Realism:Failure of 'Power'

In the aftermath of the September 11 events, when a number of states joined the US-led alliance against terrorism, Pakistan which is playing the role of a frontline state has become a special target of the American coercive diplomacy in turn. Every time, America has emphasized Pakistan to ‘do more’ against the Islamic militants especially in the north-western tribal areas without caring for any internal backlash. However, US duress on Islamabad is bringing about far reaching implications which are not only affecting Pakistan but even the sole superpower.

As regards the coercive diplomacy, renowned realists and neo-realists such as Machiavelli, Hobbes and Morgenthau, while mentioning the power as the main determinant of international politics, in form of bargaining, threats, pressure and violence strongly support the strategy of coercion in one way or the other. Particularly Schelling and Kissinger also believe in the coercive diplomacy of power and influence of the great countries, particularly of the US.

Americans also followed the realist method of coercive diplomacy in seeking the cooperation of the weak states. It was because of this reason that after the 9/11, small countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen and almost all Gulf states decided to join the Bush anti-terrorism enterprise. This was due to the helplessness of the weak sovereign states, that their own non-sovereign entities organized themselves and starting checking the US-led powerful allies in another way. Power has also been employed by the Islamic activists in such a manner that even the most powerful nation like the United States has become the least powerful. Stiff and prolonged resistance of the Islamic activists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine and Kashmir might be cited as an instance in this connection.

Negative impact of the American coercive diplomacy on the US itself could be judged from some other developments. A number of small countries have refused to come under the threat and pressure of Washington. In this context, the defeat of Israel by Hezbollah in 2006, Iran’s determination to continue her nuclear programme, Syrian stand in relation to Lebanon and Palestine—North Korea’s signing of an agreement with America in accordance with her favourable terms and refusal of the Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez to yield to the US pressure in relation to oil supply might be cited as an example in this context.

Meanwhile, Iraq war has entered its sixth year on March 20, 2008. In his message, the US president Bush has still defended his decision to invade Baghdad, stating that international community and America are safer today than before. On the other side, democratic candidate, Obama while describing daily attack on Americans and deathtoll of 4000 American military personnel in Iraq, pointed out that the world and America are more unsafe today.

Nevertheless, on the whole, there are multi-faceted implications of the US anti-terrorism conflict on global and regional level, which has crossed the tenure of World War 1 and World War 11. American cost of war has reached approximately 6 trillion dollars—decline of dollar, soaring prices of oil and acute recession inside the country have given a greater blow to the US economy vis-à-vis other developed countries.    

One of the drastic consequences of the ongoing ‘different war’ is that particularly Pakistan is facing a perennial wave of the suicide attacks in 2008 which has reached the very heart of the country, resulting in a greater political and economic instability in wake of the success of moderate parties in the elections.  

While, American political leaders including their media have been continuously propagating against Pakistan regarding the Afghan insurgency and cross border terrorism. In this respect, apart from previous strikes, on March 16, 2008, twenty people were killed when some missiles hit a house, though the attacker remains unidentified so far. Just three days before this event, four persons were killed by the US fire from across the border in North Waziristan. About the violation, ISPR, spokesman, Maj-General Athar Abbas pointed out on March 13 that they “fired five rounds which landed in our territory” and “we have lodged very strong protest with the coalition forces”.

It is notable that India and Karzai-led regime of Afghanistan are also American partners in converting Pakistan into a failed state like Ethiopia or Sudan so as to achieve their global and regional interest. Nevertheless, the real aim of the US diplomacy of pressure in relation to Pakistan is to create a rift between the security forces on the one side and the general masses led by the politicians on the other.  

In this context, American duress has been increasing gradually and Islamabad has been compelled to disallow violation of its right as a sovereign state. On March 8, 2008, the foreign office, while commenting on a news story, strongly denounced the US eleven proposals regarding special privileges and immunities for the military and auxiliary personnel before they are sent to Pakistan. The statement issued by the office explained, “Only those proposals are considered that are in line with our domestic and international laws”. Rejection of America’s new demands as encroachment on the sovereignty of our country clearly shows that all these new conditions were part of American coercive diplomacy.

Without any evidence, American political leaders and high officials of the US State Department are giving strong indications intermittently that Pakistani Maderassas are supporting insurgency of the Taliban in Afghanistan—and Islamabad has failed in coping with the local ‘Talibanisation’ inside her own country.  

While ignoring internal instability in Pakistan, US may demand to send NATO troops in the Frontier Province or otherwise could intensify its air strikes and ground shelling in the tribal region of the country. In this case, newly elected democratic regime will be forced to leave the US war against terror. If Washington isolates Pakistan by imposing sanctions, such an act will also cause drastic impact on the US war on terror, damaging her interests in the region—which is part of her global strategy.

Besides, any negative policy in relation to Pakistan will certainly result in more unity between the new elected government, security forces and the general masses, consequently massive hostility towards Washington. In that scenario American policy of liberalism led by moderate parties could badly fail, giving a greater incentive to the fundamentalist and extremist elements in the country. And even moderate elements could join the radical ones.

America must also realize that in case of any prospective military action in the Frontier Province, both Iran and Pakistan might stand together to frustrate the US strategic designs. Further an alliance of both the countries with Syria would make the matter worse for Washington. In this worse scenario, a vast region from Pakistan to Somalia and Nigeria to Iraq will further be radicalized, bringing about more terrorism, directed against the Americans. However, in such adverse circumstances, American worldwide interests are likely to be jeopardized, while the US has already failed in coping with the Al Qaeda-related militants. Moreover, American ‘hot pursuit policy’ could lead to clash of civilizations, popularly known as Word War 111 between the Muslims and the Christians on international level.

Taking cognizance of the above implications of its coercive diplomacy, US must abandon its policy of duress in connection with Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that being a small country, if Pakistan is dependent upon Washington, the latter is also dependent upon Islamabad for her geo-political interest in face of the war against terrorism. Hence, both the countries require a convergence of interests on equal level rather than a divergence, based upon disparity.

However, in face of the already deteriorated law and order situation in Pakistan, we will have to protect our interests by a well-defined strategy. In this respect,being a professional soldier, Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani has already determined the new role of the army by de-linking it from the civil affairs. In addition, on March 6, 2008, he clearly explained in a meeting of the corps commanders that “the army would stay out of the political process”, and reaffirmed the army’s “commitment to the solidarity and integrity of Pakistan” which could be “possible with the full support of People”. His decision has been greatly appreciated by both the intellectuals and the general masses.