Under the EU Flag

Three Benchmarks

According to a discussion paper published in late July by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Pakistan's foreign policy is oriented on three benchmarks: its former colonial power, Great Britain; the militarily dominating United States and the People's Republic of China. The SWP explains that because the conflict with its powerful neighbor, India, has the highest priority, Islamabad is primarily interested in military political support. Washington, in particular, can provide this, particularly to reinforce Pakistan as a frontline country - earlier during the confrontation of systems, and now in its "war on terror".[1] China also has an opportunity here, because it is Pakistan's largest arms supplier and its sole nuclear supplier. Beijing is seeking, through its aid to Pakistan, to prevent further expansion of its rival, India. London is also cooperating with Islamabad in the field of repression, above all in the area of "anti-terror measures" with an eye on ethnic Pakistanis in the British population.

Economic Power

According to the SWP, the EU cannot compete at the level of military policy. Though Berlin, over the past few months, had begun to significantly expand its cooperation in military and arms policy with Islamabad,[2] Brussels' center of gravity in relations with Islamabad is still in the area of business and development policy. Therefore the EU is Pakistan's most important trade partner and the largest investor, far ahead of China and the United States.[3] In addition, the EU has earmarked until 2013 half a billion Euros in assistance for Islamabad - aimed at fighting poverty in Pakistan's warzones on the border with Afghanistan (the North West Frontier Province, Baluchistan) to help weaken the insurgency and training programs to provide a well trained work force. The SWP considers that serious efforts in military policy would be unsuccessful, for the time being, because of the EU's major powers' conflicts of interests.

Rivals

Berlin's government advisors consider an expansion of economic activities to be essential. The SWP draws attention to the fact that within a period of five years, the United States has earmarked US $7.5 billion for Pakistan's development work - a multiple of what the Europeans are providing. The EU-Pakistani Summit last June - the first ever to be held - is already a great step forward. Brussels now has to expand its commercial relations with Islamabad, if possible initiate a free trade agreement and invest rapidly in the Pakistani infrastructure. The EU is above all running the risk of losing the opportunity to China. As an example, the SWP points to the port in the city of Gwadar, in Western Pakistan, where, under Chinese direction a deepwater port for oil and container cargo is being built, that will be connected to the West Chinese regions of Tibet and Xinjiang. Talks are also underway concerning China's possible military use of this unrivaled Pakistani port.

Military and Police

According to the SWP, economic activity alone will not be sufficient for obtaining any real influence in Islamabad. The government advisors are therefore calling for supplementing the economic activity with measures to reinforce and extend the Pakistani military and repressive apparatus. The SWP paper states that this has to be carried out exactly like in Southeast Europe. German projects to build up the police structures in Afghanistan, which in the meantime have been taken over by the EU, could also serve as models. But Great Britain is already very active in Islamabad at this level. According to the SWP, London not only has numerous military advisors deployed in Pakistan - including in the hard-fought border regions to Afghanistan - but is also engaged in the training of the Pakistani police, and is maintaining a strong intelligence service presence in this Southern Asian country.[4]

No Colonial Power

The SWP writes that even if London is, for the moment, opposed, Berlin and Paris must seek to have the British police and military activities in Pakistan placed under EU control. In the final analysis, this will be to London's advantage, allege the government advisors. Whereas the memory of British colonial rule is still alive, the EU is seen as a "neutral" power. British troops and development workers would become less conspicuous as targets of anti-colonial forces under the EU flag, than under the British flag. In reference to the USA, the SWP uses similar arguments. In many ways, Washington has its hands tied in Pakistan, because of the widespread anti-Americanism, affirms the think tank, while "Europe," as a junior partner, could take over numerous tasks that the USA would have serious difficulties in fulfilling. The government advisors point out the example of the EU taking over the police mission in the Palestinian Autonomous Territories (EUBAM) in 2005.[5]

The Objective

In areas where, in dependent countries, the anti-colonial struggle is strong, making a good name for itself, allegedly as an unblemished force in comparison to former colonial powers, has been one of the recurring German foreign policy methods of winning influence since the 19th Century, when it posed as the "honest ombudsman" between the great powers. This can be continued until Berlin is itself a hegemonic power and the target of anti-colonialist struggles. By that time, it will have long since reached its objective.

[1] Gareth Chappell: Pakistan: What Role for the European Union? Comments on how Brussels could counteract a "very radical threat indeed"; Working Paper, FG03-WP07, July 2009, Berlin
[2] see also The Next War und The Next War (II)
[3], [4], [5] Gareth Chappell: Pakistan: What Role for the European Union? Comments on how Brussels could counteract a "very radical threat indeed"; Working Paper, FG03-WP07, July 2009, Berlin