After reading the military's press release on the Australian Army Chief's visit, I was struck by a singular thought that there is a strong chance Pakistan would remain stuck in a moment when international politics was defined by the global struggle against terrorism. This was a time when Washington was leading that struggle, and the Pakistan military was basking in the glory of international counter-terrorism efforts that the intelligence services of the so-called free world were leading.
This all started some 20 years ago. Now, the US-led free world has shifted to a paradigm in which superpower competition for world supremacy occupies a central position. In the so-called War against Terror, Pakistan was the frontline state against terrorism, a major US ally and its military rulers' darlings of the West.
In the contest for world supremacy, the free world has a separate set of priorities and a different group of allies. International politics does not revolve around counter-terrorism efforts. Washington is emitting signals that indicate it is preoccupied with the emergence of an anti-American alliance that includes nation-states like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Western media have already started churning out stories about how the Iranians are assisting Russian war efforts by supplying them with locally produced drones, North Korean military battalions are in Russia, and the Chinese are providing dual-use technologies to the Russian Federation. Americans are fast losing their military superiority and the stamina to keep spending more on defence than the combined defence budget of all their rivals. What President-elect Trump will make out of this situation is difficult to predict. The American media is even talking about scenarios where the combined military might of Iran, Russia, China and North Korea might overwhelm the American military, which is still considered the most powerful in the world.
When I read the praises heaped on the Pakistan military by the Australian Army Chief for its counter-terrorism role, I thought this would lead to a kind of stasis in the Pakistani security apparatus
A few years ago, an American strategist came up with the concept of "integrated deterrence" — an idea to combine and integrate the military capabilities of all US allies to counter China.
US' grand strategy still insists on the avoidance of a powerful adversary emerging in the Eurasian landmass. But within the Eurasian landmass, the American focus has shifted from Europe and the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific region. Previously, this region used to be labelled as Asia-Pacific, but the changed nomenclature indicates the importance that the Western world now attaches to the rise of India as a counterweight to China — the very China that the Western world now wants to contain. In 2019, the US Department of Defense defined the Indo-Pacific as a region in the following manner: "The Indo-Pacific is the single most consequential region for America's future. Spanning a vast stretch of the globe from the West coast of the United States to the Western shores of India, the region is home to the world's most populous state, most populous democracy, and largest Muslim-majority state, and includes over half of the earth's population. Among the ten largest standing armies in the world, seven reside in the Indo-Pacific, and six countries in the region possess nuclear weapons. Nine of the world's ten busiest seaports are in the region, and 60% of global maritime trade transits through Asia, with roughly one-third of global shipping passing through the South China Sea alone".
In this world of superpower military rivalries and mega economic competition, counter-terrorism is dirty work that is better left to a military selected for this task or which has been pushed into a tight spot by the situation. Partially because of its deeds and policies and partially out of sheer bad luck, the Pakistani military is facing an extremely volatile situation on its Western border in Afghanistan. When I read the praises heaped on the Pakistan military by the Australian Army Chief for its counter-terrorism role, I thought this would lead to a kind of stasis in the Pakistani security apparatus. Australian and other praises heaped on the Pakistani military over the years for their counter-terrorism role will strand them in this moment. The world has already started to pass us by. This is a world of mega economies, and it is a world of possibilities of major military conflicts. This is a world of innovative and disruptive military technologies — for 20 years, the US military was pitted against terror groups or against countries which were military non-entities. The question of superiority and quality of US military technology did not arise — terrorists and militants mostly used outdated military technology. Now, the competition is with Chinese weaponry. Western military experts admit that the Chinese military industry has achieved major feats in crucial weapon systems and disruptive military technology, making the Chinese competitive with American weapons systems.
What could the Australian Army Chief have discussed with the Pakistani Army chief related to global and regional security if we keep this background in mind? Perhaps an explanation that their "Integrated Deterrence" is not aimed at Pakistan? Possibly a piece of advice to Pakistan that it doesn't get too close to China
The military's press release on the Australian Army Chief's visit also hinted that he discussed the global and regional security situation with Pakistani Chief of the Army Staff, General Syed Asim Munir. Australia is the leading light of countries that want to make a joint military effort to function as a counterweight to China and give India a leading role in this effort. When the concept of the Indo-Pacific region, joining the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean countries in one giant alliance-type structure, was first floated by the Japanese and the Australian political and military elites in around 2016 — American documents mention this concept even earlier — some critics pointed out that Pakistan, a crucial Indian Ocean littoral state was missing from the details of the concept as enunciated by these elites. This omission, however, was not a mistake. It was deliberate to appease New Delhi. The world's major economic and military activities occur in and around the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Australia has a major interest in Chinese economic developments as a supplier of raw materials, but nevertheless, it is part of the US Indo-Pacific strategic and broader concept of "Integrated Deterrence".
On the one hand, Australia is a major defence partner of India, while on the other hand, it has been a strategic ally of the United States since the end of World War II. In some other worlds, Australia, India and the United States are partners in a new way of looking at military and strategic situations in the Indo-Pacific region. What could the Australian Army Chief have discussed with the Pakistani Army chief related to global and regional security if we keep this background in mind? Perhaps an explanation that their "Integrated Deterrence" is not aimed at Pakistan? Possibly a piece of advice to Pakistan that it doesn't get too close to China. But then Australia itself is economically remarkably close to China, supplying it with critical raw materials used in the hi-tech Chinese industry. According to some reports, Australia is a source of food supplies for the Chinese market. Australia, however, remains a part of the US-led military alliance against China. Pakistan, on the other hand, is not only militarily close to China but also a major trading and economic partner. Pakistan also has a long tradition of military alliance with Washington.
So, Pakistani and Australian chiefs have much to share and exchange notes about. The two would have discussed the complexity of the strategic and alliance situation that the world is witnessing. India is seen as a counterweight to China, while it still enjoys cordial and warm relations with Russia. Russia, which Washington perceives to be a partner in authoritarianism and belligerency with China, is the leading light behind the concept of the Indo-Pacific as a region. Pakistan has established good relations with Russia, which is a major supplier of military hardware to India — India, which is perceived as a major military threat by Pakistan. In this situation,, repeating the East-West divide of the Cold War era is not possible.
The problem is that the dreamworld of American hawks of completely drawn-out battlelines does not seem to be happening anytime soon. India is not ready to part company with Russia, and it is still a massive trading partner of China. India's traditional foreign policy elites have their own complaints against the American-led rule-based international system. Pakistan, on the other hand, failed to secure for itself a place of its choosing in this new arrangement
Pakistan is getting into uncharted waters. We are becoming less and less relevant in Washington's scheme of things. America and its allies just want to use us for their dirty work. After all, we are only good for this kind of dirty work. We will face a problem in the continuance of the financial viability of our state — for the past several decades we have either been dependent on American largesse or International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailouts to sustain ourselves. This largesse will not be available to us when the battlelines are completely drawn. The problem is that the dreamworld of American hawks of completely drawn-out battlelines does not seem to be happening anytime soon. India is not ready to part company with Russia, and it is still a massive trading partner of China. India's traditional foreign policy elites have their own complaints against the American-led rule-based international system. Pakistan, on the other hand, failed to secure for itself a place of its choosing in this new arrangement. Its elites have shown an inclination not to become an exclusive partner of the China-led alliance by keeping its channel of communications open with Washington. However, Washington itself does not seem too willing to embrace its most allied ally of the past. Pakistan has little leverage to perform a balancing act between the two camps to secure maximum benefits.
The Pakistani military elites have a very romantic approach towards what they did during the War against Terror: first, they think (and rightly so) that they are the prime victim of war over the past 20 years, and secondly, they think that their boys did a commendable job in chasing both Pakistani and foreign militant groups. But the world around them has completely changed — this is not the world where counter-terrorism was in currency. They were the darlings of the West while they were fighting the terrorists. The West now has a new darling — India.
Things are not looking good for Pakistan. In the shape of Afghanistan, we have trouble at hand — the problem is that if we continue the fight against terrorists and militants on our Western borders, nobody will be ready to foot the bill on our behalf. And we do not know how protracted this war is going to be. We have a deeply divided and fractured political scene at home, which could become a source of major instability. Our economy is in a shambles with our financial viability in question. The modern technologies that the West is jointly producing or providing to India will be a major source of military threat to Pakistan. And our dire financial situation will not allow us to match Indian acquisitions. Major restructuring and reforms in our strategic thinking are necessary in this situation.