World Order

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union gave the United States a pre-eminence that historians have described being unrivalled in the annals of history. It also brought out a transformation of the international power equation. In practically every important facet of national power the U.S. is far ahead of other major powers whether it is military, economy, soft culture or scientific and technological progress. For this over arching dominance of one single power the world is characterized as unipolar with U.S. having the responsibility of being the leading nation and the " lone super-power".

It is in this context that we have to examine the question of unilateralism versus mutilateralism. The U.S. has all along but since 9/11 increasingly embraced a world-view that has driven it toward unilateralism and even "exceptionalism". U.S. has been following unilateralist policies in its dealings with the U.N, on matters related to global warming, as was reflected in its rejection of the Kyoto protocol, and on refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. And similarly the current U.S. policies clearly indicate that it has become very selective in its approach towards non-proliferation. It has also failed to ratify the CTBT, unilaterally withdrawn from ABM treaty and rejected the monitoring capabilities of the Biological Weapons Convention.
The most crucial and also the most controversial aspect of American unilateralism, however, is its frequent use of military force for advancing its political goals without the consent of the U.N. or even support from the traditional European allies. The pre-emptive doctrine of the U.S, as enunciated in the January 2002 Nuclear Posture Revue (NPR) and the September 2002 National Security Strategy Paper (NSSP) not only undermines international politics in fact defies international law and treaties and weakens the UN charter. This doctrine is all- pervasive and sets a course for a robust unilateral exercise of U.S. power all over the world in the political, economic and military dimensions. In the political realm it wants to establish democracies around the world particularly in the Middle-Eastern and Muslim countries that are friendly and supportive of U.S. policies. And if required to fulfill this professed aim it will forcibly bring about a regime change. Although WMD was the given reason for invading Iraq there were several factors that influenced the decision and foremost was to eliminate the potential threat to Israel, getting a better control over the oil resources of Iraq and installing a compliant regime and if feasible with a democratic face. Events have however shown in Iraq and also to some extent in Afghanistan that removal of governments was easy but effecting regime change has been an onerous task.

In the Muslim world the professed U.S. policy is to encourage moderation and international values through reform of educational systems and political structures so as to remove breeding grounds of terrorism and defend against emerging non-traditionalist threats. In practice democracy and other goals are being compromised for short-term political gains.

On the economic side it unilaterally or with the help of international institutions is ensuring the compliance of its security agenda. The major impact of the doctrine of preemption has been in the field of military. Their current approach to combating WMD has undergone a fundamental change. Accordingly, the traditional principles of the cold war era, that is deterrence, nuclear stability and containment are considered to be losing their relevance or not adequate in the changed security environment that is "beset with terrorists, failing or failed states and rogue regimes". America according to this doctrine reserves the right to preempt. This is a fairly open mandate that gives enormous flexibility to the U.S. to use its armed might.

Due to its massive military superiority U.S. has been able to overwhelm its adversaries as was witnessed in its invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq. America, nonetheless, by the strong resistance offered by nationalistic and other disparate forces is realizing the limits of its power and resources. Military success does not necessarily translate into political victory and as military thinkers have repeatedly emphasized that winning battles does not imply that the war has been won. President Bush's claim to victory aboard the aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln" in May 2003 has not brought peace to Iraq. Wars are not won when the country is militarily overrun but when the will of the aggressed collapses and he accepts defeat. The neo-conservatives strategy of using massive military power alone to shape the world has proved to be very destabilizing and in the final analysis also damaging U.S. interests.

The policy of unilateralism in the near term may give certain advantages to the U.S, as it does not need any consensus building and allows it in the absence of a hegemonic rival to pursue its nationalistic agenda in a relatively unconstrained manner. Immediately after 9/11 when the impulse for retaliation was strong military action in Afghanistan perhaps could not wait. This, however, cannot form the basis of a long-term sustainable policy that can achieve global stability. Given the vast range of threats and challenges the world faces today it is not possible for any one nation however powerful it may be to address and resolve them.

The global war on terrorism has clearly demonstrated the advantages that accrue through a multilateral approach. At the operational level close cooperation in intelligence sharing, monitoring financial flows to surreptitious organizations and exercising control on the borders has achieved results. It is however ironic that at the policy level unilateralism still dominates U.S. thinking as is evident in respect of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and issues related to the role of U.N. in Iraq. With mere tactical and operational cooperation terrorism would not subside. It needs synergy at the strategic level as well. In a multilateral approach the experience and resources of nations are also shared which facilitates peace making and reconstruction work. Unilateralism also goes against the grain and spirit of democracy, particularly when U.S. professes to be its most ardent supporter worldwide.

U.S. versus other Powers

Paradoxically, the world cannot do much without U.S. support either. As stated earlier all elements of its national power are impressive and unmatched. Militarily it is the strongest with a formidable nuclear and conventional superiority capable of projecting its power in the remotest part of the globe. Additionally, U.S. bases are located in nearly sixty countries and it has bilateral security arrangements with most of them--it is another matter that these bases have become a rallying point for opposition forces particularly in Muslim countries. And its forces possess qualitatively superior weaponry and equipment and are likely to maintain this "generational" lead as U.S. out spends every military power in the world on research and development by a wide margin. U.S. economy is nearly a quarter of the worlds GDP and substantially higher than those that follow like Japan, Germany, etc. America's economic power as well as military superiority is essentially based on a sound foundation of scientific progress and technological excellence. In essence U.S. is a comprehensive power with ability far greater than other countries to exercise it in its hard or soft forms.

Limits to U.S. power

The fact that no major power including China or Europe is in a position to challenge its supremacy of the U.S. in the near future does not imply that it provides it the ability to effectively resolve important international issues on its own. In that sense one tends to agree with what Huntington wrote in 1999 that unipolarity may give way to a "uni-multipolar structure". Furthermore, a strong anti-American sentiment has developed the world over, including the Western countries, giving rise to what has been described as the "peoples pole", creating enormous difficulties for governments that are its allies or supportive of U.S policies.

If the U.S. continues to follow the unilateralist approach, then it could become an isolationist super-power as some political analysts have predicted. Strategy based on massive military confrontation ("shock and awe") is no longer adequate or suitable particularly for fighting the war on terror, dealing with nuclear proliferation or rebuilding failed nations. A new policy paradigm based on cooperative strategies should be the road ahead.

Cooperative Strategies

U.S. military intervention in Iraq has not resolved any of the major problems of the Middle East. In fact, in many ways the security environment in the Gulf region has worsened and become chaotic and highly unpredictable. The more internationally acceptable alternative would be to develop security through cooperative strategies and if new security contingencies develop in which military force has to be applied than it should be with international approval or at least a broad consensus. This would broadly be in line with what the French have been insisting and the democratic Presidential nominee Kerry is articulating. Fear of U.S. domination is also giving rise to insecurities among some countries as in case of North Korea and even Iran and they are seeking ways of developing nuclear weapons. Other states too may defy their treaty obligations on the basis that these are no more credible. Undoubtedly, security based on cooperation is what the world would generally prefer, but it may perhaps remain an aspiration only partly fulfilled.

Impact on Pakistan

In the aftermath of 9/11, the changed international context and new security concerns had a sudden and direct impact on Pakistan. Overnight it became the "front line" state due to the strong perception in the West that it is from Afghanistan and Pakistan that the terrorist threat emanates. Bush administration lifted sanctions against Islamabad, offered economic assistance and renegotiated debt obligations. This was not well received by India but the U.S. keen to retain its newly nurtured close links with New Delhi succeeded through a delicate balancing act in not only maintaining good relations with both countries, but also significantly increasing its leverage with them. In this new environment what happens in this region affects global politics. South Asia and Pakistan have acquired a new relevance. Kashmir and nuclearization have not lost their relevance, but are now being viewed primarily through the prism of terrorism.

U.S. is cultivating a long-term stable, multi-faceted, strategic relationship with India and with Pakistan its relationship remains important. It wants Pakistan to remain a firm partner or ally in the war on terror. In Afghanistan it wants Pakistan to support an anti-Taliban / Al Qaeeda regime and wipe out terrorist elements within the country. U.S. and all major powers are concerned about the rise of religious extremism in Pakistan and about the safety of its nuclear assets and this has to be taken very seriously.

The U.S. favors and supports Indo-Pak dialogue and uses both back channel and open diplomacy to encourage both sides to talk. It has essentially played the role of crisis management by diffusing hostility between the two protagonists. It has kept away from conflict resolution for fear of antagonizing one or both of them. India initially was wary of third party involvement and its insistence on bilateralism has been part of the overall policy to maintain status quo in Kashmir. New Delhi now accepts U.S and other countries involvement in Kashmir so long as their role is confined to keeping pressure on Islamabad and the APHC to end support to militants. It is interesting to note what U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently remarked " It is time to get started on making regional stability permanent. Kashmir is on the international agenda. The U.S will extend a helping hand to all sides so that they can achieve a more peaceful, less divisive future. We are looking to both India and Pakistan to take steps that begin to bring peace to the region and to ensure a better future for the Kashmiri people. The problems of Kashmir cannot be resolved through violence, but only through a healthy political process and vibrant dialogue".

Indeed, it is the first time in history of India-Pakistan relations that the world is united in voicing its desire for a peaceful resolution of disputes through bilateral dialogue.

Events of 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan had equally a critical impact on our relationship with Afghanistan and the Central Asian States. With the demise of the Taliban regime Pakistan lost its influence in Afghanistan and its relations with the new government initially remained strained. Islamabad's support to the Karzai government and close cooperation with U.S. military in fighting Al Qaeeda and Taliban militia in the tribal belt has partially restored trust and the relationship is on the mend. Stability in Afghanistan is critical for opening up of Central Asian States to Pakistan. India and Pakistan are competing for influence in the region. Both see the region's potential of energy resources, prospects of trade and the importance of its geo strategic location. The Central Asian States are wary of Islamic militancy and fiercely opposed to the remnants of the Taliban forces. If Pakistan's relations with India improve then it is expected to have a corresponding salutary impact on the Central Asian Region.

Options/ Responses

The global and regional scene is both a challenge and an opportunity for Pakistan. Islamabad should cooperate with the U.S. where it finds convergence of interests as in fighting terrorism, support for economic reforms, education and upgrading of technology and issues related with regional stability, but not capitulate to its dictates. U.S should not be allowed to gain tactical leverage at our expense. We have to ensure that we do not just serve the needs and aspirations of American power. Pakistan should continue to work toward having a stable and calibrated relationship with the U.S. managing the prospects or reality of Pax-Americana is a major challenge for every country of the region. Sending troops to Iraq in the prevailing scenario is perceived by the people to be a risky venture and will inadvertently contribute in consolidating America's illegal occupation. It will be unpopular at home as well as among the Muslim countries and give a fillip to the extremist forces and remnants of Al Qaeda in the country. Fighting terrorism, demands not just military action, but neutralizing it through political means, as it is a battle of hearts and minds. We also need to understand that the most compelling security challenges facing the region stem from the internal weakening of political, economic and social institutions. Poverty, illiteracy and absence of the rule of law have to be addressed with single mindedness of purpose.

The distinction between civil and international conflict is eroding and the lines of internal and external threats is getting blurred. Thus in the prevailing international and domestic environment it is increasingly difficult for Pakistan to meet the requirements of security by confrontational means alone. Prudence demands that we continue to support the on-going peace process with India, even if it faces difficulties and delays in the resolution of disputes particularly that of Kashmir. Counter forces of peace will try to block both New Delhi and Islamabad in taking a bold and hard decision regarding Kashmir. There are many constituencies in each country who are likely to lose if the relations between them move forward. For this reason the peace process has to be managed carefully and with creative thinking for an improved future.