The Nato supply lines have been reopened but the fundamentals of US-Pakistan relations have not changed. That may not stop the two sides from trying to make it work, though. In fact, knowing that there are major divergences, but also that working together is important, there is reason for both to apply themselves to the task of keeping this transactional relationship afloat.
In Pakistan, for that to happen, we must first define this relationship and identify US objectives.
Easier said. We still haven’t figured out whether the US is a friend and ally, a frenemy, or an enemy. For the Right it is an enemy; for the Left-Libs it is a friend.
Unfortunately, these positions analyse US policies through ideological prisms. They also indicate the internal fissures in Pakistan and are a poor tool for analysis that requires the appreciation of a state’s policies in terms of multiple factors, not just one — or ideological.
Take an example from the Left-Lib position: the US is trying to fight extremism that also threatens Pakistan, has helped Pakistan and Pakistani military with funds and must, therefore, be seen as a friend. This linear argument — incidentally derived from the US narrative — presents the US as a state that is out to create much good in the world by eradicating the bad guys.
But the US is not altruistic. It is a power that wants to secure the world system it created post-World War II against any challenges to the system as well as to its role as a world leader. It will do that through chaos or through aid, whichever suits the purpose at whichever moment. Very often, it would do both.
So, it will give funds to Pakistan but also put in place a spy network. It will help in the energy and other sectors but also pursue policies that could ramp up violence and get more Pakistanis killed. The objective is to secure America, whatever it takes. The cost for Pakistan — or for any other country — doesn’t matter. It would matter only if it also increased the cost for the US. No grudging this because this is how states operate.
There are two theories about US intentions vis-a-vis Pakistan. One posits that actions leading to instability in Pakistan are not in the interest of Washington. The other argues that a strong, unified Pakistan is not in the US interest.
The proponents of the first question the rationality of a course of action which, as they argue, could unleash many unintended consequences. The second school argues that because Pakistan’s strategic interests in the region conflict with the US’ and also with India’s, and because the US is also planning a future conflict with China, which cannot be a direct one, the stability-instability paradox necessitates proxy wars and the battleground will be Af-Pak and, increasingly, Pakistan itself.
From emerging evidence, the second school cannot be outright discounted. The rational choice approach of the first school can also be challenged by asking the proponents to define the optimal choice(s) of the US in the region and in relation to Pakistan. It is not enough to say that the US is playing the game for peace and stability and that is the optimal choice because very often the endgame in and of itself does not determine the course of action. In other words, if state X is playing for peace, it is neither necessary nor inevitable that it would use approaches that are also peaceful. Neither can peace itself define peace. Would the US consider a strong, stable Pakistan as a necessary and sufficient condition for peace? What if that is not the case, especially if a strong Pakistan were not aligned with its interests in the region?
This would then require playing a more complex game where, while outcomes become more unpredictable, their unpredictability is seen to outweigh the high stakes involved and the dividends to be reaped. Let’s put it in another way: what would be the ideal scenario for the US — a strong, stable Pakistan with nuclear weapons or a Pakistan sans nuclear weapons and subsumed in the larger US scheme for the region?
Understanding the game would also require defining US interests. What are they? If it’s only about peace in Afghanistan, then the US should be pursuing the talks track with the Taliban more seriously than has been the case so far. Does the coterie that rules Kabul have any interest in talking to Pakistan or settling the issues with the Taliban? So far, it is clear that it is in the interest of the Kabul cabal to consolidate the system that keeps it in power. And that means two things: continued military and economic support by the US and US presence in Afghanistan.
Threat perception is not a fixed notion and depends on unfolding situations. In theory, if at point X, Pakistan feels that in situation Y the level of threat from the US stands at nine on a scale of 1-10, at point A and in situation B it could drop to two. A simple benchmark is the capability-intention framework. States employ it to determine threats and identify counter-measures, not just immediate but also distant, not just possible but also probable. Capability is important because intentions can undergo a change, depending on situations and interests.
Add to it the fact that threat analysis is not an exercise in linearity and we have a situation where, while the US is not a friend, we need to work to ensure that it doesn’t become an enemy either. To this end, we have to devise direct and indirect policies that increase our strategic options in the region. We also have to ensure the writ of the state internally in order to be able to advance the sovereignty argument more effectively. But to do all this we have to go heavy on strategy, not tactics. Can we?
Published in The Express Tribune, July 11th, 2012.
COMMENTS (60)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Zalmai: I am not Slavic. I clarified as much on ET forums. Besides, what's the chance that someone going by the name of a Russian pioneering rocket scientist posts on ET?!
Apart from that Sir, you sense of history is all over the place. 1) Avesta are texts written by Zoroaster or that have grown around Zoroaster's teachings. 2) Kandahar is indeed Gandhara in it's original pronunciation. 3) Buddhism isn't an off shot of Hinduism. 4) And your understanding of Indus Valley civilization is wrong on every level.
@imran: Also, I think after independence, Pakistan, if it had any wise leaders, should have figured out, that its long term interests lie in being closer to all the neighboring nations- at least have honest interactions even if lacking agreement in many areas. So they should have given more priority in formulating its foreign policy strategy to India, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Possibly Russia, Sri Lanka, etc. US and West shoudl have come at second level. By trying to be duplicitous with all, Pakistan has destroyed its credibility with everyone; unfortunately that takes many years to build back. By using US against Russia and India and now trying to cultivate Russia against US, by turning large segments of Afghanistan communities against it by favoring Taliban of a certain kind, by favoring one set of Muslims in Pakistan, by missing opportunities with India, it has missed opportunities to create positive stories in the last 60 years on which more successes could have been built in the future.
@mmanna888: Rightly said. and define not just national interests first but also all your constraints, weaknesses and opportunities. Many times what-you-want has to be tempered with what-is-possible. But as you said going to the canvas and defining complete set of national interests in very important. More often, what is seen in Pakistan, is that its so called leaders, whether military or civil, just look at 1 or 2 dimensions when applying their mind instead of taking all factors into account or everybody's interests into account including your opponents.
@Yuri Kondratyuk
It is obvious that you are not Slavic because they don't troll on this forum, which means you are Indian. At any rate, don't tell me that Kandahar was a kingdom or principality mentioned in the Mahabharata or Ramayana or Seeta or Geeta.
Afghanistan is the birthplace of Zoroastrianism and it has more in common with Iranian Avesta than Indian Hinduism or its offshoot Buddhism.I acknowledge the existence of both Indian religions in parts of Afghanistan but it left a minor footprint in the psyche of its people compared to Avesta.
The Indus Valley is where Hindu influence reigned supreme and you see that influence in the culture, language and ethnicity of its people but not so in Afghanistan.
@observer: or where from the name Kandahar comes from.
@Joe Caan: You can not hide reality. God is blessing America and through America He is blessing the World. In God We Trust, the slogan is a blessing.
Excellent Article keep giving these America's illegitimate children heart burns...ehehehe
for All Indians having no other healthy activity thn to follow each post n read every newspaper online n thn send abusive,mindless comments. please enjoy the following article by the same GREAT Pakistani writer :P EAT your hearts out :P and Die if you may.... :P haha
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story10-12-2006pg3_4
@kaalchakra:
Your comments have no entertainment value. They are delusional.
Please Google the Survey conducted by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion rResearch based in Kabul. You will be pleasently shocked that almost 80% Afghan have a UNFAVORABLE opinion of Pakistan while almost 75% Afghans have a FAVORABLE opinion of India.
There is a consistancy in the reults of more than 6 yearly surveys/opinion polls conducted by Afghans themselves showing more than 75% Afghans DISLIKE Pakistan while almost same 75% Afghans LIKE india since it started in 2004.
Afghanistan has been suffering since 1975 as a direct result of policies of Pakistan. More than 10 millions Afghans have been killed since 1980, for which Pakistan is responsible either directly or indirectly.
@Kaalchakra
Unused to this good fortune, Afghanistanis promptly set about destroying themselves by collaborating with aliens with whom they have never had any relationship – Indians.
Ever heard of Bamiyan Budhas?
Know where Bamiyan is located?
Any idea where Budha came from?
And you want to talk about Indo-Afghan relationship?
@Abhi
Musharraf also said that he was told by the US that they would be bombed back to the stone age if they did not cooperate.
I remember one of the episode of daily show by John Stewart. Parvez Musharraf was the guest. Mush was explaining why he decided to support US in war on terror. He told that after recieving the threat of "with us or against us" he called all the commanders. The went to the drawing board and analysed all scenarios, and then after long discussions decided to support US. John Stewart asked "Really! you guys have to anlysed so much before making this decision?"
@author :: In your article you have left nothing to comment upon.In a question/answer mode you have said all.Except one thing that NATO supply was never supposed to be stopped.It was just a wait and see game till the people were pacified.
God Bless America and the rest of the world .
Worth repeating -- this is the core issue with the USA where large sections of Pakistan are not under your control and the militants use it as de facto sanctuary. Fix this and your issues with America will be limited to the typical "conspiracy theory" advocates.
@observer: "Sir Jee, forget defining US and its objectives.For the US is a distant alien nation. Start with Pakistan, which is here and now.
"
BRilliant post.
@Jpy: "@ayesha_khan: Eventhough Russia & India are old friends their interest in Afghanistan is different. Russia & China didnot want any US military bases in AfPak region where as India always support US presence to avoid a talibanised Afganistan which will be not in Indias interest."
I do not believe that India supports long term US bases in Afghanistan. You are right though that it does not want a Talibanised Afghanistan.A Talibanised Afghanistan is also not in Russia's interest. They do not want problems in Chechnya. In that sense Indian and Russian interests are identical.
@Observer
Keen observations indeed. Pakistan needs to look inward and repair its relationships with its immediate neighbors before worrying about a distant land.
Strategies are long term plans. To go heavy on strategies the state's stake holders first need to debate, decide, define and declare what national interests are. The absence of such consensus amongst the stakeholders debilitates foreign policy and reduces a strategic plan to a mere hands to mouth plan.
Same as women... We can't live with or without.
@sunil.the moral of the story is keep developments in perspective and protect urself all around.Either US wants peace or it doesn't,so prepare for either eventuality.the problem is we don't have too many allies in this unipolar world(india is slipping towards US prudently),so after defeating(sic)USSR,and presenting ourselves as unreliable ally to china,we have nowhere to hide. so when mass graves in kashmir story goes unnoticed,our militants connection gets front page news.but then we have ourselves to blame. so when our sharpest minds are trying to compete with boots,we can only pray for them.
@Simon:
Let's be realistic here. No reputed strategic analyst would touch this article with a 10 foot pole.
In Pakistan, for that to happen, we must first define this relationship and identify US objectives.
Sir Jee, forget defining US and its objectives.For the US is a distant alien nation. Start with Pakistan, which is here and now.
Define yourself and your objectives domestically. Are you a democratic country where rule of law must prevail? Are you interested in securing all of your territory? Are you going to guarantee the rights of all your citizens?
And then define your self regionally. Are you willing to accept an independent government in Kabul as an equal? Can you live peacefully with a country full of Kaffirs without being tempted to launch jihad? Are you interested in being part of a regional economic block?
You will find, that the relationship with US gets automatically defined. Attempts to define US relationship in isolation are doomed to fail.
@ayesha_khan: Eventhough Russia & India are old friends their interest in Afghanistan is different. Russia & China didnot want any US military bases in AfPak region where as India always support US presence to avoid a talibanised Afganistan which will be not in Indias interest. In the SCO grouping also Russia & China didnt favour any action by America in Iran worrying a troubed neighbourhood & more US presence. As for your second query eventhough US is China's largest trading partner US will never allow it to challege the monopoly of US as the only world power. That is why US & India has moved closer to contain China. Read this alongwith US strategy of keeping more than 60% of its naval force in Asia Pacific with the largest base in Australia. Same way even though China is India's major trading partner most of Indias defence policy making are china specific now .China is the potential rival for India in the next decade. BRIC is only a trade grouping to challenge the developed nations monopoly in World Bank & IMF. Nothing strategic about it. China is not India's friend but Pakistan's closest ally.
@Ayesha_Khan, Thank you for the feedback!
I liked your comment on China, Iran, Russia grouping - which is true to an extent. You are right that China or Russia climb down when crunch time comes v/s US - which is due to mismatch of their capability v/s Americans. However, SCO is one grouping where at least China is pushing it to move in Political-secutiry sphere (instead of economic) mainly to detriment of American interests.
@Mahakaalchakra and ET, Author responding to comments is a brilliant suggestion. In fact what seperates ET from other South Asian news websites - is its vibrant comments section. Making Author respond to top 5 comments may make it even better!
Ejaz's question, "what US objectives are" is not trivial. In dealing with US, we can neither afford to be Iran nor Philipines.Pakistan needs a realistic approach in dealing with US. As far as Afghanistan is concerned let them have it. If we remove US objections on FATA, US policy makers will have to confront their own glaring failures without having a convenient scape goat.
Indians comment as if they live in a western European country where there are no problems of human rights violations and India intelligence doesnt play deep destablising games in the region or indian security establishment is less paranoid than Pakistani establishment. As usual, they ignore what the author has written and try to interpret things in way to create a debate favorable to them.
@Jpy: "The writing in the wall is clear. Next cold war will be between 2 groups (China, Russia, Iran etc on one side) & US, NATO, Asean countries & India on the otherside. AF-Pak will be the battle ground."
Are you being sarcastic? - India and Russia on opposite sides of a war and Russia on the same side as Pakistan? DO you know anything about India, Russia or Pakistan's history? - China fighting its biggest customer and aligning with Iran? Please check out China's response to US sanctions on Iran? - I have heard of BRIC (Brazil Russia India and China) economic grouping. I have never heard of China, Russia, Iran grouping except in Pakistani press
Congratulations every one on discussion board. I have seen some brilliant comments on the topic and razor sharp realization in one word "Pakistan must learn to embrace the truth" Every thing will be fine.
There is no need to run around the bush. The writing in the wall is clear. Next cold war will be between 2 groups (China, Russia, Iran etc on one side) & US, NATO, Asean countries & India on the otherside. AF-Pak will be the battle ground. So Pakistan has to succumb to US pressures (including a land route & peace agreement with India) and can avail all the aids. Otherwise has to be prepared fox next proxy war and sanctions. It is Pakistan to decide
Give back occupied Indian territory to India and stop interfering in Afghanistan; all the Pakistan's problems with US and other countries will be gone.
@kaalchakra: "and of course, for the Afghanistanis living off of Pakistani generosity for decades."
In other posts I have seen you state that being Muslim comes before being a Pakistani and ummah is really important. How then can you say that Afghans are livig off of Pakistani generosity for decades? Are y not part of Muslim ummah?
Secondly, you should at least know that they are called Afghans not Afghanistanis.
Was the editor sleeping? Did he realized that audience for his paper are human beings and not strategic analyst .
@Ejaaz: This is not only Imran khan who assures Munter of a pro US stance, most of the political leaders without except are same. You are very right in analysing them. The people took a long march to Islamabad against Nato supply routes, let most of them see for themselves whose kids are studdying in States and here they are against them and Americanize even at their own homes.
Mr Haider, You have done great job of taking the sentiment out of your thought process and have given readers a glimpse of how an academic or strategist should approach international relations. Unfortunately, some of the above commentators have a difficult time understanding how one must disengage emotionally and deal with such matters objectively. Keep posting, I (and I am sure many others) look forward to your column weekly.
What is a left liberal ? Friend, are we talking about Pakistan or India - only in India are we seeing leftists being elected to Power. In Pakistan all we can see is right extreme without any leftist or too many liberals. The basis of analysis is therefore flawed. The proper analysis would be to debate whether the State policy of being in cohorts with different terror groups has run its course and should be eschewed. Subsequently you can enumerate the better alternatives that can be pursued. There is no zero sum game in diplomacy and the idea should be to create space for better choices, Claiming to stand for Peace and supporting non state actors violent pursuits in neighboring countries cannot become great strategy. Drawing complex scenarios when the matter in dispute is very simple is plain and simple escapism.
Expected denunciations from expected quarters. Ejaz Haider must be suggesting something good for Pakistan and not so good for Indians and Americans, and of course, for the Afghanistanis living off of Pakistani generosity for decades.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a terrorist is just a terrorist. Convoluted over sophisticated thinking is the enemy of rational thought.
In this wordy piece, Mr. Haider reserves his gentle derision for the liberals who, in his view, can only see the world and the US through rose tinted spectacles. I doubt that those who fall within this bracket are actually that naive. Anyway, 3 points: 1. I do not think liberals assign purely altruistic motives for the US action against militants in N. Waziristan - no doubt it is motivated by self-interest. However, the drone strikes are helping to clear your badlands of undesirable elements who appear to be well-beyond your control - so stop looking a gift horse in the mouth. 2. The cost for Pakistan — or for any other country — doesn’t matter.. It would be instructive if the writer could indicate when the cost mattered to Pakistan, which has always been a willing participant in these games that he now holds the US accountable for. 3. The op-ed begins with the subject - Define relations with the US and ends with ...where, while the US is not a friend, we need to work to ensure that it doesn’t become an enemy either.. So is the short version I don't have a clue?
This so-called analysis ignores one very important fact. It is that Pakistan is economically, politically and militarily punching above its weight in regional and global matters. That leaves it with only the 'use of terrorists as tools of its foreign policy' as bargainable nuisance value. The danger of this policy is that it is bound to destroy Pakistan first before it seriously affects India or the US.
@kaalchakra: Are you serious? This guy is your sharpest?
The writer attributes theories at best, shaky, to the 'left-lib' and the 'right' ( I wonder why he didn't use right-hawks) rather than owning them up as his own. It indicates that he himself is not sure of what he is saying and it comes through loud and clear. A very sophisticated and stylishly written article devoid of any substance or heft.
@123:
This is purely a transactional relationship. Paise lau aur jhoote lau. (Jhoote, not joote, in terrorism)
This is a master-slave relationship.
Friends not;
Masters yes.
ET should encourage or make the columnists agree to participate in the comments sections of their articles/OP-ED, by urging them to respond to the, for instance, top 5 most recommended posts at the end of 24 hours of publication or submit a rejoinder based on most recommended comments. I appreciate the efforts of Ishtiaq Ahmed to enlighten the readers and commentators by his clarifications in comments section.
Columnists just dump their article without any feed back from their side after the comments though they do get feedback from the commentators like us.
Your complex analysis can be reduced to one question: The US is prepared to leave Afghanistan in peace, but is Pakistan?
If not, both peace and departure will not happen soon, and the US and Pakistan will clash. Protecting the United States, in this instance, means protecting Afghanistan from Pakistan-based attacks.
Have you ever analyzed how many of Pakistan's problems would be solved by embracing peace with its neighbors?
@ Sunil
This is what you call morally indefensible, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/09/mass-graves-of-kashmir?intcmp=239
Well written. You have pretty much summed up all the schools of thought succinctly. Every state preserves its own interest. Same applies for Pakistan. However, for that, the key debate we need to have is what is vs. ought to be the interest of Pakistan?
@Aryabhat: Well argued.
@Khan jr: Thank you for the post. Apart from the survey you quoted, even if you look at the PEW poll which showed Imran as being viewed favorably by 70% Pakistanis, you will find that out of 8 countries surveyed, in 7 out of 8 countries more than 50% people had an unvaorable opinion about Pakistan. Apart from India the others with -ve opinion included 4 Muslim majority countries (Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia) and also Japan and China. Turkey was the 8th country. While majority in Turkey did not view Pakistan unfavorably, even there more people viewed Pakistan unfavorably (43%) than favorably (37%) http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/chapter-3-relations-with-india-2/
Add to that the fact that all of Pakistan's neghbours accuse it of exporting terror (China, Iraan, Afghanistan and India).
SO the issue is not simply that Pakistan ihas challenges n its relationship with US. There is a broad global undercurrent that views Pakistan unfavorably and the root causes are pretty much the same. Internally focussed policy wonks in Pakistan making heavy strategies (as recommended by the author) will do little to change the situation, no matter how complex a policy framework grid they use. What is needed introspection about what brought things to this pass and a willingnes to undo past mistakes.
Interesting article in the classic style of the author!
While it good to employ Capability-intention critetira to USA, it might help if it is applied to Pakistan as well.
What are Pakistan's capabilities in terms of its defence (dependent on USA) equipments, Economy (Growing slower then Population growth rate), Finances (hugh deficit at Govt and External trade level), capability of its ruling class (mired in mutual differences and corruption - be it political class, Judiciary through their children at least, and Military through their Cement factories and Shaadi halls), avarage populus (low level of health and education with miopic/unique worldview)? All while added on scale of 1 to 10, make the evaluation yourself.
Now what are Pakistan's intentions? With regards to USA, Afghanistan, Iran and India? Do we hear anything but "Endgame", "Jihad", "Flying flag atop Red Fort", "Strategic depth"?
If you see the mismatch of Capability v/s intentions of Paksitan, you would notice Sir that that if Pakistan keeps some moderate intentions, majority of its issue with US, India, its other neighbours and world at large would diminish if not disappear fully!
@Sunil:
Morally indefensible? What's in there that made you conclude this?
You think too much.
We are bussy legislating survival here in form of dunal nationality, Superme course is bussy trying to make it self be counted, the army, navy and airforce are bussy printing land leases for sale.
who has the time for the crap you are talking about?
Forgeting our obsession with the USA for a moment, Ejaz Haider should try and work out why in a recent 2012 BBC poll (carried out by Globecan by interviewing 24,090 people in 22 countries) Pakistan was voted as a second most unpopular country in the world?
(http://www.globescan.com/images/images/pressreleases/bbc2012countryratings/2012bbccountry%20rating%20final%20080512.pdf)
Is it because our strange myopic world view in which we justify our insecurities under the patriotic paradigm of 'national security' and have made an international laughing stock of ourselves?
Sunil, please quit insulting Pakistan's sharpest intellectuals. You obviously don't want Pakistan to be strong.
Sir, I can define the dilemma the state faces in a simple sentence. Pakistan cannot afford to defy USA as long as it hates India and thinks of India as the mortal enemy. Case closed.