We have ‘effective’ armed forces: Dar on Pakistan’s possible position if united body is formed against Israel in ME

Pakistan has “very large” and “effective” armed forces that have proven their capabilities in conventional warfare, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said during an interview to Al Jazeera when asked about the possible position Islamabad would take in case a united body in the Middle East was formed to stop Israeli aggression.

The interview, recorded ahead of an Arab-Islamic summit on Israel’s recent strikes in Qatar and published late on Monday night, saw Dar in conversation with Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javed. who asked the foreign minister if the formation of a united body in the Middle East, away from the United Nations structure, to intervene in Gaza was an option on the table.

To that, Dar began his response by mentioning that “vis a vis UN Security Council, a mechanism could be chalked out”.

“For example, they have [imposed] very serious sanctions on countries that don’t listen to them. And that is a very severe economic dent or pain they can cause to any country.”

He then went on to say that there had been talk along the lines of “some sort of combined security force” during recent interactions among Arab nations and the Arab League.

Dar added, “Why not? What’s wrong with that? They should [have a combined force]. And according to their own capacity, own strength, they should create some mechanism. Not for aggression purpose [sic], but for peaceful purpose[s], for stopping the aggressor, for stopping the occupier, for stopping someone who just doesn’t listen.”

Where would a “nuclear-powered Pakistan” stand with that, asked Javed.

“Nuclear-powered Pakistan, obviously, as a member of the ummah, would discharge its duty,” replied Dar.

Javed then asked him to further elaborate in his answer.

In his response, Dar clarified that Pakistan saw nuclear weapons only for deterrence and didn’t intend to use them. “We have no intention of using it; it is only a deterrence.”

He continued: “But Pakistan has a very large, known, very effective army, very effective air force, very effective navy … We have proved that we can beat [our opponent] even conventionally, if challenged.”

The interviewer then brought up a recent debate at the UN Security Council where Israel had invoked a 2011 attack within Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden in a bid to justify its attacks in Gaza.

“So if now Pakistan comes under attack, from a country like the United States, for instance, would Pakistan act differently [than it did in 2011]?” he asked.

“We would not allow the breach of our territorial integrity, no matter by whom, be it the smallest or the largest country. We would respond. But I don’t see any reason why the US or any other country would do it. India did it. You saw what happened to them,” replied Dar.

Javed then pointed to the lack of action by the US in stopping Israel from attacking Qatar and asked Dar whether Pakistan still saw America as a “trustworthy” security partner.

In his response, Dar highlighted the “positive” role the US had played in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following a recent escalation between the two countries in May.

Earlier in the interview, recent strikes by Israel in Qatar that targeted Hamas leaders in Doha also came up.

Sharing his views on the subject, Dar said Israel’s reasons to attack a sovereign country were “totally baseless”. He pointed out that Qatar was mediating talks, along with the US and Egypt, for peace in Gaza when that attack happened, terming Israel’s actions “rogue”.

Dar highlighted that Israel had attacked multiple countries in the Middle East and said that international laws, international humanitarian rules and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and UN Security Council resolutions seemed to have “no effect on one country, which is repeatedly doing what it feels like”.

“That means [the] multilateral system needs very serious reforms right now … This is the need of the hour. I think the UN Security Council, as well as the UN system itself needs very serious reforms.

“The UN Security Council is meant to maintain peace in the world. And if its resolutions are just put in the bin, as it is happening since so many years — [by] Israel in Gaza and Palestine and by India in Kashmir — what do we expect from the multilateral system?”

Asked whether all Muslim countries in the world were carrying equal weight and “doing the jobs they should be doing”, Dar said Pakistan believed that no matter how big or small a state was, their “dignity and respect should be equal”.

In this connection, he also gave the example of India, mentioning that “some country had claimed to have hegemony, to be the net security provider, to be the captain of the entire region”.

But “you saw what happened between May 7 and 10. It’s all settled. The hegemony is buried,” he added, referring to a four-day armed escalation between India and Pakistan. Dar further said that military action by Pakistan at the time was in self-defence.

Answering a follow-up question, he said he believed with regard to Gaza, diplomacy and dialogue were the best options. “It takes time, but you can reach a solution when you sit at the table. But if you are not willing to sit [at] the table, if you are not sincere and have negative and evil designs of expansionism […] then you will never be sincere about the dialogue. So, sincerity in dialogue is also required.”

To a question about whether Israel could attack Pakistan next after Qatar, Dar reminded that India had tried that and Israel “gave it full support according to our information” and the “world saw that the claim is exposed”.

“We are ready. Again, I repeat, we want peace. The nuclear-armed state does not want any destabilisation in the region because that will have consequences beyond [the region],” he added, stressing the need for collective efforts for reforms in UN Security Council resolutions.

Saying that Israel and India were the only countries that did not abide by UN Security Council resolutions, he emphasised evolving a mechanism in the council for taking practical measures to “control the situation” if its resolutions were not acted upon and implemented.

“And that might require physical actions, physical interventions.”