THE INSTITUTE OF STRATEGIC STUDIES
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
Registered under societies registration Act No. XXI of 1860
The Institute of Strategic Studies was founded in 1973. It is a non-
profit, autonomous research and analysis centre, designed for
promoting an informed public understanding of strategic and related
issues, affecting international and regional security.
In addition to publishing a quarterly Journal and a monograph series,
the ISS organises talks, workshops, seminars and conferences on
strategic and allied disciplines and issues.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Chairman
Ambassador Khalid Mahmood
MEMBERS
Ambassador Shamshad Ahmad Khan Ambassador Riaz Mohammad Khan
Ms. Mehtab Rashidi Dr Hassan Askari Rizvi
Dr Sarfraz Khan Dr Moonis Ahmar
Additional Secretary (Policy and Director
Public Diplomacy) School of Politics and International
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Relations, Quaid-i-Azam
Islamabad (ex-officio) University, Islamabad (ex-officio)
Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry
Director General
Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad
(Member and Secretary Board of Governors)
US and Evolving Strategic Shifts in
the World Order: The Future of
Diplomacy
Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry *
July 2018
*
Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry is Director General, Institute of
Strategic Studies Islamabad and former Foreign Secretary and Ambassador of
Pakistan to USA.
EDITORIAL TEAM
Editor-in-Chief : Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry
Director General, ISSI
Editor : Najam Rafique
Director Research
Publication Officer : Azhar Amir Malik
Composed and designed by : Syed Muhammad Farhan
Title Cover designed by : Unique Vision
Published by the Director General on behalf of the Institute of
Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Publication permitted vide Memo No.
1481-77/1181 dated 7-7-1977. ISSN. 1029-0990
Articles and monographs published by the Institute of Strategic
Studies can be reproduced or quoted by acknowledging the source.
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract 1
Introduction 1
US and the Evolving Strategic Shifts 2
Trump: Diplomacy on the Retreat 4
Regional Issues: Diplomacy Constrained 8
Diplomacy: The Best Bet 12
Conclusion 14
Abstract
The world order that we have come to experience since the end
of the Second World War is undergoing notable strategic shifts.
Major power competition is intensifying. Global socio-economic
norms that were negotiated through decades long diplomacy are
being ignored. Advent of President Trump has expedited the pace
and intensity of these emerging strategic shifts. His “America First”
approach is sharpening polarization in the world. Diplomacy seems
to be on the retreat in many regions, such as South Asia. One of the
test cases of success or failure of diplomacy is Afghanistan, which
remains in deep turmoil. Despite setbacks, diplomacy remains our
best hope for a peaceful world.
Keywords: World order, Strategic shifts, Major power
competition, Diplomacy, Trump, South Asia.
Introduction
The world order that had emerged after the Second World War is
clearly paving the way for something that is yet to assume clear
contours. Some political scientists have termed this period as a
world in “disarray”.1 Others hypothesize that the age of bipolar
contestation has returned, with China ascending to become the
challenger to the supremacy of the United States, taking the place of
the Soviet Union. Yet others feel that we have entered a multipolar
phase of world dynamics, with issue-based coalitions forming and
dissolving in a perpetual motion. What is, however, indisputable, is
that the world is in a state of flux, and its order and the underlying
universal principles that governed it for over seventy years are
crumbling. For starters, the principle of respect of sovereignty of
each nation is adhered to less and less. Territorial integrity is no
longer sacrosanct. The UN Charter principles of non-interference
and non-intervention are notions of the past. We are now in the age
of unilateral drone strikes and cyber wars; of regime changes and
armed interventions, a fifth generation and hybrid wars. One need
not look any further than the conflicts that have wreaked havoc in
1
Richard Haass, A World in Disarray (New York: Penguin Press, 2016).
1
various parts across the world - from Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to
Ukraine, Sudan and Libya. The world order that prevented world
wars for over seven decades is quickly becoming irrelevant.
It must be said that this evolving strategic shift is not limited to
inter-state relationships. The wide ranging socio-economic norms
that we evolved through decades-long diplomacy after the end of the
Cold War are seemingly ignored. Take for example, free trade. For
decades, the international community generally held a consensus
that free international trade in the absence of tariff barriers is good
for all parties involved. From Kennedy Round to the Uruguay and
Doha Rounds, countless meetings and difficult negotiations stitched
together an elaborate framework for international trade under WTO
rules. This celebrated framework is now under threat from national
protectionist trends and displays of economic coercion. With
President Trump announcing a series of tariffs on imports from
China, and Europe and Canada, and the retaliatory reactions from
the latter, it is evident that we are witnessing the beginning sparks of
trade wars.
US and the Evolving Strategic Shifts
Aside from trade, the consensus on respect for fundamental
human rights, another distinguished feature of the post WWII world
order, and one that is, articulated magnificently in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, has been shred to pieces in
places like Palestine, Kashmir, and Rakhine. Immigration that, for as
long as human history can recall, infused talent, innovation,
diversity, and energy into societies, is now viewed as an economic
or security threat. This topic alone moves voters and political
parties, and debates around it are frequently heated, particularly in
the United States and countries across Europe. Moreover, the global
consensus that culminated in the Paris Accord in December 2015
after years of negotiations to mitigate effects of climate change
through international cooperation is all but broken. And in not only
Western societies but across the planet, the pervasive forces of ultra-
nationalism, racism, religious intolerance and xenophobia, continue
to rear their ugly heads.
2
In a statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
January 25, 2018, Dr. Henry Kissinger has also observed a
“systemic failure of the world order.”2 He elaborated that the
international system was eroding “in terms of sovereignty, rejection
of territorial acquisition by force, expansion of mutually beneficial
trade without geo-economic coercion, or encouragement of human
rights.”3
Let me propose further that it is the competition between the
major powers of the world that is the hallmark of this evolving
strategic shift. All this has not happened suddenly. For the past
several years, and particularly, since 2016, scholars and political
scientists have increasingly observed and written about the notion of
‘Rising China’ and a re-awakened Russia. Some of the earliest signs
became visible when the then-US Administration decided in 2011 to
pivot its policy to Asia-Pacific. The rationale of this approach was
elaborated by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an article
she wrote in the Foreign Policy journal: “One of the most important
tasks of the American statecraft over the next decade will therefore
be to lock in a substantially increased investment – diplomatic,
economic, strategic, and otherwise – in the Asia-Pacific region.”4
This was largely perceived in Asia as the China containment policy.
The large and concerted effort by the US to take its relations with
India to new heights only served to reinforce this perception.
With the steep rise in the economic power of China, it was
becoming clear that some kind of adjustment in the balance of
power would become inevitable in Asia. Lee Kuan Yew, the
longtime statesman of Singapore, had predicted in a speech given at
a conference in Beijing in 1999 that China would not be just another
big player but in fact the “biggest player in the history of the world”5
that would require finding a new balance. Kevin Rudd, the former
2
Dr Henry A Kissinger, Opening Statement before the Senate Armed Services
Committee (US Congress, Washington DC, 2018).
3
Ibid.
4
Hillary Clinton, “America’s Pacific Century”, Foreign Policy, 2011,
5
Graham Allison, Robert D. Blackwill, and Ali Wyne, Lee Kuan Yew: The
Grand Master’s https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-
century/. Insights on China, the United States, and the World (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2013), 42.
3
Australian Prime Minister, shared a similar sentiment, and in his
2012 article of the New Statesman6, said that the sheer pace and
magnitude of China’s progress is as if the English Industrial
Revolution and the global information revolution combusted
simultaneously and were compressed into not 300 years but 30. Kurt
Campbell’s 2016 book titled The Pivot: The future of American
statecraft in Asia also spoke of the need for a great rebalance in
Asia.
An explicit exposé of the competitive forces guiding major
powers came from Graham Allison in his book Destined for War, in
which he invoked Thucydides’ trap to argue that “when a rising
power threatens to displace a ruling power, alarm bells should
sound: danger ahead …”7. Thucydides was a Greek historian and
general from the city state of Athens who observed that the city state
of Sparta, a dominant power at that time, perceived the rise of
Athens as a threat and thereby both city states ended up in war.
Allison cites sixteen cases in the past five hundred years in which a
rising power was perceived to be a threat by the prevailing dominant
power. Twelve of those cases resulted in armed conflict. Allison
goes on to caution that “China and the United States are currently on
a collision course for war – unless both parties take difficult and
painful actions to avert it.”
Trump: Diplomacy on the Retreat
It would be pertinent to explore how the advent of Donald
Trump to the presidency of the United States has impacted these
evolving strategic shifts. Let us be clear at the outset. As noted with
the Asia pivot, the start of major power competition pre-dates the
Trump Administration. However, Donald Trump, by dint of his
unique personality and style of governance, is certainly having a
catalytic effect on this competition. Trump believes in asserting
what he thinks is right and then aggressively pursuing any strategy
6
“Kevin Rudd: The West isn’t ready for the rise of China”, The New
Statesman, 2012, https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/international-
politics/2012/07/kevin-rudd-west-isnt-ready-rise-china.
7
Graham T. Allison, Destined For War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,
2017).
4
that matches his conviction. His book The Art of the Deal leaves the
reader with a distinct impression that Trump believes in aiming high
and then “pushing and pushing and pushing”8to achieve his
objective. He has also introduced a unique style of governance by
tweeting his decisions. Although he has largely stuck to what he
promised in his election campaign, he has also notably dismissed
several of his campaign allies and staffers and has now staffed the
executive office with generals and hardliners. His “America First”
foreign policy has many supporters in his country and it has sent a
signal globally that nations across the world cannot simply rely on
(or in his words, take for granted), the Americans to provide security
and aid. The global leadership of the US for the defense of certain
universal principles is seemingly no longer available. Under
President Trump, the US diplomatic machinery saw itself starved of
resources, instead, the military was strengthened, and immigration to
the US restricted. His message continues to resonate with his wide
spread electoral base, who see his efforts as a drive to put their
country first and bring money and jobs back to American shores.
In many ways, the US strategy documents unveiled by the
Trump Administration reveal this very mindset. In December 2017,
the US National Security Strategy was announced identifying “three
main sets of challengers – the revisionist powers of China and
Russia, the rogue states of Iran and North Korea, and transnational
threat organizations, particularly jihadist terrorist groups.”9 The
document describes China and Russia as powers that “challenge
American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode
American security and prosperity”. The political scientists who had
been following the course of events in international politics were not
surprised. They could see that major power competition was now
intensifying. For obvious reasons, China reacted sharply to the
“America First” approach that was reflected in the Strategy
document and called it “completely selfish for a country to claim
that its own interests are superior to the interests of other
8
Donald Trump and Tony Schwartz, The Art of the Deal (New York:
Ballantine Books, 1987).
9
The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America,
2017.
5
countries ….”10 Russia termed it as a document having an
“imperialist character”.11
Just a month later, the National Defense Strategy was announced
in January 2018, in which it was stated categorically that “interstate
strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in
US national security.”12It was argued that “China is a strategic
competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors
while militarizing features in the South China Sea. Russia has
violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over
the economic, diplomatic, and security dimensions of its
neighbors.”13
The US is also contemplating an Indo-Pacific Strategy, the initial
contours of which have been revealed in a Department of State
briefing.14 This strategy ostensibly calls for free and open Indo-
Pacific, but has largely been perceived as continuation of the US
strategic competition with rising China.
The “America First” approach reflected in the two strategy
documents remove any lingering doubts that a new kind of major
power competition, even rivalry, has set in, particularly in Asia,
sweeping away the euphoria that had once been created by
globalization and multilateralism.
How can diplomacy deal with these emerging strategic shifts and
the enormous challenges these pose for the world at large? Social
10
Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the United States of America,
Remarks by the Spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in the United States
regarding the China-related content in the US National Security Strategy,
2017, http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zmgxss/t1520605.htm.
11
Andrew Kramer, “Russia and China object to new America First security
doctrine”, New York Times, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/world/europe/russia-china-america-
first-doctrine.html.
12
Department of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of
the United States of America: Sharpening the American military’s
Competitive Edge (Washington DC: Department of Defense, 2018).
13
Ibid.
14
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Briefing on the Indo Pacific Strategy,
2018, https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/04/280134.htm
6
scientists are struggling to determine whether diplomacy can stop
the emerging major power competition from moving towards a
worldwide conflict, which could be catastrophic not just for the
warring nations, but for the whole world. The real challenge is that
President Trump seems to be convinced of a world view where the
United States is perceived as such an un-challengeable super power,
that all countries would fall in line, creating a deterrence effect that
results in peace. In his State of the Union address on January 30,
2018, President Trump reiterated what was already articulated in the
two strategy documents. In fact, he went a step further to classify
China and Russia as “rivals”15 who challenge American interests,
economy and values. He argued that in confronting these dangers,
“weakness is the surest path to conflict.”16 In his view, “unmatched
power”17 is the surest means of safeguarding American shores.
Clearly, if such an approach is pursued further, the space for
diplomacy would shrink.
Already, there is growing discussion that the new US approach
under President Trump could further polarize the world and
undermine the usefulness of diplomacy in preserving peace. In his
recent book titled War on Peace: The end of diplomacy and the
decline of American influence, Ronan Farrow, a New York based
journalist, expresses his concern on the recent measures taken by
Trump Administration to under-resource State Department and its
machinery.
Most analysts argue that Trump’s approach is a high-risk
strategy with little or no guarantees of success. A sobering advice
came from Dr. Henry Kissinger who has argued that “in a world of
admitted rivalry and competition, a balance of power is necessary
but not sufficient. The underlying question is whether a renewed
rivalry between major powers can be kept from culminating in
conflict.”18 He, therefore, proposed that “balancing world power
15
Donald Trump, “President Donald J. Trump’s State of the Union Address”,
(Speech, Washington DC, 2018).
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Dr Henry A Kissinger, Opening Statement before the Senate Armed Services
Committee (US Congress, Washington DC, 2018).
7
while essential must not constitute the entirety of our (US) policy….
The concept of major power relations must include a diplomacy of
world order side by side with a military element.”19
Notwithstanding the advice of Dr. Kissinger, it appears that
despite the enormous diplomatic gains made since the end of the
Cold War, the effective use of diplomacy is on the retreat. With
American abandonment of the Climate Change Paris Accord, the
Iran nuclear deal, and membership of the UN Human Rights
Council, it is clear that the world faces an uphill task to preserve the
remaining gains made by diplomacy. The recently held G7 meeting
revealed the fissures in the Western world, even on a subject which
for decades had kept the Western world unanimous (e.g. free
international trade).The most spectacular failure of diplomacy in
recent times remains the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, a
country which remains in turmoil. The recent American reach-out to
North Korean leadership could be a glimmer of hope but the jury is
still out on whether this would lead to denuclearization of the
Korean peninsula.
While the United States under President Trump is yet to
demonstrate its full faith in multilateralism and global diplomacy,
China seems to be making efforts to emerge as the main force
behind what is left of globalization. The Belt and Road Initiative
holds promise for the economies of over sixty countries across
Eurasian landmass. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
launched by China is successfully financing infrastructure projects
to promote connectivity. Moreover, together with Russia, China is
consolidating the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an effective
forum to promote regional diplomacy in Asia. Most European
countries and Canada also appear to be retaining their faith in
multilateralism as was evident in the recently held G7 Summit.
Regional Issues: Diplomacy Constrained
In this state of evolving power dynamics and shifting role of
diplomacy, it is interesting to examine the impact felt in other
various parts of the world. Take one of the most troubled regions of
19
Ibid.
8
the world, for example South Asia, where, too, the future of
diplomacy is uncertain and persistently and severely being
constrained to deliver peace dividends. India and China have what
can be termed as an uneasy peace. China is suspicious of the
American tilt towards India and the Indians clearly resent the
growing influence of China in South Asia, as shown in their fierce
opposition to the BRI and CPEC. Despite this, both have continued
their limited bilateral diplomatic engagement as well as bilateral
trade.
While diplomacy is not yet dead on India-China track, it
certainly is in jeopardy when it comes to relations between India and
Pakistan, where all doors to diplomacy remain firmly shut and the
two are simply not engaging bilaterally. India believes that Pakistan
harbors anti-India militant groups, like Lashkar e Tayyaba and Jaish
e Mohammad, and conditions any bilateral engagement on
elimination of these militant groups. Pakistan is not convinced of
this logic, stating that it itself has been the victim of terrorism and
that it has battled terrorism and terrorist groups like no other nation,
evening losing in the process thousands of its security personnel and
civilians, the enormous economic losses notwithstanding. Pakistan
believes that it has demonstrated more commitment and action than
anyone else to eliminate militancy and extremism, and that for it to
succeed, its National Action Plan and intelligence based operation
Raddal Fasaad must be given time. Pakistan believes that a better
course for India is to partner with Pakistan in isolating militancy
rather than calling off dialogue and providing the militants a new
lease of life. Pakistan further believes that India must stop its
brutalities against the people of Kashmir. It is evident that most of
the Pakistan based militants derive their legitimacy to exist from
their purported efforts to fight for the rights of the people of
Kashmir, which remains occupied by India in violation of UN
Security Council resolutions. It is argued that the Modi regime has
been emboldened by the US tilt in the region and is taking a hardline
approach in its relations with Pakistan, in its dealing with the people
of the occupied Kashmir, and with the religious minorities in pursuit
of Hindutva ideology. Two nuclear armed neighbors not talking to
each other at all is not only a setback for diplomacy, but also
undoubtedly a terrifying scenario.
9
Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated through a painstaking
negotiation process and was heralded as the success of diplomacy, is
now under question marks, driven primarily by the United States.
This has spurred Saudi fears, and tensions between Iran and Saudi
Arabia have risen, manifesting in the bloody conflict in Yemen.
Beyond this the broader Middle East too is still not only suffering
from the scourge of terrorism, including a persistent ISIS, but also
grappling with the state authority, which in most countries, remains
too weak to stabilize the region.
One of the largest test cases for the future of diplomacy in South
Asian region remains Afghanistan, which continues to toil in a
tumultuous environment. Ever since the announcement of its South
Asia strategy on August 21, 2017, the US has pursued what it calls a
conditions-based approach. As per this strategy, the US is to stay in
Afghanistan until peace returns. The US troops were given enhanced
authority to engage the militants in the hope that this would weaken
the Taliban and force them to come to the negotiating table with the
Afghan government. Indeed, the US is reported to have dropped
three times more munitions on Afghanistan in 2017 than it did in the
year prior.20 However, nearly a year since the announcement of the
strategy, the security situation in Afghanistan remain precarious.
According to the report of Senior Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction, as of January 2018, nearly 43 percent 21 of Afghan
territory is still not in the control of Afghan security forces. What
this entails is that such a huge tract of land is available not only to
Taliban but also to militants of the world who have found fertile
ground to carve out safe havens to plan their terrorist activities. ISIS
too has reportedly made deep inroads into Afghanistan. This
situation presents a complex challenge for the US, as breaking these
safe havens is the very reason for which the US came to Afghanistan
in the first place. The stated US objective is to ensure that
Afghanistan does not again become the kind of safe haven that it
20
Ivo Daalder, “Ex US NATO Ambassador: The tragic truth about America’s
longest war”, CNN International Edition, 2018, https://edition.cnn.com/2018/
02/01/opinions/the-tragic-truth-about-americas-longest-war-
daalder/index.html
21
SIGAR, April 30, 2018 Quarterly Report to US Congress (Washington DC:
SIGAR, 2018).
10
was before 9/11, so that such terrorist incidents would not be
planned and staged in Afghanistan by the terrorist groups. With
scores of terrorist groups entrenched in Afghanistan, the US hardly
seems any closer to what it had hoped to achieve through military
intervention in Afghanistan.
It is in this context that countries like Pakistan and China have
argued for a comprehensive political solution rather than a military
solution in Afghanistan. Notably of late, the Americans have shown
an inclination to move towards a political approach alongside its
military offensive. Positive statements from American leaders and
increased diplomatic efforts to give the peace and reconciliation
process a push attest to this. The Afghan President has also
announced a peace package on February 28, 2018, which promised
to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate political group, and
proposed22 a ceasefire and release of prisoners, among other
elements as a leeway to reaching a peace agreement. US Secretary
of State Pompeo welcomed the offer for peace talks with the
Taliban. On the other hand, the Taliban have not rejected the offer of
talks, but there are indications that they would like to talk first with
the Americans and not the Afghan government. For the Taliban, the
moot point appears to be the presence of foreign forces on Afghan
soil.
For Pakistan, this stalemate leaves even fewer choices. Pakistan
believes that it has suffered the most from the decades of the
instability in Afghanistan. Four decades ago, when Soviet forces
moved into Afghanistan, it was Pakistan which bore the brunt of the
conflict in terms of three million Afghan refugees, who are still
living on Pakistan soil. Along with this came a rampant
“Kalashnikov” culture. Drugs and smuggling created black markets
which have injured its economy. Pakistani leaders seem, therefore,
highly keen to see peace return to Afghanistan, as any further
instability would only serve to increase the costs for Pakistan.
However, Pakistan appears convinced that the most feasible path
towards a resolution to the Afghan conflict lies in finding a political
solution, not a military one. There is a clear consensus in the
22
Ashraf Ghani, “President Ghani’s Remarks at the Second Conference of
Kabul Process”, (Speech, Kabul, 2018).
11
political divide of Pakistan today that a peaceful, stable, and
independent Afghanistan would be in Pakistan’s interest.
Accordingly, Pakistan has facilitated twice the reconciliation efforts
in Afghanistan, once in July 2015 and the second time through the
Quadrilateral Coordination Group of Afghanistan, Pakistan, China,
and the US in early 2016. Unfortunately, both attempts did not
succeed for one reason or the other. Now in 2018, the situation has
become more complex, with the introduction of ISIS in eastern and
northern Afghanistan and the involvement of other important
regional and global players.
Diplomacy: The Best Bet
Given the enormous complexity of the situation in Afghanistan,
diplomacy remains the best bet to bring about lasting peace in
Afghanistan. However, for this to happen, several pieces of the
puzzle must be put together. First and the foremost is the need to
have a genuine peace and reconciliation process that is supported by
all. This is necessary, but not enough. Other elements are equally
important. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which for
centuries has been crossed over at will, needs to be managed more
effectively to interdict the cross-border movement of terrorists.
Afghan refugees living in Pakistan should also be enabled to return
to Afghanistan in dignity, and the drug trade must be effectively
addressed. Moreover, the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan
need to engage in a constructive dialogue. The Afghan government
should also end its highly toxic anti Pakistan propaganda, which has
pushed the two countries away from each other.
But perhaps most importantly, there should be a regional
consensus that Afghan soil would not be used by anyone to advance
their strategic interests. The Americans have accused23 the Russians
of supporting the Taliban and their sympathizers. The Russians
have, in turn, pointed out and sought explanations24 on the reports of
23
Justin Rowlatt, “Russia ‘arming the Afghan Taliban’, says US”, BBC News,
2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43500299.
24
Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at News
Conference held at UN Headquarters New York, 2018,
12
unarmed helicopters providing supplies to ISIS militants in eastern
Afghanistan. Pakistan believes that India is using Afghan soil to
advance its policy of double squeeze against Pakistan and is trying
to destabilize Pakistan. Unfortunately, the various regional and
global meetings that have been convened to build a regional
consensus have failed largely due to Afghan government’s short-
sighted approach to use these occasions to isolate Pakistan. This
time around, it is important that the regional consensus is aimed at
getting a solemn undertaking from all global and regional players to
give peace a chance in Afghanistan.
For the US, options are limited. The first is to continue with the
pursuit of a military solution. We hardly see any prospects for the
success of this route, since victory could not be achieved when the
US and NATO forces were at its peak strength of nearly 140,00025
troops in 2011. How can it be guaranteed now when the US troops
in Afghanistan are down to nearly 15,000 only. The second option is
to go for a political solution for which cooperation of all regional
players is necessary, especially Pakistan. It is important that
strategic interests of all states must be respected in this regard. For
instance, giving a greater role to India in Afghanistan means total
insensitivity towards Pakistan’s strategic interests. The political
route may seem difficult, but it has the best chance of success as the
alternative involves even more bloodshed and instability for the
region.
The third option, which could be a wild card, is that the US gets
frustrated in the face of this lingering war and decides to abruptly
leave Afghanistan. This option has its obvious implications. US
would have to face the embarrassment of not winning the war, at
https://afghanistan.mid.ru/en_GB/main/-/asset_publisher/53TTw6ecgBaW/
content/iz-otvetov-na-voprosy-smi-ministra-inostrannyh-del-rossii-s-v-
lavrova-v-hode-press-konferencii-v-stab-kvartire-oon-n-u-jork-19-anvara-
2018-goda?inheritRedirect=false&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fafghanistan
.mid.ru%3A443%2Fen_GB%2Fmain%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_53T
Tw6ecgBaW%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mod
e%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3D_118_INSTANCE_xQr9OJX0H1tH__colum
n-1%26p_p_col_count%3D1.
25
BBC News, “How many foreign troops are in Afghanistan?”, 2018,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11371138.
13
home and abroad. Afghanistan could descend into a free fall of
violence and terrorism. Pakistan would receive even more refugees
and more militants at its border. Regional players could jostle to
protect their own interests in Afghanistan. This could spell disaster
for all parties involved.
Conclusion
The question of whether diplomacy will succeed in resolving
fratricidal conflicts is being asked not only in Afghanistan or in
South Asia, but also in several conflict situations around the world.
Add to this the combustible mix of emerging strategic competition
between major powers of the world, one wonders how, if ever,
diplomacy would handle a more polarized and complex world. It is
not yet clear where would the major power competition actually lead
us all, and how this would impact the present world order. What,
however, is clear that if their competition further intensifies, there
would be implications for the entire world. Therefore, there is a dire
need to ensure that the United States and China stay engaged and
address their concerns through diplomatic engagement.
Given the high stakes involved, despite setbacks, diplomacy
remains our best hope to secure peace and promote human
development for our common good. To quote Dr. Kissinger once
more, the major power relations can best be handled by a
“diplomacy of world order side by side a military element”26.
Diplomacy is a process to attain peace by finding a compromise and
common ground through negotiations. Conversely, war is a process
to attain objectives by use of force. War, therefore, by its very
definition signifies a failure of diplomacy. The present strategic
shifts are pushing us towards conflict, and given tremendously
disastrous consequences of any conflict, it is crucially important that
states, especially major powers, stay committed to diplomacy – now,
more than ever.
26
Dr Henry A Kissinger, Opening Statement before the Senate Armed Services
Committee (US Congress, Washington DC, 2018).
14
15
