US FOREIGN POLICY REVIEW
Dr. Tanvir Orakzai
May 15, 2009
When President Regan labeled Soviet Union as an Evil Empire, his main intention was to declare Soviet Union a godless state based on coercion and tyranny; while US a nation of believers fighting for righteousness. The Afghan warriors were glorified as holy warriors affectionately supported by US (and West) to save humanity from imminent doom. In the wake of 9/11 the tide turned; the holy warriors started calling US a "godless regime" waging insurgencies across the world. Most of these movements garner their support not only from their flawed domestic politics but they also feed on US foreign policy mistakes to spread their ideologies of hate. For example Al-Qaeda main mission is not to conqueror US or Europe but to free Muslim countries from US hegemony. Al-Qaeda bemoans US attack on Iraq and Afghanistan, Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and US support for dictators in the Muslim countries. It may not be possible to redress all these grievances at once; however no endeavors have been made to address a single issue in the past eight years. The standard answer by US policy makers is "we donīt change our policy due to terrorist threats". Such philosophy is not only flawed but it also creates impediments for US foreign policy objectives. In international politics there may be some issues that can be resolved through threat of force; however trying to run world politics only through brute force is recipe for disaster. For example US sanctions helped in exerting pressure on North Korea, but it did not generate the desired result in Cuba. Iran has been under sanctions for 30 years without any reward for US to grab. The above examples illustrates that hard to change polices have been sustained by successive US administrations in a vain hope that sanctions will bring these regimes to knee-did not work that has been noticed by President Obama who seems shifting the traditional approach to tackle the above mentioned issues.
A similar change of heart is needed to tackle the rise of militancy that has plagued Pakistan for almost a decade- with no realistic result. There is this flawed notion that the insurgency in Pakistan can be solved only by military means- that has been proved erroneous despite being in practice for eight years. The raison d'ętre for such failure is the wrong diagnosis for a crisis that needs an all-inclusive approach. All insurgencies are born in environments; where people find themselves economically and politically marginalized or when they find their identity or religion under threat.US has been offering military assistance to Pakistan to tackle the militancy, however Pakistan needs help to revamp the socio-economic structure of the country to root off militancy. For example one million people have been displaced due to rise in militancy across NWFP that Provincial Government find overwhelming to support. Pakistan has been hearing consistently pledges for military and police assistance but no support has been provided to these displaced people. By offering humanitarians support US can minimize discontent among these internal refugees who are often exploited by militants.
Foreign policy aims to achieve a stateīs objective through use of threat, economic assistance, and mutual security agreements in various sectors with other states. In Pakistanīs case US foreign policy seems to be following solely its own interests without realizing Pakistan precarious situation. The issue of insurgency in FATA may be small nuisance for US forces in Afghanistan but inside Pakistan the threat is factual. Looking at Afghanistan situation, where anarchy is rising up with each passing day, US have the choice to depart on any pretext but Pakistan has no option.
In such scenario Pakistan has to find local solutions to local problems ranging from neutralizing the core militant groups to dividing the moderates from radicals, political reforms in some regions and addressing grievances in other areas. US has to recognize Pakistani perspective and let Pakistan deal with its local problems rather than interfering with every single incident taking place inside Pakistan. Such superfluous meddling in trivial affairs generates resentment against US not only among ordinary Pakistanis, but it also provides another justification to militants.
The failure of US foreign policy to address the issue of rising militancy can be blamed on the success of Cold War and Gulf War that created this myth of invincibility in US strategic thinking. In the wake of 9/11 this concept was further expanded in the shape of shock and awe that worked effectively in industrial nations like Yugoslavia or against Iraq that had conventional army, but high tech weaponry is excess baggage in guerrilla war. President Obama seems to recognize that US "military power is just one arm" of its overall power. Power if used prudently can bring "concrete improvements in the lives of ordinary persons" he added. Unfortunately the past eight years have been ruinous for world security; where US created more adversaries than friends. Power is like knife that in the hand of robber is a deadly weapon and in the hand of doctor is a surgical device. It is up to US policy makers which role it they wish to play.
A similar change of heart is needed to tackle the rise of militancy that has plagued Pakistan for almost a decade- with no realistic result. There is this flawed notion that the insurgency in Pakistan can be solved only by military means- that has been proved erroneous despite being in practice for eight years. The raison d'ętre for such failure is the wrong diagnosis for a crisis that needs an all-inclusive approach. All insurgencies are born in environments; where people find themselves economically and politically marginalized or when they find their identity or religion under threat.US has been offering military assistance to Pakistan to tackle the militancy, however Pakistan needs help to revamp the socio-economic structure of the country to root off militancy. For example one million people have been displaced due to rise in militancy across NWFP that Provincial Government find overwhelming to support. Pakistan has been hearing consistently pledges for military and police assistance but no support has been provided to these displaced people. By offering humanitarians support US can minimize discontent among these internal refugees who are often exploited by militants.
Foreign policy aims to achieve a stateīs objective through use of threat, economic assistance, and mutual security agreements in various sectors with other states. In Pakistanīs case US foreign policy seems to be following solely its own interests without realizing Pakistan precarious situation. The issue of insurgency in FATA may be small nuisance for US forces in Afghanistan but inside Pakistan the threat is factual. Looking at Afghanistan situation, where anarchy is rising up with each passing day, US have the choice to depart on any pretext but Pakistan has no option.
In such scenario Pakistan has to find local solutions to local problems ranging from neutralizing the core militant groups to dividing the moderates from radicals, political reforms in some regions and addressing grievances in other areas. US has to recognize Pakistani perspective and let Pakistan deal with its local problems rather than interfering with every single incident taking place inside Pakistan. Such superfluous meddling in trivial affairs generates resentment against US not only among ordinary Pakistanis, but it also provides another justification to militants.
The failure of US foreign policy to address the issue of rising militancy can be blamed on the success of Cold War and Gulf War that created this myth of invincibility in US strategic thinking. In the wake of 9/11 this concept was further expanded in the shape of shock and awe that worked effectively in industrial nations like Yugoslavia or against Iraq that had conventional army, but high tech weaponry is excess baggage in guerrilla war. President Obama seems to recognize that US "military power is just one arm" of its overall power. Power if used prudently can bring "concrete improvements in the lives of ordinary persons" he added. Unfortunately the past eight years have been ruinous for world security; where US created more adversaries than friends. Power is like knife that in the hand of robber is a deadly weapon and in the hand of doctor is a surgical device. It is up to US policy makers which role it they wish to play.