You’ve only got so many moves
There are three categories of states on the foreign policy chess board that is: players, bridges and pawns. To be a player a country should be a significant contributor to global economy not only as a seller but also a consumer- a military that has the capability to project itself in many regions far from its shores, and a diplomatic influence that can protect interests of herself and her allies. Using this formulation the only superpower is USA while China has two of the three components which is economic and diplomatic muscle. Its only weakness is that its military capabilities only extend to the immediate neighborhood this can drastically change with its one belt- one road (OBOR) initiative. USA understands that if this is not checked then China will become a full superpower in next 5 to 10 years.
Bridges are countries that have influence in one of the three features of a global power that is economic, military and diplomacy. For instance Brazil is a bridge in South America because of its large economic footprint but has no diplomatic or military muscle. England is a bridge because of its diplomatic and economic muscle while its military is only second tier. Turkey is a bridge because of its former status as a leading power in Middle East and Eurasia exercising good diplomatic relations while second tier in economy and military.
Unfortunately Pakistan is a pawn on the international scene. Our economy is weak and depends on favorable access to international markets as well as loan or aid dollars to bridge budget deficits. Our military is working to hold the country together rather than imagining intervention in any other country. Turkey as a bridge had the confidence and the muscle to enter Syria when they felt their strategic interests are at risk. Russia annexed Crimea without much fear of sanctions totally destroying its economy. Can Pakistan imagine entering Kabul if they feel their strategic interests are at stake because of interference in Balochistan or FATA? Similarly can Pakistan ever imagine to annexe Indian occupied Kashmir through military intervention? We can’t. Similarly our diplomatic muscle is dependent on support from China, USA or Russia for various resolutions or other issues with our neighbors.
We should not feel bad about being a pawn as most countries fall in this category. All players and bridges started as pawns before they evolved into powerful states. China was a pawn after the end of Second World War and still calls itself a highly developed developing country. South Korea is still a pawn despite gaining economic independence. Japan is a pawn but wants to elevate to be a bridge after recent amendments to the constitution to transform from passive to an active military power. Most importantly India is a pawn and the recent logistics agreement it has signed with USA should be a cause for concern for them rather than a source of celebration. This agreement has firmly placed them on the side of the USA as a front line state in the emerging cold war with China losing their status as a non-aligned state. Indian economy is highly dependent on foreign markets; their military has no experience in international or regional campaigns; and their diplomacy still depends on support from USA and Europe. Indian presence in multilateral organisations is still subservient rather than dominant. American support for Indian membership as permanent member of UN Security Council was a carrot to induce them to become a pawn rather than a real deal. No player likes a pawn to grow strong enough to be a threat to their interests as a bridge or a potential player.
After this classification it is important to review the emerging scenario. America as a dominant superpower likes to define its international strategic interests in terms of values rather than hard tangible benefits. For instance it promotes free trade because it feels that its companies have competitive edge over all other countries in most industries as well as benefit her consumers. It does erect economic barriers using values of human rights or labor conditions in economic segments where it feels threatened from another country. It promotes democracy as a more peaceful system of governance but accept military coups in a country If it suits their strategic interest. America promotes respect for rule of law as an important value for international balance of power but at the same time extensively use drone strikes to kill suspected militants without any regard for due process or sovereignty of another countries.
American foreign policy planners analyze potential threats using long, mid and short term scenarios. Long term scenarios have a span of 30 to 50 years while short term is one or two terms of a President which is 4 to 8 years. When we look at their foreign policy decisions from this values and time horizon perspective then in last 30 years has moved from dismantling of communist threat posed by Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) to destroying Islamic countries in Middle East and North Africa that could be threat to its interest and allies in Europe and Israel. They feel their next threat is posed by quasi communist China with its single party rule and controlled economy.
Apparently the containment plan they have made is to seek downgrading of China from the status of a player to a bridge or pawn. This plan is working at many levels. First is to raise the economic cost of military expansion to be a global player. Issue of South China sea is meant to increase tension between China and her neighbors. US Pivot to Asia by forming alliance with Japan, India and Australia is also meant to induce fear. To deal with these threats China will be compelled to increase their defense spending which is already rising at a higher growth rate than the economy and is second largest in the world behind USA. The next piece in their strategy is to move trade from China to India as well as create other hurdles for it. The rise in defense spending coupled with a declining economy means less money for social services which can produce unrest which in their view will be difficult for communist party of China to manage. They feel confident about the success of this plan as it has worked in dealing with USSR. It is yet to be seen whether their assumptions are right or wrong.
My personal view is that American approach may not succeed because Chinese have a long memory of dealing with crisis and have always emerged from it without disintegration. Only twice in their history they faced serious threat from an outside power. First when descendants of Genghis Khan occupied China to lay foundation of a Yuan dynasty which survived hardly hundred years. And the second time when British and Russians controlled their trade and foreign policy at the beginning of 20th century. They have learned valuable lessons from these and are better equipped to deal with next crisis.
How does this cold war affect Pakistan? I have written repeatedly that US has pushed Pakistan towards China in the process of acquiring India as a pawn in the emerging cold war with China (you can check Pakistan Today’s archives for further details). Pakistan has to play their cards smartly to emerge from this struggle between two powers unscathed. Mistakes will be costly and can result in disintegration as warned by India and supported by USA publicly.