We should be clear about our short and long term objectives and how we can achieve them

Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema is a prominent scholar of international repute and his main area of specialisation is ‘Foreign Policy’. His articles regularly appear in both national and international academic journals, popular magazines and daily newspapers. He has published more than 130 research articles and over 650 other general articles/ columns, etc. He has authoured many books and monographs and co-authoured some books with international writers like Stephen P. Kohan. Currently, he is Dean, Faculty of Contemporary Sciences at National Defence University (NDU) Islamabad since 2009.   Interview Conducted By: WAQAS IQBAL

Jahangir’s World Times(JWT): What are the determinants of a foreign policy?

Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema: Well we can divide them into two categories. the permanent and non-permanent determinants. ‘Geostrategic’ and ‘Geopolitical situation tops the permanent determinants of a foreign policy which means where you are located, who are your neighbours and which kind of relationship you have with them. The second, determinant included in this category is  the ‘History’, but its importance varies from case to case. In Pakistan’s case history has a significant role, for instance, if we see the ‘Pakistan Movement’ and the opposition from the Indian National Congress. The third important, particularly in Pakistan’s case is ‘Ideology’. Since Pakistan is an ideological state, therefore the significance of ‘idealogy’ cannot be neglected. The fourth one is the ‘National Interest’. In fact, states make foreign policy for the safeguard of their national interests in the world. All nations are engaged for securing and advancing of their national interest across the world. Thus, national interest is the cardinal principle of any foreign policy. Now there are some variables or you can say the non-permanent determinants of a foreign policy. First one is the ‘Public Opinion’. It means how public opinion of a country can influence its foreign policy. Now in some countries the role of public opinion is very assertive but in some countries public opinion has a minor role. For instance, here in Pakistan public is not so much conscious about the policy making therefore, they do not write or suggest any thing to their elected representatives that what should be the policy but now some people on the electronic media are seen discussing the foreign policy issues of Pakistan. The ‘Foreign Office’ also do make some inputs if somebody is willing to listen them. In fact, the role of the ‘Foreign Office’ is to give their input to the government or policy makers and to implement the policy made by the government. So, I would say in Pakistan role of public opinion is much assertive in the internal policies of Pakistan as compare to the foreign policy, e.g. in the restoration of chief justice of Pakistan the public opinion had significant part. Actually, our public is too much emotional and can be invoked easily. Now role of individuals or personality is the second variable of foreign policy. In Pakistan, we have ‘personalised politics’. Here we cannot find democracy within the political parties. So, whoever personality is dominating the party similarly, he or she dominates all the policies and other affairs of the government when comes in power. Thus, the role of personality does affect the directions of foreign policy. In addition, I would say this role of personality is not a distinctive feature of third world country, it can be seen in the developed countries. Only, a strong personality can change the direction of foreign policy while a weak personality would be swept away with any crisis. For instance, Eisenhower was the American president whereas ‘John Faster Delis was the secretary of state. One can easily find the imprints of John Faster on the American foreign policy. Third non-permanent determinant of foreign policy is the economic factor. It is extremely important for the developing countries as far as transfer of technology, trade and foreign aid is concerned. It is also an important factor for the developed countries but from a different angle. So, it is the important variable of foreign policy but its intensity changes time to time. Thus, these are some permanent and non-permanent determinants of a foreign policy and cannot be neglected.

JWT: How do you define the role of academia and think tanks in the making of foreign policy?

Dr. PIC: In our country and particularly in the developed countries think tanks do play an important role practically. They do it by holding conferences and seminars on particular issues related to the foreign policy. They also conduct research-based studies, publish articles in their journals and launch opinion polls. Then, they put their policy suggestions to the government whether they are considered or not but they do. This is how they play an important role in the making of foreign policy. But in the third world countries and especially in Pakistan I do not think that the due attention is being paid to these think tanks. Actually, in Pakistan the think tanks are not properly utilised in the making of foreign policy by any government. In fact, on one hand government is financing these think tanks but on the other government is not taking any benefit from them. For instance, recently the ‘Envoys or Ambassadors Conference’ was held at Foreign Office and it is said that government is going to review the Pak-US relations. Perhaps it would have been better if the government had contacted the representatives from the think tanks but it didn’t. Even I would go to the extent that some people in the media are very good, they should also be approached. In fact, the Foreign Office does not have any continuous or regular interaction with these think tanks like ISSI, IPRI etc. When I was president of IPRI (Islamabad Policy Research Institute) at that time a policy review on India was going on so. Jaleel Abbas Jillani the DG South Asia desk used to call me and other members from different think tanks in order to have our input, this is the only example which I can give throughout my stay in IPRI. In my opinion there is no harm in associating academia and think tanks in the foreign policy making process of Pakistan. It would not be counter-productive because academia or think tanks are not the-decision makers, government is the ultimate authority to take decisions. However, in India the academia and think tanks have greater say in their foreign policy formulation as compare to us. In Pakistan, academia and think tanks contributes indirectly in the making of foreign policy through their journals, research-based studies and by holding seminars and conferences.

JWT: What is the major dilemma of our foreign policy in your opinion and to which extent our Foreign Office is responsible for it?

Dr. PIC: Well in my opinion ‘Pakistan’s foreign policy is basically reactive rather than innovative’. To me it is the major dilemma of our foreign policy. We should be clear about our short-and long-term objectives and how we can achieve them. I don’t think so we are clear about it. Actually, we are lacking a constructive and long-term approach for a balanced foreign policy. We have brilliant minds in our Foreign Office but may be they are not allowed to utilise their skills. I must say we must follow our national interests even in a cold-blooded way.

JWT: Is ‘Track-2 Diplomacy’ is effective in case of India-Pakistan relations?

Dr. PIC: Yes, it is effective as well as productive in case of India and Pakistan. For instance, ‘Nimrana Dialogue’. It was started in 1992 and I am also member of this dialogue. Normally, it holds two meetings annually ‘one in Dehli and the other one in Islamabad and the second meeting of ‘Nimrana Dialogue’ was held recently in Islamabad in November 2011. In fact, this dialogue is contributing number of CBMs (confidence building measures) and the both sides understand each other thinking very well and we exchange our ideas. So, we propose some CBMs which are sent to the governments then it’s up to the respective governments of two countries to take necessary measures for suggested CBMs. Thus, in my opinion ‘Track-2 Diplomacy’ and especially the ‘Nimrana Dialogue’ is very effective in case of Indo-Pak relations.

JWT: Do you think that our ‘Foreign Office’ should establish a separate wing for cultural diplomacy?

Dr. PIC:  Yes, I agree they should establish a separate wing for cultural diplomacy because we are very weak in it. I would say, ‘There is hardly any cultural diplomacy. But for this I do not blame to the Foreign Office. In fact, it is the domain of ministry of culture. They should come forward and enhance their liaison with the Foreign Office. We have very good singers, actors and our own culture is very rich and full of diversity even by doing this we can project our softer image in the world. We could have utilised our ‘TV Drama’ as ‘Cultural Leverage’ which is normally called soft power but we didn’t. On the other hand, Indians fully utilised their soft power, i.e. Bollywood. We see their movies and in some movies they try to convey message. Moreover, we see their channels in Pakistan but our channels are banned in India because it will have a cultural impact. Now it is up to our government to make agreements on reciprocal basis in order to get similar facilities in India.