The fiftieth anniversary of Pakistan’s independence falls in a
period of perhaps the most far reaching changes in the world order. The
relatively simple diplomatic configuration of the Cold War era has given
place to a complex interplay of a great many forces that have made their
appearance at the regional and global level. Economic and commercial
interests have assumed greater relevance to national concerns, which also
must accommodate the grievances of ethnic and linguistic minorities.
Historian Paul Kennedy named Pakistan as one of nine pivotal
regions whose future evolution would not only determine the fate of their
regions, “but also affect international stability”. Their collapse would
produce regional dislocation and strife, while their success would bolster
stability and economic progress..
Pakistan’s emergence as a state coincided with an earlier
historical watershed. The end of the Second World War in 1945, virtually
days after the use of the first nuclear weapons in Japan, was followed by
three significant developments that shaped events over the rest of the
century. The need was felt for an effective international system to save the
wild from the scourge of war that could obliterate the planet in the age of
clear weapons. The UN was launched in October 1945 with high hopes
aspirations.
The colonial order, at least of the imperial variety, disappeared as
over a hundred countries and territories gained their independence from
Western control. The Sub continent was among the earliest beneficiaries
of this trend, and its newly independent countries helped other subjugated
lands to attain the same goals.
The process of political liberation was accompanied by increasing
emphasis on economic development, as formerly subject nations sought to
overcome poverty and backwardness. However, this trend helped revive
the hegemony of the former colonial power which now exercised
paramount power through their virtual monopoly of world finance and
technology. The 20th century approached its close with the majority of the
former colonies now caught in a debt trap, that could be ascribed n part to
an iniquitous global economic system.
All these trends had a fairly direct bearing on foreign policy. The
UN system, and the regionalism it encouraged by its very operation,
increased the role of multilateral diplomacy. The anti colonial wave
highlighted solidarity among the former colonies, the need for which was
further accentuated by the quest for development.
In its first fifty years, Pakistan was involved with all these trends.
Pakistan played an active role in the UN system, helped the liberation
struggle of many colonies, and came to be regarded as a showpiece of
economic planning and development. Had we been more fortunate in our
leadership, as well as our historical legacy, we might have “taken off”
economically as we were expected to do in the 1960s by leading
development economists. However, that promise was not fulfilled.
Political imperatives arising from the manner of our birth as a
country resulted in our region becoming one of he most conflict prone in
the world. Despite UN resolutions on Kashmir, that dispute, rooted in
India’s reluctance to come to terms with the partition of the Subcontinent,
led to conflict and confrontation. With India constantly threatening our
survival on the basis of its superior strength, we felt obliged to join the
Western alliance, since the option appeared to offer the only hope of
receiving military and economic aid vital to our security. Later, when
I to receive Western military aid by precipitating a conflict
with China, Pakistan realized the need for a more balanced foreign policy,
rather than rely exclusively on the west. This resulted in improved
banned the supply of weapons during the Indo-Pakistan conflict of 1965,
relations with China and the Soviet Union. when the western powers
Pakistan was able to secure arms from China for national defence.
Despite the acquisitions of arms from abroad, we still had to
devote a high proportion of our own limited resources to armaments.
Consequently, almost from the beginning we relied heavily on foreign
assistance and loans to finance our development, a task rendered
considerably harder by an exploding population. By the last decade of the
I debt servicing had overtaken defence as the main charge on our
century, national budget.
Some analysis tend to describe our foreign policy over the past
fifty years as largely reactive, responding most of the time to New Delhi’s
initiatives in support of its hegemonic goals. While there is no denying the
imperative of having to respond to India’s hostile moves, an objective
analysis of the historical evolution of our diplomacy would demonstrate
that Pakistan followed an independent and principled foreign policy in the
pursuit of its legitimate interests. Being an ideological state, Pakistan did
not only seek to promote closer links with the Islamic countries, but also
placed a leading role in champing the rights of the developing counties.
From its early years, Pakistan became identified with the
strengthening of the UN system. a Pakistani presided over the first UN
conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964, and the first
Conference of Non Nuclear States was held in 1969 at Pakistan’s
initiative. Pakistan backed the UN role in peace keeping from the
beginning and was a major contributor of forces, for this purpose over the
years. so far as multilateral issues of general interest to the developing
countries are concerned, Pakistan was not averse to working together with
India.
contentious issues found Pakistan always standing on principle,
whether it was on Palestine, South Africa or other matters involving rights
of subject peoples. It was sometimes conjectured that Pakistan appeared to
devote a disproportionate amount of time and effort to international
affairs. Looking back, the record would show that this tendency paid
dividends in helping us to counter the military weight India sought to
throw in support of its hegemonic goals.
The last proxy war of the Cold War in Afghanistan, following the
Soviet occupation of that country, enhanced our international image as we
resolutely backed the struggle of the Afghan people despite threats from
Moscow and New Delhi. The very year the Soviet forces were compelled to withdraw from
Aghanistan, i.e. 1989, also marked the end of the Cold War. Almost
total transformation. With communism eliminated as the main threat to
mediately, the perceptions of the Western powers appeared to under go
Western world, analysts in the US and Europe began to look at the
world as the next credible threat to the West’s preeminent place in
Islamic
the globe. A second trend was to prevent the proliferation of sophisticated
weapons
which could challenge the West at a time its public opinion was
pressing for cutting down its inflated military arsenals. In both these
contexts, Pakistan was seen as a potential adversary, and the US imposed
the provisions of the Pressler Law on Islamabad, cutting off military and
economic aid, while India was seen as a power with perceptions and goals
closer to those of Washington.
The US seemed inclined to go a step further, with nits that
Pakistan might be dubbed “terrorist state” for helping the indigenous
movement inside Kashmir. It took three years of negotiations to secure a
fairer appreciation of Pakistan’s position. The Clinton administration’s
stance, both on Kashmir and the unjust consequences of the Pressler Law,
represents a considerable change which reflects the success of our
diplomacy in part, though it also shows a more realistic perception of
India’s long term policies and goals in the region.
This brief assessment of our foreign policy over the past half a
century places our key existing relationships in their historical context. We
may now identify the main features of the emerging global order to which
our foreign policy has to adjust over the coming years in a manner best
suited to serve our interests. The contours of the new world order that is
taking shape would be determined by the following trends and realities:
i. Basically, while the evolution of a multiplier order is inevitable,
the “unique superpower, namely the US, is engaged in active diplomacy to
retain its pre eminence, by bringing into play its still unrivalled military
superiority, which it demonstrated in the Gulf War of 1991, and by
exerting the leverage it possesses in the economic field. Evolving a good
working relationship with Washington is important, even though US
policies in the post cold war period have been discriminatory. The US role
can be critical on regionalisms, such as Kashmir. The basic US goals in
our region are to prevent the proliferation of sophisticated weapons, and to
create conditions in which its trade and investment can flourish.
ii. The emergence of China to a greater global and regional role is
exected to challenge the US hegemonic goals. While developing significant
economic relations with the US, China has reacted strongly to Washington’s containment policies that are evident over Taiwan and Tibet.
China has enteredin to an entente with Russia to confront the US
hegemony, and has made other moves to promote a multiplier world
order, though China has normalized its relations with India, important
differences persist as evident from its rejection of the recent Russian
suggestion to associate India with the Sino-Russian strategic partnership.
In Sourth Asia, China’s role can be a balancing factor for the smaller
countries in facing up to India hegemonic ambitions.
iii. Other major players, with an increasing role in this age of
economic and technological transformation, are Japan and Europe. Though
supportive of the broad US agenda, they have to be cultivated and their
participation and support ensured in any programme of national
development.
iv. It had been expected that the role of the UN, in both the key
areas of security and development would be reinforced, and that the major
powers as well as the smaller nations would find common purpose in
realizing the full potential of the world body. In practice, the West, ed by
the US has strengthened its hold on the UN, so that a considerably
revamping and reinvigoration of the organization is now an urgent
necessity.
v) The basic global trend is towards disarmament and arms
limitation, to enable diversion of resources towards development. Regional
cooperation has emerged as an important means of fostering progress. The
other significant trend at the global level is to address problems that affect
the world as a whole, including the environment, drugs, terrorism, and the
exploding population. This agenda requires international cooperation at the
global level.
The principle of cultivating friendly relations with all countries,
which the Quaid had articulated at the time of independence must remain
the foundation of our foreign policy. Within this axiomatic framework, we
have to identify priorities, including stress on security, ad on development.
The inclination to look to foreign sources both for arms and resources for
development had been facilitated by the dynamics of the Cold War. That
trend cannot be sustained in the contemporary world environment. The
very gravity of our economic predicament, and the back breaking costs
involved in an arms race in the Subcontinent underscore the need for fresh
thinking in foreign policy, and for better management of the economy.
The most important fact of life, over the years ahead is that we
I have to adjust to a world where strength is measured in terms of prowess
in the economic and technological fields. It is also a world where the in information technology has increased awareness of successes
of the world, so that our public opinion will be demanding
much more from their rulers in terms of both development and
governance.
The emerging global order will affect the regional situation in
South Asia profoundly, while there will be an element of continuity, with
the problems and tensions of the past half century still with us, demanding
solutions, there will also be change in the context of the global trends.
One must pay special attention to developments peculiar to the
Subcontinent. These include some negative trends, such as the upsurge of
religious extremism, specially in India, where the largest political party
seeks to impose Hindu culture through the concept of Hindutva, in an age
when tolerance and human rights are the order of the day. India’s
unrelenting pursuit of hegemony prevents the establishment of an
environment of trust and confidence that is an essential pre-requisite for
regional cooperation. On the positive side are a realization of the need for
dialogue among recently elected governments, and of comprehensive
measures to fight poverty.
As we start the second half century of independence there are
challenges as well as opportunities. Amid growing realization of the
importance of an economic revival, our foreign policy must focus on the
challenges facing us, and stress the multilateral dimension of diplomacy.
However, with an indigenous revolt against India’s forcible occupation in
progress in Kashmir that is taking a heavy toll of lives, the efforts of
newly elected governments cannot get far, particularly as our public
opinion will not support any surrender of principle for the sake of
facilitating cooperation.
While persisting in the recently started dialogue with India, we
can not afford to be oblivious of New Delhi’s hegemonic goals, to be
achieved through the acquisition of overwhelming military superiority via
the nuclear and missile path. No less important than military deterrence
would be an active diplomacy to strengthen existing friendships and forge
new ones to reinforce our security.
The existing direction of our foreign policy shows pragmatism
combined with respect for principles that must determine interstate
relations. We should persist in seeking the understanding and support of
major powers, of which the US and China are the most important. Russia,
despite its current preoccupation with domestic problems, has a significant
potential to influence our neighbourhood, and special efforts are needed to
improve our relations with that former superpower. Of course we must also keep in view the role which the economic giants, namely Japan and
Europe, can play in our economic resurgence.
Within the regional context, primacy must go to our neighbours.
There are special features associated with our relations with each: India
constitutes the main threat, China is our most reliable friend while Iran
has also been traditionally friendly though our perceptions have diverged
over the strife inside Afghanistan where the restoration of peace is equally
important for both. Then there are our brothers in faith in West and
Central Asia. Our bilateral relations will acquire greater content if we try
harder to improve the working of SAARC and ECO and keep in mind the
potential of larger groupings such as the OIC at the ideological plane and
the up and coming Indian Ocean Rim grouping, on the geographical one.
This undescores the role of multilateral diplomacy which will become
even more important, both to facilitate our national development, and to
pursue the global agenda of issues such as the environment, drugs,
terrorism etc.
Where our performance and coordination have to be improved
significantly compared to the past fifty years is in the sphere of the
formulation and conduct of foreign policy. there has been excessive
adhocism with the formulation of foreign policy handled by a variety of
organizations at different times. There has been a tendency for the
responsibility for determining the policies in various spheres, such as
economic, commercial, information and defence being assumed by the
ministries concerned, often with inadequate coordination with the Foreign
Ministry. Though the Foreign Service has performed well, on the whole,
its quality has deteriorated owing to lateral entry and failure to attract the
best talent with the passage of time. A major lacuna has been the lack of
put form academics and specialists, even though Area Study Centres were
set up three decades ago to develop exercise in various regions.
A tradition has yet to develop for substantive inputs into the
formulation of foreign policy through regular and informed debates within
the legislatures, which presupposes the effective functioning of foreign
Affairs committees in both the houses of the parliament.
The most important changes need to be introduced in the
apparatus of diplomacy. Steps have to be taken to attract our brightest
young men and women to the diplomatic career. After imparting
appropriate training, their advancement in he Foreign Service should be on
the basis of merit and performance, with political patronage eliminated as
far as possible. The most sensitive ambassadorial posts should be reserved
for career diplomats. For a country with our security challenges and ideological links,
Areign policy is not only the first line of defence, but also the main
ehicle for economic interaction with the rest of the world. In the coming
s of rapid changes, we must encourage research an innovation on the
one hand, and the widest possible participation of all elements of our
the media and our public opinion at large should be kept abreast of the
sxiety in this vital sphere on the other. The legislature, the professionals,
kaleidoscopic changes which will continue to occur at a bewildering pace.
