Pakistan — in the vortex of  international realignments

Contributing Editor Vice Admiral (Retd) Iqbal F Quadir

Once again, as in 1991, the world is at a cross roads. At that time, with Soviet Communism meeting its demise, it was hoped that a new world order would soon emerge wherein peace prevailed — like it should in the global village in formation in consequence of new means of communications and developing global economy. Before that too, in the nineteen forties, on conclusion of the Second World War (WWII) when dictatorial Germany, Japan and Italy were defeated by a coalition of democratic forces led by USA, the world had witnessed a similar turn of events, a United Nations Organisation (UN) had followed creating hopes that  the world was finally rid of strife. But a severe Cold War and many large and small hot wars that followed belied those hopes. Two decades before WWII, for the first time in history during 1914-18, a war in Europe had, with the participation of colonised countries and the United States of America, become a global affair. Historians then had aptly termed it the First World War (WWI). Its conclusion saw the setting up of the League of Nations, which was the first world endeavour to regulate world affairs by means of consensus of independent states.

However, all these attempts failed to bring about the hoped for world order. Instead, after each occasion of trying to manage discord, hostilities between nations and countries raised their ugly heads in worse forms. The final to modern history, the ‘nine eleven’ horror of the year 2001, would now for ever become a reminder to all nations that the weak have as much chance of inflicting mass damage on the strong as the stronger five plus two plus one had earlier. From this point onwards, no one in the world could any longer feel safe from some deadly attack. A new era in history has been born. What shape and form the new world emerges in, might take time to crystallise but important new questions now arise, “When billions could not prevent the nine eleven, would trillions spent on similar means of obtaining security ensure peace for all, or even the strongest, in the future?” And, if not, “How to safeguard the future of this world?”

What went wrong and why? What and who’s fault led to the failure of these attempts at universal peace? Could all those organisations that were successively created, have been made more effective? Was it possible for them to have survived the social, economic and political changes that followed those wars? What future do the present world (UN and other) bodies have of their continued survival? Already, the UN General Assembly and the Security Council have become a relic of the structure that was hoped for at the time of their creation. These are some of the types of questions the architects of the future world must seriously ponder over if we are to avoid pitfalls in the coming years. Pitfalls that are growing ever larger. The world must learn from its experiences and glean knowledge for the future. Nehru, when a political prisoner in jail, spent his years writing world history in the form of letters to his daughter Indra so that in time as she assumes leadership of her country, she would be well aware of forces that move this world. Nixon wrote that history is a pointer towards the future. The Koran provides guidance by means of parables i.e., quoting  events of history for mankind to draw lessons and improve itself. Sunnah too, the guiding light for man’s daily life is a record i.e., a history of our Prophet’s (PBUH) life, and a record of his words and deeds. In Pakistan, amongst the destiny makers of the country, there is much need of paying greater attention to history of the world and of domestic politics.

World’s history shows that the three most motivating forces in the past were ideological, economic (greed for riches) and security. All international politics grew out of the three of them, either singly or by a combination thereof. Modern history, dating back to the period of renaissance in Western Europe is composed of wars, which with the emergence of merchant power and associated democracy in seventeenth century in Holland and later in England, and the prosperity and power that this new development brought to Protestant countries, the causes of wars became predominantly economic though frequently laced with considerations of security and ideological (religious) differences. However, during WWII the element of ideology changed from religion to socio-political systems, wherein the Allied Powers considered their democracy superior to dictatorship prevalent amongst Axis Powers i.e., Germany, Japan and Italy. The latter three on their part felt that USA, UK and France were denying them economic access to the Americas, Asia-Pacific region and Africa.  The cold war during the second half of the last century between the West (USA, Western Europe and Japan) and the East (Soviet Communism and allies) was a battle of ideologies between them i.e., democratic capitalism versus socialist dictatorships and their control of the rest of the world. Today, the leaders of the sole super power consider the elements of democracy and human rights, private enterprise and security in its various forms, including the undefined threat of terrorism, of greatest concern to them. Any differences with their thinking immediately provokes a reaction, which the super power turns to its advantage because of her global reach.

During the nineteen seventies, some French thinkers, appreciating the economic non-sustainability of Soviet Union as a super power, showed great concern with the prospects of the emerging uni-polar world. They felt that for maintenance of peace and good world order, it was essential to have a system of balance of power, as had been in vogue in Europe for two centuries before WWII. For this purpose, five poles of power were considered to be an ideal figure, but three were considered minimal for an effective world system. The five possible poles were USA, a United (Western) Europe, China, Russia and a United Muslim Entity, which because of the efforts of late King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Mr Bhutto of Pakistan and the Shahinshah of Iran had appeared to be a distinct possibility at that time. India, never having been a unity in history till united by foreign occupation, was not considered a reliable entity to work upon. However, today the situation is such that a Muslim unity is not even on the horizon, and though Russia, India, Pakistan and Israel (perhaps North Korea also) have weapons of mass destruction with considerable reach, all four of them require external crutches for their economic, social-cum-political or security well being. Their development into countries of any real consequence are possibilities that for the present must remain at best a mere conjecture. Though God knows best, it would seem, that for a long time to come, perhaps for as long as two decades, the United States of America would continue to remain supreme. Thereafter, China and Western Europe (European Union), if they are able to sustain their current rates of all round progress would be in a position to share with the U.S, influence in world affairs and become a balance of power player.

In this fast evolving scenario, the situation for Pakistan has become complex though challenging. Particularly, because the sole super power USA has just recently moved militarily into a region next to Pakistan that was void of foreign influence for two decades. Even earlier, parts of it i.e., Afghanistan had remained for a century free of foreign influence and at the most an area of disputation between London and Moscow. This whole region also known as the heart of Asia, containing Afghanistan and the Central Asian States with their oil/gas and mineral riches, is surrounded by Russia in the West and North, by China in the East and Pakistan and Iran in the South. However, it is the U.S. which is now bolstering her connections with this region. Militarily, directly as well as indirectly through NATO (Western Europe) and economically, directly as well as indirectly through Japan and European Union. Simultaneously, Russia, Iran, India and Turkey too are endeavouring their utmost to get into the region by whatever means possible.

Pakistan, as a consequence of failing to come to terms with itself in its half century of existence and possessing an almost fossilised inward as well as outward outlook, finds itself caught in the raging vortex of world forces. The present external difficulties for Pakistan have mainly arisen because after the break up of Soviet Union and ascendance of the Taliban in Afghanistan, it did not give due importance and attention to other countries of the region. Further, that Pakistan did not appreciate in time that the cauldron boiling up in Afghanistan was going to burst the patience of the whole world and right in its face. Pakistan also woke up too late to the fact that the U.S. had already forged a military pact with the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance as early as in March 2001 and that Russia, Iran and India were co-operating partners of this alliance. Further, that it did not take USA long, to convince Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan to let American and West European military forces have increasing facilities of diverse nature in their countries for undefined periods. Thus, over ten thousand U.S. soldiers and other personnel were moved into three CAS states even as it gathered a vast naval armada in North Arabian Sea close to Pakistan before the U.S. attacked Afghanistan on 8th October with aerial bombing and missiles. Simultaneously, USA had hundreds of its undercover operatives of different categories placed in the land of the Taliban, pin-pointing targets and organising Anti-Taliban regional coalitions amongst Afghan tribal leaders. With this type and increasing quantum of involvement; unlike that during the 1979-89 Afghan defence against Soviet invasion when money, weapons and training only were provided by USA; history shows that a disengagement even when desired becomes an uncertain long drawn process. History also tells us that military victories always create other opportunities that victors usually disdain not to avail and exploit. Would then USA be different? Very unlikely, and we are likely to see an almost permanent presence unless a reliable local surrogate is available to take care of arising US interests in the heart of Asia. India is trying hard to be the one USA chooses.

Not many Pakistani people must be aware that soon after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, one possible reason for US disengagement from this region must have been their assertion (as per US Senate records mentioned in many books) that the President of Pakistan failed to live upto one of his (verbal?) promises not to go beyond a certain percentage  of  fissile material enrichment. However, currently, there is nothing to indicate that such a situation or some other similar problem exists between Pakistan and USA except that about certain militant forces. This is being taken care of by the government. However, the complexity of the situation outside of Pakistan is the most extreme faced so far by the country. It requires delicate but firm handling of forces within and without the country. By the Grace of God, so far General Musharraf has handled both domestic and foreign situations rather deftly, and even successfully treaded over areas which most would have feared even to approach. Would he now be able to steer the country through the vortex that  engulfs the region and safely place it in a position (relative to other countries) that befits the capabilities of its people and, which rightfully belongs to the power quotient that is inherent in the state? One hopes and prays that God continues to give him the right guidance. On our part, on the part of the nation, the need of the hour is unity of purpose despite political, religious and cultural diversity. For the moment, while cherishing our personal values we cannot afford many luxuries that come with independence. May God grant us that unity of purpose and put us on the right path.