Myopic understanding of sovereignty
IN 1648, in the aftermath of bloodbaths of unprecedented extent in Europe against the backdrop of the thirty years of war, the Treaty of Westphalia gave a ray of hope for future peace.
Sovereignty, inter alia, was made an integral part of this document so that no country could butt in the matter of another nation-state, which had a distinct identity to make it a nation.
Fast forward to post-WW-II, the UN Charter made the same mantra of sovereignty fundamental to its functioning despite “the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security”.
During the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the US, the sovereignty of states went on the back burner, and states were either intimidated to compromise on their sovereignty or states presented their sovereignty for sale.
Examples from across the globe are replete. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union back in 1991, the power game at the cost of weak states’ sovereignty hasn’t petered out—only the method has morphed.
In this backdrop, when the former PM waved a letter and claimed that he was up for a sovereign foreign policy; for all he’s been going through was due to standing up against the global hegemony by saying “Absolutely Not”.
Of course, we know the US never requested military bases in Pakistan therefore this mantra was purely a political gimmick.
But the more significant question we need to ask is “what is the reality behind the sovereignty of countries whose fiscal and monetary systems are under the clout of the global lenders or by extension the global powers?
” Well, such a deep question may not entertain the political base of a party, which had been removed from power via a democratic process—no matter how faulty and lopsided that system is.
Nevertheless, there are issues emanating from such a narrative that is made to win votes at the cost of common sense, which has become profoundly uncommon these days.
The fact is that no country on earth, barring a few, has a genuinely independent foreign policy for obvious reasons.
For instance, the signatory of the UN Declaration of Human Rights compromises some of the states’ intended actions.
While UN resolutions don’t bind member countries, there are consequences—both financial and political—for those that breach them; as a result, there remains a semblance of order and respect for human rights, at least from weak states as Thucidides wrote, “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must”.
Pakistan has never had an independent foreign policy in the sense that at times it went against its own national interests to please the powerful or to get something done.
The whole Cold War period is a living example of such a situation where we remained in the American camp to stave off our security, economic and political issues.
Leaving out the global hegemon, our track record even today portrays that even small countries make us dance to their tunes.
Take a look at what Recep Tayyip Erdoðan said when the then PM canceled going to the Kaula Lumpur Summit at the eleventh hour in spite of initial jubilations and felicitations.
Mr.Khan didn’t say any word then when our sovereignty came under a patently vicious threat by a country, which cannot be on a par with ours except economically.
Even comparing India with Pakistan—given the former’s independent foreign policy—seems far-fetched from understanding the basic framework on which the global system functions.
India under the leadership of Mr.Nehru carried out the non-alignment movement because it could afford that, unlike this country.
Down the road, despite an astonishing change across the globe, India still maintains a foreign policy of its own.
Reasons: India’s economy dwarfs that of Pakistan, which needs bailout packages to rescue it from bankruptcy; India’s population stands out ten times more than Pakistan’s—so are the army and other things; no Indian leader has to listen to Saudi Arabia’s dictates regarding attending any conference.
When one speaks, one has to speak the full truth—not half of it.In short, to make a foreign policy that caters to the needs of Pakistanis, the very first step is economic independence.
As PM Shehaz Sharif rightly said that beggars can’t be choosers, and we have to work with others until we emerge as a significant economic power until then we shouldn’t lecture the world about things, which have nothing to do with Pakistanis.
All our problems begin and end with the economic ones, so the elephant in the room should be addressed first and then the rest can be undertaken.
Moving on, if there is anything we can learn from China is its ability to obviate intended or unintended conflicts.
Given that it’s 14 boundary disputes and despite its elephantine military power, it’s never started any shooting war with any of its neighbors.
Jumping on the bandwagon of win-win and trade-laden relations, China has shown the world how countries can put human wellbeing above everything.
If China desires, it can occupy Taiwan in no time, but its deep economic ties make any such actions immaterial—at least for the time being.
We started at least three wars with India—ten times more powerful than us—and the result is in front of us.
The fact is that sovereignty doesn’t grow on trees—a state has to earn it. The Pakistani people deserve to be told that they are in the lurch and to get out of this quagmire, there has to be a collective effort.
The Charter of Economy would be the first step.Since the wellbeing of a country banks upon its ability to cater to its inhabitants, people-friendly initiatives should take the front seat.
Additionally, political instability should be dampened for now because internal fighting may not be anyone’s benefit.
It is high time political parties put their differences aside and start working for the greater good of the country.
—The writer is a school teacher/lecturer, based in Islamabad.
