The Battle for Pakistan

by Shuja Nawaz

  Hence, a backward glance at previous crises shows a remarkable degree of restraint in the deployment of nuclear assets in times of tension between India and Pakistan. Yet, Pakistan, the smaller adversary, chose to flex its nuclear muscles via testing of delivery vehicles such as the Ghauri and Hatf missiles. In the 2002 crisis, following the attack by non-state actors on the Indian parliament, Pakistan chose to reduce the talk of nuclear weapons and continued to deny that it readied its nuclear arsenal when India moved conventional forces to its eastern border. It maintains that it would only use nuclear weapons if India attacks and occupies large tracts of Pakistani territory and attempts to stifle Pakistan’s economy or weaken its polity by internal subversion. 13 In essence, as Feroz Hassan Khan maintains: ‘The Pakistanis see no role for nuclear weapons than to deter India from waging a conventional war.’ 14

  The issue still remains that when the polity and economy become weak over time, nuclear deterrence may lose its viability, as in the implosion of the former Soviet Union. At the same time, Pakistani experts continue to see the modest attempts to develop conventional confidence-building measures, with India being overshadowed by developments that may be inherently antithetical to Pakistani interests vis-à-vis India. They see the Indo-US nuclear agreement tilting the balance in India’s favour, posing a continuous challenge for Pakistan. By keeping India’s strategic nuclear weapons systems out of safeguards, India retains the right to improve and deploy its nuclear weapons without let or hindrance, according to this view. In their calculation, the only way the balance could be maintained would be to offer a package approach that allowed Pakistan the same access to nuclear material that India gained from this agreement. 15 The US and its allies have not been inclined to head in this direction.

  Meanwhile, Pakistan, perhaps under the influence of its artillery-dominated leadership of the SPD, continues to develop longer-range delivery vehicles that might belie its claim of deterrence against neighbouring India. One reason for this may be, according to one leading US observer, the control of the SPD by artillery officers who are fixated on missile ranges and payloads! Even as the overall costs continue to mount. This fixation may well be one of the stumbling blocks in the path to Pakistan’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, in addition to opposition from the US.

  Costs of Defence

  By all accounts, Pakistan continues to operate under the Armed Forces Development Plan instituted by Musharraf for 2004–19 with a total outlay of $18 billion, for essential requirements of all services, with fund allocations locked in place. But this plan suffered mightily during the financial crisis of 2005 and with the front-loading of expenditures by the services. After Musharraf ’s departure, the period covered by this plan, under the same total outlays of $18 billion, was extended to 2025 and tied to a national GDP growth rate of 4 per cent per annum. An annual outlay of $5 billion means that the ceiling for this plan will be breached sooner than 2025. Meanwhile, the asymmetry with India has begun increasing. At some point, it is possible that the growing disparity may increase the propensity to use so-called tactical nuclear weapons. But India would then respond with full force. With unimaginable results.

  As Pakistan’s internal militancy and insurgency occupies greater space and use of its forces, and as CSF dry up, it will need to weigh carefully the costs of war, conventional or nuclear or both.

  Two major principles will inform the Pakistani decision:

  Any conventional conflict could trigger a nuclear war with results that neither India nor Pakistan could survive easily.

  It does not benefit either side in this heightened nuclear environment to launch a surprise move or attack. Hair-trigger responses are built into both systems in the subcontinent, given the lack of warning time. India’s much publicized ‘surgical strikes’ might be the fuse for a rapid escalation of conflict.

  The answer rests on a Strategic Restraint Regime, rooted in continuing and deepening contacts between India and Pakistan at all levels of government and society to reduce the risk of accidental conflict. And by increased focus within Pakistan on rebalancing its economic and political systems to make them inclusive and equitable. The US can play a more active role between India and Pakistan in this regard while helping Pakistan economically so it does not feel threatened by India as a regional hegemon. A sustainable doctrine in these conditions can only emerge with the combined efforts of the civil and the military, while involving civil society in their decision making. Muddling through is not a viable option.

  13

  Choices

  In the aftermath of the third elections to produce a civilian government in July 2018 headed by Imran Khan, a non-traditional politician, Pakistan has an opportunity to lay the foundation for a vibrant economy and polity and reduce the overarching shadow of the military on its political system over time. The relatively strong electoral position of Prime Minister Imran Khan and a powerful position in the major provinces of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa promises some stability, despite his many domestic and regional challenges and a seemingly unending election campaign by the other parties with a view to toppling his government via street action. Ironically, these were the tactics he employed with eventual success to galvanize support.

  Pakistan can play an important security and development role in the region and as a partner of the US, even as it maintains its separate relationships with its immediate neighbours, China, Afghanistan, India and Iran. Imran Khan’s apparent efforts to work with the military on national economic and strategic issues will stand him in good stead but they may also delay the establishment of civilian supremacy in a democratic Pakistan. The country and its surrounds have changed dramatically in the past two decades. If current trends bear out, populations in the greater South Asia region will continue to become more politically and economically active. If its leaders can provide responsive governance and a clear and consistent economic direction, South Asia may be able to surmount over time its persistent security challenges, both within countries and from hostile neighbours. And they may be able to lay the basis for connectivity of their economies.

  The challenge for Pakistan will be to balance its internal battles with the need to create a more congenial regional atmosphere that fosters stability and economic growth. Imprisoned by its geography, Pakistan must learn to live and thrive in its neighbourhood without becoming a vassal of surging India. Otherwise, it risks becoming a backwater and asterisk in future atlases. Especially if its centrifugal forces triumph over the centripetal forces holding it together. In fighting this hostile future, it needs to learn from its history and those of other countries that have struggled to establish a clear and sustainable national identity. And it will need to balance carefully its quest for security against its need to develop economically and to ask itself if its investment in defence has effectively purchased it adequate security.

  Regarding its external relations, Pakistan does not have to choose between its traditional ally, the US, and its relatively newer friend, China. On its part, the US can take advantage of the presence in the same region of two relatively sophisticated military and political systems in India and Pakistan that together could provide stability and growth to the wider region.

  The US cannot afford to create or encourage divisions in South Asia. Over the next ten to fifteen years, South Asia could be poised to play a pivotal role on the global economic and political scene. Given its size, India is in a position to take the regional lead, and Pakistan could end up playing either a major supporting role or the role of a critical spoiler, if its polity deteriorates instead of stabilizing and improving. Afghanistan also may well offer a springboard for a new regionalism, reverting to its historical role as the gateway to South and Central Asia. And Iran, if it can fully rejoin the global community, may successfully hook into South Asia’s economy, while playing a key role in the stabilization of Afghanistan and the neighbourhood. But only if the US reopens its discussions with Iran rather than taking the path of confront
ation. An economically and militarily stronger India may well work out a balanced relationship with arch-rival China, building on trade dependency to either dampen territorial disputes or to resolve them through quiet negotiations.

  Pakistan’s developing relationship with China under the China–Pakistan Economic Cooperation Corridor or CPEC, linked to China’s broader Belt and Road Initiative may give it a chance to connect with its neighbours too and become the ‘game changer’ that Pakistani leaders talk about. But that will demand much more preparedness and transparency in Pakistan. Much more than has been evident to date. China will also need to give Pakistan breathing room to undertake and participate in the Belt and Road Initiative so that it brings investments into Pakistan rather than burdensome debt or commitments on the rates of return promised to Chinese investing firms that Pakistan may have difficulty in servicing. Deeds, not words, matter.

  Pakistan looks to reap some benefits from the emergence of the CPEC that will start bearing fruit in the next five years by creating jobs in the infrastructure sector and by alleviating the energy shortages that have held back the economy in the past decade or so. It remains to be seen if China reduces its reliance on its own labour to speedily complete the jobs or relies on Pakistani labour to build and maintain the projects.

  Another possible impediment might be the speed with which Pakistan can muster counterpart funding and institution building for these projects. Initial reports indicate that the development budget will be cannibalized to give priority to the CPEC effort, including funding the security forces to protect construction work. Much of the $46 billion investment promised by China over the next fifteen years is in the energy and infrastructure sectors, with energy taking the lion’s share at nearly $38 billion. If the government can deftly manage the initial investment in the pathway from China to Gwadar on the Arabian Sea by not tilting the investment first towards the easternmost Punjab-centric highway, Pakistan could help knit the provinces together. It would behoove the government to begin work on the Baloch segment first, mandating the use of local labour and bringing the tribal populations into ownership, given the strategic location of Balochistan across three countries of the region. The US could lay the foundation for a long-term investment in Pakistan’s future by helping Pakistan undertake speedily the Western Corridor traversing Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, and including a tributary linked to Afghanistan. Such a signature project would be a lasting symbol of US relations with Pakistan, much like the Mangla and Tarbela dams were in the 1960s and ’70s. The undisbursed KLB funds amounting to an estimated $2 billion and withheld CSF and other funding by the Trump administration might provide the seed money for this project.

  To date, Pakistan has chosen to avoid making decisions on the $46 billion in Chinese investments that would speedily integrate its marcher regions into the economy and body politic of the country. Of these, some $36 billion are energy related and the remaining $10 billion are for infrastructure. It has favoured the Punjab for the main route connecting China to the Arabian Sea, given the presence of the current motorways. The Western Corridor is supposed to be built with local financing. China did not provide loans for three infrastructure projects of the western route. Pakistan had to scramble to find funding for one of the three projects related to that segment of the CPEC corridor. But, lack of preparation has dogged it and many other projects.

  China has provided a number of heavy loans to Pakistan and some balance of payment financing. But nothing of the quantum that would meet Pakistan’s immediate financing needs to service its obligations and imports.

  Both Pakistan and China need to better publicize China’s investment flows into Pakistan as a counter to the impression that most of its funding is in the form of loans. At the same time, both China and Pakistan need to make a special effort to share openly and widely their plans and processing of contracts. This would help counter the surging conspiracy theories of those who oppose this relationship, both inside Pakistan and in other countries, near and far.

  But in all this it would be critical for Pakistan not to present China as an alternative to the US and the West. Rather, Pakistan needs to reshape its regional and global alliances in light of the blueprint that Gen. Ashfaq Kayani had presented to the US and NATO in September 2011 (Kayani 4.0). Ending the no-war-no-peace condition in South Asia and working with friends, near and far, to help stabilize its own economy and polity will be key to Pakistan’s economic growth.

  Regional security issues also dog Pakistan. The growing arsenal of nuclear weapons in the hands of India and Pakistan and the potential ability to deliver them from sea, land and air platforms as well the emergence of ‘MIRVing’ (i.e., the ability to produce missiles carrying Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicles) and tactical weapon capabilities could create a nuclear standoff that paradoxically might forestall regional conflict. Pakistan’s search for developing MIRV capacity might be its best counter to India’s planned acquisition of advanced Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence systems from Russia or elsewhere. Growing economies and the presence of more involved and affluent urban populations could act as an additional break on conflict. But, both countries would have too much to lose if they stray from the path of socioeconomic development. And unfettered expenditures in developing advanced weapons systems at the expense of needed socioeconomic development for the poorest segments of their populations would be a big price to pay in terms of forgone benefits for the broader population.

  The scary part of looking at the crystal ball for the region is the possibility that the conflict scenario is probable. If individual countries fall into the trap of religious, sectarian, or economic selfishness and intolerance, and if external actors, especially the US, fail to exercise their important roles in forging regional economic integration rather than setting up India to be the regional hegemon and local power broker, the prospects look dim indeed. Indo-Pakistan conflict definitely retards economic growth in both countries and is now involving Afghanistan as an ancillary to India’s regional political moves to isolate Pakistan.

  Economic actions and developments in the region and the world will lie at the heart of change in the region over the next two decades. They will be the accelerant for reversing several negative trends that have emerged in the past three decades, especially in Pakistan and India, and mitigate the corrosive effects of religious ideology on political thinking. The solidification of a Culture of Entitlement, based on preferred access to state resources, and lack of transparency and accountability, has undermined the effectiveness of civil and military institutions, especially in Pakistan. In the long run, Pakistan’s security will stem from economic development and concomitant social and political progress. Overlaying everything will be the state of governance, that is, the orderly provision of services and the regulation of economic and political activity that is transparent, efficient and effectively managed, with accountability and transparency in expenditures by both the civil and the military.

  But a potentially major disruptive trend is the rapid urbanization of South Asia. Coupled with a rising population and the rapid introduction of labour-saving technologies, this promises to create a massive challenge to business and government both. A look at the night-time map of the region indicates how massive the urban agglomeration has become. 1 In northern India and along its coastline and in the Punjab in Pakistan is evidence of a growing phenomenon of linked urban centres called conurbation, which extends cities in a shiny necklace of light across the night-time map of South Asia. Essentially, the world’s largest city now extends from Delhi to Islamabad! Of the world’s thirty leading megacities, with populations of over 7 million, five are in South Asia (Karachi, Mumbai, Delhi, Lahore and Dhaka). 2 Three of these: Karachi, Delhi and Mumbai, each has a population exceeding 20 million. This massive urbanization also creates an accompanying problem of pollution, in effect creating micro-climatic zones in and around these major cities and adding to the health and other economic costs of living in their environ
s. While these megacities often contribute to overall economic growth in each country, they also spawn sharp contrasts between the rich and the poor. They are home to the largest slums in the world, and create economic inequality that can lead to social unrest based on both ideology and pure economic deprivation.

  Cities of 5 million or more inhabitants will continue to grow in number and size, changing the social and political maps of the countries in the region, raising the level of (largely unmet) expectations, especially of the still massive youth bulge. This trend is not likely to change in the near term or even up to 2035. The penetration of new communication technologies, such as the cell phone and the Internet, into the cities and countryside, and the interconnectedness of youth across the globe, has led to a network of discontent with the status quo. It also facilitates ideological recruitment and sustainment of subversive ideas, as recent events in Syria and Iraq have shown with the self-styled Islamic State or Daesh enticing youth from South Asia and the South Asian diaspora in the West, in particular, to join its ranks. This disruption will likely continue in the near term, but the future of IS remains uncertain given its own inability to govern the space that it occupies. Yet, it has metastasized into Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, adding to the uncertainty about political stability.

  Dark Scenarios

  Black Swan events, by their very nature, are unpredictable. However, certain looming worries will play a key role in shaping future events. In the near term, Iran’s rivalry with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states could suck South Asian states into the Shia–Sunni squabble, further exacerbating Shia–Sunni tensions within the countries of the region. Countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh may take political positions that may not accord with those of labour-hosting countries in the Arabian Peninsula; displacement of South Asian labour from the Gulf and Saudi Arabia may well accelerate, with South East Asian workers potentially filing the gap. Returning labour would inject a heavy dose of disgruntlement into the domestic labour markets of the exporting countries that have been unprepared for a reverse flow of these workers. (Expelled Bangladeshi workers have already felt the short-term wrath of Saudi unhappiness. The Gulf states may well turn on Pakistan in the wake of Pakistan’s hesitancy to enter the Saudi campaign against the Houthi in Yemen.) Pakistan could face severe difficulties adjusting to the loss of approximately $6–8 billion annual remittances from its workers in this region if its workers are ejected from the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. These remittances are crucial in meeting about half of Pakistan’s import bill and in covering deficits in the trade of goods account.