viper2020
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
The following are some extracts from a blog debating the question: What is the national interest of Pakistan?
Hans Morgenthau defines the national interest as:
"The interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups ; any foreign policy which operates under the standard of the national interest ."
Mo Sarwar argues:
"The reason for Pakistan's existence has been identified as providing a Muslim homeland for the Muslims of India and any other religio-ethnic groups which wish to live there. Thus, Pakistan was borne out of a perceived need that Hindu-majority India would be an antithesis to the interests and aspirations of the Muslims of India and any other grouping which chose to follow them. Hence it follows that Pakistan's primary interest was to remain independent and viable in the face of a much larger and powerful neighbour. The nation then adopted several other goals; the struggle of Kashmir to join Pakistan - or become independent from India; a friendly and cooperative Afghanistan to ensure strategic depth vis-a-vis India ; close relations with Saudi Arabia representing a religious socio-economic nexus of interests; and, perhaps most importantly, affirming itself as a front-line state of the religiously tolerant West pitted against a God-less USSR.
Whilst Pakistan's role as a front line state was galvanised and pivotal during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, it became ambiguous and anachronistic in the new world order. Thus, the policy of being a front line state was neither nurtured in Pakistan nor valued in the United States. This resulted in all of the other stated interests to become even more indubitable. However, a predominant part of the adjustment in Pakistan's policy was influenced by America's changing attitude towards and preference for India. Pakistan immediately bolstered its relationship with China, that it had been developing over many years after the Sino-Soviet split in the seventies. Thus, the end of the cold war and the abandonment by the US and its allies of Afghanistan, and Pakistan, forced the latter to initiate a plan of action.
It combined its policy objectives of maintaining strategic depth in Afghanistan; in accordance with its military doctrine of riposte vis-a-vis its arch enemy India, and close ties with Saudi Arabia, by utilising the religious fervour of Saudi wahabism and all its concomitants. Thus enabling the Taliban to become pervasively established, and receiving Saudi largesse to finance it all, resulting in the eventual dominance of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This ended years of infighting amongst warlords and created an authoritarian regime that kept law and order, in a sense, but more importantly acquiesced to Islamabad's demands. Therefore, Pakistan (with funding and moral rectitude from Saudi Arabia) consolidated its influence over the Afghan Taliban. Those groupings belligerent to the Taliban were in turn backed and financed by India, Iran and to some extent by a greatly weakened Russia.
America had ignored and distanced itself from all Saudi-Pakistani action in Afghanistan from 1991 until the late 90's,when, a much more extreme brand of wahabist-jihadists entered the scene, Al-Qaeda. These events precipitated the United States to review its relationship with Pakistan, its economic and military aid programs were scrutinised and subsequently started shutting down as it became apparent that Al-Qaeda was overtly anti-American and targeting US interests whilst Pakistan was looking the other way. This put Pakistan on a collision course with the United States.
The test came when, after 9/11, Pakistan had to choose between its interests in maintaining the Taliban in Afghanistan and that of the US, where the latter's objective was to oust the government that had provided a safe haven to the alleged perpetrators of 9/11. Apparently, Pakistan had to forego its interest and bow to US demands, furtively, however, this did not prove to be the case as the War on Terror developed.
After the war had begun, a paradigm shift took place, disparate factions started attacking not only the Afghan Taliban but also any Pakistani forces overtly or covertly linked to them, once NATO's ISAF and other US troops arrived, Pakistan had to recalibrate its policy in Afghanistan. During the decade, and as discussed in my previous post, several attacks and assaults began targeting Pakistan and its armed forces. They varied in veracity, intensity and origin but had a cumulatively devastating effect on Pakistani Society. Therefore, it follows that the country's prime interest, that of Security, is not "secure," that its other interests such as a stable and friendly Afghanistan, self-determination of Kashmir, its economic stability, are failing and under attack from exogenous forces."
Is the primary interest of Pakistan viability and security vis-a-vis India? The US?
Is the military Doctrine of Riposte (which serves as a tool of the Political interest of the Nation) dead? Reformed? or replaced? if so by what? Discuss.
Hans Morgenthau defines the national interest as:
"The interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups ; any foreign policy which operates under the standard of the national interest ."
Mo Sarwar argues:
"The reason for Pakistan's existence has been identified as providing a Muslim homeland for the Muslims of India and any other religio-ethnic groups which wish to live there. Thus, Pakistan was borne out of a perceived need that Hindu-majority India would be an antithesis to the interests and aspirations of the Muslims of India and any other grouping which chose to follow them. Hence it follows that Pakistan's primary interest was to remain independent and viable in the face of a much larger and powerful neighbour. The nation then adopted several other goals; the struggle of Kashmir to join Pakistan - or become independent from India; a friendly and cooperative Afghanistan to ensure strategic depth vis-a-vis India ; close relations with Saudi Arabia representing a religious socio-economic nexus of interests; and, perhaps most importantly, affirming itself as a front-line state of the religiously tolerant West pitted against a God-less USSR.
Whilst Pakistan's role as a front line state was galvanised and pivotal during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, it became ambiguous and anachronistic in the new world order. Thus, the policy of being a front line state was neither nurtured in Pakistan nor valued in the United States. This resulted in all of the other stated interests to become even more indubitable. However, a predominant part of the adjustment in Pakistan's policy was influenced by America's changing attitude towards and preference for India. Pakistan immediately bolstered its relationship with China, that it had been developing over many years after the Sino-Soviet split in the seventies. Thus, the end of the cold war and the abandonment by the US and its allies of Afghanistan, and Pakistan, forced the latter to initiate a plan of action.
It combined its policy objectives of maintaining strategic depth in Afghanistan; in accordance with its military doctrine of riposte vis-a-vis its arch enemy India, and close ties with Saudi Arabia, by utilising the religious fervour of Saudi wahabism and all its concomitants. Thus enabling the Taliban to become pervasively established, and receiving Saudi largesse to finance it all, resulting in the eventual dominance of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This ended years of infighting amongst warlords and created an authoritarian regime that kept law and order, in a sense, but more importantly acquiesced to Islamabad's demands. Therefore, Pakistan (with funding and moral rectitude from Saudi Arabia) consolidated its influence over the Afghan Taliban. Those groupings belligerent to the Taliban were in turn backed and financed by India, Iran and to some extent by a greatly weakened Russia.
America had ignored and distanced itself from all Saudi-Pakistani action in Afghanistan from 1991 until the late 90's,when, a much more extreme brand of wahabist-jihadists entered the scene, Al-Qaeda. These events precipitated the United States to review its relationship with Pakistan, its economic and military aid programs were scrutinised and subsequently started shutting down as it became apparent that Al-Qaeda was overtly anti-American and targeting US interests whilst Pakistan was looking the other way. This put Pakistan on a collision course with the United States.
The test came when, after 9/11, Pakistan had to choose between its interests in maintaining the Taliban in Afghanistan and that of the US, where the latter's objective was to oust the government that had provided a safe haven to the alleged perpetrators of 9/11. Apparently, Pakistan had to forego its interest and bow to US demands, furtively, however, this did not prove to be the case as the War on Terror developed.
After the war had begun, a paradigm shift took place, disparate factions started attacking not only the Afghan Taliban but also any Pakistani forces overtly or covertly linked to them, once NATO's ISAF and other US troops arrived, Pakistan had to recalibrate its policy in Afghanistan. During the decade, and as discussed in my previous post, several attacks and assaults began targeting Pakistan and its armed forces. They varied in veracity, intensity and origin but had a cumulatively devastating effect on Pakistani Society. Therefore, it follows that the country's prime interest, that of Security, is not "secure," that its other interests such as a stable and friendly Afghanistan, self-determination of Kashmir, its economic stability, are failing and under attack from exogenous forces."
Is the primary interest of Pakistan viability and security vis-a-vis India? The US?
Is the military Doctrine of Riposte (which serves as a tool of the Political interest of the Nation) dead? Reformed? or replaced? if so by what? Discuss.
