A recent article by Muhammad Azam Khan in Pakistan Today caught the attention of followers of matters-strategic and the name rang a bell. After all, one does not get to author the ‘Maritime Doctrine’ of a Navy which operates in three dimensions, albeit in a limited manner, if one’s professional knowledge, intellectual depth and aptitude for critical analyses are not of a very high order. But, disappointingly, the article gave no such evidence; and was rather an inadequate commentary on the strategic circumstances of the ‘Indo-Pacific’.
Khan’s title “Progressing strategic rivalry and the Indo-Pacific” is sufficiently expansive to allow latitude for a number of ideas. The ideas used were, however, rather unconnected, leading to a jarring whole. The conclusion that emerged seemed to be that “Liberal democracies (read US, Britain, Australia, India et al) are a mistake and authoritarian regimes (read China and Pakistan) are the world’s saviours.” This, despite the Chinese Communist Party’s repression at home, matched by an aggressive foreign policy shorn of all subtlety: a combination of intimidation, economic coercion and outright arrogance in its dealings with other countries and Pakistan’s continued support of global and cross-border terrorism, both of which have won them few friends.
Mr Khan begins by talking about the ‘Quad’, stating that “although the Quad has thus far avoided openly designating China as the principal threat, it could now happen sooner.” He also comments that the Quad strives to set up ‘a free and open Indo-Pacific, a rules-based order, freedom of navigation and over flight and respect for international law and maritime security.” Considering these two statements, it emerges that China appears to be a principal threat to what the Quad strives to do…which is to support the tenets of international law. If Khan also subscribes to what the Quad desires to do, as does come across, then actions by China in the South China Sea for the past few years indicate that China is indeed the ‘principal threat’ to peace and stability in the region. Balancers, therefore, such as the Quad are surely required.
Khan complains that the Raisina Dialogue held in New Delhi in January this year was “essentially a China bashing grand event organised by India.” The ‘Raisina Dialogue 2020’ brought together over 600 speakers and delegates from 103 countries, representing heads of state, cabinet ministers, diplomats, CEOs, and leaders from academia, civil society and media. If such a large and diverse group did find that China bashing over three full days was worth their time, then perhaps China did indeed deserve some bashing.
Khan states that “encouraged by its new found love of Arab world… Modi went on to issue official maps showing liberated areas of Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Aksai Chin as part of India.” This statement is probably an attempt to mask the embarrassment from Pakistan’s issuance of a new map which includes Junagadh as Pakistani territory, to which India’s ministry of External Affairs rightly responded by calling it an “exercise in political absurdity”. The map reflects the frustration within the Imran Khan government over its inability to get the international community, including the Organisation of Islamic States, to side with Islamabad on the Kashmir issue after the abrogation of Art 370. Further, by clearly showing Jammu and Kashmir as their territory, Pakistan has revealed that annexation of Kashmiri territory drives its policy, exposing claims of supporting self-governance aspirations as a sham. The reference to the Arab world indicates a definite rift between them and Pakistan. Islamabad is probably betting that with America on its way out of the Middle East, its partnership with China would give it new leverage in the changing Middle East – this, however, seems unlikely. India, on the other hand, has generally been viewed as a benign power by the Arab World known, with robust cultural relations and economic engagement.
Khan writes that “the Ladakh showdown was a “strategic signalling” of sort by Beijing…given the strain of Quad exacerbated by fiery pronouncements against CPEC…a tipping point to react physically.” If nations deliberately cross agreed-upon boundaries and barbarically attack soldiers in uniform with iron rods studded with nails in peace time, merely at the ‘provocation’ of forming an informal strategic forum with other democratic nations (Quad) and voicing a legitimate objection to a transport corridor planned through parts of its sovereign territory (CPEC), then, as Khan himself puts it “a complete erosion of decency in politics and human values is for all to see.” Pakistan must be the only nation in the world that supports such abhorrent behaviour. China has not endeared itself to the US, the ASEAN countries are unhappy with China, Japan is finally standing up to Beijing, Australia and Canada have called out China, and Europe has finally woken up to the reality of the Chinese state. Even countries as distant as Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama and Peru are distressed by China – battling droves (over 17,000 strong) of Chinese IUU trawlers threatening the historic Galapagos Islands. If one were to look at the big picture, it emerges that the global pushback against China was inspired by the Galwan fightback.
Khan also comments that because of the incident “India suffered a loss of political face with PM Modi’s arrogance and jingoism firmly squashed.” Discussions on TV channels, commentaries on various print media and blog sites and dialogue with the man on the street have however all been in favour of Prime Minister Modi. The latest India Today ‘Mood of The Nation’ poll puts Modi’s popularity in India at its highest point, at arguably the most stressed point of its economy considering the pandemic and challenges to national security. That is contrary to what Khan claims.
Khan writes that “A study in history reveals that nations led by competent, imaginative and selfless leadership usually come out well in times of crisis.” Pakistan seems to have no such luck during the current pandemic, with its economy so weak and vulnerable that its government had to seek emergency loans from China and Saudi Arabia, its international standing at a nadir and a democratically elected government clearly constrained by a military whose role has grown progressively through Prime Minister Imran Khan’s term in office. A role that has also expanded to the ambit of domestic policy during the current pandemic, as a result of government inaction. In fact, the current civilian leadership could well be on its way to be at the mercy of a military coup, if current voices in Pakistan are an indicator. At the same time, Xi Jinping’s attempts to pick up a fight with everyone to divert attention from domestic troubles is reaching a point of diminishing returns, with a global pushback and rumblings within his own party.
Khan ends by lamenting that “there has been a virtual demise of rationale(sic) thinking (across the world).” One is left with no option but to borrow that very same phrase to describe his article. Perhaps Mr Khan should use his energies to counsel Pakistan Navy Chief Admiral Abbasi who recently defied Islamabad High Court and refused to hand over prime land usurped by the Pakistan Navy for a Luxury Sailing Club, stating that they were doing so to overcome Pakistan’s ‘Sea Blindness’.
