Containment and the current US foreign policy

During the Cold War years the US foreign policy was characterised by the word containment which meant containing the spread of communism and that translated into limiting the influence of the former Soviet Republic.

The current US foreign policy also revolves around the same word, namely containment. However, this time around the containment means containing the economic and military powers of all potential adversaries.

The theoretical underpinning of this policy was provided in the late 1980s in a book titled,"The Rise and Fall of Great Powers". The thesis described in that monumental work is that when nations grow economically then they also grow militarily and if that growth continues unhindered then such nations start to expand and then turn into new empires which then threaten the existing powers or empires.

The logical policy implication of this thesis is that the existing empires or powers must check and retard the economic and military growth of all potential adversaries in order for them to sustain their supremacy.

The clearest example of the application of the above was provided in the explanation for the second invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among other arguments, it was stated that Iraq had wealth and the manpower to develop economically and militarily and with a potential adversary in power, that country could become something like Nazi Germany thus its progress had to be stopped and the potential adversary taken out of power.

Similar arguments are given for the invasion on Iran and the so called War on Terror.

Now one can question the validity of Paul Kennedy's thesis but the fact of the matter is that most of the US policy makers have read and digested his thesis in their college days or otherwise and firmly believe in it. So we must be ready for the continuation of the new "containment" for foreseeable future.

Now one can draw many conclusions from the above analysis for Pakistan, India and China. All three are growing economic and military powers. Will the US policy makers allow their growth unhindered and risk them becoming a threat to the US?

In case of India, because it is a democracy and a liberal country the threat to US is not that apparent and thus the US may not object to its growth. However, Pakistan, because of its Islamic and somewhat militant Islamic nature, and China because of its centrist regime and also because of the fact that it is now in the third phase as per the said thesis i.e. expansion of influence and borders, the US foreign policy makers may not allow their unhindered growth without some sort of assurance that these two countries will not be a threat to them.

Both China and Pakistan need to build a strong and reliable partnership with the US with democratic reforms at home if they wish to avoid friction in the world in the coming years.

As a Pakistani, my advise to fellow country men and women will be to pursue a fair pro US policy which simply means minding our own business and not become a pawn in the designs of Anti-US forces.

Partition of Iraq

There are many parallels between the present circumstances in Iraq and the circumstances that led to the partition of the sub-continent in 1947 and of Pakistan in 1971. Just to cite a few example consider the following:

(1) In all three instances different sub-nations were or are present to challenge the one nation notion.

(2) After the 1937 elections the Hindu dominated Congress Party formed the governments in many provinces of India and their working was such that it alienated the Muslims to an extent that they were ready to accept the idea of Pakistan. In Pakistan, the West Pakistani dominated central government ignored the sentiments of the Bengalis for too long which resulted in their going their own way. In Iraq, the Shia dominated central government has not done anything or shown its willingness to do anything to win over the Sunnis. On the contrary by making decisions such as the execution of Saddam Hussein, it is sowing the seeds of separatism in the Sunnis. The Kurds had already been alienated from the idea of Iraq by the brutality of the Saddam regime against them.

(3) In both the earlier cases, the partitions were preceded by mass violence. Iraq is also immersed in violence.

(4) Furthermore, both in the partition of 1947 there was and in the case of Iraq there is, a foreign power which did or which can decide to divide the country. In the 1971 case, there was also a foreign power in the shape of India backed up by the Soviet Union which could and indeed did "facilitate" the division.

With these striking parallels, the question arises that will the Iraq head in the same direction which became the fate accompli of the united India and of Pakistan?

Or rather, is the solution to the violence in Iraq the same that brought peace to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, namely, its partition?

To answer the first question one will have to conjecture and all that can be said is that the circumstances are ripe for another partition whether or not that will happen will depend on the intentions and effectiveness of the incumbent regime and perhaps to an extent on the international circumstances including the choice of the United States between the unity or the partition of Iraq.

The fundamental question is though that should Iraq be divided until the Iraqis that is to say the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds, can and are willing to live together as one nation? The answer to such question has to be yes. Partitions brought peace to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It met the desires of the sub-nations for self-preservation and national self-determination. The partitioned countries are key members of world community and can concentrate on their development rather than be kept embroiled in a fatal struggle for their survival. All these advantages can be obtained by partitioning Iraq at least as a loose confedration if not as independent countries of the Iraqi Shias, Sunnis and Kurds.

The partition of Iraq may also help to stabilise the Middle East. Turkey should be happy with a Kurd State as it will solve the Kurdish question in that the Kurds will have a country of their own and their demand for a separate country of their own from the territories of Turkey will weaken if not die down. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be more than happy to see buffer states of the Sunnis, Kurds and Shias between itself and Iran and so will Israel. In addition, Israel will be relieved to see the end of one of the main threat to its survival. Iran will also welcome a Shia neighbouring country which in addition to being Shia can act as buffer state between it and the hostile Sunni rivals.

There is only one argument in favour of Iraq?s unity and that is of the perpetuation of a historical accident by which Iraq became one country in its present form. Surely, the advantages of partition far outweigh the arguments against.

As the both Quaids, Pakistan has been bestowed with realised, that it is better to part ways at least until such time that the people can learn to and are willing to live as one when unity means anarchy and perpetual violence, so should the Iraqi sub-nations go their own way until they want to live together by choice and not by virtue of some historical accident.

Three stable countries are far better than one unstable country. Stability in the territories now comprising Iraq will mean a stable Middle East which will in turn mean a stable and safer world for all.

(The article was written in July 2006)