Due to its military, economic and hard or soft power, America and its policymakers view the world as if it is an empirical power having jurisdiction over a vast territory/states of the world; albeit with the difference that the empires of the past had to occupy and show their physical presence within the colonies under their domain which were run by an administration headed by a viceroy/governor nominated by such power. Modern empires like the US, due to the technological developments in the last century, can achieve the same impact and result due to its capacity for global outreach, air and military power, control of oceans, rapid development forces, surveillance drones and drones carrying lethal missiles and its frightening capacity of surveillance. Instead of a nominated viceroy/governor, the empire now relies on regime change and this has been perfected by the CIA, Pentagon and White House. America has achieved expertise in this field over the years (despite the Founding Fathers warning against any temptation in this regard). It has effectively and obtrusively replaced unwanted regimes with a more favourable one — be it small states in Latin America, Mohammad Mosadiq of Iran/Persia, a democratic government in Algeria or removal of Muhammad Mursi in Egypt. Even the change of some governments in Pakistan can be traced to the same Machiavellian manoeuvres by US governments. According to Noam Chomsky, though regime change is a new term in the lexicon, the US is an old hand at it.
Instead of occupying a territory, informal empire maintains bases close to and around the territory it controls. The US has various air force, army and navy bases in addition to the mysterious communication centres or spying bases all over the world. By official estimates, the number of such bases runs into the hundreds. Since the US empire is based on an informal structure no one state can feel sure of itself, other than maybe Russia or China, if it is not a part of the US empire, watched and controlled by White House.
Yet, there is potential advantage for Pakistan in this new setting. As the interest of every nation-state demands that we must first see the true picture of the world and plan our strategy to advance our interest sans any feelings of comfort or otherwise or even ethics/morality. This calls for deep analysis and study of how the empires behave. History is witness to the habit of an empire whereby to maintain a balance of power, it ensures that no other power/state dominates the other. An empire hates challenges by its ‘colonies’.
In that background, our region consists of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Recently, the US wrongly started considering and dealing Afghanistan and Pakistan as if they are one country on account of ethnic affinity between significant portions of the two countries’ communities and also due to their relaxed shared border and named its policy “AfPak”.
However, now that it is trying to leave Afghanistan, though after destabilising it and being aware that it has not been able to replace a force which can control the reemergence of al Qaeda and its affiliates, it has revised — and rightly so — its thinking and is now convinced that stability within Afghanistan is dependant on a stable and strong Pakistan. Many influential US policymakers, civil and military, have expressed the same sentiment. The US administration has realised that if Pakistan is destabilised due to its internal weakness or because of the US pressure to fight al Qaeda while also supporting US forces, the result would be that no number of US troops would be able to control the 200 million combined population of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Furthermore, a truly significant balance of power in the region has to be between Pakistan and India, both of whom are obsessed with each other and are nuclear states. If a destabilised Pakistan disintegrates, India would be tempted to use its resources to dominate the Indian Ocean by increasing its navy. Minus a stable Pakistan, a triumphant India would destroy the balance of power in the region. This is why the primary American strategy, for the coming years, in the region should be to help create a strong viable Pakistan. A strong Pakistan with its professional army will be more successful than the US presence in Afghanistan in controlling (though not eliminating) the Taliban in the area. This is as much a geopolitical reality as the presence of an informal empire which in its interest will be forced by events briefly mentioned above to strengthen Pakistan and its army, boost its economy and support the democratic process.
This brings to my mind the events of the birth of Pakistan. We achieved our independence on August 14, 1947 and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was sworn in as Governor General on August 15. Amongst the first countries to recognise Pakistan on August 15 was America, when President Harry S Truman sent a congratulatory message to Mohammad Ali Jinnah, “on its emergence among the family of nations”. The Quaid was courteous enough and with an eye for the future, reproduced the contents of this message later in his speech. It is also reported by some reliable historians that the Quaid in the difficult times of financial crises faced by Pakistan in its initial stages, did ask the US to play a constructive role to ease the country’s financial crisis. At that time, it was not really interested in a new country emerging on the map of the world. Today’s US is strategically involved with Pakistan. The strategy on the part of Pakistani governments should be to fully avail of the new mindset that is present in Washington and to tell it that strengthening Pakistan is key to any forward solution.
To cooperate with a country that you may not like is a patriotic duty if that cooperation results in your own country being strengthened. I hope our leaders have the will and skill to hammer a strategy, which builds up to Pakistan’s advantage. I believe the history of the moment is on the side of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 13th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (37)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@NMA: Author is not saying that strong Pakistan is not in interest of Pakistanis. He is instead emphasizing on the importance of Pakistan to the region, so it's not pointless article as author indeed has a point over which he is focusing on.
A pointless and redundant article....
A strong Pakistan is in Pakistan and every Pakistanis interest..... nothing else should matter, and we should start assessing the situation from that perspective........ Happy Independence day!
..
Kaise kaise ko diya hai, $ Aise-waise ko diya hai $ todi si to lift kara dey $ ek nahi do-char dila dey $
..
Pakistan Zindabad
@numbersnumbers: @nadir was being sarcastic. He is very level headed - based on other comments of his that I have seen.
PML-N now hoping US gives it same billions in aid as previous PPP government.
Well,everybody also knows that if Pakistan were to disintegrate,it will make sure its nukes are all used before it goes down. So it is in everybody's interest to keep Pakistan from going to the brink. All Pakistan needs to do is to keep itself safe from itself.
The future is the rising economies and power houses of the East, China, South Korea etc. No one looks to the 'rust-belt' economies of the west with their austerity budgets and collapsing manufacturing.
@ author; "Furthermore, a truly significant balance of power in the region has to be between Pakistan and India,"
But why???? why are some intellectuals so obsessed with India that they miss the vital point??? When India is several times larger than Pakistan in all terms ,be it geography, demography, economy, army etc... where is the balance???? how this balance could be achieved??? Instead the respected writer who is also an activist should rather focus on making Pakistan which contributes positively towards his own people as well as towards the world peace. Though I do agree a secular and strong Pakistan is not only in the best interest of US and India but for the whole world.....see what the non state actors have done to the world and also to the image of the country that is Pakistan....
"To cooperate with a country that you may not like is a patriotic duty" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ and to back stab it is the motto of the Pakistani Army. For deatils refer to Mike Mullen and his famous statement about veritable arms.
"I believe the history of the moment is on the side of Pakistan +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The main thesis of the writeup is presented as an article of faith with no supporting logic. Or maybe its more a Prayer. Insha Allah.
Zafar sb, similarly, if cooperating with a country you love ruins your own, isn't it your patriotic duty to reject them? read=saudi arabia
India wants Stronger Secular Pakistan
@Karachi: India would like a stable and prosperous Pakistan. The economy plays a much bigger role in shaping the thoughts too of the country / society. Instability in Pakistan will lead to activities which will bleed India.( Pakistan will not care for herself as she already being pinched due to economy) . That is why a Stable Pakistan is and will be preferred by India.
US sees Pakistan as a migraine. Why would it want a bigger migraine?
@Karachi: There can be no generalisation. It all depends on level of strength. From India's perspective, Pakistan should not be too weak, but at the same time it should not be too strong (I am assuming that it will keep operating in a default Anti-India mode). Right now, Pakistan appears to be too weak. If Americans can foot the bill to bring it back from the brink, I think it would be in best interest of India.
@Nadir: So you say "We must look Amreeka in the eye!" Hmmm, how BIG a step ladder are you going to use???
Mr Zafar seems to be living in a fools paradise. The America/Pakistan relationship is full of duplicity and deceit characterized by use and abuse.. Pakistan has continued to receive Aid while simultaneously fanning anti American sentiments. To be so naive as to think that American policy makers do not see it is stretching credibility very thin. Once the US is out of Afghanistan if Pakistan continues its dalliance with terror groups, the prognosis is grim. The danger to Pakistan after 2014 is from Afghanistan which has learnt fast from its neighbor and now achieved enviable strategic depth. Who rules there will make no difference. Unless the marriage with Jihadi groups is severed, Pakistan is headed in a single direction, beyond saving.
S. M. Zafar as a minister gave all the wrong advice to Ayub Khan (1958 - 1969) including 'Agartala Conspiracy Case'. In fact Ayub's downfall started when he chose people like Zafar as his minister. Zafar wrote several books (memoir type) --- full of illogical arguments and activities.
Mr. Zafar's premise that a strong Pakistan is in the United States' best interest and the reasons he outlines for his thesis, are remarkably similar to the comments that Jinnah and leaders of the newborn state of Pakistan made in 1947 to Margaret Bourke-White, as quoted in her book "Halfway To Freedom".
The best one can say about this is that strategic thought in Pakistan since then has remained amazingly constant.
It is obvious that Indian will not like this idea of stronger Pakistan
ETBLOGS1987
"Today’s US is strategically involved with Pakistan."
Is it really? Does the following look like relations with a strategic partner? http://worldnewsviews.com/2013/08/10/us-to-reopen-mideast-embassies-except-pakistan-and-yemen/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/16255-state-department-warns-americans-against-travel-to-pakistan
Minus a stable Pakistan, a triumphant India would destroy the balance of power in the region. This is why the primary American strategy, for the coming years, in the region should be to help create a strong viable Pakistan
So what makes you think that US needs a balance of power between Pakistan and India? This is the highly questionable premise on the basis of which you ask for US support in strengthening Pakistan.
"A strong Pakistan with its professional army will be more successful than the US presence in Afghanistan in controlling (though not eliminating) the Taliban in the area."
Strong Pakistan and strong Pakistani army are not one and the same thing. In any event, if the strong Pakistani army has not extended any support in controlling Afghan Taliban despite availing billions of dollars in the 12 years since 9/11 and in fact provided safe havens to them, why should US trust Pakistan in the future to fulfill this task?
@Author SM Zafar Esq. : . 1. If a destabilised Pakistan disintegrates, 2. India would be tempted to use its resources to dominate the Indian Ocean by increasing its navy. . 1. If a destabilized Pakistan disintegrates India will be burdened with 210 Million Pakistanis just as the Destabilizing of Afghanistan led to a HUGE influx of the Afghan Population into Pakistan. In addition Altaf Hussain has already Bedded India to forgive the FIVE CRORE i.e. 50 Million Muhajirs and let them return to India. India cannot feed its own Population and as such it cannot be guilty of Destabilizing Pakistan. . 2. India's Defence Budget will never appear in the same Proportion to the Indian GDP as Pakistan's Defence Budget is in Proportion to the Pakistani GDP . *3. It is also reported by some reliable historians that the Quaid in the difficult times of financial crises faced by Pakistan in its initial stages, did ask the US to play a constructive role to ease the country’s financial crisis. At that time, it was not really interested in a new country emerging on the map of the world. . 3 I quote from the following Article in the Express Tribune : . A nation in denial - By Yousaf Nazar - Published: July 5, 2010 . http://tribune.com.pk/story/25856/a-nation-in-denial/ . Pakistan’s founders were responsible for sowing the seeds of a client-state relationship with the US. As head of a newly-born ‘moth-eaten Pakistan’, to use Jinnah’s own words, and with little or no financial resources, he was wrong to seek a military solution to Kashmir with Pakistan completely dependent on Britain for its survival and so desperate that it requested a two-billion dollar loan from America in October 1947, negating the very spirit of independence from colonial rule. . Cheers
Hmmm...once again we end up comparing Pakistan with India's position. What benefit do we have by leaning towards USA when we can lean closer to China to meet OUR OWN objectives. Are we all about meeting America's strategic objectives? Let's hope the Americans leave Afghanistan soon and let's begin putting our country back on track by striking strategic partnerships with who we see a much better future,
Why get down on our knees to please the Americans only to be bombarded with more Drones. Can we end this obsession with getting in bed with America when we could look elsewhere for the progress of our country?
I would say let's neutralize USA by working with China and (even for that matter) Russia.
Our writers and thinkers should stop worrying about what USA wants or does not wants. they should worry about much significant issues poverty,hunger, education and enlightment.Wheather any country can retain its geographical boundries or not, the people and land are not going any were. Our objective should be to serve the people and Land. Our elders cannot keep pace with the way world is changing.The need of the time is to stop thinking in terms of They and Us. unless we Embrace the whole humanity as Us and being part of it we have no future. Today's world revolves around Universal brotherhood and not just religious brother hood. Unless we pray in our mosques for the whole mankind and not just for muslims we will continue to drift downhill. People living in Africa,Eourope and USA are as much our brothers as any one else.My expeirence has that west and all other civilzations have accepted universal brotherhood and Islam has to Follow. There is no other way.
Very poorly argued case by a lawyer and needs outright dismissal. Hon'ble lawyer is forgetting or avoiding naming the major bully in the region; China. Americans are not fools that they don't know all the variables of this equation. They know who needs to balanced by whom. They know that Pakistan and China are on one side already and can not be separated in larger game plan. To balance China, they need India. India does not need to be balanced as India's and agenda in the region is very similar to that of USA. Leave aside minor issues, India and USA have very high degree of convergence on regional strategic issues. Managing Pakistan and Afghanistan is as much US agenda as of India. God forbid, if Pakistan implodes, China won't be seen anywhere around. On the other hand India will have no option but to deal with the fall out. Pakistan does not contribute positively on any issue. Pakistan always plays negative roles to remain useful. After 2014, not many negative roles will be left for Pakistan to play. Only possible negative roles are to be against Iran or China and for that Americans will reward you very handsomely. Chinese know that Pakistan can switch roles for dollars any time. Sorry to say, Pakistan does not have many cards now.
empirical power?
@author, Sir, if you had said 'a stable Pakistan', it would make sense. A strong Pakistan by virtue of having a strong army is a recipe for disaster as you have seen for the past sixty five years. A balance of power between India and Pakistan is neither possible nor likely or desirable.
We must look Amreeka in the Eye!
Mr. SM Zafar, you based your argument on balance of power. What makes you think that the US need a balance of power between India and Pakistan, in order to keep its hegemony in Indian Ocean? Wouldn't the US be better off to strengthen India and create a balance of power between India and China to effectively dominate Asia?
Sane advice from a mature mind,but any takers for sanity in this land of blind beliefs!
Rambling article which seems to say that the USA needs to support Pakistan otherwise India will be the dominate player in the region? Guess the author hasn't figured out that India is already dominate compared to Pakistan and I see no reason why the USA would be concerned about India increasing it's naval force or any other military force for that matter.
The writer wants the US to make Pakistan strong by making its army strong. This is oxymoron at best. No country in the world especially a Muslim country is strong when its army is strong. The examples are Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and most of the Arab countries. On the contrary only after Indonesia, Bangladesh and Turkey have tamed the army did they start making tremendous progress. In fact there is not a single powerful and advanced country in the world where army is strong and running the national security, foreign policy and keeping an eye on the govt. The army is irrelevant in most of the advanced and rich countries of the world and totally under civilian control. The armies of these countries are respected and supported by their people and win the wars. On the contrary Egyptian, Syrian and Pakistani armies have always been defeated and never won a single war yet they are strong when comes to crushing their own population and civilian institutions. The main reason most Arab and Muslims dislike America is that USA has always supported their kings, military dictators and sheikhs not the people crushed under the suppression and poverty. If the US wants to see friendly Pakistan, then they would have to provide us with civilian aid only (not in cash form) to help us in education, basic healthcare, agriculture, clean water and power to name a few. All the cash and military aid from the US did not buy them any supporters, but civilian goods would.
Its Tuesday ET. I came here for Asad Rahim Khan.