The army and parliament
On Pakistan’s own Afghanistan policy he said: “We cannot leave both our eastern and western borders insecure. It is wishful thinking to achieve strategic depth in Afghanistan. The Russians tried, the Brits tried, the Americans are trying. We don’t have a magic wand.” But he insisted that Pakistan had special strategic interest in the country nonetheless: “We have long-term interests in Afghanistan; others might have short [terms ones]… for short-term gains; we cannot lose [sight of] our long-term interests”. About the pressure being put on the Pakistan Army for going after the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, General Kayani was forthright and honest, describing his position as realistic and not necessarily a legal one: “We have made it clear to the US that we will decide the timing of any such action according to our situation and capabilities. We have also told them that the problem lies within Afghanistan. If anyone convinces me that everything will be sorted out if we act in North Waziristan, I will take immediate action.”
As articulated by General Kayani, it is clearly a military-oriented policy focused on a war on two fronts founded on the thesis of permanent confrontation. And the general is right because Pakistan’s parliament has taken charge of foreign policy with the consent of the PPP-led government and an all-parties conference (APC) has endorsed it. Looking at the content of the number of APCs and subsequent parliamentary resolutions, the allocation of the foreign policy portfolio to the Pakistan Army is completely constitutional as endorsed by the elected representatives of the people. Not only that, the Pakistani media and the opinion of the common man as reflected in polls are fully behind the aggressive albeit isolationist stance adopted by the Pakistan Army. In democracies, foreign policy and diplomacy are the domain of the party in power because countries are normally required to deal with situations abroad, which are not subject to any settled law guiding state conduct. Conduct of foreign policy requires flexibility of response and reaching of prudent understandings to guard state interests topped by considerations of economic interest. (The only definition of ‘national interest’ that stands the test of practice is the one attached to the national economy.) Even accords signed with other states don’t require endorsement of parliament — as in the case of India and Pakistan — but if the government is weak it may devolve the conduct of foreign policy to parliament to draw strength from democratic consensus. In the case of Pakistan, foreign policy has been devolved to the Pakistan Army by government and parliament both. Hence no one should complain that Pakistan’s foreign policy is in the hands of GHQ.
No one can be happy over the confrontation Pakistan is embarking upon with the US and its Nato allies. The idea of leaning on the ‘prediction’ that the US will fail in this confrontation is unsettling, given the internal conditions of Pakistan. Even if Pakistan ‘wins’ in this confrontation, it will have to contend with a much bigger problem of dealing with local and foreign non-state actors trespassing on the writ of the Pakistani state. General Kayani says his army will clear the terrorists but the subsequent control of the pacified areas is the job of the civilians. The ‘realistic’ fact is that the army will not tackle the terrorists of a given region unless — as General Kayani explains — it suits “our situation and capabilities”. Pakistan’s ‘long-term’ interest in Afghanistan is not only challenged by the US and its allies but also by other regional states. The Pakistani narrative is not the only valid narrative. It is flawed because it is introverted and presumes the kind of economic muscle Pakistan doesn’t have.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 20th, 2011.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Like a democratic country all appointments and promotions including army must be via parliment and after open hearing. The public must know "who" are we hiring or wasting our money. With the culture in Pakistan and the "army incorporated" it is not done. One ironic observation, Pakistan has a number of close friends and none of them is a democracy, including S. Arabia, UAE, and China. However, all of its perceived enemies are democratic countries. Looks like there is a culture of hate toward freedom and equality in Pakistan, supported by the establishment and mullah alliance.
Very sensible. Is any one in Pakistan listening ??
Three Quotes from this Edit:
1."Not only that, the Pakistani media and the opinion of the common man as reflected in polls are fully behind the aggressive albeit isolationist stance adopted by the Pakistan Army"
2."Hence no one should complain that Pakistan’s foreign policy is in the hands of GHQ"
3."It is flawed because it is introverted and presumes the kind of economic muscle Pakistan doesn’t have."
So the devolution of Paki Foreign policy to GHQ is correct but the Foreign Policy it delivers is faulty. Huh?
Economic Muscle? Duh?
The editorial is right in concluding that Parliament has delegated its security and foreign policy to the Defense Establishment by its actions for whatever may be the reasons. The country also knows the Power behind the ideological drive ongoing for the last 60 years. Having countries like China and Saudi Arabia as friends has not helped at all because they have no representative form of Government, no freedom of speech and no independent Judiciary. Our forefathers fought and achieved Independence to become free and pursue their own destiny. Independence was not achieved to become slaves of Religion, ideology or dogma. Pakistan is suffering because it pursued the foreign policy of opportunism rather than principle. It offered itself like a Gun on hire to the highest bidder and sold these reprehensible policies to the people using all manners of deceit. Now there are no friends and no resources to pursue any kind of policy. Those masquerading as friends are merely vultures waiting for the pickings to be gained with the arrival of the final moment. Wise men have said "If you live by the Sword you will die by it".
The argument in this editorial is well structured, but ambiguously worded to avoid falling afoul of Paki security agencies. These are the sad straits of Pakistani media - the insane shout themselves hoarse while the sane are too meek, living in fear.
Paki military has often taken rash risks. It met 2 successes - 1948 in Kashmir & in Afghanistan. But there have also been more failures, some tragic as in 1971. More often Pak assumes that the adversary will act as it predicts, but has found its vulnerable flanks too late. Pak support for terrorist proxies hoped to bleed India in Kashmir. The blowback with radicalization of Paki society and the economic devastation was unforeseen.
No lessons have been learnt from the shifts in Paki society of the past 25 years. As Pak embarks on another Afghan misadventure in pursuit of "long-term interests", unlike the venture against Soviets, this time it will find more deep-pocketed and determined Afghan backers for decades. The world will not turn its eyes from Af. War zones are not limited to battlefields; they extend to homes and workplaces of citizens. The cost of "confrontation" for Paki society will be punitive, setting back economic development by decades. This accounting has escaped Pak's generals.