WHEN President Alexander Stubb of Finland addressed the United Nations General Assembly a few days back, it reminded me of less like a routine diplomatic statement and more like a ‘crash course’ in international relations.
In just twenty minutes, he reviewed the fundamentals of contemporary world politics.
Pakistan must take notes. The values. The interests. And the power. While offering an astute analysis of the contemporary crisis, his address could easily have been a masterclass in how theory and practice converge for students of diplomacy and practitioners of statecraft alike.
President Stubb began by returning to primary principles. Foreign policy, he explained, is driven by three elements: values, interests and power. Major states operate primarily through power and have the luxury to do so. Be it soft or hard power. Whereas for smaller states, ‘power’ arises from the ‘capacity to cooperate’ with others. Hence, smart diplomacy is what gives smaller states a stake in relative influence. Preferably relying on values and carefully crafted balanced interests (which we all know do not usually occur). This was far from merely a Finnish perspective; it is a reminder of how international relations theory manifests differently for major and minor states. If you are still here, let me surprise you. Pakistan relatively comes under smaller states domain and its influence is measured against its capacity to cooperate with powerful states. And, how actively Pakistan performs in the corridors of diplomacy remains questionable.
He then moved on to the global order itself. The post – Cold War consensus, he argued, is concluded. A new order is emerging and its contours may take a decade or so to define. While this new order is emerging, he motivates smaller states by reinforcing that power matters, but ideas, values, norms and legitimacy hold underrated importance. This phenomenon is direct tempering of realism with constructivism. Irrespective of differing ideas, complex interests, varying power capacities, geography, culture, history, norms, legitimacy and size, all states have the agency and decisive role in constructing the very evolving international system. He kept refocusing on the importance of executing this legitimacy based on the fundamental values. Values that are defined in the UN charter. This is such a lesson for a state like Pakistan too. Re-evaluating foreign policies based on fundamental values. That is correct. It would really change who we are in the upcoming new world order.
Should Pakistan have a genuine interest in dominating the corridors of smart diplomacy, it must reflect on the following three contemporary issues Stubb has raised: One, currently, IR is dominated by interest-centric multipolar and transactional foreign policies. This is when consolidated power is undergoing fragmentation and more powers, regionally and interna-tionally, are emerging. Hence, states are pressured to craft their foreign policies based on flexibility so that manoeuvring between different powers is easier and possible. Resulting is short-term, quid pro quo, interest-centric foreign policies over long-term value-based multilateralism, where states coordinate, build relations and policies through incorporating the platforms of international institutions or indulging in agreements and collective decision-making. He argues, since values are not un-derpinned in foreign policies, they collapse into conflicts.
Two, the Global ‘balance of power’ is shifting to the Global South and East. This is no longer exclusive to the West or Europe. Such as China, India, Africa and Latin America are becoming more accomplished economically, politically and militarily, yielding hard as well as soft power. This shift directly affects global decision-making, alliances and international relations. As this new order is emerging, Stubb reiterates that powers in the South and East should pursue their interests but should ensure value-based policies instead of undermining sovereignty, territorial integrity and human rights i.e., in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Congo, Occupied Kashmir, Myanmar and so forth. Wars are always a failure of humanity and shared values.
Three, the UN is struggling for real. A long list of the UN’s midlife crisis can be discussed here; how-ever, the important thing to say is that the UN’s entire essence of presence becomes challengeable when a selective approach is played so overtly, for instance, prioritising conflicts and mediation which are closer to powerful states and neglecting others. The power and influence are entrenched in the Security Council’s permanent members, which leads to biases, inaction and inefficiencies during crises that matter to many states that have no say in the face of veto power. Thus, all those developmental efforts by the UN become insignificant when peace and stability are absent from the core of its institution. International states performing explicit aggression and yet no accountability leads to the idea of the need of real-time reforms for the UN so that credibility, relevance and efficiency can be brought back on a broader level.
To conclude, in international relations where a new world order is emerging, powers are shifting to the Global South and East and multilateral institutions like the UN are struggling, for Pakistan, the most important lesson from Stubb’s address is to conform to normative consistency in its foreign policies. Pakistan is just as important as any other state in the world arena. To ensure that importance is well entrenched in an upcoming new world order, Pakistan cannot rely merely on transactional diplomacy but on synchronising its actions with primary principles, values and international norms. Influence stems not only from hard power but also from entrenched principled foreign policies.
—The writer is a PhD Scholar in Politics and International Relations at Keele University, UK.
