The looming eruption

Pakistan’s leadership to look through rational lens beyond the windfalls, short term political and security scenario if it wants to avoid another disastrous effect of being a front line state in other countries’ war.

Talimand Khan

DECEMBER 21, 2017

The current regional and international political scenario indicates that the region of South Asia is entering an advanced stage of turmoil, violence and political instability due to big powers’ clash of interest and regional countries’ perverse policy choices. It is also indicative of rewinding of the 1980s era but in a more complex, extreme and dangerous form which can leave more ominous marks on the region than before.

On 18th December 2017, for the first time after ascending to the presidency 11 months ago, US President Trump laid down his national security police before the Americans. His administration’s new policy identified main challenges to the US and its partners emanating from China, Russia, Iran, N Korea and jihadist terrorists. Prior to this announcement, Putin’s Russia was referred to as a ‘revisionist’ power by the US policy circles. Simultaneously, for the first time, China was publicly declared a ‘revisionist power’ in a policy statement by the US president. Evidently, the US has relegated China from the status of a strategic partner to a strategic competitor. It means the US is no longer ready to give the benefit of the doubt to China’s’ peaceful rise’ as a mere geo-economic strategy, though it was later replaced by China with a softer term of ‘peaceful development’ to assuage apprehensions.

The US policy research community was suspicious of China’s peaceful rise strategy. Probably the US considered this as a prelude to assert itself as a strategic and military global power with immediate consequences in the strategically and economically important Indo-China Sea.

The US policy and research community was interpreting China’s increasing maritime build up in the Indo-China Sea, development of Gwadar Port in the southern province of Balochistan in Pakistan and China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) linking China with Gwadar through road and rail links as a strategic move.

Concerns and clash of interests between big powers, particularly the United States and China are no longer restricted to policy researchers’ tables

The US think tank and policy experts were viewing this initiative by China to ensure reliable supply route for its naval replenishments and repair requirements in the Indo-China Sea. Perhaps it was this strategic lens with which the US viewed CPEC and Gwadar that the US Secretary of Defence James Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 8, 2017, that, ‘the One Belt, One Road goes through disputed territory’, referring to the  northern areas of Gilgit-Baltistan.

Trump in his policy pronouncement made two ominous references to Pakistan. He directly urged Pakistan to ‘demonstrate that it’s a ‘responsible steward’ of its nuclear assets and declared that a nuclear conflict with India remained a key concern in Washington. And indirectly while pointing to ‘jihadist terrorists’ as a challenge. A day earlier, Retired National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan Lt Gen Janjua accused the US of fomenting unrest in South Asia. While addressing a seminar on the national security policy in Islamabad, Naseer Janjua lamented the US had given a bigger role to India in Afghanistan while blaming Pakistan for its own failure in the region. He also blamed India for continuously threatening Pakistan of conventional war.

All the above statements and postures by a super power sitting in the region and a regional power in its neighbourhood paint a bleak picture for the future of the region. Thus, one should be more concerned about one’s own house of immediate backlash instead of flexing muscles in the fight of big powers.

The concerns, apprehensions and clash of interests between the big powers, particularly the United States and China in the region and beyond are no longer restricted to the policy researchers’ tables. They are not confidential nor in the form of vague diplomatic inferences. They have blatantly made their way into strategic policy announcements which would subsequently be translated into policy actions.

In this advanced stage of power game, the hapless people of Afghanistan and Pakistan would be the principle victims because this time both the countries would be a war theatre. At this critical juncture, Pakistan’s policy makers, particularly the security establishment has to look through rational lens beyond the windfalls, short term political and security scenario if it wants to avoid another disastrous effect of being a front line state in others’ war.

The Afghan War of the 1980s, the war of strategic interests between the super powers, was declared by the security establishment as its own ideological wars, which now some circles admit was fought for America and regret it. The short term windfalls of economic, military assistance and strategic fantasies of turning Afghanistan into a backyard and getting Kashmir with the residue of the Afghan War is outweighed by its long term negative effect. Sharpened institutional imbalances, weakened civilian and democratic institutions, religious extremism and intolerance, cliental economy and perpetual political instability are the bitter harvest of the strategic blunders of the 1980s. The current posture by the security establishment denotes that once again it wants to repeat the disastrous policy of the 1980s by jumping into the big powers war as a client state with the previous paraphernalia.

Musharraf’s recent overtures of a political alliance with the same elements he banned and posed to fight alongside the US hint at fresh alignments on the domestic political scene to support voices for another foreign and security disaster. Prior to it, the security establishment formally proposed to politically mainstream this religious extremist mindset that the US considered a threat. The sudden rise of extremist group Tehreek-e-Labbaik and its sit-in in Islamabad also raised eyebrows nationally and internationally.

Since the 1980s, much water has passed under the bridge. Reemploying the same elements as proxies and political balancer would be more disastrous than the previous experience. Antagonist posture against an angry super power siting next door is suicidal. It should also be remembered that the US is not Soviet Union that might face the same fate. The US still have all those western allies along with some in the Muslim World who defeated the USSR. Thus, Pakistan needs to take every step with utmost caution and strategic calculations. To steer out of this looming quagmire, the country needs political stability and a sovereign parliament for reformulating the past disastrous policies.

The writer is a political analyst hailing from Swat. Tweets @MirSwat

Published in Daily Times, December 21^st 2017.

Courtesy:  The Daily Times