What exactly prompted the UAE to demand repayment of a massive loan it lent to Pakistan? Why is Pakistan anxious over India's improving ties with Bangladesh?
The world held its breath on the evening of April 7. US President Donald Trump had just issued a warning of chilling finality: If the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened, Iranian civilisation itself could cease to exist before dawn. Then, almost as suddenly as the threat was issued, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced a few hours later that the United States and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. True to his unpredictable form, Trump softened his tone and took to social media to announce the two-week truce.
Soon, Pakistan began receiving widespread praise for achieving what seemed unexpected. In India, critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared to have struck a political jackpot. Questions were raised as to why India could not broker such an agreement. It was claimed that Pakistan had secured a major diplomatic victory, while India had suffered a setback. Reading such statements was surprising. Should foreign affairs be viewed through the lens of domestic politics? Shouldn’t we instead analyse why Pakistan became the intermediary and whether India truly had any role to play? In my view, India had no significant role in a conflict involving the US, Israel and Iran.There is no doubt that Israel is a trusted friend of India, and India has also maintained cordial relations with Iran. However, the United States understands that India is not a subordinate nation. Whatever India says is carefully considered and credible. The US did not need such a mediator. For the US, Pakistan is a more convenient partner -- despite its history of unreliability and duplicity -- because it understands how to speak and listen in the US' language. Pakistan even went so far as to call Trump a “messenger of peace” and recommended him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Where else would the US find such an ally? Moreover, Pakistan shares a nearly 900-kilometre border with Iran, which is why Iran also accepted it as a messenger. China, too, preferred for the talks to be held in Pakistan. This is how Pakistan came to the forefront. But does it really have the stature to influence both the US and Iran? In this ceasefire, it merely played the role of a postman. And for hosting talks in Islamabad, Pakistan will certainly receive an appropriate price.
Moreover, Pakistan is in urgent need of financial assistance at this time, as the United Arab Emirates has asked it to return loans and deposits worth $3.5 billion. This amount constitutes nearly 18% of Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves. Pakistan had hoped for an extension on the loan, expecting that merely servicing the interest would suffice. However, despite repeated pleas, the UAE did not agree. Some have even gone so far as to claim that the UAE took this step at India’s instigation. Pakistan senator Mushahid Hussain even issued an unusual remark to the UAE, saying that with 43 lakh Indians living there, growing ties with India could one day lead to the UAE becoming part of an “Akhand Bharat” (Greater India). In my view, such statements are nothing but absurd. India follows the philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam -- the world is one family -- and sincerely wishes prosperity even for its neighbour, Pakistan. However, Pakistan, on one hand, continues to seek financial aid, while on the other runs what can be described as a factory of terrorism.
I would also like to remind Mushahid Hussain that Pakistan recently signed a defence agreement with Saudi Arabia; would that not have upset the UAE? Recently, Iran’s attacks were directed most heavily at the UAE, with over 2,000 missiles reportedly fired towards it. Yet, the UAE was not included in the ceasefire talks. That is why, while the UAE appreciated the ceasefire, it did not mention Pakistan’s role. Mushahid Hussain should keep in mind that the UAE is a large-hearted nation, one that even permits the construction of temples within its borders.Even Bangladesh, while praising the ceasefire, did not mention Pakistan. So, was that also at India’s prompting? Certainly not. Bangladesh’s new government has realised that leaning towards Pakistan would lead to disaster. Pakistan had attempted, through Muhammad Yunus, to steer Bangladesh towards a more radical path. However, that expectation did not last long, as the people of Bangladesh chose the path of democracy. Bangladesh’s new Prime Minister Tarique Rahman is a leader with liberal and democratic values. His foreign minister Dr Khalilur Rahman recently visited India.
After a meeting with National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, they had dinner together. The next day, he held meetings with external affairs minister S Jaishankar, commerce minister Piyush Goyal and petroleum minister Hardeep Singh Puri, and later departed for Mauritius on the same aircraft as S Jaishankar. Pakistan is anxious to know what discussions took place between the ministers of the two countries, but both sides have maintained silence. It is evident that Bangladesh and India are once again moving towards improved relations. If this makes Pakistan restless, India can do little. If Pakistan is destined to be resentful, so be it!