Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts

Friday 15 December 2023

Pakistan: Understanding General Asim Munir Doctrine

Functioning as a security state, Pakistan has long formulated its foreign policy choices based on security needs and the aspiration to establish itself as a hard military power. This approach has allowed the military to play a leading role in shaping both, domestic and foreign policy decisions, often overshadowing civilian institutions. However, with changing global dynamics, the current civil-military establishment is actively signaling a shift in Pakistan’s strategic culture and foreign policy interests.

It has been just over a year since General Asim Munir took command of Pakistan's military; succeeding General (retired) Qamar Javed Bajwa in late November 2022. Apart from stepping into the most powerful role in Pakistan, Munir also inherited the legacy of Bajwa’s military doctrine, which not only shaped Pakistan's foreign policy but also presented considerable challenges for him to address.

Throughout his tenure, Bajwa orchestrated a paradigm shift in Pakistan's traditional geostrategic focus, transitioning from geopolitics to geoeconomics. This shift involved broadening the scope of Pakistan’s national security, moving beyond a primary emphasis on military defense, and recognizing economic security as a crucial factor for achieving improved traditional security outcomes.

To safeguard economic security, Bajwa aimed to enhance Pakistan's geostrategic importance by prioritizing regional connectivity and global development partnerships. He sought to position Pakistan as a key hub for trade, transit, and production in West, Central, and South Asia, intending to transition from aid-based dependencies to trade and investment partnerships.

Bajwa fell short of fully realizing his vision during his six years in office, with Pakistan continuing to rely heavily on International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to support its declining economy. Munir now faces the challenging task of turning Bajwa’s unrealized vision into a reality. This requires cultivating positive interdependence and multi-alignment with a diverse range of partners, while also ensuring domestic stability.

An examination of Munir’s first year in office is crucial to assess his progress thus far and gain insight into the military’s current foreign policy vision.

Munir doctrine

A crucial aspect of Munir’s doctrine involves guiding Pakistan away from the strategic dilemma of choosing between the United States and China, and avoiding the significant costs it has incurred for Islamabad’s foreign policy.

Munir has made clear a preference for pursuing a hedging strategy, aiming to avoid getting entangled in global binary politics. His strategic approach is centered on maximizing Pakistan's economic gains to avoid subservience to major powers and increase its room for maneuver. He articulated this vision for defending Pakistan's sovereignty by building a robust economy, emphasizing that, “all Pakistanis must throw out the beggar’s bowl.”

At least three interrelated points characterize Munir's foreign policy vision, each representing significant challenges he must confront. These observations are drawn from his statements and actions up to this point.

First, he has expressed a commitment to project and advance a softer image of Pakistan.

Second, he has demonstrated a keen interest in elevating Pakistan as a regional middle power.

Third, he has placed a significant focus on prioritizing geo-economics over geopolitics.

Revamping Pakistan’s image

A state's image and reputation are pivotal in achieving foreign policy goals. Pakistan's global reputation is currently plagued by a host of domestic issues, all of which paint a picture of the country as a struggling democracy grappling with internal turmoil. Recent regime changes, the constitutional crisis over the next general elections, growing insecurity and the rise in terrorist attacks, escalating debt, human rights violations, political instability, socioeconomic disparities, growing inflation, and energy crises have all taken a toll on Pakistan's standing in the international community.

The country is increasingly perceived as an elitist state that struggles to address the genuine concerns of its citizens, moving closer to a praetorian state. This negative image is partly due to the hybrid governance model adopted prior to Munir's appointment, disrupting the balance of power between civilian and military authorities.

Under this system, the military has gained legal authority to govern key state institutions, but this has eroded its public image, a problem that has been exacerbated by allegations from popular leader Imran Khan of undermining democracy.

At present, there are lingering suspicions that the next general elections, currently scheduled for February 08, 2024, may not take place until Khan is absent from the political landscape. Despite being imprisoned and facing a ban from politics, Khan maintains significant popularity compared to his political rivals. As long as his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party remains a legitimate political entity, it poses a potential risk of securing a majority in parliament, a scenario the military establishment is unwilling to tolerate.

For their part, Western nations, including the United States and European Union, have issued warnings about potential consequences if the elections are delayed further or conducted unfairly. Adding to Pakistan's challenges, a group of US members of Congress recently urged the Biden administration to withhold military aid due to concerns over human rights abuses.

Dismissing such negative perceptions, Munir has pledged his commitment to upholding democracy in Pakistan. This underscores a major aspect of the Munir doctrine, which aims to restore the military's soft image both at home and abroad while retaining its influence in the country's governance.

Affirming Munir’s position, Interim Prime Minister Anwar-ul-Haq Kakar has asserted that the military's involvement in state governance is solely due to its organizational capabilities and has dismissed concerns that it might seek to manipulate the upcoming elections.

Pakistan a regional security actor

Historically, Pakistan has leveraged its advanced military capabilities as a crucial asset in its foreign relations, a reason why its defense cooperation takes precedence over economic ties with other countries. This security-centric foreign policy strategy has played a pivotal role in sustaining the functionality and institutional capacity of the military, even during the most testing periods. However, despite entering significant security and defense agreements, Pakistan has been unable to achieve much-needed stability and security.

A primary factor contributing to this challenge is the hostile internal and regional security environment in which Pakistan is situated. Munir's foreign policy vision reflects this strategic thinking, as evidenced by his statements and efforts in defense diplomacy.

He has expressed his desire to defend Pakistan against internal and cross-border terrorism while simultaneously transforming the country into a stabilizing regional security actor.

In terms of foreign policy initiatives, Munir has carved out a distinctive path, particularly in relation to India and Afghanistan. Taking a stern stance toward India, Munir has issued warnings of a swift proportional response in the event of an attack. He has also accused India of waging a proxy war against Pakistan through terrorist organizations.

Deviating from the traditional friendly ties between Pakistan's military and the Afghan Taliban, Munir has chosen to pursue a more adversarial policy toward the Kabul regime.

Accusing the Afghan government of sheltering anti-Pakistan terrorists, he has threatened a robust military response if Pakistan’s security demands are not met.

The ongoing deportation of 1.7 million Afghans residing in Pakistan is evidence of Munir’s stringent policy against the Afghan Taliban. In defense of the massive deportations, Munir has contended that the expulsion of Afghans, whom he alleges to be involved in most terrorist activities in Pakistan, would enhance the country’s internal security.

Strategic neutrality

Munir has articulated his aspiration to safeguard Pakistan's strategic autonomy and territorial integrity, with the objective of maintaining a neutral middle power status in the global context.

This vision may have taken shape as a response to the deliberate strategic maneuvers of middle powers, which have astutely capitalized on the rivalry between the West and Russia, as well as the competition between the United States and China, to bolster their bargaining positions, all while avoiding being ensnared in their confrontations.

Achieving genuine neutrality may be a tall order though and would require, first and foremost, full independence from foreign aid.

Unfortunately, at present Pakistan is highly reliant on external aid to meet its needs. Bound by geographic, geopolitical, and geo-economic constraints, Pakistan often finds itself with limited options, at times playing a subservient role to major global powers.

In the face of fervent appeals from substantial segments of Pakistani society, calling on the military to lend support to Hamas against Israel and to diplomatically boycott Western backers of Israel, including the United States, Munir has opted to abstain from such actions.

In contrast, he seems focused on navigating Pakistan's response to the demands of both the United States and China without stirring tensions with either side.

He has sought to enhance Pakistan-US defense ties, rekindling US interest in the country after a previous inclination to disengage. A notable case in point is the renewal of the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), a crucial element of US-Pakistan defense cooperation, through which the US has extended its offer to assist Pakistan in counterterrorism efforts.

To further solidify ties, Munir visited Washington in mid-December for discussions with senior US military and Biden administration officials, seeking to strengthen US-Pakistan military cooperation and foster investment in Pakistan by urging the US government to explore opportunities through the newly established Special Investment Facility Council.

As for China, despite reports of Beijing’s reluctance to add more projects to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) due to performance issues on Pakistan's part, Munir's renewed commitment to ensuring the security of Chinese interests has injected new life into previously stagnant CPEC projects.

Pakistan's economic revival

One of Munir’s major foreign policy objectives is to address Pakistan's economic challenges through cooperation with friendly nations. His vision for Pakistan’s economic growth and prosperity emerged when he took on a diplomatic role in securing funding from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to fulfill IMF preconditions for a crucial bailout package. While this prevented Pakistan from facing a debt default, it also brought significant embarrassment due to the harsh conditions attached to the IMF bailout in an already crisis-ridden country.

Indicating a shift away from geopolitics and toward geo-economics, Munir has committed to leading Pakistan toward self-reliance by leveraging its resource advantages.

His vision includes a policy aimed at ending dependency and promoting self-sufficiency. To expedite these initiatives, a new “single-window” investment facilitation body, the SIFC, was established under his leadership in June of this year. Its primary objective is to attract foreign investments across various sectors, such as mining, agriculture, information technology, and energy, from affluent Gulf countries, China, and the United States.

Munir has urged foreign investors to explore Pakistan's untapped natural resources, estimated to be worth US$6 trillion, including deposits of copper, gold, sulfur, lead, and zinc, among others. He has also encouraged local investors to participate in these endeavors.

In discussions with Pakistan's business community, Munir outlined his plans for economic recovery. Emphasizing his commitment to geo-economics, he underscored his efforts to convince Gulf monarchs to consider investing up to US$100 billion in Pakistan.

Munir's broader approach to economic diplomacy underscores his vision, favoring development partnerships over development assistance. This shift also signifies a change in Pakistan's traditional military approach of providing military bases to now offering economic bases.

Key takeaways

Munir’s geostrategic vision for Pakistan, though it may sound idealistic, has already scored several successes. To revive the domestic economy, he has launched a comprehensive crackdown on corruption, smuggling, energy theft, illegal practices, and unauthorized immigration.

Munir has earned praise for his commitment to revitalizing Pakistan's economy, presenting himself as the guarantor of stability in the country and the primary point of contact for the international community. This underscores his aim of transforming Pakistan into an important market that can bring together various global economic interests.

On the security front, Munir has escalated military operations against terrorist outfits like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, declining to engage in talks for peace.

Furthermore, he has strengthened the military’s defense engagements by forging military cooperation agreements with countries across the Central, West, East, and South Asian regions.

Pakistan recently hosted the “Eternal Brotherhood-II” multinational counterterrorism exercise, reflecting Munir's two-pronged strategy.

Firstly, he aims to capitalize on Pakistan's pivotal role in combating terrorism originating from Afghanistan, addressing concerns among both neighboring nations and global powers such as the US, China, and Russia. Secondly, he seeks to counterbalance India's influence by strengthening regional military alliances.

At the same time, Munir's foreign policy aspirations entail significant risk and could have serious consequences for Pakistan.

To begin with, it remains uncertain whether his expanded role in governance will effectively enhance the military's softer image and bolster Pakistan's global reputation, especially given that many of its major challenges are still attributed to the actions of the military establishment.

Additionally, establishing Pakistan as a stabilizing regional security actor seems to be a daunting task, particularly in the context of heightened tensions with its immediate neighbor, Afghanistan.

Achieving a neutral middle power status presents its own set of difficulties, and this objective may prove elusive until Pakistan gains a certain level of economic independence.

To date, Pakistan's efforts to attract significant new investments from the Gulf states have run into difficulties, given the latter’s predominant focus on the ongoing Gaza crisis.

There is limited evidence to suggest that Gulf nations will come to Pakistan's aid in the near future. As a result, the SIFC has struggled to finalize long-awaited billion-dollar foreign transactions. With limited foreign support available, Pakistan continues to heavily depend on financial assistance from organizations like the IMF and investments from China.

It seems that the most critical foreign policy challenge confronting Munir is the integration of soft power with hard power.

This requires finding a delicate balance between security and economic considerations, necessitating a departure from traditional military strategies to embrace alternative methods of advancing national interests. Given the unique strategic culture of the military, which may lack an understanding of the nuances of civilian affairs and the intricacies of soft power, expectations for progress from Munir may be limited.

With two more years ahead, the success of Munir's foreign policy hinges on addressing several crucial questions. How does he plan to balance fostering economic growth with Pakistan's current economic dependence? Could Munir's geo-economic strategy unintentionally lead Pakistan into another debt trap?

To prevent Pakistan from becoming overly reliant on the exploitation of natural resources and transforming into a rentier state, what proactive measures does he intend to take?

Additionally, as Pakistan navigates strained relations with neighboring India and Afghanistan, how will Gen. Munir achieve Pakistan’s long-term security goals? Moreover, how does he plan to navigate its position amid the rivalry between the United States and China without taking sides? Importantly, what specific steps will he take to bridge the gap between civilian leadership and the military establishment, ensuring a cohesive and effective foreign policy strategy?

 Courtesy: Middle East Institute

 

Tuesday 13 June 2023

US foreign policy driven by military complexes

It is believed that the top think-tanks operating in the United States, active in foreign policy sphere, receive financial support from the top US military complexes that include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman etc.

For Years, the US administration has been claiming that the country’s foreign policy is centered on human values like democracy, peace, freedom, and respect to other nations.

However, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft recently published a detailed report which concluded that the US arms companies play a substantial role in shaping the country’s foreign policy.

The Institute suggests that of 10 top American think-tanks which are active in foreign policy sphere, all of them receive financial support from American firms including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman etc.

In this regard, Atlantic Council and Center for Strategic and International Studies receive more than a million US dollars from these companies annually. 

The issue clarifies why most of American well-known think-tanks support the selling of arms to Ukraine, which is not the whole story.

According to the Quincy Institute report, more than 85% of the US media is in the long list of the recipients of the funds. The issue which unveils the fact that the US arms firms justify their inhuman aims by using the research and media tools.

Although different reports also refer to the fact that US arms’ firms use lobbyists for every member of the US Congress to advance their agendas in a desired way.

In this vein, it is not surprising to see that the US foreign policy has created historical catastrophes like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

It is noteworthy that in the midst of the Ukraine war, the executive manager of the US firm Raytheon Technologies clearly said, “Geopolitical tensions of Eastern Europe carry profitable income opportunities for the company”.

From this perspective, it is fair to say that behind the well-designed foreign policy are the policy carvers which meet their goals at the expense of US citizens.

This once again confirms the fact that the distance between declared and practical goals of the US foreign policy is from the earth to the sky.      

 

 

Tuesday 23 March 2021

Why Joe Biden is following collision policy?

There are ample evidences that the foreign policy of United States under Joe Biden is not any different from that of Donald Trump. These include maximum pressure campaign against Iran, sanctions on Venezuela, bombing of Syria, no change on Yemen and the list can continue. From the outside world the behavior and tough talk of US officials can be termed juvenile. It demonstrates lack of knowledge, wisdom and strategy.

The United States will take an uncompromising stance in talks with China in Alaska, officials said at the first face-to-face meetings between senior officials from the two rivals, but Beijing called for a reset to ties. Then, after days of viciousness against China, it finally dawned on Blinken that he needs China's help. Why, should China be kind to United States?

The same aggressive behavior is also evident towards Russia. Baseless accusations of Russian election interferences are followed with more sanctions and threats topped off with Biden calling Russia's President Putin a 'killer'. Why Biden can’t be called a killer, he ordered bombing at Syria.

Last week the French forces, issued an open letter to NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg in which it accused him of having acting solely in the interest of the US during the development of his NATO 2030 plan. The details show how NATO and the US have caused the bad relations with Russia.

It says the United States is using a fictional 'Russian threat' to pressure NATO countries into morphing into a global force, under its command and independent of the United Nations, to then use it against China. The real threat to Europe emerges from the US interferences in the Middle East and North Africa. The US led NATO is thereby becoming a danger for Europe.

The accusations France against the US go beyond anything one might hear from Moscow or Beijing. The next 'allied' nation that will have sound reason to turn hostile towards the US might well be Germany.

The Biden administration stepped up its rhetoric against a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, calling on all those involved in the project to ‘immediately abandon’ their work.

“The Department reiterates its warning that any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline risks US sanctions and should immediately abandon work on the pipeline,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement.

Nord Stream 2 is of vital importance to Germany's energy security. The German public was rather hostile to President Trump and Biden's victory was seen with relief, but when it sees how Biden pursues the same policies, and with a similar tone, it will turn on him. A more general 'anti-Americanism' would then arise.

The uncompromising and ever aggressive behavior the United States shows towards competitors as well as friends will not strengthen its position in the world. These rushed attempts to prevent the ending of its unipolar moment will only accelerate the move towards a new multilateral global system.

Wednesday 5 December 2012


United States Fueling Iran Arab Animosity

There exists an overwhelming perception that Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are deeply worried about Iran and ask the United States to take care of the problem.  The usual causes of conflict are cited to be Sunni-Shiite divide, Iranian subversion, its support for Hezbollah, and omnipresent fear about Iran's nuclear energy program.  United States has been successful in creating these fears and also doing well in projecting Iran as a growing monster that can eat Arab monarchs.

Reading an article of Stephen M. Walt printed in Foreign Policy reveals that oil producing Arab countries are keen in keeping oil prices high to finance budgets in a period where heightened social spending and other measures are being used to insulate these regimes from the impact of the Arab Spring. According to the IMF, these states need crude prices to remain above U$80 a barrel in order to keep their fiscal house in order. 

The Article also discusses the potential interest of Saudi Arabia that wants to keep Iran in the doghouse, so that Iran can't attract foreign companies to refurbish and expand its oil and gas fields and also make it more difficult for Iran to market its petroleum in the global markets. It is but obvious that if UN and other sanctions are lifted and energy companies start operating freely in Iran, its oil and gas production would boom, overall supplies would increase, and the global price would drop.

If this happens Iran can emerge a more formidable power in the Gulf region but lower oil and gas prices would make it much harder for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to stave off demands for political reform through social spending. Saudi Arabia could cut production to try to keep prices up, but that would still mean lower overall revenues and a budget shortfall.

When one hears how worried the Gulf states are about Iran, and how they support the efforts to keep tightening the screws, remember that it's not just about geopolitics or historical divide between Sunnis and Shiites or between Arabs and Persians. It is only to keep inflow of petro dollars high but why should United States be conniving with Arabs?

However, Stephen forgot to mention one point.  By keeping Iranian threat high United States is able to sell more arms to Arab countries. It is on record that United States is the biggest arms seller in the world and Arab monarchies are the major buyers, Saudi Arab being the biggest buyer.

Diverting attention of Arabs towards Iran also helps in saving Israel. At a recently held conference some of the Arab countries termed Iran a threat bigger than Israel. In the latest bid of the United State is fully supported by Arabs to topple government in Syria, and earlier in Libya. Over the years Arabs have been giving charity to Palestinians living in refugees’ camps but not supporting in the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.