Monthly Archives: January 2022

Collapse of the USSR and the Socialist bloc can be legitimately described as one of the most astounding developments of last decade of the 20th century. The emergence of the USSR as the first socialist state of world (Socialist Revolution of 1917) had a big and deep impact on the nature and course of international relations of the first quarter of the 20th century.

Likewise, the collapse of the USSR in 1991 acted as a source of equally big impact on international relations of the last decade of the 20th century. It led to the collapse of the entire socialist bloc. The 21st century opened as a new century characterised by ideological and strategic unipolarism, and struggling to adjust with the new realities of the post-USSR, post-socialist bloc international relations.

After having lived and acted as a super power in world politics, and after having organised and led the socialist bloc in international relations, the USSR suffered an inglorious collapse in 1991. Due to internal economic weaknesses and a big political turmoil in the era of Perestroika and Glasnost, it failed to keep up its integrated status. The flag of the USSR came down on 31st December, 1991 and was replaced by the flag of Russia, which became its successor state.

Even before the of total disintegration of the USSR in 1991, some of the republics of the USSR had declared themselves independent sovereign states. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had been in a position to secure their independences from the USSR, while other republics, one after the other, had also declared their independences.

Nine of the republics had decided to unite into a loose confederation of independent states with the name Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Georgia decided to remain away from the CIS. Thus, the last quarter of the year 1991 witnessed the disintegration of a super powerthe USSR and the liquidation of the socialist bloc.

This event came at a time when cold war had come to an end, the Eastern European states had gone in for non-communist regimes committed to the principles of economic-political liberalisation, democracy, decentralization, peaceful coexistence and cooperation with all others states for development.

The INF Treaty and the START-I Treaty had given a new hope for the securing of arms control in international relations. East-West relations had started taking a positive direction and healthy shape. The changes that had started coming were becoming instrumental in giving a new look and content to international relations, when the collapse of the USSR took place.

It made these changes more profound and bigger. After having remained as one of the two super powers in world politics and as a key actor during 1945-90, the USSR got itself confined to the pages of history in 1991. Its place was taken over by Russia, the CIS and several other independent republics, none of which was individually or collectively in a position to actually take over the role of the (erstwhile) USSR in world politics.

In 1917, Russia came to be the first socialist state in the world. Soon it reorganized itself into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republicsthe USSR. Initially, it decided to concentrate upon the task of internal consolidation and socialist state-building. Within a short span of about 25 years, it was, in a position to make spectacular progress in all spheres of internal administrationpolitical, economic, social, cultural and military.

It began getting transformed for its earlier status as the sick man of Europe to a powerful and developed state and a global powerful actor. During 1917-39 it even refrained from exporting socialism to other countries.

During the period of the Second World War, the USSR first consolidated its position and then entered the war against the Axis powers, particularly against Hitlers Germany which had invaded it in 1942. In this war, it demonstrated not only its new military might but also its ability to secure its desired objectives in international relations.

After the war, the USSR decided to fill in the power vacuum which had resulted from the loss of power suffered by all the European states. It also decided to export socialism to European states, and was actually successful in getting Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia transformed into socialist regimes. All these states, with the exception of Yugoslavia, got organised under Soviet leadership into the socialist bloc, which got formalized by the Warsaw Pact of 1955.

The Soviet policies and interests in Europe as well in other parts of the world were challenged by the USA and other democratic (capitalist) countries of the West, particularly the Western European countries. The USA adopted the policy of Containment of Communism and Massive Retaliation particularly for checking the growing power and influence of the communist USSR.

The latter, as a counter move, decided to challenge the US and Western policies, interests and decisions in international politics. In the process a cold war broke out between the East and West in general and the USSR and the USA in particular. The emergence of communists China in 1949 gave a big boost to the growing socialist movement in the world. After 1949 the cold war between the USA and the USSR got materialised as cold war between Socialist East and Capitalist West.

The cold-war (1947-70) continued unabated between the USSR and its bloc on one side and the USA and its bloc on the other side. Each of the two super powers always acted to limit and isolate the other. In 1962 this cold war brought the East and West on the brink of a hot war and the danger compelled the USSR and the USA to lessen the cold war tensions and strains.

Between 1970-80 a conscious attempt was made to reduce the cold war strains and tensions as well as for developing friendly cooperation between the USSR & the USA. The exercise i.e. detente, however remained limited in scope and partial in approach.

In early 1980s this attempt (detente) got once again replaced by a new cold war, which, however, could remain in operation for just 5 to 7 years. The dangers of the New Cold War and the pressure resulting from the USSRs presence and role in Afghanistan compelled the USSR leadership to realize the need for a new detente in international relations.

The leadership of Michael Gorbachev in the USSR and his policies of Perestroika (Restructuring) and Glashost (Openness) provided a good ground for the birth of a new detente capable of terminating the new cold war. In mid-1980s the new cold war got replaced by a new detente, and its birth was heralded by the INF Treaty 1987.

Around 1985 Mr. Gorbachev adopted the policy of liberalisation of Soviet society and polity and of restructuring the Soviet economy. His concepts of Perestroika and Glasnost started guiding the Soviet policies and economy. He came forward to adopt the policy of opening out in international relations through a rejection of cold war and by lending support to the principles of peaceful coexistence, disarmament, arms control and mutual cooperation for development.

Within the Soviet Union, he introduced multi-party, multi-candidate elections, open debates, public decision-making, democratisation, decentralisation and liberalisation. A wind of change started blowing in the USSR as well as in other socialist countries of Europe.

Acting under the new policy initiatives, the USSR signed the historic INF Treaty with the USA in 1987. It gave a big boost to the process of arms control, peaceful coexistence, and cooperation between East and West. Gorbachev adopted the policy of keeping regular and high level contacts with the US President, Mr. Reagan, and Mr. George Brush who succeeded Mr. Reagan in 1988. He adopted the policy of encouraging liberalisation towards the West.

His concepts of Perestroika and Glasnost became instrumental in producing a movement towards liberalisation and democratisation in the Socialist countries of Europe. Between 1988-90, the process of liberalisation of Eastern European countries made its appearance in a big way. The communist regimes in all these states began getting replaced by liberalized non- communist democratic regimes.

In the USSR, the new liberalisation and restructuring got transformed into a movement for democratic rights and freedoms. The economic weakness of the USSR, as reflected in shortages in the consumer goods and food, provided fuel to the movement for liberalisation. The Soviet central power developed a weakness and its ability to use power and authority got limited.

The Union Republics of the USSR, one after the other, started declaring their independences. Ethnic conflicts started developing in several Union Republics. The Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia were the first to secure their independences from the USSR.

In August 1991, an unsuccessful communist coup to seize power in the USSR was staged. The coup further reflected the increasing weakness of central power in the USSR. Moreover after this coup, power struggle between Michael Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin came to the forefront.

By November 1991, the Soviet authority got almost totally eclipsed. All the Soviet Republics declared their independences and the central government led by Mr. Gorbachev found the situation hopeless. Russia, the biggest republic of the USSR, was being ruled by President Boris Yeltsin and he posed the final challenge to the Presidency of Gorbachev.

In November 1991 nine Republics of the USSR, which had declared themselves sovereign independent states, signed a treaty to form the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a loose confederation of nine sovereign states. Russia asserted its claim for recognition as the successor of the erstwhile USSR and it was accepted by the new sovereign republics as well as by the USA and other states of the world.

Finally on 31st December, 1991 the flag of the USSR was replaced by the flag of Russia. The President of Russia, Mr. Boris Yeltsin received the nuclear button from Mikhail Gorbachev. Russia inherited the permanent seat of the USSR in the UN Security Council. With this the collapse of the USSR became complete and a super power got confined to the pages of history.

Along with Russia all the countries of the socialist bloc also got their regimes liberalized. In fact, non-communist regimes became successful in terminating the communist regimes. Disintegration of USSR led to a disintegration of the entire socialist bloc. The socialist bloc now came to be a liberalized bloc. The Eastern European states felt themselves now closer to Western European states. East Germany merged with West Germany to become one single Germany.

Before analyzing the impact of the collapse of the USSR and the liquidation of socialist bloc, it must be noted that the collapse of USSR was both total as well as partial. Total in the sense that the USSR got replaced by Russia, CIS, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. It was also total in the sense that it reflected the end of the era of communism in this part of the world, at least for the time being.

However, the collapse of USSR was also partial in the sense that the successor of the erstwhile USSR i.e. Russia inherited 3/4th of territory, population, resources and the whole of nuclear arsenal of the parent USSR. Russia took over all assets and liabilities of the erstwhile USSR.

However, despite this fact, it found itself weak and dependent due to the following factors:

1. A very weak economic system that Russia inherited compelled it to be dependent upon American and Western economic aid.

2. Presence of strong opposition to the leadership of President Boris Yeltsin within Russia acted as a big limitation. He found it difficult to have his own Prime Minister. A power struggle also got developed between the Russian Parliament and the President.

3. Russia was yet to fix its priorities in international relations. It was yet to adopt a foreign policy capable of securing Russian interests in the post-cold war and the post-USSR environment of international relations.

4. Lack of means and power to check the growing US power in international relations further compelled Russia to remain less active. The economic dependence of Russia made it difficult for the new Russian regime to act for limiting the fast developing US dominance over the UN and the international system.

5. The problem of conducting relations with other new independent states, which had been previously parts of the Soviet federation, also posed a big limitation on Russian power. The problem of sharing control over the assets of the Red Army as well as the need to control all the nuclear weapons of the erstwhile USSR, further acted as a big limitation on Russian power.

6. Despite inheriting the permanent seat in the UN Security Council, Russia found it almost difficult to challenge the growing US dominance over this powerful organ of the United Nations.

7. In the ideological and power unipolarism that came to develop as a result of the collapse of the USSR, Russia found it problematic and difficult to challenge the US power in the world.

8. Several internal troubles, e.g., Chechenya crisis a civil war, were instrumental in keeping limited the Russian power and role in international relations.

All these factors prevented Russia from effectively taking over the role of the erstwhile USSR in international relations. Legally it became the successor of the parent USSR, but in practice it failed to act as a super power or even as a major power in world politics.

Further, the new developments in the international relations after the collapse of the USSR, the liquidation of the socialist bloc and the new popularity gained by the principles of economic and political liberalisation, open competition and increased mutual cooperation for development gave rise to a new economic activity in international relations.

It had a positive face in so far as the new economic activity acted as a source of a new strength for the principles of peaceful co-existence, peace, liberalisation, liberalism, democracy, human rights, environment protection, peaceful conflict- resolution, de-nuclearisation, demilitarisation and development.

However, on the other hand it also had a negative dimension in so far as it gave an opportunity to the U.S.A. to dominate international relations particularly international decision-making in the U.N. Security Council. The new developments also acted as a source of more dependence of the Third world countries upon the developed countries.

The return of peace in several parts of the world was a welcome development but along with it the continuance of Neo- colonialism acted as a big strain on the policies and economics of new states. The world under the auspices of the U.N. got engaged in peace-keeping operations in several different parts of the world.

The world scenario in general appeared to be more healthy than what it was in the years of cold war. This became evident from the fact that after 11 September, 2001 all the nations readily came forward to join their heads and hands against the menace of international terrorism. However, the unilateralism shown by the USA by undertaking war against Iraq and in complete disregard to the United Nations, demonstrated the unbalanced nature of the unipolar international system of the post-USSR period of international relations.

In fact the new emerging international system is still struggling to absorb fully the changes resulting from the collapse of the U.S.S.R., and the liquidation of socialist bloc, which was accompanied by the rise of Russia as the successor state of the U.S.S.R., the Commonwealth of Independent States and several other new international actors.

International relations in general and politics in Asia and Europe in particular reflect a dissatisfaction with the presence of unipolarism in international relations. This has given strength to the objective of securing the multi-centric character of the international system and for meeting the menace of neo-colonialism in international relations.

The final impact of these developments is expected to become clear and settled in the first quarter of the 21st century. The post-U.S.S.R. and post-socialist bloc international system is yet to settle as a stable system of relations among nations.

The international community is still trying to restore the multi-centric character of international system. The U.N. General Assembly has become fully representative of the world but the U.N. Security Council is yet to be expanded, democratized and decentralised. The place and role of Russia, China, India, Germany, Brazil, Japan, South Africa and some other states in the emerging international system is yet to mature and get settled. The emerging trend towards multi-polarity is yet to get a definite shape.

The impact of the collapse of the USSR, which also involved the collapse of the socialist bloc in international relations, was indeed very profound and big. It can be analyzed under the following heads:

The cold war got virtually ended when the liberalisation and democratisation of Eastern European countries took place, when the Berlin wall got demolished and the two German states became one, when the Warsaw Pact got liquidated, and when the erstwhile adversaries East and West got engaged in a process of peaceful coexistence and mutual cooperation for development.

However, the presence of a Socialist USSR, despite the new liberalism, kept alive the chances for a re-emergence of a new cold war. It was really after the disintegration of the USSR and the inability of Russia to oppose the West that the chances for a re- emergence of cold war finally came to an end. We can say the final cremation of cold war took place with the collapse of the USSR.

The bi- polarity of the 1950s, which had got replaced by bi-multi-polarity or poly-centrism in 1960s, itself got replaced by a unipolarity in international relations of 1990s. The disintegration of the socialist bloc, the termination of the Warsaw Pact, and the collapse of the USSR created unipolarity in international relations with the U.S.A. as the sole-surviving super power in the world.

The unipolarity in international relations got reflected from the continued presence of NATO, the dominant position of the U.S.A. in the world in general and the UN in particular, and the inability or unwillingness on the part of the major powers to oppose or challenge the U.S. power in the world.

The collapse of the socialist U.S.S.R. as well as the other socialist countries of Europe gave a serious and fatal blow to the ideology of communism. Further, the acceptance and adoption of liberalisation, liberalism, democracy, decentralisation and market economy by almost all the states gave a further blow to the popularity of communism in the world.

Even China had to abandon the socialist economic system even while retaining the socialist-political authoritarianism of the past. It found itself isolated. The case of Vietnam and Cuba also came to be similar. Along with this, the ideological principles of liberalism, liberalisation of politics and economy, human rights, democratisation, decentralisation and peaceful co-existence, received a universal recognition. Ideological unipolarism came to characterize the post-USSR era of international relations.

The collapse of Socialist bloc and the USSR was accompanied by the end of Russian role in European politics. The rise of non-communist regimes through movements for democracy and liberalisation in the Eastern European states, gave a new look to European politics.

The division between Eastern Europe and Western Europe got diluted and all the European states began living in an era of peaceful co-existence and mutual cooperation for development. The demolition of Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, end of Warsaw Pact and the rise of democratic regimes in erstwhile socialist states together gave a new dress and content to European politics.

These changes in Europe brought into existence the chances of an increased co-operation between the Western European states and the former socialist states, it also gave rise to the possibility of diversion of Western and American economic aid from the Third World to the erstwhile socialist states of Europe.

The U.S.A. became interested in increasing its influence, particularly its economic influence over the Eastern European states. The Western European states which stood organised as the European Union realized the new opportunity for economic development through the establishment of high level trade and economic relations with the Eastern European states.

The membership of the European Union was enlarged with the admission of several new states of Eastern Europe. The European Union did not want them to become dependent on the USA. This feature gave rise to some thinking towards the emergence of an economic cold war between the EU and the U.S.A. However, the change of scene gave to the USA the opportunity to expand its NATO towards the East.

The erstwhile socialist states got involved in the process of adjusting their foreign policies to the new environment, and some of them became willing to join the Non-aligned Movement. They thought that by doing so they could be in a position to avoid a possible economic cold war between the EU and the U.S.A., and at the same time could get a chance to develop high level trade, industrial and economic relations with the developing countries, almost all of whom happened to be the members of the NAM. As such, the collapse of the U.S.S.R acted as a source of a big change in the politics of Europe, which in turn acted as a source of change in international relations.

Six of the republics of the erstwhile U.S.S.R., which became independent sovereign states and which were located in the Central Asian region, preferred to become Islamic republics. They joined nine Islamic states and formed the Economic Cooperation Organisation (E.C.O.) in Central Asia. Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in Central Asia gave strength to such forces in other parts of the world.

This compelled many countries to realize better the dangers resulting from the growing strength of the factor of Islamic politics in world politics. This factor compelled a change in the U.S. policy towards India, China, West Asia, Cental Asia and other regions of the world. Central Asia became a new centre of global interest and concern. Central Asian Crude became a new factor of worldwide interest in this region.

Under the impact of the collapse of the U.S.S.R., politics in Asia underwent a big change. In particular, India lost one of its time tested and dependable friends. Its foreign policy had to readjust relations with Russia and other republics of the erstwhile U.S.S.R.

It took nearly 12 months to adjust her relations, and give a proper direction to socio-economic-cultural cooperation with Russia and other members of the CIS. India also found it essential to work for an improvement of relations with the USA. Its economic necessities and the changes in its economic policies from public sector oriented policies to privatisation oriented policies further compelled an improvement in Indo-US relations.

The holding of joint Indo-US Naval exercises in the Indian Ocean, the Indian vote in the United Nations in favour of the resolution which held that Zionism was not apartheids, and Indian vote in favour of several US decisions in respect of the Gulf crisis and Gulf war, were all pointers towards this direction.

After the collapse of the USSR, another major Asian power, China also felt itself isolated as a communist state. It found compelled to go in for economic liberalisation in a rapid way, mend its fences with India, Japan, Vietnam and other countries of Asia. It also found it difficult to attempt to restrain the US dominance of the UN Security Council. Vietnam also found it essential to leave Cambodia, mend its fences with China and develop friendly cooperation with other Asian countries.

Likewise, Japan found it essential to reassess and redefine its role in Asia in particular and the world at large in general. It decided to develop its military power in the new environment. The possibility of emergence of an economic cold war with the USA began compelling Japan to develop further its trade relations with other Asian countries, particularly with India, China and ASEAN countries, The strength that forces of Islamic fundamentalism started gaining in Central Asia and West Asia compelled several democratic and secular states to devise policies for keeping these within check.

In the changed environment of Central Asia, Pakistan decided to orient its policy towards the consolidation of unity of the Islamic states of Central Asia. Asia witnessed the emergence of ECO in Central Asia.

The weakness suffered by the erstwhile USSR during 1985-90 and the changes in its policy helped the process of effecting a resolution of conflict in Afghanistan and Cambodia and for the emergence of Arab-Israel talks for resolving the West Asian crisis. In the absence of the USSR, the USA decided to give more importance to her relations with democratic countries like India.

The importance of relations with Asian countries was doubly realized by the western powers. Within nine months of its emergence as a sovereign state, Russia also decided to give priority to the development of its relations with Asian countries, particularly with India, China, Japan, Vietnam and ASEAN states.

The collapse of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 and the changes that came in the international system after 1985 liberalisation of Eastern Europe, liquidation of the Warsaw Pact and dissolution of the socialist blocall combined to create a new environment in which NAM found itself under stress. The disintegration being suffered by Yugoslavia, which happened to be chairman of NAM during the crucial period of 1989-92, also acted as a big limitation on the working of NAM.

The end of Cold war and the emergence of East-West cooperation influenced several scholars to voice the view that NAM had lost its relevance in international relations and that NAM was no longer needed .In the Gulf crisis which was followed by the Gulf War, NAM could play little role. Most of the NAM countries found it essential to accept the US view of several international problems and issues.

The collapse of the U.S.S.R and the dissolution of the socialist bloc reduced the operational ability of the NAM. It had little option except to support liberalisation and to tolerate unipolarism. While NAM welcomed the new faith in peaceful co- existence, democratization and mutual cooperation for development among all nations, it felt apprehensive of the newly emerged unipolarity in international relations.

However by holding the tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth NAM Summits in 1992, 1995, 1998 and 2003, NAM was successful in reasserting its unity as an international movement. But at the same time, it also reflected a lack of a clear-cut direction. Membership of NAM registered an increase but its ability to work as a cohesive group suffered a decline.

Before the collapse of the U.S.S.R., the Soviet leadership had signed two vitally important arms control/arms reduction agreementsINF and START-I with the U.S.A. After the collapse of the U.S.S.R. its successor state Russia came forward to sign START-II with the U.S.A. in January 1993. On 15th January 1993, the chemical weapons treaty got ratification from 125 states.

As such in the post-U.S.S.R. era of international relations some progress towards arms control was maintained. France and China decided to sign N.P.T. The movement for nuclear disarmament and arms control began gaining some momentum.

However, there was registered little progress towards securing a general and comprehensive disarmament and arms control treaty. CTBT proved to be partial, half-baked and inadequate exercise. The USA revived with vigour its national missile defence programme, India and Pakistan became N- powers in 1998.

In the post-U.S.S.R. era, the demand for securing NIEO through a North-South dialogue virtually fell into background. Little progress could be made towards the securing of NIEO and Uruguay round of negotiations too failed in this respect. The Third World countries now found themselves more dependent upon the U.S.A. and other developed countries, particularly the G-7 (now G-8) countries. They feared a reduction in their foreign aid levels because of the possibility of diversion of western economic aid towards the erstwhile socialist countries.

The neo-colonial dependence of the Third World upon the developed countries of the West continued unabated. The economic liberalisation and market economy began acting as a source of increased economic control of the developed nations and the USA upon the economies and policies of the Third World countries.

These countries now realized better the need for securing their economic development through South-South cooperation. For this they began relying more on NAM, regional cooperation for development, leadership of G-20, increased role of G-24, G-77, UNCTAD and other such institutions.

However, the loss of momentum by NAM and emergence of WTO, Globalisation and increasing role of Multinational corporations created an environment in which the developing countries found it more difficult to secure NIEO.

After the collapse of the Socialist bloc and the USSR, international economic, system began undergoing big changes. Politics of international economic relations came to be the dominant dimension of relations among nations.

After 1990 several economic bloc actors appeared on the scene and began becoming more and more active actors. APEC, AFTA, NAFTA, PIF, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, G-7, G-15 besides the EU, ASEAN, SAARC, OPEC got engaged in active economic diplomacy and cooperation in international relations.

Thus the collapse of the U.S.S.R., the collapse of the socialist bloc, along with the end of Cold war, liberalisation of Eastern Europe and emergence of unipolarism in power structure and ideological environment, acted as a source of profound and big changes in the international relations of the last decade of the 20th century.

The emergence of unipolarity with the USA as the sole surviving super power, the changes in the politics of Europe, the increase in the number of nations states, (the U.N.O. has now a membership of 193 nations), the virtual isolation of the remaining communist countriesChina and Cubathe reduced role of NAM, the U.S. domination of the U.N. Security Council, the continued and ever increasing neo-colonial control of the developed countries over the developing counties, the increased dependence of the developing countries upon foreign aid, the possibility of the rise of an economic cold war in international relations, came to the major realities of the post- U.S.S.R. international relations.

Original post:

Collapse of USSR and Its Impact on International Relations

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan is playing an extremely important role in alleviating the humanitarian crisis and avoiding the socio-economic collapse in Afghanistan, said Chinese scholar Cheng Xizhong, visiting at Southwest University of Political Science and Law.

The international community should fully recognize Pakistans crucial role in maintaining regional peace and stability, said the Chinese scholar told Gwadar Pro yesterday.

Prof. Cheng believes that Pakistans important role on the Afghan issue is mainly reflected in the aspects:

He said that despite its own COVID-hit economy and natural disasters, Pakistan generously announced Rs 5 billion in-kind humanitarian aid for Afghanistan including food commodities, emergency medical supplies, winter shelters and other supplies besides allowing 246,144 new Afghan refugees to enter Pakistan.

The country is already hosting over three million Afghan refugees.

Pakistan has urgently appealed to the international community to actively participate in alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Pakistan timely initiated the convening of the 17th Extraordinary Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of OIC, which deepened the international communitys understanding of the seriousness of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and gathered the consensus of the international community on the need to take urgent measures to avoid the socio-economic collapse of Afghanistan.

The United Nations largest-ever $5 billion funding appeal, the US additional aid of $308 million and over $1 billion pledge from the European Union indicate the success of Pakistans repeated calls for the world to help avert looming humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

The Chinese scholar also said that Pakistan is exploring the fundamental way to solve the Afghan issue. All external assistance can only temporarily alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, but to fundamentally solve the socio-economic problems facing Afghanistan, the international community should help Afghanistan cultivate its own self-reliance capacity.

The rest is here:

Pak role termed crucial in easing Afghan humanitarian crisis - The Nation

Documenting the National Security Policy (NSP) is a welcome step. After all, documenting something helps to know and understand it better, thus making it easier to analyse, discuss and improve. We find that although the language of the National Security Policy document of Pakistan shared publicly is futuristic, implying change, however, it does not claim to be a new or changed policy and reading it confirms it is not. And though it uses some new terms and phrases to describe things, but reading carefully shows there is neither any change nor any intentions to change. At best, one can see tactical adjustments. Expecting changes in national security policy without a change in the political context or strategic culture is futile.

The document claims to take a Comprehensive Security approach. In the 1970s, the term Comprehensive Security came as a conceptual response to the changing international system, when mainly due to nuclear weapons, it was realised that direct military conflict was almost impossible, but states survival may be threatened by non-military threats. The Soviet collapse, with its military capability intact, underscored this point. It referred to both broadening, meaning inclusion of non-military issues; and deepening, referring to inclusion of domestic concerns in the concept of security. We started hearing of human security focusing on the person of individual rather than the geography of the state. Barry Buzan, a British professor, wrote of securitisation referring to the broadening/expansion of the security through inclusion of governance, economy and socio-economic elements. This meant that in the calculus of state security, one must include much more than tanks, fighter planes and bombs.

The present document on Pakistans security policy does indeed talk of all these aspects of Comprehensive Security. The problem is it does so without any change in the primacy of traditional security.

Comprehensive Security in democratic states furthers the democratisation of decision-making by increasing the role of non-security segments on security issues, along with political control. Where the security establishment dominates decision-making, like in Pakistan, it expands its control in fields hitherto left to the civilians. The document claims to be result of wide consultations. However, we know political parties or parliament were not a part of this consultation. It was not even presented in the parliament after being written, let alone debated there. The document was authored by the National Security Division after consultations with some independent scholars and civil society members, whose identity is not known. It also claims to have been based on discussions in universities, but mentions only National Defense University (NDU), a fully owned and managed Armed Forces institution.

Maintaining India as the traditional military threat (increased due to Hindutvaisation), even if this approach is correct and justifies military preparedness, requires concrete policy and clear thinking. So, for instance, denying Afghanistan (even under the control of supposedly friendly Taliban) and India to connect through Pakistani territory negates the claimed policy of seeking security in connectivity and can be justified only through a traditional security and geopolitical approach

Due to limitation of space, this essay just gives an overview of the document, with the help of some selected terms and phrases, showing why it fails to be a comprehensive security approach. The document considers traditional military security as the primary concern and thus emphasises it centrality. Rather than treating the non-military elements of security at par with military elements and the need to secure people as being of equal importance, if not more, it treats them as supportive and required for a strong military. It sees them as being required for territorial security from military threats posed by a rising Hindutva-oriented India. There term cost effective is used to present the case for military preparedness. There is nothing to show what is meant by cost effective. Though there was no need for spelling it out in a policy document, one normally expects that a policy approach based on the concept of Comprehensive Security would aim for a cost effective defence policy through a balance between what is allocated for military expenses and for human development. The current tilt is heavily towards the military. Future implementations actions (budgets) will tell how much this tilt has been corrected.

The document acknowledges the diversity of Pakistan. However, the policy continues to deal with it as the state of Pakistan has always dealt with it. The same is true of its acknowledgement of the terrorist threat. The words used are to differentiate between reconcilable and non-reconcilable along with an inclusive approach which indicates the thinking between the lines .The distinction should be between those who articulate their views on rights and wrongs, present policy alternatives and different strategies for resolution of issues or complain and peacefully protest for/ against what they consider to be just or unjust; and those who use unconstitutional or violent means to further their views or demands. There may be some foreign-backed elements among the later too. However, the terms irreconcilable and reconcilable imply an insistence on all agreeing to a particular set of state-backed narratives.

The intention to carry out development activities merely so that different ethnicities or people of various geographic areas are not weaponised by foreign agents shows a continuation of the policy framed by a non-democratic, centralising and elitist mindset. This negates the claimed inclusivist approach.

An inclusive approach means including the marginalised in decision-making: and not just on issues concerning them which should be their exclusive domain but in decisions concerning collective issues too. The smaller ethnicities are not people of colonies that can be merely accepted as sharing the burdens and bounties of the state. Inclusion does not mean just giving them benefits, but letting them be a part of both good and bad.

In early 2021, a consultative meeting was convened by the office of Moeed Yousuf at the University of Peshawar, for discussing Afghanistan (whether that was part of the National Security Policy consultation was not mentioned). Merely discussing Afghanistan, former FATA, or terrorism with Pashtun academics is not including them in decision-making. Inclusion would require inviting and considering their views on economic policy, broader foreign Policy as well as other common concerns (to set the record straight, this is the approach of the mainstream Pakistani democrats too).

Maintaining India as the traditional military threat (increased due to Hindutvaisation), even if this approach is correct and justifies military preparedness, requires concrete policy and clear thinking. So, for instance, denying Afghanistan (even under the control of supposedly friendly Taliban) and India to connect through Pakistani territory negates the claimed policy of seeking security in connectivity and can be justified only through a traditional security and geopolitical approach. This also continues the old approach of using Pakistans location as if it were of geopolitical significance and not as a space of geo-economic significance or economic hub as claimed by the document.

A change of policy only results from change of perceptions. And perceptions change when we reconsider as to whose perceptions matter. Democratic decision-making by including those previously excluded in decision-making enables inputs from the diversity of which all states are made up. This is what truly changes perceptions and thus policies based on them.

Go here to read the rest:

Interpreting the National Security Policy: How Much Of It Is Old Wine In A New Bottle? - The Friday Times