The recent cancellation of the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) summit that was supposed to be held in Islamabad, Pakistan
and the natural corollary to the cancellation i.e. demand for isolating
Pakistan calls for a serious theoretical understanding of the new world order.
The Liberal approach to the study of foreign policy and world order that
developed in the 17th century focussed on the liberty of the
individuals to enter into a social contract for establishment of rule of law.
John Locke’s understanding of the world order was based on this premise of
cooperation. Liberals believe that human beings are perfectible and that Democracy
is necessary for that perfectibility to develop. However the concept of Democracy
has undergone significant paradigmatic changes in the recent years.
Liberals reject the
Realist notion of war being a natural phenomenon. So any action from Pakistan
according to the liberal approach is an outcome of economic inequalities, and failed
bargaining between developed and developing nations for resource accessibility
and economic development. An important aspect of Liberalism is the emphasis it
lays on the possibilities for cooperation in all fields, military, economic and
technological. Liberals identify multinational corporations, non state actors and
terrorist groups as central actors on the international stage apart from
sovereign nation states. Realists put nation states on the forefront. Liberals
focus too much on human beings and their right to enter into contract for rule
of law, which by modern definition means or refers to a democratic set up.
With the dragon raising its head and the United States trying
to balance South Asia by taking India into confidence as a counterweight to
China the entire balance of power is shifting inexorably towards the new
bilateral equation between China and the U.S. The very idea of a liberal
constitutional set up is to protect individual liberty. Let us replace
individuals with states. So the very idea of an organisation like SAARC is to
protect the interests of the member states and promote regional cooperation.
However with Pakistan’s repeated acts of terror on Indian soil and its
relentless proxy war against India the very notion of Liberal democratic set up
has turned turtle. Several analysts and policy experts have called for total
isolation of Pakistan declaring it a terrorist state. China continues to maintain
a diplomatic distance from the issue while in the same instance vetoing Indian
interests at various multinational fora. Several other nations have strongly
condemned the attacks on Indian soil by Pakistani terrorists. Liberals argue
that mutual interests can sustain cooperation in the new world order but proxy
wars and terror attacks defeat the very purpose of mutual cooperation.
Neo liberals have no confidence in the logical reasoning of
human mind and human progress. Zacher
& Mathew opine that neo liberals have not wanted to be branded as idealists
as were many inter war liberals, the international events in this (the 20th
Century) century including the two world wars and the cold war have made them
wary about being too optimistic.
Free trade and western democratic values are the focus points
of Neo Liberalism. However given the rise in state sponsored terrorism many
have questioned the tenets of Neo Liberalism today. Liberals argue that the
world order does not depend on balance of power but on individual interactions between
states which is forever in a state of dynamic flux. The concept of security
plays a very crucial role here. All the military exercises and pacts we read
about in the media emerge from this need to protect individual state interests.
Institutions play a key role in establishing peace. Keohane opined that
institutions are persistent and connected sets of rules and practices that
prescribe roles constrain activity and shape the expectation of the actors.
This is ideally what SAARC was crafted for.
David Mitrany argued
that greater interdependence in the form of transnational ties between
countries could lead to peace. But what do you do when all acts of terror are
traced back to one notorious nation? Will Joseph Nye’s functionalism work here?
Should we engage in constructive dialogue with a nation that is known for
sponsoring terrorism all across the globe? The cancellation of the SAARC summit
has given rise to a new set of debates. Liberals have tremendous faith in human
reason and rationality of the human mind in resolving international disputes
without resorting to coercive means. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s theory of
complex interdependence that focuses on transnational actors as important
agents of peace and cooperation sidelining the military needs to be studied in
great depths. This is especially true in the case of Pakistan, whether the
government or the Deep State (a term coined for the stranglehold that its
military and intelligence apparatus exerts on any form of government) should be
engaged in dialogue; further whether such an engagement would result in any
meaningful restoration of peace.
SAARC seems to be losing its relevance in the new liberal
world order. Or maybe not. In either case, recent developments clearly lead to
a different understanding of cooperation as well as the limits to which it
should be extended. Will isolation of states that sponsor terrorism or engage
in coercive means to promote their agenda restructure the definition of this
cooperation? For all intents and purposes we are talking about India’s well
known neighbour.
