Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: the Pakistani Ambassador's take on Strategic Depth policy

Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Sherry Rahman, has asserted that Pakistan’s policy of ‘strategic depth’ has changed. So has the country’s ‘attitude’ toward India. Briefly, the policy of strategic depth meant that Pakistan would actively work toward building and cultivating a buffer against India on its western border. This buffer state would be Afghanistan and , in the strategic depth schema, a ‘friendly’ regime in Afghanistan would be in the interests of Pakistan. This strategy and formulation entailed cultivating and supporting the Taliban and playing the tribal fabric of Afghanistan against each other.

Whether this policy was assiduously adhered to or not is moot. The point is that this strategy is held to have held the power structure of Pakistan in thrall and certain ‘path dependence’ defined it. Or, in other words, it was institutionalized.  The same could be said about India’s orientation and approach towards India. Defined by hostility and animus, this approach is woven into the fabric of both the state and society of Pakistan. This too, it could be posited safely, has been institutionalized. The collective Pakistani reflex is hostility towards India.

Giving up the strategic depth formulation and the long held hostility towards India means and implies a comprehensive review of the Pakistani state, its power structure and the ideology that informs it. This review is revolutionary in import: it means tackling institutional forces head on, reviewing the ideology upon which Pakistan is predicated upon, taking on the vested interests and giving short shrift to the path dependence of Pakistan’s institutions. It is not a process that can be initiated and crystallized in smoke filled rooms with conspiratorial airs, so to speak and the ante chambers of the Pakistani establishment. In essence, this review and change implies bold and beautiful leadership that build a new Pakistan from the detritus of contemporary Pakistan. In sum, this much desired review is revolutionary and can perhaps only happen with blood on the streets and power corridors of Pakistan.

The question then is: Is the Pakistani ambassador lying? Is she playing to the gallery (The gallery in contention here is the United States). Or is Pakistan really in transition and a new international and orientation in the offing?

The cynicism and the skepticism that has been articulated in this piece perhaps answers the last question. It bears mention again. The outward orientation and the foreign policy of Pakistan, of which strategic depth is an important component flows and stems from the nature and the ideational premise of Pakistan. In this schema, gaining strategic depth and animus towards India is perhaps an existential question for Pakistan. And it is woven into the fabric and entrails of Pakistan. Reviewing this entails smashing the institutional superstructure of Pakistan, creating a new legitimizing ideology of Pakistan and its acceptance by the masses. This, as far as the eye can see, is not happening. The Pakistani ambassador then is out of touch with reality or is clearly lying. Why?

The answer may lie in Pakistan’s need to enjoy good and salubrious relations with the sole superpower, the United States. Despite the Pakistani elites’ protestations to the contrary, the country needs the United States more than the United States needs it. This accrues from the United States’ exit plans from Afghanistan, the winding down of the global war on terror paradigm, and the reversion of international politics to mean. That is , the quotidian , prosaic and ‘unsexy’ interstate politics. In this scheme, Pakistan has neither room for maneuver nor geopolitical space for itself. The choices it has are to either morph into a ‘spoiler state’ or pretend to be a normal state , peace with itself and the world. The former choice- a possible outcome- would not be in the long term interests of Pakistan. The latter accords and potentially offers it some honorable and credible space. The peace overtures to India and the invitation to the Indian prime minister are perhaps explained by this.

The international community and the United States then should not read too much into the ambassador’s statement. They should be read and interpreted for what they are: a desperate attempt to be in the good books of the United States. There is ,however, a silver lining to this. The ambassador’s statement should be held as the official stance of the Pakistani state and Pakistan should be held to these ostensible benchmarks. It should be made clear to Pakistan through the ambassador’s office that the United State’s is indeed taking seriously the alleged dropping of the strategic depth formulation and good relations with India. And that the quid pro quo for good relations with the United States and aid monies would the continuation of this new orientation and approach. While progress would not be expected overnight , the process would be monitored by the United States and aid monies and other aspects of the relationship reviewed only after real and substantive gains are made on the ground.

This may or may not bear fruit but is worth the attempt/effort. Mutation of Pakistan into a spoiler state is not in the interests of the United States or the international community. And in the final analysis, it is only the United States’ orientation and approach, whether by commission or omission, that potentially can determine the direction and trajectory of Pakistan. Let the United States humor ambassador Rehman , play the pretence game but render this pretence into a reality. The subcontinent’s future may depend upon this.