1|Page

Introduction
The Jinnah Institute convened its second Ideas Conclave on July 5th 2018 in Islamabad, a
daylong public forum that connected senior international and local policymakers, thought
leaders and citizens to engage on issues currently pertinent to Pakistan and the region.

Speakers included the eminent Professor Ayesha Jalal, Professor Adil Najam, former Senator
Aitzaz Ahsan, former Advisor to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Tariq Fatemi, former
Foreign Secretaries Riaz Khokhar and Salman Bashir, former DG ISPR Maj. Gen. (retired)
Athar Abbas, Chinese Ambassador Yao Jing, Indian High Commissioner Ajay Bisaria, Afghan
Ambassador Dr. Omar Zakhilwal, EU Ambassador Jean Francois Cautain, German
Ambassador Martin Kobler, environmental lawyer and water expert Rafay Alam, and senior
journalists Zahid Hussain, Nasim Zehra, Ejaz Haider and Arifa Noor.

The Conclave was split into five sessions that covered thematic areas of Pakistan's history
and its implications, the current state of global unipolarity and the new world order, the
Afghanistan War, Pakistan's bilateral relationship with India, and Climate Change. There was
a high turnout for all sessions and the audience was able to engage with each panel during
Q&A sessions that followed each session.

The event received widespread coverage in the mainstream English press, including major
dailies such as DAWN, The Daily Times, Pakistan Today, as well as in Urdu dailies such as
the Nawaiwaqt, providing detailed event coverage alongside other newspapers.

2|Page
The day's proceedings began with opening remarks made by Amb. Aziz Ahmed Khan,
Honorary Vice President of Jinnah Institute, who lauded the Institute's efforts in providing
public forums for discussion and public debate on issues pertinent to Pakistan.

3|Page
The Legacy Straitjacket
The Conclave's first session titled "The Legacy Straitjacket" featured speakers Professor
Ayesha Jalal, and senior journalist Zahid Hussain. Professor Jalal noted that Pakistan’s
trajectory had been a result of choices made by leaders over the years, adding that the mere
assumption of our status quo as a “legacy” was an error in judgment in assuming that it was
a change route. She stressed the importance of civil society's role in highlighting areas of
conflict and the policy community in presenting possible measures for resolution. She further
noted that Pakistan’s leaders had allowed relations with the country’s neighbors to run adrift,
adding that it was impossible to have a safe country without safe borders. Our lacking foreign
policy led to frayed relations with our neighbors, and the prevalent extremism and violence in
our country was a symptom of the problem that needed to be addressed.

On progress over Pakistan's 70 year history, Professor Jalal noted that the Pakistan military
had always remained dominant, and would continue to be so, however it was also interesting
to see how each military regime had had its own requirements, and therefore contained
different lessons to be learnt from each. Pakistan had evolved through the years and the
question of national identity remained unanswered. She opined that national identity was not
a hollow slogan that could be taken out and brandished, but was in fact a lived experience,
and discounted the seemingly colonial attitude with which people were expected to respond
to what a national narrative must hold. It was imperative to make the people a part of the
process, and a lack of this inclusion would only spell continued problems of national identity
for Pakistan. It was thus important for us to find strong civilian leaders who could bring about

4|Page
incremental change in our system. To create a space for such a bureaucracy that could deliver
on promises made by elected governments was imperative, the prospects for which
unfortunately were nil.

According to Professor Jalal, Pakistan's history had been a testimony to the fact that people
make new choices based on emerging circumstances, thus always evolving in nature. The
inability to make certain choices was merely a reflection of a problem within one's own
mindset. While Pakistan's security remained important, it was equally important for us to
balance security imperatives with the needs of a burgeoning country with burgeoning
problems. Problems within every level had to be addressed, particularly those of governance
that required a bureaucracy that functioned as one, and not a pirate institution. To say that
there was an inherent problem of security was a narrow view of things, similar to the
cartographic worldview which fails to take into account the spatiality of human relationships.

In Professor Jalal's view, Pakistan remained beholden to its colonial ideas in terms of our
psychology and buildup, where she found that we as a nation were still prone to the earlier
form of government of personalised rule, and that in itself was a great tragedy of Pakistan.
Moving forward, Pakistan had a continued uphill task in terms of shaping the counter-narrative
to its negative global image, as it would continue to undergo many stresses and strains.

5|Page
After Shanghai: The End of Unipolarity?
The second session of the day titled "After Shanghai: The End of Unipolarity?" included the
former Special Assistant to the Prime Minister Tariq Fatemi, Yao Jing, the Ambassador of
China, former Senator Aitzaz Ahsan, and Dr. Adil Najam, Dean of the Pardee School of Global
Studies at Boston University. The session was chaired by Executive Editor of Indus News,
Ejaz Haider, who opened the conversation on the premise that history was not static, but was
continuously innovating, thus the world was no longer unipolar. Since the inception of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2001, its member states had embarked on a
diplomatic journey in many ways. He strongly disagreed with the notion of China's alleged
strategy of balancing American power and its objective to limit US policy initiatives deemed
detrimental to Chinese interests vis-a-vis Beijing's engagement in multilateral institutions,
bilateral partnerships, and economic diplomacy. He argued that if this theory was correct, then
the military modernisation of China and its move into the South China Sea and elsewhere
would trigger conflict, thereby pivoting Sino-American relations.

Former Special Assistant to the PM Tariq Fatemi stated that according to his analysis of
history, the phase of unipolarity was a short one, lasting from 1945 to 1949, where the US
emerged as a sole power from the wreckage of WWII, while the great status quo powers of
Britain, France, Germany, and Belgium lay in ruins. It was then in August 1949 when the USSR
launched its nuclear test where the world saw the emergence of a bipolar world, with smaller,
less powerful countries now looking towards more than one option more so in terms of

6|Page
economic philosophies than political vantages. However with the collapse of the USSR and
the subsequent emergence of 15 independent republics coupled with the expansion of the
NATO states and their influence, concerns with US policies began to rise.

Mr. Fatemi added that at present, no country's record of positive growth and development was
comparable to China's, and it was this very strength and rise of the Republic that led to
President Xi Jinping enunciating his initiative for the One Belt One Road (OBOR) connectivity
project. Furthermore, the recent trend of American politics playing on xenophobia and
exclusionism served competing powers such as China and Russia in rising to reassert their
status in the new world order. However, that was not to say that if the US and China
demonstrated maturity, tolerance, and accommodation, there was any reason for a Sino-
American war. In fact, pertinent global issues such as climate change, counter-terrorism, and
guarding international seas were issues that could only be resolved if great powers like the
US and China came to the table and figured an arrangement that guaranteed a win-win
situation to both and such a multipolar world would better suit the needs and requirements of
the rest of the world. To that end, the SCO had the potential to emerge as a forum for regional
engagement through dialogue rather than confrontation.

Meanwhile, Chinese Ambassador Yao Jing maintained that China believed in constructive
engagement and had an important role to play in the evolving world order. He further added
that the SCO epitomised China's approach towards regional cooperation, and that the basic
principle of the Shanghai spirit was a community-based approach to international relations.

Former Senator Aitzaz Ahsan however argued that the United States continued to be the
world’s leading economic and military global power, and that the demise of unipolarity should
not be assumed to be a given. Power was projected across two primary axes; the military and
the economy while a third sphere of soft power of culture was also important. Contextualising
his point of view, he stated that the US spent more on national defence than China, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, India, France, UK and Japan combined, and the $80 billion increase in US
military spending over the last year alone was larger than the military budget of any country in
the world, except for China. This put the US economy worth at $20.4 trillion, larger than all of
the BRICS nations combined. Of course, no empire lasted forever as evidenced by history,
and the end of the unipolar world was also inevitable. While the 21st century would not
necessarily be a story of American decline, it would be one of the rise and betterment of
pluralistic, embracing and progressive nations. It was important to look out for events that
could accelerate this change. Whether the SCO itself could single-handedly garner this
change was debatable, however it would provide and assist China's rise and counterweight to
America. It was important to note here that most member states had very little in common,
particularly lacking in similar values. Moreover the SCO was an alliance of shared interests
and not shared values, as within the group there are democracies and autocracies, capitalist
systems and kleptocratic traditions. He was of the opinion that while this was fine, alliances
built on interests were typically more brittle than partnerships based on fundamental values,
whereby the moment interests diverged, the alliances drifted apart.

In his remarks, Professor Adil Najam observed that China’s rise was a reality that the world
had to contend with. The rise of China was in fact a reality that needed no question-mark,
however the important question to be asked here was whether this rise would come with a
simultaneous decline of the US, or despite a decline of the US. In his view, unipolarity had

7|Page
always been a myth, and could not end for the same reasons that history could not. What was
misunderstood was the multilateralism of global norms, surprisingly mostly understood by the
US itself. It was interesting to witness the great power rivalry, and to have lived through many
of such transitions such as the decline of the Soviet Union, and now possibly that of the US
hegemony. The rise of a new power usually came with the concurrent decline and implosion
of another greater power, which added pressure on the emerging power and on smaller
countries to reconsider their alliances with one of the great powers. This realignment of
interests could also be seen in the form of the CPEC and OBOR initiatives. He held that if the
rise of China came with a steep decline of the US, it would spell disaster for the US and for
the world at large, thus resulting in the reemergence of regionalism, where dealing with our
neighbours would remain crucial for national stability.

8|Page
Warriors and Diplomats: Afghanistan War
The third session of the day titled "Warriors and Diplomats: Afghanistan War" included
Ambassador of Afghanistan Dr. Omar Zakhilwal, Former Ambassador and DG ISPR Major
General Athar Abbas, H.E. Jean Francois Cautain, Ambassador of the EU, and Former
Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar. The session was chaired by anchor and journalist Arifa Noor.

Afghan Ambassador Omar Zakhilwal remarked that "peace" had long been a buzzword in
Afghanistan, however was not well defined, and required clarity in terms of what was being
offered in exchange for to the Afghan people. He said there was overwhelming public support
for peace in Afghanistan, and that the government in Kabul was keen to engage rather than
fight the Taliban. The truth of the matter whether liked or not, was that some of the real fears
and concerns of the Taliban had to be addressed, and their expectations to be managed
reasonably in order for peace to actually prevail. To this end, equal responsibility lay on the
international community, particularly Afghanistan's neighbors in the region. He reassured
Pakistan that as a neighbor, Pakistan was more indispensable to Afghanistan than India, and
getting closer to India at the expense of its relationship with Pakistan was simply not an option.
For future peace prospects, he suggested the opening of more crossing points on the Af-Pak
border, the Durand Line.

Former DG ISPR Athar Abbas reiterated that Pakistan always supported the Afghans since
the Soviet War, however the bilateral relationship turned sour after 9/11. Pakistan had been

9|Page
hard-hit by the Afghan War, having paid for the US invasion in over 70 thousand lives of
Pakistani soldiers and officers, as well as in lost time, however there had always been ongoing
bilateral and multilateral efforts made towards peace and reconciliation of the Afghans. Strong
evidence suggested that any terrorism on Pakistani soil originated from Afghanistan, with or
without the involvement of Baloch nationalist dissidents or covert Indian actors. This was also
evidenced by India's "three pronged approach" towards Pakistan that involved covert action,
diplomatic isolation, and a hot and active Lince of Control (LOC). Negative forces had
simultaneously been at play to sabotage the peace process and dialogue outcome, and
Pakistan remained steadfast in its commitment towards identifying and countering them. Here,
it was important to identify both state and non-state actors that were responsible for
undermining the peace process. He further identified that increased Indian involvement in
Afghanistan would exacerbate tensions and create more chaos in the region, and pointed to
Iranian interests in seeing a stable US presence in Afghanistan. Acknowledging the autonomy
of the Afghan Taliban, Gen. Athar Abbas commented on their significance in the Afghan
landscape and their potential role in the dialogue process.

EU Ambassador Jean Francois Cautain said that the EU was willing to play its role to
contribute to peace in Afghanistan, and expressed appreciation towards the recent APAPS
framework as a model that could advance bilateral ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
He also shed light on the existing aid that the EU had been providing to Afghanistan in
rebuilding the war-torn country, being its largest provider of aid, emphasising the role that the
EU would continue to play in supporting peace and reconciliation in the region.

Former Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar commended Afghanistan's intent to move forward
and expressed his support towards their peace and reconciliation. While Pakistan and
Afghanistan did not have a model relationship, it was a significant and symbolic one, as
evidenced by their bilateral history. It was important to acknowledge the role that Afghanistan
played in the wars of 1965 and 1971, remaining positive towards Pakistan and not exploiting
our position at the time. This of course also called for due acknowledgement of the role that
Pakistan played in aiding Afghanistan get rid of Soviet occupation. Moving forward, the
situation could be dealt in two ways: one, it was of foremost importance to put our own house
in order, then subsequently target all dissidents from within. The second approach to take
would work on the premise of mutual sincerity between Pakistan and Afghanistan, without any
third party involvement. This was not to say that India could be excluded from the picture,
however its involvement could not be exaggerated. He reinforced that bilateral dialogue could
only be conducted in a peaceful manner on the basis of mutual honor and integrity.

10 | P a g e
The Eastern Question
The fourth session of the day included Former Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, High
Commissioner of India Ajay Bisaria, Professor of History Ayesha Jalal, and Former National
Security Advisor Nasser Janjua. The session was moderated by senior journalist and author
Nasim Zehra, who opened the session to the panel by asking the panelists to comment on
how Pakistan's bilateral relationship with its eastern neighbor seemingly panned in the future.

In her remarks on the topic, Professor Ayesha Jalal reiterated that history was a methodology
not only to study one’s past but also to understand their present. In her view, borders merely
existed on maps and in our minds, and one of the greatest results of Partition had been the
creation of these lines between our people. Pakistan's bilateral relationship with India had
been defined through the battles it had fought over territory, thereby remaining a cartographic
space. This dehumanisation of history and narratives remained problematic as the people who
occupied space and territory could not be left out of the conversation. Similarly, from Pakistan's
point of view, there was no denying that the Af-Pak relationship was troubled throughout its
history, back to 1977 and the issue of the Durand Line, which has remained a disputed border
demarcation issue.

Former Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir commented on the nature of history and the
coexistence of disputes and acrimony, questioning if there existed within India and Pakistan
the political will to move beyond the political logjam towards a better future. He suggested that

11 | P a g e
India and Pakistan should consolidate the ceasefire along the Line of Control (LOC) and seek
to advance existing mechanisms for normalising relations, including a liberalisation of the the
visa regime. Additionally, joint agreements could also be signed alongside the NAP, and joint
efforts made towards addressing humanitarian, visa, trade, and travel related issues. In order
for all of this to work however, it was pertinent to move forward on the basis of immutable
principles of sovereign equality, mutual respect and benefit.

Indian High Commissioner Ajay Bisaria recapped the timeline of Indo-Pak relations since
partition, and noted that while the events of 9/11 changed the entire world order, our bilateral
relations did briefly recover after that point in time. India's foreign policy was driven by its
economy, thereby improving and building on its regional relationships and cooperation. He
commended backchannel diplomacy and track two dialogues for the headway they had made
recently in the currently held LOC ceasefire, as well as the end to harassment of diplomats. In
order to secure a more positive bilateral relationship, normalising our trade relationship was
imperative, and greater economic connectivity between Afghanistan, Iran, India, Pakistan,
would benefit the region at large. He stressed the importance of collaboration, and not conflict.
He urged Pakistan to learn from the India-China bilateral relationship template, where the two
countries managed dialogue despite a history of conflict.

In his remarks, Former NSA Nasser Janjua was of the view that both India and Pakistan had
nurtured the hostile relationship, growing further embattled with each other over our 70 year
history. The Eastern Question was not a stand-alone issue, and had to be addressed in totality
with the West, North and South, due to our linkages with global power politics today. The rise
of China and Russia as revisionist powers had its implications on us in the global south, and
was therefore imperative for India and Pakistan to first address their bilateral relationship, and
then look towards the broader region.

12 | P a g e
Climate Security: Is Pakistan Prepared?
The final session of the day titled "Climate Security: Is Pakistan Prepared?" included German
Ambassador Martin Kobler and Dr. Adil Najam. The session was chaired by water specialist
Ahmad Rafay Alam, who opened with his remarks on Pakistan's pressing water shortage and
current flooding in Punjab, that evidently lacked any coping mechanisms in such drastic
climatic events.

The German Ambassador Martin Kobler said that climate change and its impact did not stop
at borders, and it was therefore just as important for Germany and the rest of the world for
Pakistan and India to address their shared challenge of water security and climate change. In
particular, the unchecked population growth of both countries was troubling and had far
reaching global implications, therefore divorcing the taboo from population control and family
planning was of urgent importance. To this end, he urged both countries to move beyond their
differences, in particular soften their bilateral visa regimes and partake in conversations on
this pressing issue at the same table. While he lauded discussions and deliberations on
prospective policies, he stressed that we were well over time in terms of taking suitable action
in their implementation. Speaking on his experience and time spent in Pakistan, he said that
the richness of Pakistan lay above the earth and not under it, that is, in its people and
promising youth.

13 | P a g e
Dr. Adil Najam said that a nation's security was not limited to traditional aspects of security,
however to stress the importance of climate change and preparedness was not to undermine
the former. Water was the biggest shared security challenge for both Pakistan and India, and
while two neighboring countries could negotiate over it over their minimum shared bond, there
was no negotiating with climate change. The threats posed by this phenomenon were
unrelenting and would only worsen with the passage of time. Military preparedness was just
as important when talking about our ability to tackle climate change. Pakistan was entering its
11th consecutive year of flooding and this pointed to an alarming gap in our security measures.
Climate change was most discriminatory between the rich and the poor, whereby the price for
it would be paid by the poorest people and the poorest countries of the world. This was an
unfortunate fault of the inequity of our lives. He stated that Pakistan's position among the G77
countries had remained strong until the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, and we needed to
reinstate ourselves back on the forum.

14 | P a g e
President's Address
Addressing the panelists and participants at the conclave, President of Jinnah Institute Sherry
Rehman said that ideas were one of the most powerful forces known across history, and were
the new battlefield with the power to change the way states, people and societies engaged
with each other. Foreign policy had to be understood and absorbed from the ground up, and
Pakistan had to navigate strategically through its policy hurdle turmoil, all the while speaking
to the structural realities of our system. The shared challenge of climate stresses called for
immediate action, and was a topic that could be leveraged to force a positive conversation
between India and Pakistan. In order to be effective and transcend the boundaries that we
had ourselves reinforced, it was imperative to be more effective as individual nation states.
South Asia's rapid growth implied growing inequalities, which would in turn fuel tension and
violence in the region. In a world with rising hyper nationalism and extremism, Ms. Rehman
urged the audience to engage in a public discourse that endorsed empathy and sympathy,
first domestically and then beyond our borders.

15 | P a g e