Pakistan and the Role of the State

In “Essentials of International Relations”, Mingst discusses the four fundamental conditions that must be met in order for an entity to be considered a state. Pakistan, being a state, of course meets all of these conditions. First, Pakistan has a territorial base. It is located in the middle east, north of the Arabian Sea and is bordered by Iran, Afghanistan, China, and India. The state of Pakistan also possesses a stable population . With a federal parliamentary system, President as Head of State, and indirectly-elected Prime Minister as the chief executive, the Government of Pakistan holds the population’s allegiance. Lastly, the state must be recognized by other states. Pakistan has been a member of the United Nations since September 30, 1947 and so it fulfills all four requirements.

Pakistan fails to be considered a nation-state, due to the various cultures within the state. Pakistan is comprised of four provinces, each differing in culture. The culture of the Kashmir region, also differs from these provinces. Unrest with India remains active in this region.

The liberal view of the state can be used to analyze the U.S.’s involvement or lack there of during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965.

Liberals believe that multiple national interests influence state actions. Consumer groups desire the oil at the lowest price possible; manufacturers, who depend on bulk suppies to run their factories, prefer stability of the supply of oil, otherwise they risk losing their jobs; producers of oil, including domestic producers, want high prices, so that they will make profits and have incentives to reinvest in drilling. The state itself reflects no consistent viewpoint about the oil; its task is to ensure that the “playing field is level” and the procedural rules are the same for the various players in the market. (Mingst, 106)

The U.S. had no consistent viewpoint about the war, much like how the state has no consisten viewpoint about the oil. However, the U.S. did care to make sure that “the playing field [was] level. It did so my declaring neutrality and cutting off military supplies to both sides despite the Agreement of Cooperation which had been signed with Pakistan. However, by not choosing one side to support, the U.S. was able to allow India and Pakistan to fight on a more equal level.

The International System and Pakistan

According to an article published in the NY Times on February 14, “religious parties are foundering”. Elections for parliament are to be held Monday, and according to a number of opinion polls, support for religious parties has fallen drastically in favor of more moderate groups. What this could mean, looking at the international system, is that change is coming. Pakistani citizens (along with those of many other eastern countries) have for the last five or six years been very loudly anti-western and anti-moderate in their political choices. According to Pakistani political analysts, this is not exactly the normal order of things:

“…the religious parties command only a small percentage of popular support and that the 2002 elections were an aberration, a reaction to the American intervention in Afghanistan and the result of rigging by Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, which have always had links with the religious parties.”

American intervention right next door, geographically speaking, caused an exogenous shock in Pakistani voting trends during the 2002 elections, and only now is it starting to return to a more normal state. In the violent northwest especially, voters are tired of the religious parties refusing to overtly criticize organizations like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, despite the harm they almost routinely cause Pakistani citizens.

“’They did not serve the people,’ said Faiz Muhammad, 47, a farmer whose son was killed in the bomb blast on an Awami political gathering on Saturday.”

Mr. Muhammad was referring to the religious parties, but resentment towards the terrorist groups is growing.

“’People are fed up because they are not opposing the attacks by the Taliban openly,’” were the words of Muhammad Jawed, a businessman.

What this shift in opinion could mean internationally is extremely important. With hard-line religious parties predicted to lose and lose badly, moderate parties are showing staggering levels of support in comparison. Terrorism and insurrection always relies, to a certain extent, upon the goodwill of the people living in the areas in which they operate. When the people as a whole begin to turn against them, they find it much harder to carry out attacks. What this might mean is another change, seen here in Pakistan as well as other Middle Eastern countries, towards a more moderate, less anti-western mindset. The ordinary people have suffered as a result of the fighting caused by the extremists, and they want it to end by electing a government who will prevent more violence, whether in the name of religion or not.

To quote Mr. Wali, a moderate who looks set to do well in the elections, “’I feel that we Pashtuns have had enough of war, enough of bloodshed, and the common man now accepts that.’”

The fire of the average citizen has finally been spent, and from the liberal view of things, this is the tip of a potentially huge iceberg. Non-state actors- in the case the citizenry of a country- are making their voices heard and saying they want no more violence, and they will back up their words with their votes. A genuinely anti-militant Pakistan could prove an immense help to western efforts in countries like Afghanistan, where tribesmen had previously tolerated militants over government soldiers, but where now the opposite might just become the case. This could mark a turning point in western relations with Pakistan as well as in western military efforts to combat terrorism. It’s early to say anything, but with a lot of luck, both the government and the people of Pakistan will agree that Pakistan will no longer be a home for religious extremism.

All quotes taken from: In Tribal Pakistan, Religious Parties Are Foundering

 

IR Theory and Pakistan

Different aspects of many of the theories of IR can be applied to Pakistan. In looking at the foreign policies of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan since the Cold War, I have noticed that many of the actions taken by this state support the Realism Theory of international relations. Here, I will look at Pakistan from the eyes of a realist, both observing events of the past and looking towards the future of this state.

Pakistan has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, and is the sixth most populous country with a population of 164,741,924 (July 2007 est.) . Realists see human nature as bad and believe that states act to pursue their own national interest. This theory is demonstrated through the foreign relations of Pakistan and history with various allied countries. Being the only Islamic nation to declare nuclear power shows Pakistan’s intent to pursue power.

Pakistan’s past relations with the US and other allied nations corresponds with the anarchic, or self-help system of realism. This was especially evident during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. This war caused Pakistan to believe that the US was not reliable as an ally because of the effects of its suspension of aid to Pakistan. However, Pakistan was interested in relative gains and so relations improved with the US and arms sales were renewed in 1975. The improvement relations with Bangladesh also serves as an example to the realist theory that enemies can become allies as states pursue national interest.

So what does the future hold for Pakistan? Realism shows that an ally may not always be that way. In this anarchic world, no state can be trusted. Although relations with India have improved, a struggle for power still exists in the Kashmir region. Since, according to realists, it is human nature to be in conflict, this peaceful time and cease fire will not last. And, as with the Athenians conquer of the Melians, Pakistan could use its power to overcome states that do not assist in its conquest of India in Kashmir. Poor neighbor relations will prove to be difficult for Pakistan in the future and as the need to display power increases, so will the tension along the borders.