Political realism and its emphasis on power has been a prominent international relations theory since Thucydides (c. 460 B.C – c. 400 B.C.). Principles of equality and justice, on many occasions, can be supplanted by national interest and the pursuit of power within the realm of realism. Irrespective of the theoretical lens used to interpret international relations, the concept of ‘power’, in its varying forms, remains a key element.
Rivals of classical political realism and its ‘emphasis on power’ have based their arguments around the development of international institutions, democracy, liberalism, etc. However, the dominance of power is apparent in these liberal dynamics as well, whereby, differential treatment/pressure is applied by the select few global elites on ‘the others’.
Regardless of which international theory is applied, ultimately the interrelation between polarization, balance of power, and centers of power with their respective spheres of influence culminate into the great games played by great powers in the global arena.
In his book, ‘21 Lessons for the 21st Century’, Yuval Noah Harari—a historian, philosopher and best-selling author of ‘Sapiens’ and ‘Homo Deus’—wrote that during the 20th century the global elites “formulated three grand stories that claimed to explain the whole past and to predict the future of the entire world: the fascist story, the communist story and the liberal story.” The fascist story ended with the second World War, and “from the 1940s to the late 1980s the world became a battleground between just two stories: communism and liberalism. Then the communist story collapsed, and the liberal story remained the dominant guide…”
The liberal story is now being challenged from within the “core liberal states of Western Europe and North America.” The resultant ‘no story’ vacuum has brought about the rise of an authoritarian/capitalist model – China – challenging the predominance of a democratic/market- oriented power – the U.S..
The present international configuration suggests that the rivalry emanating from the rapid ascension of China is contouring the global political landscape into a multi-polar reality. In an article titled “The Thucydides Trap”, published in Foreign Policy, Graham Allison, a professor of government in Harvard Kenney School, wrote:
“The past 500 years have seen 16 cases in which a rising power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of these ended in war”.
“Of the cases in which war was averted — Spain outstripping Portugal in the late 15th century, the United States overtaking the United Kingdom at the turn of the 20th century, and Germany’s rise in Europe since 1990 — the ascent of the Soviet Union is uniquely instructive today. Despite moments when a violent clash seemed certain, a surge of strategic imagination helped both sides develop ways to compete without a catastrophic conflict. In the end, the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War ended with a whimper rather than a bang.”
The “competitive and conflictual” nature of realism will intensify as the global power dynamics shift. While these powers realign their strategies to balance power in their favor, more vulnerable countries must tread carefully.
Pakistan and the New World Order
An economically fragile and politically unstable country devastated by recent floods, Pakistan, is a prime example of this vulnerability. A country’s internal strengths and weaknesses are congruent with external opportunities and threats. Global dynamics and paradigm shifts must be considered to develop a holistic strategy. As the great- powers rivalry intensifies, sitting on the sidelines may no longer be an option. Pakistan, with a weak and unstable socioeconomic and political dispensation, is particularly susceptible to external pressures.
The country’s foreign exchange reserves are dwindling (the net reserves with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) were just over US$ 8 billion1 before the publication of this issue of CQ), the cost of living is rising (the year-on-year Consumer Price Index based inflation reached a 47 year high of 27.26%2 percent), the debt burden has reached unsustainable levels (according to data from SBP, “the total debt and liabilities as a percentage of GDP in FY2022 was 89.2 percent”). In addition, the human, infrastructure, and agricultural devastation caused by the floods (one-third of the land submerged, 33 million people displaced, and damages estimated to be US$ 30 billion) has exacerbated the crisis.
This economic meltdown has restricted the short-term strategies of relevant institutions and individuals of the state to the pursuit of financial aid from donor countries and multilateral organizations. The emphasis remains on ‘short-term’, as hope based on the largesse of other nations is neither a plan nor a strategy.
To further confound matters, Pakistan’s economic well-being is reliant on major powers from opposing sides:
- The U.S. is Pakistan’s largest exporting market – over US$ 6.7 billion during the FY It was also the second largest source of direct investment in Pakistan during the same fiscal year – US$ 249.6 million.3 In addition, a large portion of the aid and loans that Pakistan requires come from countries and multilateral organizations that are heavily influenced by the U.S..
- The highest source of FDI in Pakistan for FY 2022 was China – US$ 6 million. China has also become the largest supplier of military hardware to Pakistan4. US$ 62 billion has been pledged for China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This initiative is a component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The associated ‘high-profile’ transportation and power infrastructure projects serve the dual purpose of economic uplift for Pakistan and access to the Arabian Sea via Gwadar port for China.5 Lack of transparency, corruption and security issues continue to create obstacles in the development of this corridor.
Pakistan’s current dynamics—including its socioeconomic vulnerabilities and the U.S. tilt towards India—have pushed the country closer to China and, to a certain extent, Russia. This, however, does not necessarily have to be a zero-sum game.
Despite the hastiness of some analysts to label this emerging rivalry as the second cold war, the nuances behind the current great game are quite different. The U.S. and Soviet rivalry was played on either side of the ‘Iron Curtain’ through their respective spheres of influence. Collaboration of any kind was limited. For Instance, trade between the rivals “averaged at 1 percent of total trade for both countries in the 1970s and 1980s” and peaked in 1979 to US$ 4.5 billion.6 In contrast, trade between China and the U.S. amounted to US$ 755.6 billion in 2021.7
Notwithstanding the growing friction over the status of Taiwan, the South China Sea, etc., further collaboration between the two rivals is possible and, to a certain extent, essential to counter the challenges of climate change, reform and reduce global trade barriers, revive the Iran nuclear deal, manage relations with North Korea, etc.
Pakistan can also play its part by providing “neutral space” in areas where collaboration is viable for these two great powers. For instance, Pakistan is one of the ten countries most affected by climate change. The recent flash floods devastating lives, livelihoods and land is a prime example. Foreign direct investments (FDIs) from the two countries can be channeled into joint ventures in climate-smart agricultural and infrastructure projects. As such, the begging bowl will eventually be replaced by mutually beneficial long term sustainable investment. In addition, The U.S. could enable “businesses to avail themselves of opportunities provided by Chinese-funded infrastructure projects, including the newly created Special Economic Zones being created via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor…”8
Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts need to highlight the benefits of such sustainable bilateral engagements. Furthermore, the country needs to supplement its existing traditional global economic partners and markets with other options such as the Central Asian Republics (CARs). The potential in just transit trade is in the billions.
However, as mentioned earlier, internal strengths and weaknesses directly influence external opportunities and threats. As such, our “neutral space” and other strategies remain conditional to structural reforms of our political and economic institutions.
Inclusive vs Extractive Institutions9
The proper and inclusive functioning of political and economic institutions is essential for a country’s well-being and economic prosperity of its people. Ishrat Hussain, a former dean and director of the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi and chair of Pakistan’s National Commission for Government Reforms, wrote in a piece titled, ‘Why Institutional Capacity Matters and Where Reforms Should Start’ for the Woodrow Wilson Center that despite absorbing and rehabilitating 8 million refugees, fighting two wars with its neighbor— one leading to the “dismemberment of the country in 1971”— nationalizing private assets in the 1970s, and “the spread of sectarian violence, drugs and kalashnikovs” due to the country’s involvement with the US in Afghanistan in the 1980s, “Pakistan was able to register a 6 percent average growth rate annually during the first 40 years of its existence.”
As the institutions of governance deteriorated, so did the socioeconomic condition of the country. The relevant institutions made sure that the systems functioned to benefit the few political elite rather than the masses. Unfortunately, the will of the political elite that control the political institutions and are beneficiaries of the prevalent system is required to implement the necessary economic reforms that will cater to the welfare of the citizens.
The economic fate of the country is intertwined with the fate of its citizens. Inclusive policies and reforms need to be developed and implemented to ensure that the average citizen considers himself/herself a stakeholder. Education, healthcare, employment, an agile bureaucracy rendering the required services in an efficient and proactive manner and supremacy of the rule of law are integral in ensuring that the necessary reforms can be implemented and managed. Political and economic institutions need to revert to being inclusive rather than extractive, i.e., for the masses rather than the select few elite.
Unless this formidable yet essential task of revamping the institutions is pursued, Pakistan will remain internally weak and susceptible to external pressures. The country will continue to rely on aid and loans rather than developing mutually beneficial bilateral economic relations with other countries for sustainable growth. In addition, the conversion of the great game rivalry to Pakistan’s benefit through offering a “neutral space” for investment will not be possible unless the country effectively manages its Business Enabling Environment (BEE), human capital, governance and the associated accountability process, etc., through structural institutional reforms. Political and socioeconomic inclusiveness whereby the citizens are indispensable stakeholders within the state is integral to prosperity and unity.
Conclusion
A story usually has a protagonist. The protagonist is initially reluctant to pursue his or her role as this requires change, effort, taking on antagonistic forces and a deviation from a known and comfortable existence. However, there can be no story without a journey. Eventually, an inciting incident is thrown in that compels the protagonist to pursue the more challenging path. And that is the beginning of a hero’s journey. The greater the challenge the more exciting the story and the more relevant the hero.
Critical junctures in history act like inciting incidents. They force humanity into action and bring out the best and worst that humanity has to offer. On a national level, some critical junctures in Pakistan’s history have been the 1971 partition, the nationalization policy of the 1970s and the 1998 nuclear tests. The current internal politico-economic crises along with the ramifications of the new world order may be considered as critical junctures. However, we have gone through such times before and learnt nothing from them. Our long-term strategies/policies/reforms will determine whether we have truly transformed while emerging from a critical juncture or have just averted another crisis while waiting for the next.
References
- https://www.sbp.org.pk/ecodata/forex.pdf
- https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/press_releases/2022/CPI_Press_Release_August_2022.pdf
- https://invest.gov.pk/statistics
- https://newlinesinstitute.org/state-resilience-and-fragility/how-the-u-s-can-create-a-more-sustainable-relationship-with-pakistan
- https://www.cfr.org/blog/china-pakistan-economic-corridor-hard-reality-greets-bris-signature-initiative
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union
- https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202201/1245953.shtml
- https://newlinesinstitute.org/state-resilience-and-fragility/how-the-u-s-can-create-a-more-sustainable-relationship-with-pakistan
- Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty (New York, Crown Publishers, 2012).
