In case the United States opts for multilateral cover for military action against Iraq then Pakistan, as a newly inducted non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, will be put through a hard test. The United States will seek international support through the UNSC to attack Iraq. The Bush government already feels the pressure of growing anti-war opinion at home and abroad. Washington is continuing to lobby with governments, including Pakistan, who have not clearly opposed military action against Iraq.

Islamabad had until recently opted for a one line policy on Iraq. “We will support the UN decision on Iraq and we call for negotiated settlement” is how far Pakistan’s diplomacy has gone on the Iraq issue. In the many high-level meetings various policy options were examined. In the mid-January policy meeting chaired by President Gen. Parvez Musharraf and attended by Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali and all relevant ministers and agency heads, attention was focused on ways of dealing with the domestic fall-out of a US war on Iraq.

Pakistan’s support for a UNSC resolution authorizing use of military force against Iraq has not been ruled out. This should not be the case. Pakistan cannot support a UNSC resolution proposing a military attack on Iraq. There is compelling evidence and logic to demonstrate that a US attack will not achieve the objective of either global regional or indeed US security. More specifically it will not prevent production of weapons of mass destruction in the future. A US attack will alienate the Muslims from any international system calling for rule of law. Whatever the public or private positions of Muslim states, the substate actors will all reject and react against an attack on Iraq. Already the Western propaganda against an “Islamic bomb”, ignoring the Israeli and Indian nuclear arsenals and the dangerous doctrine of pre-emptive strikes with Muslim states as potential targets has unfortunately contributed to driving a deeper wedge among global citizens on religious lines.

In a context where the international opinion, especially in most European member countries of the UNSC, is against a military attack on Iraq Pakistan must review its policy. In the world of Internet where compelling anti war-arguments made by US allies like Germany France and even Russia are easily available to Internet-savvy Pakistanis, Islamabad’s decision to support military action would be even more untenable. Negotiation and dialogue through a multilateral channel as opposed to unilateral use of force is the preferable approach.

In Pakistan parties and groups of various ideological beliefs continue to oppose US military action against Iraq. This includes human rights groups think-tanks, lawyers organizations, opinion makers and some political parties. The most impressive and convincing opposition to attacking Iraq has come from Pakistan’s largest opposition party the Muttahidda Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). The MMA leadership met with German, French, Russian and Chinese ambassadors in Islamabad to convey their opposition of US policy. In their memorandum to the European Union, the MMA has argued that the “US-Iraq tussle has put global peace in danger.” This assertion reflects the views of the religious parties, the liberals, the centrists and the leftists in Pakistan.

We should also remember that in Pakistan there is widespread resentment against Washington’s policy toward Pakistan.

In short, Pakistan must abstain from voting for any UNSC resolution calling for military action against Iraq. The most recent statement from Islamabad calling for more time to UN inspectors and advocating a route that ensures the security of the innocent people of Iraq, is an encouraging development. Islamabad should move forward, leaving behind fear and misplaced faith in the United States as its partial security guarantor, to opt for a policy option that will protect preserve and promote Pakistan’s national security including its dignity and stature.

Arab News Features 8 February 2003