Apparently a new round of discussion on strategic depth is in full swing. Contributions by Ejaz Haider and Lt-Gen (r) Asad Durrani in this newspaper in the last few days are leading the way. I agree with both of them, that it is not the word that matters but the concept behind it. And as always, there are many ways of defining a concept. I would therefore like to add a few thoughts from a European and a German point of view.
There was a time not long ago when Germany, too, was seeking strategic depth — in Eastern Europe, although Adolf Hitler did not use that term. He called it ‘Lebensraum im Osten’ (Living space in the East) and it was probably one of the most violent and unsuccessful military and political concepts in the world. When Hitler attacked Stalin in 1940 as a consequence, he overlooked that Russia had much more strategic depth due to its geography than anybody else, despite its economic weakness and many other shortcomings. At the same time, the German army was involved in fights at the western front as well. The result is known: a total defeat and the end of the German empire in 1945.
Nowadays, there is a more contemporary and more benevolent concept of strategic depth available, designed by the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu. It is based on the assumption that Turkey, through a variety of means, can develop from a peripheral state into a regional power in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is important to note that this concept has come about as a result of a very successful economic policy carried out by the leading AK Party (Justice and Development Party) that made Turkey a role model for many countries in the region. It is not based primarily on military strength. On the contrary, the AK Party needed to push back the influence of the Turkish army in order to yield the soft power, as a democracy, that is characteristic of the country today.
When the military was still in the driver’s seat, it knew very well that Turkey alone would not be able to play a dominant role and it sought close cooperation with the US and access to the European Union. Unfortunately, as a result of fear and narrow-mindedness, Europe lost out on forging this new strategic alliance. And Turkey took on another path. Critics accuse Ankara under the AK Party of pursuing a neo-imperial approach aimed at reviving the Ottoman Empire. It remains to be seen if the more aggressive foreign policy that Turkey has taken on in the last few years will do the country any good.
Post-war Germany, in comparison, was forced to follow a very different strategy. After it lost much of its territory, it had to acknowledge that it is a middle power that cannot dominate Europe. It therefore focused on rebuilding relations with former enemies through confidence building measures, economic cooperation and total restraint from military adventurism. Chancellor Willi Brandt’s ‘Warsaw Genuflection’ in 1970 was part of this new humility. As was the gesture of Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Francois Mitterand in 1984, holding hands over the graves of 300,000 victims of the longest battle between France and Germany in World War I, in the French city of Verdun. One could argue that humility and realism come easy to the defeated. Which is true. But it is also said that pride goes before a fall.
I leave it to the imagination of my readers what this would mean for Pakistan and India. But I do not want to imagine what our friends in Paris or Warsaw would say if Berlin would announce tomorrow that it is seeking strategic depth or that is has ‘long-term interests’ in France, Poland or Denmark and the Netherlands for that matter. Post-war Germany’s realistic assessment of its size and strategic requirements did not only lead to an unparallel period of more than 60 years of peace in Europe. It also allowed Germany to rebuild its shattered economy, become one of the wealthiest nations in the world and gain back its unity after 45 painful years of division. This is much more than we could have hoped for.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 27th, 2011.
COMMENTS (35)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Khan
Bal Thackeray at the most represents less than 1% of India's population and that too in some parts of one state Maharashtra.It's ingenious to peddle his views as that of Indians.
@Nadir: You are insane to say Pakistanis admire Hitler, the last I remember India was parading around the swastika with Mr. Bal Thackeray openly saying on national airwaves that he admires Hitler. Despite the fact that Hitler would classify Thackeray as 'gas chamber' material.
@You Said It:
Dear, the question is on Kashmir, and so your tacitly admitting what Arundhati Roy said was right.
No wonder the slogan in Kashmir - Pakistan say rishtaa kya,la ilaaha ilaalaah is real. ! LOL.
@Usman S
A. The tons of Indian made sophisticated arms/ammunition recovered from the militants on several occasions during the last many years is enough of an evidence in itself.
It is quite possible that you 'recovered tons of Indian sophisticated arms and ammunition' and took it home to keep it out of reach of children. But in case that did not happen, can you cite some supporting report in Time, Newsweek, Dawn, Daily Times etc or does your information come straight from Zaid Hamid?
B. You may want to enlighten the readers though as to who else is providing arms, funds and training to sepratist militants and insurgents in Balochistan other than India.
There are 'freedom fighters' galore in this area. Haqqanis, Quetta Shura, BLA, LeT, Kashmiris, TNSM all are 'freedom fighters'. May be the same source is supplying to all of them. For greater clarity do a Google search for Ilyas Kashmiri.
C.why a war-torn Afghanistan is of more interest to India
For the same reasons that war torn Afghanistan is of interest to Pakistan PLUS because an Indian aircraft was hijacked to Afghanistan. Incidentally, should Afghanistan have sought Pakistan's permission before allowing the consulates or should India have applied for the same?
@Madam Petersen,
I know you mean well and thank you for that. But we are too deep into this business of 'Strategic Depth' for far too long (64 yrs on a time scale). Too old and too late to mend our ways. Thanks anyway.
India looked within her borders for strategic depth.
Pakistan looked outside her borders for strategic depth.
End of story.
@Usman
Pakistan has its embassies in Kabul, Herat, Jalalabad, Kandahar and Mazar-e-sharif. India has its in exactly these locations. Whatever works for one country works for the other.
India does not deny that it has keen interests in Afghanistan's stability, just has Pakistan undeniably has, in the same 'war torn country'. Instability there leads to problems in India's border areas. On paper at least, India sees Pakistan administred Kashmir as its territory. From that view point, India shares its 'borders' with Afghanistan just as Pakistan does.
As a layman, i concede that I do not know if India is stoking separatism in Balochistan. I am assuming that you too have no information beyond what the two governments state. Pakistan has NOT shared any evidence with the rest of the world, forget India. And that is a fact.
But as I said, even condeding that it is true, it is in response to what Pakistan does in Kashmir and elsewhere
I find it demeaning to muslims when many readers imply that the TTP or the other various taliban groups would take support from infidel India to fight against their brother muslims when it has to be the other way around
@Abdul Rehman Gilani Listen to what the Balochis have to say about Pakistanis. Listen to what the Pashtuns have to say about Punjabis and Mohajirs about Sindhis. Listen to what the Afghans say about Pakistanis. Now listen to what I have to say about Kashmir: India will not compromise an inch of it.
You can rest assured that Pakistan's current troubles with extremism and low investment/growth will seem heaven-sent, if it really gets deep into the strategic depth game in Afghanistan - particularly, when the Afghans start playing the same game against Pakistan. The choice is Pakistan's to make: it can seek peace with its neighbors or make a play for "strategic depth" in Afghanistan.
A country which can not feed more than 50% of its population, provide education to more than 60% and health facilities to a majority of its population among many others should first seek strategic depth in its own population of 180 million to emerge as a strong and cohesive nation at peace with itself. For that we have to move away from paranoia that has been built into our psyche through a manufactured threat from the east and forged history books. The Pakistani leadership both military and civilian would do themselves and this country a favour by learning a lesson written large on the pages of history: seeking a pliant state and installing puppets in Afghanistan has never worked and it never will. Alas our leadership seems so ignorant of the Afghan character and history despite their tall claims. .
THIS IS I DO NOT THE PETERSEN .
The author is talking about sane people in her arguments - even Hitler notwithstanding. Unfortunately, one of the nations in the equation happens to have a military that has been calling the shots for over 40 years. Peace to them will be like shooting themselves in the foot. The scenario that the author expounds presumes that there are 2 democracies in the fray. Unfortunately, there is only one.
@ Usman
For all the accusations of Indian involvement in Balochistan, the Pakistani government has not been able to share a shred of evidence either with India or with other countries. But even assuming that this is true, it is only a reaction to Pakistan stoking terrorism in India.
India does not covet Pakistani territory. If you look at independent accounts, the Khan of Kalat sent a note to Nehru with a signed document indicating accession to India (pretty much covering much of current day Balochistan). Nehru returned it back saying that such an accession would be unnatural. If was only in March 1948 that Kalat acceded to Pakistan
pakistan need to solve their own problems... rather than worrying about muslim brotherhood especially palestine, chechenya, kashmir... at global level pakistan doen't have that strength or power or influence to change situations or make impact... soon they realise this better for them... hidden message from world is they are not interested in your kashmir problem
@BruteForce:
Listen to what Arundhati Roy has to say about indian-occupied Kashmir , before even uttering one word about Pakistan forgetting Kashmir.
Intentions behind this essay are pro humanity, the writer is a kind heart genius of her age and deserves congrats for writing such an excellent essay.
Abdur Raziq
Nice view madam...but dont you think that condition is different now in south asia...when germany remember all those bitter times...then it is part of assault by NATO why it is not negating some of their bad steps...
You are absolutely right when you say that its the term not the term which matters but what people ignore is the context as well. Since the partition and even before that state of Afghanistan was hostile towards todays Pakistan .The main issue has always been the Durand Line which was never recognised by any Afghan Governemnt. When Paksitan was born Afghanistan supported nationalists in its bordering region and caused all sorts of trouble which continued till 1971. The cessation of East Pakistan and threat being posed by USSR enroute Afghanistan gave birth to the concept of Strategic Depth. Mr Bhutto, the then primeminister decided to respond through supporting Islamists in Afghanistan as Tit for Tat The all out Russian Invasion in Afghanistan provided the golden opportunity which was siezed upon by the Gen Zia both to legitimise his rule as well as to take revenge from USSR and have a Pro Pakistan government in Afghnaistan for the first time.
The best possible Strategic Depth for Pakistan is to make peace with India, thereby forgetting Kashmir. If there is no "threat" from India, look at all the money Pakistan will save. India will not feel the need to even enter Afghanistan, thereby enabling Pakistan to not to oppose real Democracy there.
Only if the powers that be in Pakistan listen.
Madam, You may have your point of view on what strategic depth is and I have mine, with my little knowledge of history but I must say that comparison with hitler's living space doctrine is highly irrelevant. The doctrine was based on racial superiority and harking upon the glory of bygone years. It was also a reaction to the ever increasing reparations exacted by the europeans on the struggling german economy after world war 1 and last but not least it was about natural resources. Britain, USSR, US & France literally ran the entire world at that juncture of history and hitler's plans to idustrialize germany were at the mercy of the Big 4 empires. Germany could not have had access to much needed resources such as rubber, oil etc since these were under Big 4 control and not indigenous to Germany which is why the doctrine of extension of living space or territorial expansion came into being...
In urdu we have a saying "Jis kee laathee uss kee bhains" meaning whoever has the bigger muscle or a bigger gun has the right to exercise it and he can take it all, no matter what. that is what prevailed during WW2.
So tell me again what is the link between Pakistan's strategic depth and German living space...?
Britta, Although you have made some valid points, but the comparison with Hitler´s incursion into Russia does not compare with today´s extremely complex situation being faced by Pakistan. Hitler´s Germany neither had a warn torn neighbour like Afghanistan that has seen nothing but conflicts in the last three decades nor it had to deal with an ally like NATO whose conduct has so often been highly distrustful and questionable. And contrary to Hitler´s mindset of becoming the next Almighty in Europe and the world, Pakistan has not such imperialistic designs. All Pakistan has been doing in the last ten years is to avoid a situation where it is left sandwiched between two viscious neighbours. Mistakes and blunders may have consistently been committed by its policy makers, but primarliy they have been been caused by the fear and anxiety of having a proven hostile neighbour streching its influence in our backyard, fuelling all kinds of insurgency and sepratist movements with ease in a post-war Afghanistan. Some acknowledgement of this important aspect besides shedding some light at the Indian attempts and designs for the same "strategic depth" would have given more balance to your otherwise thought provoking article.
So lets ask India to not get involved in training the Afghan army or opening up consulates and spy-centres in Afghanistan and Pakistan will do the same. Is that not a fair deal? Oh wait, you only want Pakistan to not interfere in Afghanistan but India can do what ever it pleases?
There is a saying in Chinese that solving a problem brings out other problem which at times can be more difficult than the original one. One need not go too far to see how truthful the Chinese saying is. Division of India took place to address some problems of Indian Muslims. Solution led to Kashmir and water problems. Its up to the people of two countries to decide whether earlier problem was easier to handle or the present Kashmir and water problems are easier. To me Kashmir and water problems are more difficult. Pakistan tried to solve the Russian occupation of Afghanistan but landed in much more difficult problem in the process. Who knows in the process of gaining strategic depth in Afghanistan, Pakistan might land up into a far more difficult problem and that might lead to her total destruction.
Atleast Hitler took the honourable path and waged a war; here the state recruited children from poor families, indoctrinated them and dumped them in Afghanistan
Britta, how can the military offensive by Hitler on his neighbors be compared with the 'Strategic depth' being used nowadays.We don't want any of our forces to be on the western border and we respect the sovereignty of every neighbor like we have done since the conception of Pakistan. A whole lot number of countries today practice what you call the euphemism 'strategic depth'. And Pakistan's strategic depth has an altogether different backdrop to it. The population on both sides of the western border are the same people and if something happens to the Pashtuns on either side affects the other. They cant live your definition of nationhood where people on one side of the border have nothing to do with those on the other side in affairs decided by their respective capitals. Bombing civilians on either side would exacerbate the situation for both countries, after-effects of which we have seen in last couple of years.
Turkey itself is at this point in time following a policy of strategy-depth which is peaceful in every way and has main focus to counter other foreign forces in the region which include those fueling the Kurdish separatist movement in its east.The point is critics would keep accusing it for having a neo-imperial approach but we have not yet seen any military adventurism by the Turk forces and same is in Pakistan's case. Please try acknowledging this.The unity you got upon 45 years had contribution of Pakistan and Afghanistan's efforts upon inflicting damage to USSR's international reputation. So we fail to understand the double standards here when we dont talk about the strategic presence of India in Nepal,Bangladesh and Srilanka.Everyone knows where Tamil Tigers come from and why they wage war against the Srilankan govt. Comparing WW2 times with today is very naive of you.The whole tactics of warfare have changed and the region in talk here sophisticated enough in any solicited and indigenous setup that becomes itself an instrument to close the chapter of conventional wars.Now all we have are conflicts and would remain having that in future.
I must admit that the concept of strategic depth, on the basis of which the author is arguing, is sharply different than the one which is under discussion. The only relevant comparison that I could see is that of Germany under the rule of Adolf Hitler who, as a symbol of super power carried out the worst type of ethnic cleansing and killed millions of innocent Jews. Targeting a specific race/religion, in order to construct his lunatic view of the world. The application of strategic depth in the current scenario connects with the role of big powers in a region that has the history of displeasure and harsh approach towards invaders. Similarly, the first Afghan war is the classic example of the US and its allies instigating weak and economically vulnerable countries to bent their territorial integrity, in order to surrender to the strategic depth of major powers. This point alludes to the fact that major powers implement their vision through the "rules of the game" they decide at a given time in the history. The strategic depth that Pakistan is being alleged to have in mind, in fact is not to regain the historical status of dominant power in South Asian region. It never possessed that status. The military control in Pakistan always came with support/request of democratic forces and under special circumstances created by external/internal factors, the irony of fate that had surrounded Pakistani politics for decades. In the current scenario, the realistic assessment is that it is difficult for countries such as Pakistan to defend its security without thinking about the presence of hostile and unfriendly states in the region. Any amount of strategic depth is legitimate to survive in the face of potential national security threats, otherwise Pakistanis would have to surrender to other countries' strategic depth. There must be another option than “either you are with us OR against us”!
This century turn the world in new direction and i think this is gonna be new kind of world true freedom and all the past adventures, colonies, Great games and strategic depth in the name of occupation and intrest not gonna work i guess,.
The problem is many people in Pakistan admire Hitler, so your valid and well reasoned arguments will fall on deaf ears. As for "strategic depth", well the hypocrisy of critisizing other countries interfering in Pakistani affairs, while arguing that it is all well and good to interfere in Afghanistan's has never really occurred to anyone. Pakistan may bleed, but atleast we can look at our enemies in the "eye".
Madam, Thanks to Germany for freedom of India and pakistan and thanks for this good advice.
Oh please stop with these articles trying to be morally superior than us, no one is innocent in this game, you know that and we know that. May be you should talk about how Bait-ullah mehsud was freed from Batgram jail and then he wrecked havoc in Pakistan, while still TTP gets its flow of cash and ammunition from Afghanistan. Who is supporting them? May be you should start to look for the answers to those questions. Dont try to push us to the wall, Just dont !!
This piece comes as a sledgehammer blow to those who advocate punching above the weight to pursue grandiose plans in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Indeed, history always favours those countries which take a realistic view of its size and strategic requirements.
Perhaps it is time for India and Pakistan to look at this model and see how economic cooperation and integration can lead to a more influential role in Asia and the world.