GlocalEye
Muqtedar Khan's Column on 
Global Affairs

  GlocalEye is Muqtedar Khan's Column on global affairs.  It seeks to understand the  simultaneous impact of globalization and localization.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is the Chair of department of Political Science and the Director of International Studies at Adrian College. He earned his Ph.D. in International Relations, Political Philosophy, and Islamic Political Thought,  from Georgetown University in May 2000.

Flash: Muqtedar Khan is presently a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution.  He is also the current President of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (2003-2005) and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.

Dr. Khan's column has appeared in The Wall Street, Dawn International (Pakistan), Daily Times (Pakistan), Outlook India (India), The Muslim Gazette (India), Nagasaki Post (Japan), The Daily Telelegraph (London), Manila Times (Philippines), Jordan Times (Jordan), Aljazeera (Qatar), The Daily Telegram, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Muslim Democrat, I Theglobalist.com, Beliefnet.com, Arabies Trends (France), Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), Lebanon Daily Star, and many other periodicals world wide.

For a comprehensive 
resume click here
: Resume

Recently Posted Articles


 

 

 

I am happy to announce the publication of my first book -- American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom For more details about the book go to: Book

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Islam in America
2. American Muslims and American Politics
3. American Muslims and American Foreign Policy
4. American Muslims and American Society
5. American Muslim 
Perspective
6. Reflections on Islam and Democracy
7. The Attack on America ands its 
Aftermath
8. An American Muslim Perspective of the Muslim 
World

FOR MORE DETAILS 
CLICK BOOK

To Place an order with the publisher 
call Amana Publication:
1-800-660-1777
or Click Here:
Amana

To place an order at Amazon.com
Click Here:
American Muslims:
Bridging Faith and Freedom

 



JOIN GLOCALEYE
EMAIL LIST

 

 

 

 

American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
JOIN GLOCALEYE
EMAIL LIST
For notification of new articles

 CAN PAKISTAN WITHSTAND THE PRESSURE FROM US, INDIA AND ISRAEL?

Muqtedar Khan

This article was published in The Daily Star (Lebanon), 09.24.2003,  Foreign Policy in Focus 09.24.2003, Counterpunch, 09.18.2004, Dawn (Pakistan) 09.27.2003, The Muslim Observer and The Detroit News.

Pakistan has perhaps taken more risks than any other nation in America's war on terror. Yet it remains most insecure about its relations with Washington. In fact Pakistan's extensive and risky cooperation with the US has done little to alleviate its own security dilemmas. Pakistan, even today remains exposed to the dangers of preemptive strikes from America's other close allies in the war on terror, India and Israel. Even from the US, Pakistan is not fully assured. 

Washington seems to maintain a complex strategy of coercive diplomacy combined with economic assistance towards Pakistan which rewards it economically for its cooperation but does not reduce its geopolitical threats. In a strange way Pakistan in spite of being a close ally of the world's most dominant power continues to live in a Hobbesian world. 

Insecurity can lead nations to monumental irrationality. Notice how a heightened sense of vulnerability after September 11 attacks has led American foreign policy from one monumental blunder to another. As Pakistanis, especially the Islamists are made to feel that their nation is being bullied into working against its own interests and its own people and faith, their anger, resentment and fear is increasing. 

At seminar after seminar on South Asian security and on the war on terror, I hear Pakistanis expresses deep concern, confusion and suspicions about Washington's policies and in particular the emergence of a new anti-Pakistan axis --- US, Israel and India. Pakistan essentially identifies three dangers to its national security and they are: 

1. A conventional strike by India from the Kashmir border or a strategic strike by India against Pakistan's nuclear facilities. 

2. A preemptive strike by Israel at Pakistan's nuclear facilities with India's direct assistance or by using India as a base. 

3. A preemptive strike by the US against Pakistan's nuclear facilities to prevent them from becoming available to Islamists who could easily come to power in Pakistan. 

Every nightmare scenario for Pakistan involves a threat to their nuclear capability form either one or all of the three states who are currently working very closely --- India, Israel and the US. All three of these nations now identify "Islamic terrorism" as the main threat to their own security and their ultimate nightmare involves Jihadis armed with nukes. Pakistan's nuclear weapons, sought primarily for defense against a conventionally superior India, seem to have increased the possibility of Pakistan becoming a victim of attacks from more powerful nations far and near, rather than making it more secure. Perhaps there is a lesson in this for Iran.

The question however that Washington needs to address is a more complex one and needs more subtle geopolitical analysis than Washington has been indulging in lately. Can the world in general and India, Israel and the US in particular afford to make a nuclear armed nation feel confused and insecure about its relations with them? Pakistan's defense strategy is based on a "first strike policy". Very simple this means that when in danger the Pakistanis will trigger the nukes. Keep in mind that this is the policy of secular, rational generals and not some crazy Mullahs. 

We do not have to wait for Pakistani nukes to fall in to the hands of Taliban types before we see them lighting the sky. All we need to do is scare the present administration sufficiently. Nothing can be scarier for the present military establishment in Pakistan than the threat to their nuclear weapons. Is Washington scaring the Pakistanis? Yes it is. But things have not reached dangerous levels, but who knows what the threshold level of Pakistan is? How much pressure can it handle? 

Washington continues to insinuate that Pakistan has been sharing its nuclear secrets with Iran and North Korea. Washington also continues to express its fears about the stability of Pakistan's command and control structure and the possibility of their nukes falling in the hands of militant Muslims. Despite Pakistan's repeated reassurances on both counts, Washington continues to maintain its doubts. 

Every time Indians meet with Israelis, the conversation is the same. Israelis ask, "What can you do for us?" And Indians ask "What are you going to do about Pakistan?" So far Israel has not expressed much concern over Pakistani nukes; it is more worried about the Iranian nuclear program. But the growing Indo-Israeli military and intelligence cooperation and the Indo-American military exercises in Kashmir are definitely raising the fear barometer in Islamabad. 

The US must understand that it cannot enhance its own security by making others feel insecure. While it works to keep Taliban types out of power and out of range of the nuclear buttons in Pakistan it must also work to reduce the stress and uncertainty in the minds of those who now already have their fingers on the nuclear buttons in Islamabad. Washington can take the following concrete steps to allay mutual fears. (While the neocons may not understand the word "mutual", I am sure Ms. Rice or General Powell can decode it for them). 

1. Washington can use the war on terror to develop a semi-formal regional security institution involving US, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Starting with the basic limited goal, that is in the interest of all four nations, of keeping the Taliban types out of power in South-West Asia and maintaining regional stability, the US could reduce tensions and allay fears. This setup may also come in handy as a forum for future Indo-Pak peace process and for resolving the Kashmir issue through regional summits. 

2. The US continues to guarantee Israeli security. It must use this guarantee to keep Israel from destabilizing other regions in pursuit of real or imagined threats. An institutional American security interest in South-West Asia will also help to reduce Israeli fears about Pakistani nukes. 

3. Finally the US must learn that it cannot have an instrumentalist approach to other nations. It cannot force Pakistan to take risks with its domestic and international balances of power in US interests without the US also taking steps to ensure that Pakistan is not over exposed to strategic threats. A disregard for Pakistani domestic politics gave the Islamist parties a historically unprecedented victory in the last elections a contributing to current fears in Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi. 

Before the nukes are triggered, Washington must learn to nurture its allies while nudging them to towards safer policies and pro-American postures.

Related Articles:

Islam, Hinduism and Truth

The Tragedy of Gujarat

Kashmir may be tougher to resolve than Palestine

Kashmir: India's Gateway to Greatness

Pakistan: Paradise Lost

-------------------------------------

Muqtedar Khan is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institutionís Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom.

 

Recent Articles on GlocalEye
 

July 15, 2003

First Establish the Will to Peace -
Then chart the Way to Peace
 

June 21, 2003

Is American Foreign Policy a Threat to American Security?

June 13, 2003

The Public Face of Christian Evangelical Bigotry

June 09, 2003

The Legacy of Prophet Muhammad and the issues of Pedophilia and Polygamy:

Nice But Tough: A Framework for US Foreign Policy in the Muslim World

May 09, 2003

NEXT STOP:  Making  Peace, 
Restoring Credibility

February 06, 2003

 A Memo to Mr. Binladen: Go to Hell!: 

February 06, 2003

If the UN vetoes the US, it risks irrelevance?

January 28, 2003

Heavy Rhetoric, Wishful Thinking and Hydrogen Cars: A Response to the State of the Union Address