A world of blocs: where Pakistan stands

Express Tribune

10 hours ago

Listen to article
During the Cold War, the world was divided between capitalist and communist blocs. Today, the world is again divided, with the new division referred to as the new Cold War. The two great powers around which this geopolitical division is centred are the United States and China. The interesting aspect of the new Cold War division is that countries that prefer to side with one bloc or another not only typically pick a side but also, by doing so, demonstrate their preference for a global order.
Both China and Russia advocate a world structured around a multipolar order, with institutions such as SCO, BRICS and AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) being pushed forward as alternative institutions to lead this order. The global promotion of BRI by China is also reflective of the transition of the order towards multipolarity.
Which bloc does Pakistan belong to? This is the most frequent question that is asked whenever Pakistan's relations with great powers come under discussion. It may be fair to assume that if this question is asked of the people on the streets, a majority will vote for Pakistan being part of the Chinese bloc. But seen objectively, and seen from the perspective of the dominant interactions that determine which bloc a country belongs to, we might get a different answer.
Of late, Pakistan's foreign policy seems to be following the concept of strategic balancing and non-alignment. To be fair, Pakistan has enjoyed an unquestionable relationship of deep-rooted state-to-state friendship with China. China never attached the 'you are with us or against us' string to its relationship with Pakistan. While the US relationship with Pakistan has been 'issue-based', the fundamental determinant of China's relationship with Pakistan has been geography.
Some of the dominant interactions that determine which bloc a country belongs to are in the field of politics/diplomacy, economy, military/security and cultural and state signaling.
State signaling is immediate in the context, more fluid, and nevertheless an important determining factor. Take the case of the visit to the US of Pakistan's army chief. The general had a meeting with President Trump in June this year. This was unprecedented as President Trump met the army chief without having met either the President or the Prime Minister of Pakistan. This was unprecedented, and there are reports that the army chief might be undertaking another visit to the United States very soon.
If state signaling is a determining factor, then the two states in the immediate context are giving a clear signal. From the American point of view, it needs security partnerships in the region and with the US imposing 50% tariffs on Indian imports, and India in return accusing the US of hypocrisy, it might just be the right time for Uncle Sam to play ball with Pakistan. Economically, Pakistan provides access to a market not as large as the Indian market, but still access to the market of an influential player in the region. More than the economy, the military/security drives the current Pak-US relations.
The Iran-Israel and Russia-Ukraine wars tell us how the form of warfare has changed. Both Germany and Japan used new technology, which at that time was aircraft, tanks, submarines and aircraft carriers, to pursue outright conquests during World War II. Drones, missiles of all kinds, including hypersonic missiles, and fifth-generation aircraft are the new offensive weapons. If great powers can position such lethal military capabilities at strategic locations, would they need boots on the ground as many as the world needed before the introduction of these lethal military capabilities to generate military influence in a region?
What is meant when it is said that a country that joins a bloc indicates its preference for a given world order? The US and its allies have built a liberal order at home, but the order abroad is illiberal. Interestingly, the people of the global south, and particularly the people out on the streets, believe that they have also played an active role in the promotion of this illiberalism abroad.
Are China and Russia promoting illiberalism abroad? China has proved to the world that development does not require democracy, that liberalism is not history's natural endpoint. There is no Russo-centric or Sino-centric global order that these two great powers pursue. All that these great powers are doing is resisting an international system that slaps sanctions, imposes arbitrary tariffs, executes military interventions disregarding international law, violates human rights and turns a blind eye towards genocide.
When President Putin demands that NATO roll back to the Cold War frontiers or President Xi expects the US and its allies to stay away from its sphere of influence in the South China Sea and the Eastern Pacific, they reassert their great power status within the system. A global order that practices freedom and liberty at home and overlooks democratic abuses abroad cannot be termed a global order of liberal internationalism. That is why this international system faces opposition and contestation, and that is why there are two distinct blocs in the world. The one that promotes this international system and the one that contests it. As long as the system remains immoral and hypocritical, both China and Russia will continue to lead the fight to weaken this system.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, our foreign policy decisions must fundamentally be based on pragmatism, but our policy must never draw away from the gravitational pull of geography. Today, a three-dimensional premise defines our security dilemma. American premise: the more the US engages with Pakistan, the more Pakistan will draw away from China and Russia. Pakistan's premise: the more India deals with Afghanistan, the more it will draw away from Pakistan. And the Chinese premise: the more Pakistan engages with the US, the more it will draw away from China.
It's not bad to understand premises; it gets bad only when states start formulating the wrong questions and end up making wrong assumptions that eventually drive their policies.
The US remains far and away, and its obsession with Pakistan is driven by issues in which Pakistan is expected to play a role to serve primarily the US interests. With the US, we can push our relationship, but we must never ignore or avoid the geopolitical and strategic pull towards China.