Assumptions on foreign policy issues.
Monday 01 August 2022
Pakistan has good diplomats but diplomacy is underperforming. And the reasons are many. Where is the real fault? Not necessarily with diplomats because they don't make policy. Politicians do. And the political leadership aligns the interests of the ruling establishment with the national interest, not only in Pakistan but across the world. Thus the foreign policy that emerges, for better or for worse, has more to do with the rape of a country's diplomats.
This problem is more serious in Pakistan because the leadership is not only interested in its own interests but also in Pakistan's economic weaknesses and its external dependence. And it forces Pakistan to limit its foreign policy options, partly out of desperation and partly out of nostalgia and wishful thinking, to Pakistan's traditional alliances and the 'halcyon' days of its foreign policy. I.
Pakistan then gets caught up in false assumptions about the world we live in, which limit or distort our understanding of the complex foreign policy challenges we face. Conspiracy theories are the other side of the coin of faulty assumptions. All this has come to weaken Pakistan's diplomacy. Some of these assumptions have been picked up by the media, especially the electronic media, for their emotional value and potential to make a good story. This has affected the quality of public debates on foreign policy which has further damaged the foreign policy making process in the country.
So diplomats should not be blamed - at least they are not the only ones responsible for the poor performance of Pakistan's diplomacy. There is no better example of false assumptions than how Pakistan views US policies in the region. Pakistan sees US interests and relations in South Asia as Cold War. It cannot somehow rid itself of the false pride of being Washington's 'preferred' ally over India.
The strategic community and the political leadership alike are disappointed that the US is now giving 'preferential' treatment to India. It is only fair that India and Pakistan should be treated equally, they complain. TV anchors and analysts express this more dramatically with emotional accusations such as "America has gone to India" - implying betrayal or policy failure on the part of the United States. This kind of terminology distorts the discussion leading us to wrong analysis. America has not gone to India nor is it giving preferential treatment to India.
The reality is that throughout the history of its involvement in South Asia, Washington has steered its India-Pakistan relationship along two separate paths. So there is no question that America has left Pakistan and gone to India. The word 'preference' is also incorrect. Preference would have been a valid expression if Pakistan and India had been sought for the same role and were equally qualified, but Washington chose India. It would have been preferable. It was not valid or relevant in the past, and is now incomprehensible.
The reality is that South Asia has changed. Major drivers of change have been the end of the Cold War, the rise of globalization, global Islamic revivalism, and post-9/11 US involvement in the region. The region presents unprecedented economic opportunities, strategic challenges and security threats such as terrorism and extremism. Along with these changes has come the extraordinary rise of China. India has also registered impressive economic and technological progress. The US, through its unusual new relationship with India, hopes to curb Chinese power and influence in the region and beyond, and seeks Pakistan's cooperation in addressing security threats.
US interests in India are broad and strategic, while with Pakistan they are strategic and limited. It is only logical that US relations with Pakistan and India, driven by different dynamics, will have different character, objectives and pace. Thus, Washington cannot treat both countries equally. This will give more weight to India, especially on Indo-Pak issues. Pakistan needs to understand this.
Of course, one relationship affects the other and it is perfectly permissible for Pakistanis to talk about it. But to keep comparing the two relationships or to find meaning in each other or to consider them as zero sum that India's gain is Pakistan's loss.
Pakistan is likely to suffer yet another false assumption of becoming a bridge between the US and China. The fact is that the tensions between the US and China are coming to the public and if they are resolved, it will be an open secret. Both countries can and do talk directly. US Secretary of State Anthony Blanken and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently held marathon talks in Bali on the sidelines of the G20 summit. Earlier, a video exchange between Chinese Vice Premier Liu He and US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was described as "constructive".
Therefore, Washington does not need a secret channel or an intermediary like in 1971. Pakistan hardly gives the impression of a serious nation.
Let us bring forward this great historical role of Pakistan in bringing China and America together. This will help us dispel the false assumption that Pakistan can once again become a bridge between the US and China. The reality is that Pakistan only facilitated their negotiations. What 'changed the world' was not Pakistan's role but the marathon talks between Kissinger and Zhou Enlai. And Pakistan was not in the room.
China has always exaggerated Pakistan's role for its own reasons, partly out of a sense of gratitude and partly as a feature of China's public diplomacy, which has improved China-Pakistan relations. Describes. It has nothing to do with today's geopolitics between China and the US. In fact, America didn't even show gratitude. Thanksgiving is a thing of the past, a thing of history for Americans. And for them, history is not the past but the future. It has been the capitalist ideology of growth, one of America's great strengths and serious weaknesses. So Pakistan is far from their idea to play the role of a bridge with China.
As far as the Middle East is concerned, Islamabad should not expect its old closeness with Arab countries. Pakistan remains relevant, but its historical significance may diminish somewhat in light of emerging alignments in the region. Together with Israel and India and sponsored by Washington, a new economic and strategic axis is emerging in the Persian Gulf, aimed at containing Iran and limiting China's influence. During his visit to the region, US President Biden addressed a virtual summit called 'I2U2' with the leaders of the group, including the US, India, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Washington hopes the grouping will grow and eventually merge with the Indo-Pacific.
Pakistan also misconceives that its geopolitical position is of all-weather importance. It is only an asset of a stable and strong Pakistan. But for a weak and potentially unstable Pakistan, it is a liability because it increases the risk of external interference. Its value also depends on the current geopolitics which has become negative for Pakistan due to US-China tensions.
Then there is Afghanistan where we suffer from a number of false assumptions, the most prominent of which is our belief that the Taliban and their rise is entirely an internal Afghanistan phenomenon. This is not true.
The glory days of Pakistan's foreign policy may not return, but there is potential for revival. This will require an extraordinary effort to build internal strength, requiring the country to abandon policies that serve only elite interests, either with little reference to the masses or as conspiratorial. Fed up with theories. If you don't have good governance options at home, you will only have bad foreign policy options.
He was a former ambassador to Hathor, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and a senior visiting research fellow at the National University of Singapore.
Published in Verignalle pk-newsware
Comments
Post a Comment