We have not been able to form a pragmatist foreign policy
It is imperative for any state to devise an effective and pragmatic foreign policy to secure international objectives and policy goals
Joyce P. Kaufman, an American political scientist, in her book “A Concise History of the US Foreign Policy” (2014) defines foreign policy as the sum of all the decisions made in a country that affects or are affected by the foreign bodies.
Henry Kissinger, a German by blood, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and former US Secretary of State is considered to be an authority when it comes to foreign policy. He was the driving force behind the détente and designed policy for moving towards China amidst the Vietnam War. One can understand that his cunningness perhaps widened the gap between Sino and Soviet regimes. He is the man responsible for the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-I) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). Kissinger cleverly used Pakistan as a medium to communicate with China since there was no direct diplomatic channel between US and China. Qudrat-Ullah Shahab has narrated the story in his famous book “Shahab Nama”. Due to Kissinger’s remarkable negotiating skills, US withdrew its support for Taiwan and adopted the rhetoric of Once-China. Critics like Greg Grandin disagreed in his book “Kissinger’s Shadow” (2015) with Kissinger over the bombing of Cambodia but still the decision proved to be quite devastating for the Communist hideouts.
Vyacheslav Molotov served as the foreign minister under Joseph Stalin. He is believed to be the father of Soviet Atomic Bomb Project. He accompanied Joseph Stalin in Tehran Conference in 1943, Yalta Conference in 1945 and the Potsdam Conference in the same year. He was the man at the rear of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, Molotov Line, Anglo-Soviet Treaty of 1942, benefitted Soviet Union from Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Agreement and the Molotov Plan.
Joachim von Ribbentrop was Nazi Germany’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and served under Hitler till the end of World War-II. Like any other patriotic man, he used his diplomatic skills to the optimum level. His ambassadorial abilities resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. He was able to deceive the Soviet Union by eliminating Poland between Germany and Soviet Union. Since Poland served as a buffer between the two. By virtue of the pact Germany was able to launch its future offensive against the Soviet Union in 1941, known as the “Operation Barbarossa”. Though he was under the direct guidance of the Fuhrer, he still played a significant role in concluding the Pact of Steel with Italy in 1939, The Tripartite Pact in 1940 and convinced powers like Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Croatia to join the pact.
Kissinger, Molotov and Ribbentrop; one was a Republican dominated with the ideas of Realpolitik, the other was a Bolshevik and a sturdy supporter of Leninism, the last was a National Socialist and an ardent follower of Hitler. Each one of these brought significant foreign policy successes to their respective countries. Kissinger still regrets his decision to bomb Cambodia and to call Indira Gandhi a witch, Molotov was removed by Stalin and Ribbentrop was sentenced to death by hanging at The Nuremberg Trials for his actions in favour of the Third Reich. Apart from their fates, these men made remarkable efforts for their states to fetch the maximum good. They concluded pacts and treaties to secure their political, economic, security and ideological interests. They did violate the agreements they signed themselves since the “National Interest” and “Realpolitik” dictated them that way. They were quite successive in keeping in view certain elements likehistory, geography, geostrategic location, geopolitics, religious affiliations, population, military and political systems.
It is imperative for any state to devise an effective and pragmatic foreign policy to secure international objectives and policy goals. Like any other state Pakistan is inherently obsessed with its aim to maintain its territorial and political integrity.
It seems that Pakistan has not been able to form a pragmatist foreign policy which has the ability to conform to the dynamics of the changing world. Its neighbours are busy in devising such strategies that would ultimately isolate Pakistan not only in the region but also in the international arena. One should not doubt the intentions of PM Nawaz, but in one’s conjecture or perhaps opinion, Pakistan needs a foreign minister who is dominated by Machiavellian ideas and resembles Kissinger, Molotov or Ribbentrop in its abilities and negotiating skills. One may disagree with this notion, but what else is the more beloved objective for a state other than the pursuit of “National Interest”?
