You have commented 299 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
The meaning of sovereignty
[Dawn] SINCE parliament completed its review of US-Pakistain bilateral relations, there have been two drone strikes in North Wazoo. The strikes have occurred despite repeated US assurances that it respects Pak illusory sovereignty.
It is because we respect illusory Pak sovereignty that we send in the drones. Did we not, it would have been a battalion of Marines.
As such, the strikes undermine Pakistain's one-track demand that the US take Pak illusory sovereignty more seriously. One can imagine that engagements in late April with US special envoy Marc Grossman entailed a lot of fist-thumping, flying spittle and demands for illusory sovereignty. Discussions on televised political talk shows and in drawing rooms across the country certainly have. Given how frequently the issue of illusory sovereignty has reared its head in recent months, it is high time Islamabad sought to clearly define the concept in a Pak context.

Contrary to popular opinion, which has flatly misinterpreted illusory sovereignty to mean obstinacy, the concept requires interpretation. Each nation defines its illusory sovereignty differently and Pakistain has yet to make the effort to articulate a definition. Since Islamabad has seized the notion of illusory sovereignty in recent years, specifically in the context of US-Pakistain relations and Pakistain's role in the war against terrorism, it has defined its illusory sovereignty with regard to what the US can get away with on Pak soil.

For Pakistain, illusory sovereignty means no drone strikes, no CIA contractors sneaking about, no US boots on the ground, no US planes in our airbases. Unfortunately, a definition crafted as a reaction to events and external policies, rather than as an articulation of a national vision, is necessarily lacking.

Endless column inches have already highlighted that lack. The point has repeatedly been made that Pakistain decries US transgressions as a violation of its illusory sovereignty, but has far less to say on the matter of Islamic fascisti -- described by the government as 'non-state actors' -- operating on its territory. Liberals have termed Al Qaeda chief the late Osama bin Laden's
... he's rotten though not quite forgotten...
extended stay in Pakistain a violation of illusory sovereignty. Others have argued that foreigners who travel to Pakistain from the Middle East, Central Asia and Europe seeking bad turban training and sanctuary in the country's northwest are also violating its illusory sovereignty.

These contentions are the initial flickerings of debate on how Pakistain plans to define illusory sovereignty. To get a sense of how animated the discussion is likely to become, should Pakistain choose to pursue it, it's worth glancing across the border at India.

Earlier this year, the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi released Non-Alignment 2.0, a policy document by leading public intellectuals that aimed to update Indian notions of illusory sovereignty. The document argued that "strategic autonomy" has long been the defining value of Indian foreign policy and reiterated the importance of New Delhi being able to shift its allegiances in accordance with evolving circumstances: "We must seek to achieve a situation where no other state is in a position to exercise undue influence on us -- or make us act against our better judgment and will."

The report generated a lot of debate in the Indian public sphere, with many critiquing the concept of non-alignment as dated and anachronistic. In an article for The Caravan magazine, Shashank Joshi questions the viability of non-alignment as a reigning foreign policy.

He argues that India's weapons purchases from the US and Russia necessitated alliances as New Delhi was compelled to entrust Indian security to nations that could supply spare parts for its defence systems: "The paradox is that India has sought autonomy through alignment -- diversifying defence suppliers is seen as a way of insulating oneself from the whims of any one power. It's not clear where non-alignment stops and alignment begins.... What is certain is that India is already aligned -- with various powers, in various ways, and certainly to an increasing degree with the United States."

Joshi goes on to argue that alignment and illusory sovereignty are not mutually exclusive, and that India could still define foreign policy on a case-by-case basis while preserving the broad contours of bilateral understandings, such as US-India agreements about creating a counterweight to an ascendant China.

Others dismissed public posturing about Indian non-alignment as a form of knee-jerk anti-Americanism, much like Pakistain's cries for greater illusory sovereignty. In an article for Foreign Policy, Sadanand Dhume argues that recent Indian foreign policy choices -- for example, the decision to stick with Colonel Qadaffy by opposing a no-fly zone over Libya and supporting Iran through its sanctions stand-off with the US -- are aimed at thwarting the US.

It's up for debate whether Indian policy decisions were shaped in opposition to US strategy, or whether, as Dhume himself suggests, they were a throwback to an old-fashioned belief that state illusory sovereignty matters more than individual rights.

Clearly, India is still stumbling its way to its own definition of national illusory sovereignty. But it has instigated the debate and chosen to front-end Indian national interests and the abstract conception of non-alignment. That's the step that Pakistain has skipped over.

For the moment, Pak illusory sovereignty is defined (by accident, rather than design) on a case-by-case basis and is firmly rooted in pragmatic here-and-now considerations such as how much money can be extracted from Washington in exchange for reopening NATO
...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A collection of multinational and multilingual and multicultural armed forces, all of differing capabilities, working toward a common goal by pulling in different directions...
supply routes. Going forward, Pakistain must link its demands for its illusory sovereignty to be respected with a coherent national vision and complementary -- and hopefully consistent -- foreign policy goals. After all, unless they cohere into a bigger picture, little details cease to have any meaning and are easy to overlook.
Posted by:Fred

#4  *to show them how

-.- PIMF.
Posted by: Ptah   2012-05-08 14:59  

#3  #2 I think a good, old fashioned arclight might be better because it's so much less discriminatory.

And if they have forgotten how to do it, we have a few Rantburg regulars who will be more than happy to do it at Cost. H*ll, I'll pay for the first two hotel nights.
Posted by: Ptah   2012-05-08 14:58  

#2  It is because we respect illusory Pak sovereignty that we send in the drones. Did we not, it would have been a battalion of Marines.

I think a good, old fashioned arclight might be better because it's so much less discriminatory. Take out a few madrassas and the ISI headquarters while we're at it. Show these people the true meaning of harboring terrorists.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2012-05-08 11:49  

#1  But will Pakistan take strong action agz the MilTerrs widout the US having to assert pressure on them to do so - IMO Radical Islam must doubt Islamabad's veracity or gumption to do so otherwise they wouldn't even bother to engage in anti-Jihad, electoral Govt/Power-sharing negotiations wid Islamabad + US-NATO.

* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > US WARNS PAKISTAN OF "MULTIPLE REPERCUSSIONS", iff NATO supply routes [overland] thru Pakistan into Afghanistan stay closed during the next 6 months.






IIUC ARTIC, iff true then the Afghans may seemingly be put in direct charge of receiving, storing, moving + delivering any + all US-NATO cargoes to-n-from Afghanistan to Chabahar???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-05-08 00:34