Can we manage implosion or not?
Pakistan and Russia are natural allies and it will be in the interest of strategic stability of this region that countries, especially major nuclear powers of this region, come together for peace, development and progress
Dr Maria Sultan is the chairperson and director general of the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI) University. She is a specialist in South Asian nuclear arms control and disarmament issues, weapon systems development and strategic stability. She has published widely in academic journals, news dailies and books.
She is an advisor to the ministry of defence on strategic and military affairs. She is also the founding vice chancellor for Muslim Youth University.
Dr Sultan worked as an assistant editor in the influential English daily ‘The Muslim’. She is a visiting faculty member at the National Defence University (NDU), Pakistan, Foreign Service Academy, Pakistan Naval War College, Pakistan Air War College, NATO Defence College, The Russian Center for Policy Studies, Moscow, China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, the Department of International Relations, University of Peshawar, and the Command and Staff College Quetta.
So talked to DNA about the evolving regional strategic situation.
Question: CPEC is hardly the only cross-country novelty sweeping the region, yet it is the most important one. And no doubt the Corridor needs workable security in all the countries it touches. With the project now underway, how do you see relevant states managing security requirements?
Maria Sultan: Well, first and foremost, it is extremely important to understand what is CPEC. CPEC is not just about a corridor, it is about interlacing these countries to global economy and when we hear statements coming from the United States that the pivot is shifting towards Asia, it is not because Asia has suddenly become important or relevant, but it is to codify the fact that global economic patterns are shifting towards Asia.
The new emerging market is in Africa, Asia and Asia Pacific. At this moment 17.7 percent of global containerised traffic is passing through right in front of Gwadar and 70pc of the global trade is passing through Straits of Hormuz and Gulf of Aden. With the Corridor you link these road connectivities and you connect all of these countries through a regional corridor which is based on CPEC, which is actually based on rail, road and energy grid. The moment you connect these corridors to global economy, it would be impossible to stop the transition, so the economic order itself will bring in the transition. That is number one.
Number two, let us not forget that at the end of the Cold War, there was one big good message for the stability of the world and that is today we share one economic order. So it doesn’t matter whether China or US might have differences on things, but these differences can only go that much, they can’t be furthered to a point of total instability. The problem was countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Countries that are in Central Asia. They were regionally blocked in a manner where they were not being connected to the global economy. CPEC will connect them to the global economy, and once connected, then bringing any instability will have disastrous consequences for the world economy. So, the real test for the nations would be that we survive first two years of the making of this corridor and if you survive than nothing can stop you.
Q: A significant enhancement in Pak-Russia ties, trade and especially military, has been on the cards for a while now. Starting with defence equipment a few years ago, it has now expanded to include strategic talks, especially about wrapping up the Afghan war. How do you see this partnership evolving?
MS: Pakistan and Russia are natural allies and it will be in the interest of strategic stability of this region that countries, especially major nuclear powers of this region, come together for peace, development and progress. We believe that Russia and Pakistan’s relationship will develop considering the fact that the future of CPEC, the future of regional connectivity, actually starts not just from China but goes back down to Russia and at the end of the day we are working for global peace, global prosperity and mutuality of interest; even in issues such as anti-narcotics, anti-smuggling and issues like stability in Afghanistan. So, there will be cooperation between Russia and Pakistan not only in the defence field, in the scientific field but also hopefully in ensuring that sea lines of communication remain open and effective and equally available not only to Pakistan but also for the rest of the region.
Q: There was a surprising, though limited, Pak-Afghan thaw facilitated by London. It seems the US has completely stepped out of the Afghan endgame, for now at least, and other powers are scrambling to fill the space. Do you agree?
MS: No, I don’t. I think the US has not stepped out of Afghanistan. The US would aim for acceptable victory, acceptable peace in Afghanistan. The only problem is that the terms of engagement are not visible, the trends of regional connectivity are not specified and the power space is not actually being maintained that is wielded to different warlords of Afghanistan. So the real issue is actually that how the Afghan government will survive the transition. Because if peace is to be negotiated, it has to be negotiated with the warring factions. And the warring factions won’t be dealing with the one or two issues, they have to see whether or not they’ll survive the peace transition and then the bigger question of survivability of the Afghan state, Afghan government and Afghan political and security setups.
So, it is in the interest of US to stay there and it will remain there. The form will however change but it doesn’t mean the US is willing to abandon Afghanistan. The bigger question is have it been able to bring the regional order of acceptability within Afghanistan and most importantly what is the Afghan leadership’s actual, ultimate aim. No outside force can bring peace to Afghanistan. Afghans have to accept and lead the process. In my humble assessment the US will remain a key player in Afghanistan. The only thing that we have to see post-transition of US administration is what will be the real change and affect in Afghanistan. Will it be led by the US military, intelligence or social development agencies? It is a 16 year old war, with more than a trillion dollar expense, you don’t walk out of it defeated.
Q: The region’s most volatile equation remains Pak-India; and everything associated with it remains stalled – Kashmir, Siachen, etc. Is there really a quantifiable roadmap for peace in the subcontinent or will this pendulum just keep swinging like it has been?
MS: It cannot because you know they say every peak has a low point. The fact of the matter is there are four key factors between India and Pakistan. First factor is that both countries are nuclear states, so no war between them can actually be limited, remain conventional or can be seen devoid of a nuclear risk. Secondly, both these countries are now becoming centres of global economy. Pakistan, through CPEC, and India through Indo-US strategic partnership. So, the global economy will mould how these two developing countries and their population will actually respond to global energy, technology and global sea lines of communication activities.
The third component is that people are overtaken by information. It is no longer possible for these two countries to remain isolated to the needs and requirements of their people. People want governance, people want development, people want progress. Last but not the least, the question of Kashmir; it is not only a political struggle, it has become a struggle of the people, owned by the people. International Criminal Law has developed, International Arms Conflict law has developed. It would become very difficult for India to sustain its policy of violence in Kashmir.
The reality is that the dye has already been cast. The dye is the new relationship based on India, US, Iran, South Korea, Japan and Australia on one side and Pakistan, China, Russia, ECO countries, Asia Pacific and other members on the other
A time will come when economic imperatives will force an arms control agreement on both of them. The global economy waits for no one. The future is bright. We might have few years of turbulence where you’ll see proxy wars and intelligence agencies create troubles. But after initial stages, we’ll march towards prosperity.
Q: With hostile neighbours on its eastern anbd western borders, do you believe Pakistan would be able to get through with its ambitious economic agenda, especially CPEC and investments related to it?
MS: Yes, there are no two opinions about it. The mere fact that after sacrificing 75,000 lives and countless billions to terrorism, we’ve managed to get $46.6 billion of FDI indicates that you have a future. It’s not happened just because the Chinese love us, but rather because they see economic potential in the initiative. At the end of the day, both have strategic interests. China is not interested in creating political mayhem in our country, or creating security mayhem. So, the rest comes to our own brilliance. We have to take responsibility for our future, we can’t hold others to be responsible for it.
Q: With enhanced presence of US forces in the South China sea and installation of THAAD missile system in South Korea perhaps in a bid to provoke economic giant China to get involved in conflicts and tempting Russia and North Korea, how do you see the Indian role in South and East Asia. Do you believe India would jump into the fray by siding with the US? Will Iran join in with India or the Russia-China-Pak bloc?
MS: The reality is that the dye has already been cast. The dye is the new relationship based on India, US, Iran, South Korea, Japan and Australia on one side and Pakistan, China, Russia, ECO countries, Asia Pacific and other members on the other. But the world is never so simple and so straight. There isn’t going to be a new cold war. Why? Because we have one economic order. The world’s economy is based on one system. This means that although there will be attempts to create territorial disputes, there will be attempts to create problems of different nature and different kinds. But the reality can only be seen in the context how China will respond.
But Chinese leadership is very astute. If they do take part, then there is no knowing how far the giant can respond. Yet the Chinese are clear about their economic progress, they want to optimise the pattern and the scale of the development.
About the THAAD missile system, it’s a very scary situation where you try to preempt a nuclear capability and you’ll never know whether you’ll get them all. So, it’s not possible, it is okay for a certain false sense of security but it can never give hundred percent security to a nuclear state confronted with a nuclear threat. I think, in the end, relationships will balance out and the real test of the world will be whether we shift towards security or we shift towards economic stability. Will we actually benefit from the end of cold war or we create another world order based on security imperatives. Security imperatives have lost their meaning and momentum now with non-state actors, hybrid warfare has taken precedence over state centric approaches. Greatest aspect of today’s war is one of implosion. Can we manage implosion or not. If we can manage implosion as a factor then we’ll survive.