Trumped principles
Misplaced principles, particularly in international diplomacy, are like walls and walls are dead ends.
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, principles are a convenient escape for the trumped — trumped for various reasons: incapacity, incapability and simple inability to think on your feet. Don’t get me wrong: principles are good, if they act only as guard-posts defining the domain within which a people and a society must run their lives and do not become the self-erected walls that we stumble against when shorn of creative thinking. Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s presser and her brief both betrayed a serious lack of innovation in dealing with a life-and-death matter. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bowled Pakistan a deliberate half-volley to help her out of a looming predicament of isolation on Afghanistan and we tamely pedalled it away, unsure of the helping hand held out in difficult times.
I do not agree with those who claim that even as the endgame in Afghanistan looms, there is still a game on of cloaked possibilities. Each geopolitical event over its life will have various stages from initiation to its compulsive end and, just as biological death, will lay bare all that may have been secretly stowed, Afghanistan is in its final throes and realpolitik, rather than game-playing, is the final arbiter. Each knows the game the other has played in the process but, just as the reality of death stares, each is pushed to play its final and real act. That invokes realism and honest appraisal of real needs and interests, not wishes. That is what has forced Hillary’s hand and that is what should have guided Hina’s opportunity.
Hina should have done better; perhaps the shadow of Madam Secretary was too overpowering and her script rather transparent. She has the right ideas but she needs to work harder on the content. In the world of international politics and diplomacy, words couch intent yet must be spoken with a belief and ownership that belie all perceptions to the contrary. It is the moment that matters; whoever is smarter carries it. Something that guides capability in this context is ‘thinking on your feet’. The other option is to internalise the message to a point of belief. But if either is not done, what gives is falling back to the principles as flag-posts of defiance. She will need to learn fast because the coming days and weeks are going to be turbulent if anything.
For starters, there is this belatedly growing concern within some segments of the Pakistani foreign policy elite, make of it whatever you may, regarding whether Hillary meant what she said. Always counter-positing to the more popular, they challenge the consensus that Ms Clinton assuaged a number of Pakistani concerns through some deft diplomacy and bestowed, through a cultivated design, newfound space to Pakistan to pursue in what had become a dangerously narrowed cul-de-sac prior to her visit. They would rather suggest inaction till true feared colours of the American policy unfurl in the near-term. This patently lies within the realm of the conspiratorial. The schism between the possible and the probable is large and procrastination can only engender paralysis laying to waste the opportunity. The theory of logic suggests working from the known to the unknown, not the other way round. Conspiratorial is the unknown; end, like death, the only certainty.
Lest it be misunderstood, America may have latent interests in threatening Iran, minding the Pakistani nukes, eyeing Central Asian resources or containing China, and thus her desire to conclude a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Afghanistan, but then what is it that the proponents of the Fear-American-Designs propose Pakistan must do? Wait out and let the war continue so that the SOFA may never conclude and the ulterior, though still hidden, motive of America may lie unrealised? In trying to deny America the bases they seek, the logic provides America the reason to perpetuate war. We say America is confused about what it wants out of this war, perhaps it is time to just review our own standing and acknowledge the cross-purposes in our discourse. Do we want America to be denied its assumed goals and slighted, or do we wish to seek our own survival through perhaps the most testing time in our history for having been a part of an unpopular and a highly costly long war? American forces in Afghanistan will pursue war because that is the purpose of their presence; their departure, with only a small residual force remaining, will bring peace from an imposed war and a possibility of a more sustained solution based on internal dynamics in Afghanistan. Ms Khar will need to negotiate through this muddle of a discursive talkathon.
The next foreign policy challenge for Ms Khar will be the Istanbul Conference on Afghanistan within the week. The US, with a probable broad agreement from both Pakistan and Afghanistan, will bring to the table a regional compact seeking to assure non-interference in Afghanistan. It will also seek the agreement of regional countries plus others, mostly Nato, on a format of ‘fight-and-talk’ policy on Afghanistan as was stated by Ms Clinton during her visit to Pakistan. The former will include India, while the latter is in direct conflict with what Pakistan sees as a failing policy. If indeed talking is to lead the way, fighting concurrently will only harden the response from the Taliban. And yet, the space that has opened up for Pakistan after Ms Clinton’s visit must not be frittered in senseless grandstanding; it may seem principled but can only lead to a dead end, or even worse, irrelevance. If indeed the larger objective is to ensure that a majority of the American forces exit the country, the end and not the means remain sacred. Misplaced principles, particularly in international diplomacy, are like walls and walls are dead ends.
The Afghan bases may in the short-term help sustain the remaining political structure in Afghanistan if it indeed is concluded under the larger inclusive determination of negotiation, reconciliation and reintegration. For the long-term, America has enough assets in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea to call on to attend to any need in the adjoining Asian regions — hence, bases are not critical. Rather than dissipate energies on the inconsequential, what is in order is to keep the sights on the final objective — cease war; usher stability and find peace. A considerably reduced American presence will help achieve this objective. Pakistan must take the initiative to lead a consensus on such a course, charting a likely solution.
That way, we will not fritter the refound space and be seen to lead the region to a stable and peaceful future. Negotiating the ever complex maze of an interactive and interdependent globalised world needs nimble feet and quick minds that are able to find ways around walls.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 31st, 2011.
I do not agree with those who claim that even as the endgame in Afghanistan looms, there is still a game on of cloaked possibilities. Each geopolitical event over its life will have various stages from initiation to its compulsive end and, just as biological death, will lay bare all that may have been secretly stowed, Afghanistan is in its final throes and realpolitik, rather than game-playing, is the final arbiter. Each knows the game the other has played in the process but, just as the reality of death stares, each is pushed to play its final and real act. That invokes realism and honest appraisal of real needs and interests, not wishes. That is what has forced Hillary’s hand and that is what should have guided Hina’s opportunity.
Hina should have done better; perhaps the shadow of Madam Secretary was too overpowering and her script rather transparent. She has the right ideas but she needs to work harder on the content. In the world of international politics and diplomacy, words couch intent yet must be spoken with a belief and ownership that belie all perceptions to the contrary. It is the moment that matters; whoever is smarter carries it. Something that guides capability in this context is ‘thinking on your feet’. The other option is to internalise the message to a point of belief. But if either is not done, what gives is falling back to the principles as flag-posts of defiance. She will need to learn fast because the coming days and weeks are going to be turbulent if anything.
For starters, there is this belatedly growing concern within some segments of the Pakistani foreign policy elite, make of it whatever you may, regarding whether Hillary meant what she said. Always counter-positing to the more popular, they challenge the consensus that Ms Clinton assuaged a number of Pakistani concerns through some deft diplomacy and bestowed, through a cultivated design, newfound space to Pakistan to pursue in what had become a dangerously narrowed cul-de-sac prior to her visit. They would rather suggest inaction till true feared colours of the American policy unfurl in the near-term. This patently lies within the realm of the conspiratorial. The schism between the possible and the probable is large and procrastination can only engender paralysis laying to waste the opportunity. The theory of logic suggests working from the known to the unknown, not the other way round. Conspiratorial is the unknown; end, like death, the only certainty.
Lest it be misunderstood, America may have latent interests in threatening Iran, minding the Pakistani nukes, eyeing Central Asian resources or containing China, and thus her desire to conclude a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Afghanistan, but then what is it that the proponents of the Fear-American-Designs propose Pakistan must do? Wait out and let the war continue so that the SOFA may never conclude and the ulterior, though still hidden, motive of America may lie unrealised? In trying to deny America the bases they seek, the logic provides America the reason to perpetuate war. We say America is confused about what it wants out of this war, perhaps it is time to just review our own standing and acknowledge the cross-purposes in our discourse. Do we want America to be denied its assumed goals and slighted, or do we wish to seek our own survival through perhaps the most testing time in our history for having been a part of an unpopular and a highly costly long war? American forces in Afghanistan will pursue war because that is the purpose of their presence; their departure, with only a small residual force remaining, will bring peace from an imposed war and a possibility of a more sustained solution based on internal dynamics in Afghanistan. Ms Khar will need to negotiate through this muddle of a discursive talkathon.
The next foreign policy challenge for Ms Khar will be the Istanbul Conference on Afghanistan within the week. The US, with a probable broad agreement from both Pakistan and Afghanistan, will bring to the table a regional compact seeking to assure non-interference in Afghanistan. It will also seek the agreement of regional countries plus others, mostly Nato, on a format of ‘fight-and-talk’ policy on Afghanistan as was stated by Ms Clinton during her visit to Pakistan. The former will include India, while the latter is in direct conflict with what Pakistan sees as a failing policy. If indeed talking is to lead the way, fighting concurrently will only harden the response from the Taliban. And yet, the space that has opened up for Pakistan after Ms Clinton’s visit must not be frittered in senseless grandstanding; it may seem principled but can only lead to a dead end, or even worse, irrelevance. If indeed the larger objective is to ensure that a majority of the American forces exit the country, the end and not the means remain sacred. Misplaced principles, particularly in international diplomacy, are like walls and walls are dead ends.
The Afghan bases may in the short-term help sustain the remaining political structure in Afghanistan if it indeed is concluded under the larger inclusive determination of negotiation, reconciliation and reintegration. For the long-term, America has enough assets in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea to call on to attend to any need in the adjoining Asian regions — hence, bases are not critical. Rather than dissipate energies on the inconsequential, what is in order is to keep the sights on the final objective — cease war; usher stability and find peace. A considerably reduced American presence will help achieve this objective. Pakistan must take the initiative to lead a consensus on such a course, charting a likely solution.
That way, we will not fritter the refound space and be seen to lead the region to a stable and peaceful future. Negotiating the ever complex maze of an interactive and interdependent globalised world needs nimble feet and quick minds that are able to find ways around walls.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 31st, 2011.