Overview
What we are generally analysing in this context is the shift in global power following the election of Donald Trump as POTUS and the acceleration of China’s ‘Multinational Infrastructure Projects’ as per the BRI formula, of which Pakistan’s portion via CPEC is of key importance. As part of its role in this framework, Pakistan has a more difficult diplomatic scenario to navigate, but could also turn the tables by playing a role in bringing the two major power blocs into a better phase of diplomatic engagement. In the process, the easing of tensions could help Pakistan deal with its own internal challenges and border related issues.
The global power & political paradigm has shifted successively over the decades, and up until 2015, the main paradigm was the Neo-liberal, ‘Westphalian’, international rules based order, with the main ‘opponents’ evolving over the years from Nazism, to Soviet/ Vietnamese Communism, lastly to Islamist inspired Terrorism, which reached its peak in that year and died down shortly after the election of President Trump. In that scenario, drawing the lines for global cooperation on trade, security, energy or finance was very clearly shaped around a more black and white range of issues. Post-2016 however, the new framework of international relationships was redrawn around allegiance to either the ‘rising’ Eastern bloc of Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia or the ‘declining’ Western bloc of US, Europe, and Britain, in an often hostile shift of power between a unipolar to a multipolar world order, with China and its BRI at the helm. The previous terms of reference for global allegiance, involvement in international agreements and conferences, and taking a stance against terrorism or organised crime, have now shifted based on allegiance to strategic blocs and who you believe is more worthy of leadership and governance, which has now given shape to what could be referred to as a ‘New Cold War’.
What used to be a simple context of Pakistan having to assert its cooperation in the GWOT as an ally of the US, after the fall of ISIS in 2016-17, and the commencement of the so-called US-China Trade War, there is now a much more complex diplomatic scenario which is having an impact on Pakistan. This consists of a) continuing to support the US in its diplomatic/ peacekeeping agenda in South Asia against the threat of the resurgence of ISIS, as well as b) affirming allegiance to China and participation in the BRI/ CPEC projects. Pakistan takes an equal amount of influence from both of the competing strategic blocs, and so makes a particularly interesting case study for possible future strategies involving creating dialogue and navigating a path to greater understanding and international cooperation, i.e. bringing the globalisation project back on track, and depoliticising the advancements in technology, such as 5G capability which have now become objects of political contest.
As a contribution to the current thinking among analysts in the diplomacy/international relations area, a series of brief opinion articles will highlight how a diplomatic role played by the US could help to stabilise the region and create sustainable economic opportunities for all parties concerned, and also put an end to the prevailing situation of ‘new cold war’, which will have far reaching consequences for other regional parties who have become increasingly polarised due to the hostile competition between China/ US in recent years. Senator Lindsey Graham tweets that ‘now is the time for a strategic relationship with Pakistan’, however, does this mean the previous relationship was not one with strategic import? A key concern as the relationship moves forward for Pakistan is the previous track record of Pakistan’s engagement with the US. During those initial periods it had to engage with the US out of sheer necessity, and thus far has attempted to widen its scope of partnerships in order to create a better scenario for itself.
Factors Behind Pakistan’s Relationship with the US
Being only a secondary power, we get the impression that the range of previous affiliations with the US were pressure based decisions, ranging from the joining of CENTO in the 1950s, cooperation with US spy operations during the Cold War, or being used as a center of attack on the Soviet Union in 1979. Analysts have viewed this series of contributions as a form of compulsion or coercion to a larger power, and are critical of the benefits possibly achieved. However, the next phase of relations could be more mutual. As long as Pakistan shows continued dedication to the mission of the United States’ foreign policy, as it has demonstrated over nearly 70 years, reaching towards a more equitable relationship with the US is ideal at this stage. As leverage towards a more equitable relationship with the US is being gathered through partnerships with Turkey, Iran, Russia, and China; a clear definition of Pakistan’s relationship with the US is in need of course due to these nations’ alignment being quite often being different from that of the US.
One of the key factors which has and will continue to have considerable weighting on the position taken by Pakistan towards the US is the situation in the Middle East, and how the US continues attempts at regime change. It seems the underlying motive behind this protracted campaign is access to energy resources. This one-track policy traced throughout the past 70 years of Pakistan’s history with the US prompts closer ties with Turkey, Iran and Russia as part of the growing Eurasian economic center being built. Pakistan may quite easily be convinced that it is more convenient to pursue a process of replacing the source of advantages given through its often strained relationship with the US with other sources, consisting of the Eurasian partners. If US policy in the Middle East does not shift away from interventionism, Pakistan may see alliance as a burden, and also a strain on its more profitable partnerships. Unfortunately, incidents such as the killing of General Soleimani do not provide the assurance Pakistan has been looking for, indicating that interventionism without necessary controls may be anticipated in future, with the possibility of being included in the processes as a continuous PR threat.
In general, since there are now clear cut benefits to working with Pakistan for its foreign partners, it makes sense that Pakistan cannot play a role as an insignificant neutral actor, and needs to have a more defined, diplomatic role acknowledged allowing leverage of its strengths and beneficial aspects. The US and Pakistan are necessary partners in the GWOT context. This relationship does not necessarily have to suffer in the context of the global power shift or ‘new cold war’. Currently, Pakistan is in very dangerous and hostile territory with India, and could take all the help it can get from the US and China, its two major global stakeholders. However, the alleviation of diplomatic tension it needs is distant, due to the turbulent relations between the US and China. The US has been critical of China’s leadership in the new phase of globalisation, and Pakistan’s share of the BRI via CPEC has been a recipient of scepticism from US leadership.
What Pakistan needs in this scenario is to utilise its diplomatic position to bring US and Chinese relations closer, which could help in solving some of its domestic problems, internally, and on the border. From a US Dept. of State bulletin on US/Pakistan relations, key aspects of the relationship are outlined with regards to Bilateral Economic Relations. The US is Pakistan’s largest export destination country, and on the other hand, China is its largest import partner.
Pakistan remains an attractive market for U.S. companies due to favorable demographics, English language skills, low labor costs, and natural resources. Major U.S. investments are concentrated in fast-moving consumer goods, chemicals, energy, agriculture, out-sourcing, transportation, and communications.
All of the key aspects described above both have weighting on a) incentive for Pakistan to maintain relations with the US and b) for the US to consider flexibility in Pakistan’s wider engagements due to the unique nature of Pakistan as a global player. Underlying this point is the necessary continuation of Pakistan’s contribution to China’s BRI project and continuing to assist it in these developments in its capacity to do so via CPEC. In August of this year, the Pakistani PM had a 3 day visit to the US. According to the Chief Editor, this visit indicates that a closer relationship between the two countries seems possible over the next 5 years. Senator Lindsey Graham is mentioned as one of the key stakeholders calling for a refreshment of US and Pakistan’s bilateral ties in the interest of regional peace and security. The Senator hopes this relationship will help secure Afghanistan and the region in the long term. The meeting also gave opportunity for refreshing the presently suspended relations between the US/Pak military, with senior officials meeting to discuss restoring Pakistan’s contribution of assistance to security along the border. Pakistan’s military is still expected to play its role as a partner to US efforts to secure peace in Afghanistan. The general feeling around the PM’s visit to Washington is that the situation is not completely transformed, but that there is scope for improved relations and more advantages based on mutual interests moving into the 2020’s, in contrast with the 2010’s.
The Concept of Strategic Diplomacy, Buffering Effect of CPEC Relationships, and Middle East Concerns
In terms of Pakistan’s foreign policy and diplomatic standing moving forward, there are concerns that although the nation has to juggle relationships with the two opposing powers, it now has its own interests which it must preserve and maintain at all costs. The state of neutrality has connotations involving international law which cannot be completely implemented, due to existing contractual obligations to the US and others. What we are moving towards is a position of ‘strategic diplomacy’, rather than neutrality, where efforts will have to be made to show that a) the nation is making actions based on perceived benefit, and b) is not making actions based on political inclinations to one power bloc or another, or out of hostility to one side or another. There is a need for defining a clearer concept of security and foreign policy which is tailored towards allowing pursuit of Pakistan’s advantages within an evolving environment, protecting those interests, while at the same time mitigating the threat of conflicts. The change in policy methodology here is a challenge for Pakistan since its decision making has always been stimulated by desire for strong global allies, due to the proximity of the threat from India. It never had the space or liberty to begin thinking in terms of a ‘balanced foreign policy’ concept before, which now it has to come up with in order to balance relations in context of multiple priorities.
Due to this reality, Pakistan’s position with the US can now take a diversion from previous norms due to the buffering effect of Pakistan’s relationship with the BRI network of countries. The US policy of interventionism in the Middle East cannot be complied with on a point blank basis, as it simply is not feasible and would agitate Pakistan’s neighbouring Islamic countries. What Pakistan needed was reassurance that the US intended to move away from a more interventionist policy, which would have made the grounds towards mutual benefit more stable. The killing of General Soleimani however did not allay their concerns. If US policy in the Middle East does not shift away from interventionism, Pakistan may see alliance as a burden, and also a strain on its other partnerships. The recent engagements with Iran simply confirm that interventionism without necessary controls may be anticipated in future, and as a key South Asian partner to the US, the possibility of being included in these campaigns continues to serve as a continuous PR threat.
The aftermath of the incident in Iran demonstrated clear intentions from Pakistan that it would take no part in any future conflict launched by the US in its campaign in the Middle East, and would only play an active role in peace, de-escalation and diplomacy in future. The PMs actions in this case demonstrated an overall tendency towards dialogue and mutual assurance. FM Shah Mahmood Qureshi was dispatched to liaise with his counterparts in Iran, the US and Saudi Arabia alongside COAS Qamar Bajwa in order to communicate a clear cut policy of diplomatic engagement. The PM also met with the Omani minister for Endowments and Religious Affairs to express concern over the Middle East and to emphasise the importance of de-escalating conflicts. What spoke louder during these events was the implicit dismissal of the importance of perceived threats to US interests in relation to a wider agenda of keeping stability in the Middle East. During the aforementioned meeting, the PM also vocalised his perception that Pakistan has suffered due to involvement in previous military campaigns and as a result, will be trying as hard as possible to a) ensure conflicts do not escalate, and b) avoid entering in them militarily. Senator Lindsey Graham, during the 3 day visit of Imran Khan to the US in July 2019 sent out a message stating ‘now is the time for a strategic relationship with Pakistan’, however, does this mean the previous relationship was not one with strategic importance? Further, Pakistan already has a strong strategic relationship with China. The basis of the relationship mentioned by Graham is ‘trade agreements leveraged by security performance’,
and compare this to the volume of trade and other partnerships that China has already agreed to and invested in. Also consider that they are not overly concerned about Pakistan’s performance in security. There are two points from which this discussion can be progressed, a) what is an equitable sort of relationship which allows breathing space for Pakistan, and b) how far will the relationship established by the US be influenced by pressure to take sides in the New Cold War for dominance in global governance? If the answer to both of these questions is positive, we can say that the US and Pakistan can have a fresh start, however in case of the opposite, it may be seen that any future relationship will be a continuation of the previous decades.
