwhelmingly against Saudis, if history is any guide.
 
.
Why does every diplomatic relation has strings attached. Pakistan really are in a piranha pit.
 
.
Pakistan is right to rethink its Yemen misstep

Tom Hussain

April 13, 2015 Updated: April 13, 2015 06:53 PM

  • Pakistan has been a geopolitically isolated and deeply unpopular state since the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, 25 years ago. Ever since, excluding transactional relationships, it has had just three allies – China, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The United States is deeply invested in Pakistan but the relationship is characterised by mutual suspicion and can hardly be described as friendly.

    Pakistan’s recent decisive actions against terrorists and its building of bridges with Afghanistan’s president Ashraf Ghani were convincing reasons to believe it had reversed the policies that have isolated it, and that it was ready to assume a constructive participatory role in regional security.

    However, the indecision Pakistan has shown in response to Saudi Arabia’s request that it join the coalition fighting Houthi rebels in Yemen has raised serious questions about its commitment to key allies and its ability to judge its strategic interest.

    The debate in Pakistan’s parliament, which wants prime minister Nawaz Sharif to opt out of the conflict, was characterised by a collective desire for Muslim unity. That is an idealistic notion, but one that’s central to Pakistan’s core identity as a country.

    The intention may have been noble, but it ignored what Pakistani strategic affairs analysts had said since the launch of the Saudi Arabia-led Operation Decisive Storm. Pakistan must act in its own interest, dispassionately, and choose between its long-standing friends and Iran, a neighbour with which it has a testy relationship.

    Obviously, the choice has difficult implications for Pakistan but it need look no further than China, upon which its national security is heavily reliant. Beijing has become a global power by acting unrelentingly in its national interest. It did so by establishing mutually beneficial relationships with nations beyond its backyard.

    That said, it would be premature to conclude Pakistan will remain neutral in the Yemen conflict, as the non-binding parliamentary resolution “desires”.

    That’s because the bigger story that emerged from Islamabad’s consultations with Riyadh, held before the parliamentary debate, was the government’s declaration that Saudi Arabia’s national security is a priority for Pakistan’s foreign policy.

    The sentiments tweeted by Dr Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, have helped to shift the political debate within Pakistan. The government has distanced itself from the parliamentary resolution, saying that opposition parties were responsible for the declaration of neutrality. In the official note issued on Saturday after Mr Sharif spoke to Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Mr Sharif criticised the Houthis outright.

    It’s likely that the Pakistani prime minister and army chief of staff will travel to Riyadh this week and make the requisite political and military commitments. Whereas its military contribution might have been brigade-strength, had it joined its GCC allies in the first instance, it will now have to make a division-sized commitment, in an effort to reassure them. Feelings have been hurt and trust undermined, but Islamabad’s relationship with Riyadh and Abu Dhabi is very strong. It goes back to the 1960s and has transcended politics. Repeatedly, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have bailed Pakistan out of dangerous crises triggered by geopolitical events and natural disaster.

    The relationship will recover so long as Pakistan’s rulers demonstrate their commitment to it. By investing strategically in the Saudi-led coalition, Pakistan has a unique opportunity to build influence with a group of regional powers with global diplomatic reach. Through them, it would stand a far better chance of achieving objectives hitherto not acceptable to the wider international community.

    The scope for that investment was described by analyst Theodore Karaskik on these pages. He wrote that the models for the proposed pan-Arab military force assumed a 15 per cent Pakistani component even though they are not Arab.

    That is consistent with reports that surfaced during a March 2014 visit to Pakistan by Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. At the time, it was suggested that Pakistan would contribute as many as 30,000 military personnel – mostly reservists – to the GCC Peninsula Shield.

    Pakistan’s stated commitment to Saudi national security has wider implications too. It has an armoury of ballistic missiles that, in terms of reach and technology, can compete with any Asian strategic force.

    As a deterrence, Pakistan’s robust commitment to Saudi security could correct the imbalance of strategic power created by non-Arab missile arsenals in the Middle East.

    Tom Hussain is an independent journalist and analyst based in Islamabad

    On Twitter: @tomthehack

 
.
Whereas its military contribution might have been brigade-strength, had it joined its GCC allies in the first instance, it will now have to make a division-sized commitment, in an effort to reassure them.

This article though says, it is part of a "lip service": ‘We’re going fine, no troops for King though’ | Pakistan Today

"Eminent analyst Dr Rasool Bux Raees said that the Parliament’s resolution was not binding on the government in its policy formulation. “The PM wanted to pre-empt the reactions on the Saudi Arabia’s request for military assistance by taking the matter to the joint session of the Parliament. Through this plan, the premier handled the diplomatic pressures,” he added.

“It is also obvious that the army is not backing the idea of sending troops to Yemen and Pak will not indulge in the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran,” he said."
 
.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif took the issue to the Pakistani parliament, which on April 10 unanimously decided to stay out of the war. On April 13, Sharif reaffirmed the parliament's decision while also pledging Pakistan's commitment to Saudi Arabia.

That is a very proud moment for Pakistan. All the politicians agreed on something. Unanimous decisions are special.
 
.
For the most part i agree with the article. Operation Decisive Storm was bound to fail from the onset and Pakistani Military and civil establishment arrived at the right conclusion to stay out of this conflict. Our involvement would have had negative implications for our national security back home at a critical moment when we already have sectarian violence and terrorism rampant in many parts of Pakistan. We can't afford to antagonize Iran when we really need their assistance in stabilizing post-NATO Afghanistan and prevent india from gaining a foothold on our western border.

GCC's are on a path that will perhaps lead them to their own undoing. We shouldn't board their sinking ship. However with the threats and pressure mounting on us from their side im not sure we will be able to maintain our neutral stance for long. There is too much at stake here for us and perhaps our military and civil establishment will reach a sort of compromise with the GCC's for our involvement in this war.
 
.
I will favor the military intervention if Yemen becomes Pakistan's autonomous foreign territory after the war is won. That way we will have a tangible stake in GCC as well. Unless there is a piece in it for us, there's no reson to join up.
 
.
I will favor the military intervention if Yemen becomes Pakistan's autonomous foreign territory after the war is won. That way we will have a tangible stake in GCC as well. Unless there is a piece in it for us, there's no reson to join up.
a part like Gibraltor is sufficient not entire country....
 
.
I will favor the military intervention if Yemen becomes Pakistan's autonomous foreign territory after the war is won. That way we will have a tangible stake in GCC as well. Unless there is a piece in it for us, there's no reson to join up.

Then you should have joined forces with Iran. :D

You could have got Aden as a naval base, on a 100 year agreement. :P

All according to international law ofcourse. :coffee:
 
. .
lately our politicians are doing too much of it

It means they are moving in a unified force and their personal interests about matters is less than the national interest.

I will favor the military intervention if Yemen becomes Pakistan's autonomous foreign territory after the war is won. That way we will have a tangible stake in GCC as well. Unless there is a piece in it for us, there's no reson to join up.

Would you share with us?
 
.
What does Allah the Exalted say about the matter?

"And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly." (49:9 Al-Quran)

This would have certainly played on pakistan army's pyche. Kargil,TTP, and now yemen...... would have been a hatrick.:dance3:
Yes, Pakistan lost the perfect chance on a hat trick. Beat the Indians in kargil, destroyed the TTP and conquered Yemen. I guess we will have to be happy with just two.
 
Last edited:
.
lately our politicians are doing too much of it

They have no other choice. They cant refuse KSA because of funds. Also they can't refuse Iran as they don't want to involve in new set of militants since we are already trapped by TTP, BLA and other official foreign invaders.


This would have certainly played on pakistan army's pyche. Kargil,TTP, and now yemen...... would have been a hatrick.:dance3:

lolllll... If you are going to take Yemen and India in account, then it would have been our half century.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom