The prestigious Margalla Security Dialogue opened here in Islamabad with a thought-provoking lecture from American expert of international politics, John Mearsheimer. In his unequivocal style, professor Mearsheimer told the audience in a jam-packed hall at a local hotel that Pakistan is safe till it is not forced into a situation where it must choose between two superpowers–China and the United States. Till Washington is stuck in Persian Gulf war and Ukraine war and Washington’s overstretch will serve Pakistan’s interests well.
In such a situation as it now prevails in the region Pakistan could keep good relations with both Washington and Beijing. He pointed out that Ukraine and West Asian wars are keeping Washington so preoccupied that President Trump always has good things to say about his Chinese counterpart when he meets him. If Washington is relieved of these burdens, it will pivot to Southeast Asia to confront China and that will be a bad omen for Pakistan. Then Pakistan would be caught between two superpowers. It is in Pakistan’s interest that the United States remains stuck in these wars.
John Mearsheimer is a leading American expert on international politics. We can accept his point that Pakistan might benefit from American strategic overstretch, but we should not ignore the fact that a prolonged war in West Asia would make life considerably more expensive for ordinary people. How an economic hardship or the fear of social unrest would impact Pakistani strategists and planners is not difficult to guess.
Professor Mearsheimer’s lecture and question and answer session that followed continued for more than two hours. He presented arguments related to American strategic overstretch at the start of his lecture. The gist of his argument was that Washington is currently busy with two major strategic commitments including war with Iran and Ukraine war. These wars kept it from concentrating its capacity for confronting China at the military, diplomatic and economic levels. This provides Pakistan with a breathing space as Islamabad was now enjoying the luxury of maintaining good relations both with Washington and Beijing. If these conflicts end and the US disengages from them, the US will redirect its resources towards East Asia to counter China. In such a situation Pakistan would find itself under greater pressure to choose between China and the United States.
At Margalla Dialogue, Pakistani intelligentsia was full of praise for professor Mearsheimer—who joined the conference through satellite link from Chicago University where he serves as R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science. From the applause he received at the Dialogue it appeared that he is quite popular among the Pakistani strategic elite. Because he finds himself at the wrong side of Washington’s political establishment and security apparatus on account of his unconventional political thoughts, he has endeared himself to the intellectuals in countries like Pakistan. In the past Professor Mearsheimer has unequivocally opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and now he was opposed to the Iran war. We can easily dub him as anti-Israel.
The audience at Margalla Dialogue listened to Professor Mearsheimer lecture with a pin drop silence. It was strange that nobody raised the point during question-and-answer sessions that strategic calculations are not the only factor considered while making political and strategic decisions. The economic consequences of war cannot be excluded from the assessment of a country’s national interests. No Pakistani decision maker can ignore the economic vulnerabilities potentially Pakistan would face in case of prolonged conflict in Southwest Asia. Pakistan’s economy is heavily dependent on imported energy primarily from the Persian Gulf region. Prolonged instability in West Asia can affect balance of payment, electric generation petroleum prices, manufacturing capacity transportation, manufacturing, and inflation. So Pakistani decision makers would not be inclined to consider the abstract argument of strategic benefit from American over stretch, while ignoring the economic hardship faced by the people of Pakistan.
It is absurd to believe that Pakistani decision makers would be calculating its strategic interests from the perspective of great power rivalries. Even harder to believe that Washington’s pivot to Asia policy will force Pakistan into binary strategic choice. Pakistan’s interests with Washington specifically relate to security matters, diplomacy and financial requirements of the state. Whereas Its interests with China have strategic and economic considerations. However, Pakistani decision makers must consider the reality that to maintain strategic autonomy vis-à -vis both superpowers Pakistan needs to be financially and economically self-sufficient.
A prolonged conflict in West Asia can produce a higher cost of petroleum and fuel triggering a price hike and inflation in transportation, food items, it can put great pressure on foreign exchange reserves, it can generate a large import bill and balance of payment crisis. So, when Pakistani decision makers will contrast the strategic gains from America’s strategic over stretch and domestic economic and social upheaval, they cannot afford to ignore the latter.
Professor Mearsheimer expressed the opinion that the United States was addicted to war. And regarding China, and the possibility of China’s aggressive behavior, he said that Taiwan is in a very dangerous situation. Similarly, he said, China’s confrontation with Japan over small islands in the South China Sea is also a very dangerous situation. If there is a military conflict between China and the United States in the South China Sea, it would prove to be a very difficult situation for Pakistan. No one from the audience challenged professor Mearsheimer’s theory of things becoming difficult for Pakistan in case Washington is relieved from its war burdens in West Asia and Ukraine and decides to pivot to Asia.
Umer Farooq
Umer Farooq is an Islamabad-based Afghanistan specialist and senior journalist. A journalist since 1995, he has worked with Dawn and The Herald and covered Afghanistan and conflicts for Pakistani and international outlets. His analysis focuses on Pakistan–Afghanistan relations, the Taliban and the TTP, and regional security after the United States’ withdrawal.
