Realism:Failure of 'Power'

Faced with the unsuccessful war against terrorism, the visit of the US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Boucher on March 26, this year enraged the people of Pakistan. Apart from negotiating with Pakistan’s President Musharraf, both the high officials also talked to the elected Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and met various leaders of the PPP, PML (N) ANP, MQM, and PML (Q) including tribal elders. Unlike the past, the timing of the Negroponte-Boucher visit during the transfer of government amounted to the US open intervention in the political process of Pakistan.

Renowned thinkers, Thomas and Beloff agree that intervention is a dictatorial interference by a powerful state in the affairs of another state in order to extract some specific concessions—by imposing will on a weaker state.

There are number of techniques of intervention such as coercion, pressure, threat to use force and its actual employment. In this context, blockades and sanctions are also part of interference. Intervention may be open or hidden, direct or indirect.

Though under the UN Charter the states are not permitted to intervene in the internal affairs of other independent and sovereign states, yet the powerful countries do make covert or overt intervention in the affairs of less powerful countries. So, American intervention under the guise of world terrorism is quite contrary to the international norms.

As regards the threat of force, in the aftermath of the September 11 catastrophe, the US former Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage had threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" unless it joined the fight against Al-Qaeda. President Musharraf acted upon the principles of ‘realpolitik’ and joined the American anti-terrorism enterprise as the country has been facing hostile factor of India, besides political and economic crises. In the latest threat, CIA Director said on March 30, this year that Al Oaeda fighters have turned Pakistan’s “tribal areas into safe havens” and   the US “has interest in targeting the border region” between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

According to Lawrence, “the essence of intervention is actual employment of force, in case the dictates of the intervening power are disregarded”. Invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition in 2003 presents a worst example of such an open intervention.

Another dimension of the US intervention is the economic one. Being a less developed state, Pakistan has depended upon American aid from 1950s till today. Without any doubt economic dependence has brought political dependence in its wake.  

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, in the uni-polar world, the US remains the lone superpower and Pakistan has become more vulnerable to the demands of Washington. America has imposed its terms of globalization on Pakistan without bothering for any adverse impact on the economy of the latter.

Besides, global financial institutes like IMF and World Bank which are under the control of the West have also been used by Washington to interfere indirectly in the affairs of Islamabad. In the second tenure of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan was going to be declared default in connection with the foreign debt, but was saved temporarily. Nevertheless, dependence upon America continued but events of the 9/11 again relieved the country from default. And the US sanctioned aid to support Pakistan due to its role as a frontline state against war on terror.   US has pumped 12.28 billion dollars military and economic aid into Pakistan since 2002.

While, the two US senior visiting diplomats also held talks with the tribal elders of Khyber Agency to discuss a new package of 750 million dollars from Washington to the region.    

However, the developments in the last week of March, 2008 are of critical importance regarding American incursion in Pakistan. In this respect, on March 26, in a press conference Boucher, the US Assistant Secretary of State while describing Pakistan “an important ally of war on terror” stated that the US would “enhance its support for Pakistan if the new government enhanced its cooperation”. One day before, Negroponte, the US Deputy Secretary of State pointed out that there are still “irreconcilable elements in the extremists” and “talks are not possible with them”.

On March 26, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Gillani told both the visiting officials that the country “desired to improve the relations” but “all key policy decisions will be made through parliament”. Almost similar opinion was expressed by other two coalition leaders, Nawaz Sharif of PML (N) and Asfandyar Wali Khan of ANP in some tough words.

Meanwhile, Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani had already explained on March 6, 2008 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”.

Nevertheless, all the statements of the civil and military leaders show that American unilateral open intervention has produced negative impact on Pakistan in the past. Now, the US will not be allowed to violate the sovereign right of Pakistan as an independent state. Despite its cooperation with America, the new coalition government in the country has decided to review its policy towards war against terrorism—by negotiating with the militants instead of using force in resolving this sensitive issue.

The US news intelligence service, Stratfor indicated on March 25, 2008 that the new political forces of Pakistan “cannot afford to dismiss national sentiment in policy-making” and can be expected “to derive a hard bargaining with Washington on the parameters of counterterrorism cooperation”. It also disclosed that “in turn, Washington which has extensive experience in dealing with Pakistani leaders and rulers will try to exploit differences among various stakeholders in the new regime to secure the goals”

In fact, the situation has entirely changed. Now, it must be a matter of mutual dependence between Pak-US relationship. If Pakistan needs aid from America, the latter also requires the support of the former for war against terrorism. Our leadership should know that the US has badly entangled in a prolonged anti-terrorism enterprise on global level, which has reduced its leverage of bargaining. In these circumstances, any unjustified meddling by Washington will be counterproductive as our country is already facing instability in wake of a continued suicide bombings in 2008.

At this juncture, our political leaders, security forces and the public must have a strong unity to respond to any undue American intervention. 

The writer is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

My own article, published in Pakistan’s English daily, The Nation on April 8, 2008

Email:  sajjad_logic@yahoo.com