The international state system is anarchic—every state or country must fend for itself. There is no overarching authority, like police within a country, which can enforce your sovereignty or territorial integrity in the international system of states. Of course, there is international law but no authority to enforce it. Every state in the system must defend its territorial integrity itself. In other words, there is international law that guarantees the legality of your sovereignty and territorial integrity but the only force that can protect the country’s right to exist as an independent and sovereign state are the military means at its disposal.
Diplomacy and collective security were the buzzwords of the 20th century post-World War II international system but in the third decade of the 21st century, these words lost all their meanings when the lessons of the Gaza War and the Ukrainian War started to sink in. Gaza War tells us that if the people or a political community doesn’t have a military force at their disposal, the country with a military force at its disposal could simply crash you. Palestinian Authority could hardly be described as a country or as a state—it has an autonomous governing body internally, but its borders are manned by the brutal Israeli military. PA doesn’t have any military force at its disposal.
Israeli Defense Forces are one of the most sophisticated military forces in the region which is backed by the United States at the military level. 14 months of incessant military invasion left Gaza completely devasted. Nobody came to their rescue—the Islamic fraternity, the United Nations, and all the hullaballoo about universal human rights, diplomacy, or the concept of collective security don’t mean anything to the Palestinians. Palestinians were a military non-entity and condemned to the worst devastation at the hands of one of the most powerful military forces in the region. Suppose the Palestinian Authority succeeds in acquiring nuclear weapons and a delivery system, will Israeli Defense Forces dare to enter its territory with murderous intentions? Will a half-mad man imagine announcing forcing the Palestinians out of Gaza to make a panic spot for Western tourists on this coastal strip of land?
Military force or devastating firepower is the only language or logic that is in currency in the anarchic international state system. It is not the military force of Jordan, Egypt, or Syria that could bring peace to Gaza. Something that can threaten a devastating blow to the Israeli military or society can deter the murderous IDF. A military force, that can pose a devastating threat to Israeli society is not feasible within the small piece of land we know as Gaza—a small population with no tradition of military service, limited financial resources, and absolutely no political support from the international community, all these factors will make sure that Gaza remains a military nonentity.
The lesson, however, will not be lost on other military non-entities or militarily weak states of the international system: Military weakness could be devastating, and nobody will come to your rescue. The second part of the lesson is that the militarily powerful states would heed no international norms and laws when they must enforce their will on the weaker states. This is the present state of the so-called rule-based international system that came into being in the wake of the Second World War and which the Washington-led Western world, the self-proclaimed liberals, wants to preserve. The reality of military strength as the only currency in this rule-based system started to come into sharp focus when the President of Ukraine—the militarily weak but ally of the US-led Western world—expressed a cryptic repent that his country should not have abandoned nuclear weapons at the time of dissolution of Soviet state in 1991. Ukraine is under intense military pressure from the Russian Forces and is feeling the need to be in possession of devastating firepower to deter the Russian forces.
The lesson for militarily weak states is clear: the militarily powerful states will not only threaten the weaker states with devastation, expulsion, and murderous campaigns but they will do everything possible to implement this threat to have their way
The narrative of the interdependence of states and globalisation in a liberal environment gives way to lessons of unilateral notions of building strong military forces. Since the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the political discourse shaping the forces of the international system has come full circle. It was US President Bill Clinton in America’s unipolar moments who advocated increased peaceful cooperation between states, non -proliferation of nuclear weapons, and move away from conflict in an increasingly globalised world. Since then US foreign policy has been on a slippery slope—it inflicted three wars on the world, it supported the murderous military campaign by one of its allies, Israel against innocent people of Gaza, its Presidents and Secretary of States kept on proposing military solutions to political problems world is confronted with and now its President has suggested capturing a foreign land, Gaza and expel its rightful residents out of that land to make way for what in US opinion will be an activity for fun sake.
The journey from the narrative of globalisation under a liberal environment to the devastation of war and expulsion of natives from their lands with military forces is only a journey back to the origins of Western imperialism. Whether it was the narrative of liberalism under the overarching reality of globalisation that was fake or whether the threat of land capture is the only thing real about US imperialist policies, only time will tell. The lesson for militarily weak states is clear: the militarily powerful states will not only threaten the weaker states with devastation, expulsion, and murderous campaigns but they will do everything possible to implement this threat to have their way.
We have a situation where the US, the most powerful state in the system, which used to advocate liberal values in international relations, is itself bulldozing the norms and traditions of fair play in the international system
The only reason we will never have a Gaza in South Asia is the factor of presence of two powerful militaries in the region and its vicinity—the Pakistani military in South Asia and the Chinese military in neighboring China. The presence of a large number of Indian military troops in Indian Held Kashmir would have told a different story of devastation and bloodshed if the abovementioned two militaries had not acted as a deterrence against Indian efforts to curb the struggle for the freedom of Kashmiri people. But we should remain aware of the fact that the conventional military balance between Pakistani and Indian militaries is widening with each passing day to Pakistan’s disadvantage. The threat of Indians acting on the impulse, originating in the current trend of militarily powerful states browbeating relatively weaker states in the international system, of devastating weaker neighbors could not be ruled out. US, Russia, Israel, and France are supplying modern armories to Indian inventory, India flirting with dangerous military doctrines and Indian attempts to temper with the nuclear deterrence relations are not good signs for South Asian peace.
What are the the lessons for Pakistan: Remember the three lessons, a) This is an anarchic international system, and every state must fend for itself. Nobody will come to your rescue, b) Militarily powerful states during the last two years have crashed militarily weak states like Gaza and Ukraine. This could become fashionable under the logic of militarily powerful states making their security against terrorism and militancy a pretext for attacking militarily weaker states, c) International norms and laws will be of no help in such a situation.
But there is another more bitter lesson for Pakistan to learn from this situation and that is the lesson about its internal domestic political and security situation. Our political and military leaders have repeatedly made the mistake of fighting segments of their own population at the behest of allied powers. Political, social, and religious conflicts and fissures in our society are playing havoc with the social and political fabrics of our society. Our security forces are fighting against two low-key insurgencies in the southwest and Northwest.
There are tensions between the Pakistani military and mainstream political forces in the society. Political disputes are having devastating effects on national unity. Our economy is in tatters and our dependence on the set of militarily powerful states is increasing with each passing day. In this situation, we cannot afford to take a stand against militarily powerful states playing havoc with the norms and traditions of the international system of states. We have a situation where the US, the most powerful state in the system, which used to advocate liberal values in international relations, is itself bulldozing the norms and traditions of fair play in the international system. Pakistan cannot afford to remain oblivious to this devastating trend of the international system. We must make advocacy against the currency of military force in the international system part of our diplomacy. This is a dangerous trend not only for the international system but more so for our own region. India can take a cue from this trend and indulge in some adventurism. Gelling our diplomacy with the forces in the international system that are openly speaking against the use of military forces against weaker states in the system is the only option we have on the diplomatic front. But before that we must put our house in order—resolve political disputes to bring political stability inside the country.