KARACHI, Nov 27: Terming the relationship between Pakistan and the European Union (EU) as a “donor-recipient” one, a scholar, speaking at an international seminar on Thursday, said that conversely, India enjoyed a much better relationship with both the EU and the Middle East, and that Pakistan had a long way to go if it wanted to improve ties with Europe and the Arab world.

“The EU’s engagement with Pakistan is very limited. It is mainly based on aid and assistance. Pakistan is nowhere to be found in the European security strategy. It is a donor-recipient relationship,” said Nabiha Gul of the University of Karachi’s Department of International Relations.

She was speaking on the topic of ‘Pakistan between the EU, Middle East and India,’ on the second day of an international seminar held at a local club, organized by KU’s Area Study Centre for Europe (ASCE) and the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

Saying that even though Pakistan considers the Arab world a “natural ally” and despite “the common Islamic symbols and shared religious identity”, Pakistan has been unable to foster closer ties with the Arabs and has maintained a low profile in the Middle East, apart from offering defence training to various Arab armed forces.

On the other hand, she said that India and Europe had gone from being trading partners to strategic partners, and a senior European diplomat had described India as “one of the poles” of a multipolar “new world order.” She added that Indian interests in the Middle East were similar to its European interests, centred round market access, access to energy as well as strategic and political alliances.

India considered the Middle East as part of its “extended neighbourhood” while it wanted to counter China’s influence in the region. She also pointed out that India’s defence ties with Israel were exceedingly warm and resultantly, the Zionist state was India’s leading arms supplier.

“Pakistan has a long way to go with regard to the EU/ME partnership” as currently it was asymmetrical, claimed Ms Gul, adding that the EU-India partnership was feasible because of India’s democracy, neutral economic and political polices and a solid industrial base, things Pakistan lacked.

Exporting democracy

Speaking on the subject of ‘Differences between EU and US approaches towards the Middle East: Iraq and the Greater Middle East Initiative as case study’, Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed of Islamabad’s Quaid-i-Azam University said that the West’s zeal for democracy in the Middle East waned whenever the results were contrary to its expectations.

He said that after September 11, 2001, the Americans and later the Europeans pushed for the Greater Middle East Initiative as they felt authoritarianism was the root cause of extremism and terrorism, and posed a major security threat to the West. They thought that the end of repression and the introduction of democracy in the Arab world would eliminate terrorism.

However, he said the paradox was that enthusiasm for spreading democracy faded when Islamist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in Palestine made electoral gains, especially Hamas’s victory, as it was totally unexpected. Dr Ahmed said that Europe had provided about half a billion dollars for Palestinian democracy over the years, but with Hamas’s electoral victory this financial support evaporated.

He said according to the US, the Arab states would have to first democratise as per the Israeli model, after which peace could be achieved, while the Europeans felt without peace, there could be no democracy, specifically the resolution of the Palestinian question.

German scholar Dr Udo Steinbach, who spoke on the status of Turkey-EU relations as the scheduled speaker from Turkey could not attend, said that if Turkey failed to make it into the EU, it would reflect very negatively on the European bloc’s international future.

He said the rise of parties with an Islamic ethos in Turkey was a reformation of the country not any less dramatic than Ataturk’s, as these parties, such as the ruling Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP), had reconciled Turkey’s Islamic tradition with European democracy and pluralism.

He added that the Turkish Islamists were pitted against the Kemalist civil and military elite while there was a shift in Europe’s perception of Turkey, as previously the relationship was seen through the prism of security, while now Turkey was seen as an “energy bridge” between the Middle East and Central Asia.

Political Islam

Dr Shaista Tabassum of the University of Karachi, speaking on ‘The US and EU: differences in perceptions on the role of political Islam’, said that the United States tended to be quite rigid when dealing with Islamist political groups, while the EU opposed isolating these groups.

She said it was not correct to say that political Islam was a new phenomenon; only the term was modern, adding that the early 20th century, which produced such thinkers as Allama Mohammad Iqbal, Abul Ala Mawdudi, Hasan Bannah and Syed Qutub, was the “renaissance” of Islamic thought. She said Muslims had tried to create a single body of believers, but this had been a “prominent failure” in the shape of the Organization of Islamic Conference.

Dr Tabassum said the Iranian revolution of 1979 – fuelled by the thoughts of Dr Ali Shariati and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – was the second most important event of the 20th century after the Russian revolution that bought the Bolsheviks to power. She said it had been mostly welcomed across the Muslim world beyond sectarian lines as a victory of Islam over imperialism.

She said that though the Americans had supported Islamists in Afghanistan against the Soviets, the situation changed after Sept 11 when Islam began to be equated with terrorism. The US demonised and isolated groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, claiming they “exploited” democracy, while the EU believed that Islam should not be treated as a monolithic entity, adding that the Europeans seemed to be more sympathetic and had a better understanding of Islam.

Zafar Nawaz Jaspal of Quaid-i-Azam University, Dr Rubab Hasan and Prof Dr Tanweer Khalid, both of Karachi University, also spoke.