Time to lift sanctions

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

It is not surprising to find contradictions when one compares the current American writings on developments in Pakistan with those of the cold war era. What one must recognize is the fact that each country formulates its policies in congruence with the security and advancement of its own national interests. In addition, the operative international climate is taken into considerations. All high moral and judicial principles are employed to provide adequate justifications and project a noble image. The hard reality is that top priority is always accorded to national interests and everything else comes afterward.

The end of the cold war ushered in an era that is frequently classified as a unipolar world in which the US is recognized as the sole superpower. In such a world the American statements, policies and actions reflecting heightened level of arrogance of power is somewhat inevitable. Nevertheless the small powers expect not just the right directions from the leading power but also the application of fair and judicious principles and approaches.

The American policy during the cold war era was primarily the product of peculiar set of circumstances in which the major focus was upon the containment of communism. The emergence of communist China in 1949 and the outbreak of Korean War coupled with the professed Soviet intensions of internationalization of communism led many Americans to believe that Asian nationalism might not prove to be strong impediment to expanding communism without western assistance.

In congruence with its containment policies, the American sponsored a system of security alliances around the communist world. The American expressed their willingness to sign up all those players for their team who exhibited some interest in checking the then perceived onward march of communism. They did not and perhaps they could not properly analyze the factors and compulsions that induced the local regional players to sign up with the America. Each local participant had its own set of reasons influencing the decision to opt for closer associations with the Americans.

While Pakistan joined three of American sponsored cold war defense alliances, India decided to remain outside the ambit of alliance system. While many Indian writers go to extra lengths to provide adequate justifications for opting to join the non-aligned group of states, hardly anyone has ever subjected to academic investigations the economic and political dividends accruing from being non-aligned. Ironically non-aligned India got more American assistance than many of the alliance members of the cold war alliance system.

Not only the political imperatives that used to govern relations between the nations during the cold war have been relegated to a secondary position and the economic imperatives have acquired the primary status, the nature of conflict and dynamics of the international relations have also been experiencing modifications. Indeed the American interests and priorities have also undergone considerable changes. The new interest-ladder of the American seems to contain issues like encouraging nuclear restraints, enlarging economic linkages, preventing drug trafficking, reducing human rights violations, promoting democracy and encouraging India-Pakistan to resolve the ongoing Kashmir dispute which has also been frequently referred as the most likely 'nuclear flash point'.

While many Americans acknowledge the demonstrated loyalty and dependability of Pakistan during cold war era, the recently acquired tilt towards India is justified on the grounds of political as well as economic considerations. In order to constrain China the current American administration probably feels that they should focus on building India as a counterpoise to China. India, while generating the image of being enthusiastic supporter of NMD and American China related policies, continues to maintain its cordial arms supply relationships with Russia and retains freedom to dilly dally with China as and when opportunity permits.

It has been repeatedly reported that the American administration is seriously considering lifting of sanctions against India that were imposed in the aftermath of nuclear detonations of May 1998. As far as Pakistan is concerned the sanctions are expected to continue. Once again we are going to experiencing what the Americans prefer to call an even-handed policy. The imposition of sanctions was viewed as a punitive act reflecting the anger of non-proliferation regime. The basic rationale of such pursuit was to punish those who have gone against the spirit of non-proliferation and opted for proliferation. The sanctions have not deterred the involved countries. It has had almost no effect in slowing down the nuclear development in South Asia. On the contrary both countries seemed to have improvised their missile capabilities.

After the passage of little over three years the imposers of sanctions have recognized the futility of maintenance of sanctions. However what appear rather strange are the contradictory approaches towards India and Pakistan. To a rational reader both countries committed the same crime and both were awarded similar punishments. What has happened now that one is being given reprieve while the other is left to continue to languish under sanction regimes. The efficacy of the weapons is not really affected by the nature of regime.

The general impression about Republican administration is known to be somewhat unfavorable towards the use of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool. While the time has come to lift the sanctions but by opting for a discriminatory approach towards the lifting of sanctions is likely to produce adverse effects. Whatever little goodwill is left in Pakistan is likely to be eroded at an accelerated pace. Admittedly the large Indian market is a great attraction and very few traders could be dissuaded from exploring its potentials, but then economic attractions need to be backed by political, diplomatic and strategic considerations.

The often-advanced argument is the India could be a useful strategic partner especially if viewed within the context of American-China relations, NMD and Taiwan questions. But it can also be safely argued that India is unlikely to play to American tunes as the Pakistanis did during cold war era. India has its own ambitions-hegemonic in the South Asia and a great power role in other areas. It is more supportive of multipolarity and not American unipolarity. Its quest for great power status requires to keep all available options open and opt for the one that is best suited to regional and global developments. One has to give deserving credit to Indian tactical policy moves.

Simultaneous lifting of sanctions could provide an additional leverage to the Americans. But the discriminatory sanction policy is likely to push the Pakistanis towards adverse end of the spectrum. While the Americans may not be formulating policies towards the region in which the interests of one nation are deemed to be sacrificed in order to promote ties with the other, there is no guarantee that it would not be viewed as such by the regional rivals. This requires treading the South Asia path rather carefully. Just as the American officials have been careful in not depicting growing ties with India as an initiative to counter China, they need opt for somewhat similar policy towards South Asian rivals. A good and timely starting point could be lifting of sanctions against India and Pakistan simultaneously. What can be attained and prevented through friendly approaches is far more impressive than the dividends paid by the punitive pursuits.