Latest Trends in Diplomacy and Pakistan

Columnist Lt Col (Retd) ZAMAN MALIK examines the present process of diplomacy in as far as it affects Pakistan.

In the former times Europe was regarded as the most important of all the continents. Asia and Africa were viewed as areas for Imperial, commercial or missionary expansion. America remained isolated behind her oceans and her doctrine. No war could become a major war unless one of the five European powers became involved. The issues of war or peace were decided in the Chancelleries of Europe alone. Small powers were assessed according to their effect upon relations between great powers or were determined by their Market potentials and raw material resources.

During the last about two years, the sole superpower has been facing an increasing mounting opposition not only from the Third World but also from Pacific powers, where the US diplomacy had failed with its defeat in Vietnam in the sixties. After October 2001, the US having successfully organised the ‘World Coalition’ to campaign against terrorism has itself lost its this focus by using the ‘world coalition’ mainly for reinforcing her effort to occupy world’s oil, gas, and other precious resources for herself. Thus the US diplomacy has once again failed, and it can no longer hide herself with her real aims, behind the cover of Coalition’s skirt.

Open denunciation and threats between the nations, confrontation, unilateral action, and invasion without negotiations have become order of the day. Many of the problems diplomacy faces today, seem to stem from what might be called structural changes in relationships among nations of the world. We have seen the world divided among pro-US and anti-US nations, given the policies of the richest and most powerful that are determined in order to usurp the resources of the poor and weak countries under the direction, to a large extent, of the instinct of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’, that is based on religion, race, and colour prejudices. We have seen the absence of influence of the former colonial powers, in the Third World. We have seen all that was needed to create a vacuum of power in the Third World countries, the process of which was initiated after the murder of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia in mid-seventies, in order to deny the “OPEC’ members to use their oil as weapon of war. King Faisal was the real influence who could ensure implementation of this policy to the chagrin of the former European colonial powers. We are seeing the information warriors fighting with bits and bites along with their bombs and bullets. As a result, a sort of domino theory has come to haunt the global population. The traditional conventions of diplomacy seem to have become outmoded. Inspite of all this, one finds no better alternative than to follow a sensible and balanced course with diplomacy which has rather assumed critical importance in the times of heightened international tension.

What is Diplomacy? Diplomacy, according to George C McGhee, is defined in its most general sense as the application of human reason to resolve conflicts between nations. It can be an effective instrument for the purpose, though it ended in failures for the US, since its diplomacy met its first popularly reckonable failure or Waterloo after its defeat in Vietnam from 1960s to early 1970s. Diplomacy does not only entail the making of speeches by ambassadors or giving dinner parties or negotiating treaties. It comprises negotiations and exchanges of information and views through much needed inter-action within the regions, continents and at global level, in private or in public sector, or both, for lessening tensions and effecting international agreements or implementing international resolutions passed by the UNSC. In this, public speeches, press conferences for creating wider awareness through both the electronic and print media can play a very significant role. A diplomat has to move towards the goals set out for him by his government, meandering his way honourably through many an odd situation as his honour rests in the honour of his motherland. NGOs and organisations like HRW can play a splendid role where even the diplomat appears to be less effective comparatively. All this is part of the diplomacy. However, we must always bear in mind that the creation of information in today’s world on which we base our analysis, is limited, varying and incongruent, and illusive vis-à-vis the real facts, as it belongs to the world which is generally hostile to our cause. Our own print and electronic media managers must, therefore, put forward their well sifted and enlightening views most frequently, and they must earn the confidence of the people if they really like to be looked upon with due regards for themselves.

Diplomacy And Foreign Policy. Diplomacy and foreign policy are too often confused with each other. In many ways, diplomacy bears to foreign policy the relationship that tactics bears to strategy. The latter determines the objectives, the former the means to achieve them. Diplomacy covers all negotiations intended to lesson tension or bring about all agreements, within the essential overall framework  of what each country has to do with other countries. Diplomacy amounts to neither more nor less than trying to influence the decision-making process in those other countries. In terms of foreign policy objectives every country has to primarily promote economic well-being while preserving own national security and integrity; rather for preserving the same.

Pre-emptive Action Vis-à-Vis Offensive Defence. Pre-emptive action as highlighted by Dr. Henry Kissenger, exceeds all limits of national and international boundaries (contrary to what is accepted by the UNO/UNSC), and reaches out to embrace every spot from wheresoever the USA perceives for herself any kind of threat likely to emerge to harm her integrity/policies, that protect her national interests, according to lights of the US Central government. In the process the US diplomats in today’s world,  care only in so far as the UNO or its Charter favours their objectives. For this purpose the US reserves the right for herself (being the sole superpower), to commit aggression or acts of aggression anywhere in the world, which is termed as pre-emptive action by the US think-tanks. The whole world is not the territorial part of the US.

The offensive defence integrates strategy and tactics to defend the accepted (by UNO and UNSC) territorial integrity of a state as explained also in the doctrine of Bellum Justum. It pertains purely to defend own home and hearth – own country from foreign aggression, and is accepted and encouraged by the holy scriptures. It means self-defence, in accordance with the clear cut code of conduct laid down in the holy scriptures and incorporated also to some extent, by various conventions and courts of justice at the UN as well as in various advanced countries. Offensive defence has no relationship with the so-called pre-emptive action.

The Facts of Today’s Diplomacy. The world is hugely  astonished at the total subjugation of the Britain’s Prime Minister, to the dictates of US President G. W. Bush. This speaks rather low of UK’s stand at this moment when the world is facing the ‘survival of the fittest phenomenon’ at the hands of other US allies who are, as a matter of fact, politically far too much immature compared to the parliamentarians of Britain. Was it this sort of diplomacy that the world had to expect of this good-old master of diplomacy today; by the beginning of 21st century that broke the cover with her face showing ‘The New World Order’ written in bold letters, on its face? Having denied to implement KOYOTO and the sequence bequeathed by the SALT process, and despite the Desert Storm of 1990, by Bush Senior, the present president of US Bush junior is about to unleash ‘Desert Swarm’ to initiate the process of total destruction of the planet. The world looks at this Hitlerism with detest and abhorrence. The peoples of the world have been experiencing horrendous consequences of wars which the US has been waging once or twice in Asia, forgetting conveniently, after the end of second world war, about what all she had done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Every time she declared war, it was because of the failure of its diplomacy. Once again her diplomacy seems to have met a dismal failure – dismal because today, every other state or person possesses NBC weapons that she had created and used without any qualms of conscience against Japan, which she still continues to create and deliver to own natural allies; with far too much enhanced capability to cause destruction. It is highly unscrupulous on US part to put the baby Jinny of others back into the bottle, adopting blatantly double standards, which sounds unbelievably ridiculous and extremely impracticable. The good great governor of his state before he was put in the White House by the US Federal Court, knows nothing about the outside world. Before handing over to Clinton his father, Bush senior had said that “My dog knows, better about the foreign affairs than him”. What are the views of the democrats vis-à-vis that of the Bush senior, about Bush Junior? Instead of putting out fire with fire and thus creating mushrooms of terrorists the US could have achieved her objectives in a far better way, with sensible PR/ diplomacy. Can the US quote a single example where it did not leave her very ally high and dry to face the music all by itself? Not for the first time after defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan, (in which Pakistan had spearheaded campaign/war) had the US left her allies in the lurch, in a haste to wage the next war. The US has been waging war after war, given the immaturity of her diplomacy every time/time and time again. Or, might be, the US administrations were always being controlled and directed to act at the behest of her masters – the US purse string’s holders known as world’s greatest arm dealers and oil barons! What began at Shanghai in October 2001, in the guise of campaign against terrorism has been misused by the US to attain the objectives of her own national interests, which unfortunately is being accordingly misinterpreted by India and Israel both; who draw their inspirations like America from similar antics and abstractions and are moving at a nerve shattering speed to end total populations of the Muslims of Kashmir and Palestine, with most beastly behaviour being meted out to women in particular and the children and all other innocent civilians. This is happening in their territories where one can see hundreds of thousands of such an innocent people buried in hundreds of graveyards. And it was happening much before something like Osama were to surface in the Americans’ minds. There is one way to end the terrorism without waging war. That way demands the taking out of an earliest definition of ‘terrorism’, and once the ambiguity is removed the US will find every soul putting in his/her very best to voluntarily rise up against the curse like one person. No single super most power can overcome the menace; let it be the problem of the entire mankind which alone can resolve it. If America is sincere in saying what she does, she should let her diplomacy work for this purpose, boldly. The people of Pakistan are experiencing the nightmarish dilemma that concerns mainly the aftermath/backlash that envelops the multitude into its gruesome consequences. Besides, the people are terribly concerned with what is likely to happen to the next victim after the ‘Desert Swarm’. The lurking fears of almost everybody are about the non-availability of oil, particularly when the US/Israel/UK have gained the monopoly of oil. They will rather favour India, for using her for achieving their strategic objectives. The ‘tearing off’ show displayed by the acrobatic arrogance of Hindutva’s PM at Kuala Lumpur after addressing the Third World summit, means a lot more than what meets the eye.

Pakistan’s Policy. The policy makers should consider the under-mentioned points to assess the effectiveness of diplomacy:-

(i) Is the professional foreign service of Pakistan adequate to its tasks, given the fact that the traditional conventions of diplomacy have now become outmoded and irrelevant?

(ii) Is our diplomacy well prepared to deal with India’s Hindutva vision?

(iii) Have the media assumed the role that is commensurate with the demands of time?

(iv) Are Pakistan’s economic and security concerns being adequately ensured?

(v) In case the unpredictability and uncertainty continued to overwhelm a couple of answers to likely hazardous a scenarios, what are the alternatives available to Pakistan, how would these be taken care of and what if it poses a serious threat to the integrity of the country;

(vi) How far the future National Security Council is competent enough to handle the situation, in case, due to the enemy’s overt/covert acts, the leadership/the command post, were made ineffective with a view to installing a puppet government?

(vii) Should Pakistan also leave the decision-making process, like Turkey; in the hands of Parliament, or do as the Romans do in Rome?

Pakistan’s Diplomacy. Pakistan received unremitting and profusely bleeding wounds on 16th of December 1971. The litany of Hindutva’s ruthless genocide and other inexplicable atrocities being perpetrated on the Muslims in IHK and in Hindutva’s India, have further pierced through the same, and also many other wounds and it has caused many a heart bleed once again. The terrorism of Osama was neither visible on earth in the 1970s nor in 1987. India – the UNSC’s defiant state, is taking the shelter (for strengthening its hold further in IHK), of the world coalition campaign against terrorism. Consequently, India has adopted a most fierce stance, to flout the UNSC’s resolutions of 1948-49, with regard to right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. The ever most hardened attitude drew its huge inspirations from what Israel is doing in Palestine, particularly after President G. W. Bush entered the White House. Pakistan confronts the wrath of Indo-Israeli Secret Defence Treaty which is supported also by their natural allies – the US and UK. Owing to this reason India has lost her sense of balance, and has refused to talk to Pakistan, on any issue, particularly the core issue of Kashmir. Threat from Hindutva’s state terrorism constitutes major cause of worry for Pakistan. Pakistan must concentrate on its own security; concerns, and do the rest as the Muslim world/China are doing. 

The nation that pulls back from negotiations incurs the risk of losing credibility and influence. The side that can survive the failure of negotiations (unlike what followed the Tashkent Declaration in 1966), can hope to succeed. Major issues cannot be resolved by peaceful negotiations leading to one cataclysmic compromise. A step by step approach as suggested by President Pervez Musharraf in Agra, weighing all the pros and cons for both sides was indeed the most useful and realistic approach, but that was not accepted by the Hindutva’s xenophobia, SAARC, ASEAN, CARS as indeed the entire Third World are suffering, to the entire satisfaction of the Imperialism. Differences, disputes, issues and problems usually persist until one side has imposed it’s will on the other or passage of time and evolution of world affairs so change the international environment that the issues themselves are changed in nature or eliminated. Pakistan should not step along with any state that does not honour UNSC resolutions and ignores the need for negotiations to arrive at peaceful resolution of problems, instead of seeking ways and means to wage war.

The US has so far not entertained the concerns of Pakistan in connection with the right of self-determination, as Pakistan has done by acting as the front-line state yet again. The state terrorism or a peaceful resolution of all problems including terrorism, can be easily found out, if the US and the UN bring out a clear-cut definition of terrorism, before long. The usurpers of other’s territories and resources believe in the doctrine of Caveat emptor (leave aside the moral compunctions) only; when the same does suit their national interests. The theory of domino has also cut no ice with them. If India with the help of her natural allies persists on denying self-determination and continues to unleash state terrorism, then Pakistan should be prepared for a diplomatic confrontation.