No power is naive
The use of military force along with economic bribes and sanctions are instrument of coercive power also known as hard power. Whereas the use of public diplomacy in the form of aid and cultural influence is known as soft power, a phenomenon predominantly gaining grounds in international relations. Despite of the term ‘soft’ no power is naive. Every power resource is an instrument to get something done that would not be done otherwise. In this context of power discourse, the Pakistan-US equation contains a power relation where the US is employing its power resources inside Pakistan for achieving its national security objectives.
On the day of assuming charge, former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled her administration’s foreign policy agenda based on ‘smart power’ that has continued till date. Apparently, shifting from the President Bush’s unilateral military driven foreign policy, the Obama administration has been pursuing a more balanced approach in US foreign policy. ‘Smart power’ is an integrated approach that combines the components of ‘hard power’ or coercive means such as military and economic tools with ‘soft power’ or non-coercive tools such as public diplomacy, political ideals, cultural and legal aspects of US power for successfully achieving US national security objectives in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Applying a combination of these tools or any tool according to situational requirements is the cardinal feature of ‘smart power’. Though the strategy is an outcome of the realisation that the global influence of the US military driven foreign policy is shrinking, leading to a rupture in the US relations with its key allies, nevertheless this approach is not as balanced as it seems. The notion of over use of hard power is something that has been quite evident in the case of the US strategy in Pakistan.
In this aspect the US ‘smart power’ strategy in its relationship with Pakistan is very important to understand. Pakistan is arguably the litmus test to evaluate if the new US agenda is moving in right direction. The US is leading a Global War on Terror (GWOT) in Afghanistan since October 2001 and AfPak, as enunciated by President Obama, is pivotal in fighting global terrorism. The term AfPak reflects the war zone is not only confined to Afghanistan. For the US, Pakistan has been the key partner in fighting GWOT particularly in its western tribal areas bordering Afghanistan that allegedly harbour key al-Qaeda and Taliban figures. Pakistan is, therefore, crucial in the US strategy to win in Afghanistan.
Applying defence, diplomacy and development as the US foreign policy strategy in Pakistan to this point has not been a trouble free path
However, the US smart power based policies have raised concerns in Pakistan. Applying defence, diplomacy and development as the US foreign policy strategy in Pakistan to this point has not been a trouble free path. The use of hard power has aroused anti-American public sentiments while reducing the favourable US image despite increased aid and development projects. Similarly, Pakistan-US relations have witnessed various setbacks due to increased focus on hard power and diverging interests on key issues such as end game in Afghanistan, Indo-US nexus, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan and alleged Indian support to the insurgency in Baluchistan.
The ‘smart power’ approach also has numerous security related implications due to adverse effects of hard power elements in US policy vis-à-vis Pakistan. Obama’s AfPak speech on December 1, 2009 on ‘the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan’ articulated the future course in relations with Pakistan. The unprecedented surge in drone attacks, Osama Bin Ladin operation (May 2011), Salala check-post incident (November 2011) and CIA covert activities including Raymond Davis incident (January 2011) inside Pakistani territory explain the nature of the US engagement in Pakistan since then. In the presidential debate of 2012, both President Obama and his Republican opponent Mitt Romney were convinced that the drone attacks and other military measures should continue as vital components in the US approach towards Pakistan. The drone attacks that have since then continued as the key instrument of the US hard power and according to the International Security Program, in 388 drone strikes made till date an estimated 3,559 people have died, both civilian and terrorists.
The US, therefore, needs to understand that smart power is not something naive and without consequence for the host, Pakistan. It has implications that are the relative impact of its hard and soft components, respectively. Undoubtedly, soft power manifested through humanitarian assistance during natural calamities, higher education scholarships, provision of various services through USAID projects, etc, forms a large part of the smart power strategy. Yet it failed to attain the potential impact owing to intense use of hard power. The latter invited far more media and public attention and subsequent criticism compared to the positive impact generated by the former. As indicated by the Pew Survey, favourable image of the US has considerably diminished since the introduction of Smart Power Strategy in Pakistan. Yet, the Obama administration seems contended with the way this policy has paid dividends in achieving its objectives.
Form the killings of al-Qaeda leaders, the initiatives taken by Pakistan to combat terrorism within its own territory show the seriousness of the state to address the threat of militancy and terrorism
Form the killings of al-Qaeda leaders, the initiatives taken by Pakistan to combat terrorism within its own territory show the seriousness of the state to address the threat of militancy and terrorism. Military operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan, with a great degree of success, is an example of Pakistan’s commitment to eliminating the threat of terrorism from its territory.
The operation also brushes aside the US criticism against Pakistan regarding previous selective military operations against terrorist outfits. This operation is directed against all terrorist organisations operating in North Waziristan including the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), al-Qaeda, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Haqqani Network. In this scenario the US hard power resources such as drone attacks fail to deliver any meaningful impact, whereas it continues to threaten Pakistan-US bilateral relations
It can thus be inferred that the US needs to revisit its smart power strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan, particularly the harder components. This could be achieved by halting the drone attacks and secret operations while persuading Pakistan to channel its efforts in a more streamlined fashion in order to ensure effective combat of terrorism. This would enhance trust between the two allies. The soft power component of the strategy is moving in the right direction and should continue.
