In President Trump’s Monday speech to the nation, followed by remarks at the State Department by Rex Tillerson on Tuesday, the U.S. intends to resolve the Afghan quagmire by linking Pakistan and India to Afghanistan. Many hawks will (rightly) approve this approach.
According to Dan Markey, there were more al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan on Sept. 11 than anywhere else in the world. Pakistan has been and remains active in aiding and abetting terrorism throughout the region. However, we face three challenges when it comes to compelling Pakistan to give up its support of Salafist-Jihadist terrorist organizations: the security trilemma with China, Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, and Pakistan’s domestic politics.
Security trilemma with China
Many of us remember the security dilemma from our introductory political science courses. Moves designed to make one state safe make others insecure. The security trilemma suggests that moves that one state takes to help secure a second state will make a third party insecure.
The most notable example of this is America’s deployment of THAAD defenses to South Korea. Despite being purely defensive in nature, this has contributed to China’s sense of insecurity. A more aggressive approach toward Pakistan will exacerbate the security trilemma between the U.S., China, and Pakistan.
China and Pakistan have a long-running alliance. Pakistan was instrumental to the Nixon administration in its successful attempt to reopen China. Pakistan is similarly instrumental to China in its attempt to implement the “One Belt, One Road” initiative, starting with the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). China has pledged $48 billion for this project.
China made it very clear that it was willing to crack the whip when it came to the protection of its citizens working in Pakistan. Neither the U.S. or China have an interest in seeing Islamic fundamentalists continue to operate from various pockets within Pakistan. Furthermore, China has undertaken investments in Afghanistan in order to harvest its mineral wealth.
The Trump administration has taken a hawkish position toward China on trade, and has been inconsistent in its attitude toward Beijing on security matters. However, there are ways to prevent a spiral of unnecessary tensions from breaking out as a result of taking a harder line toward Islamabad. Given our shared interests with China, it makes sense to bring China into the fold when it comes to pressing Pakistan over its support for, or toleration of, terrorists operating from its territory.
Pakistan’s perceived need for strategic depth in Afghanistan
Pakistan supports terrorist organizations because of a perceived need for additional strategic depth against its longstanding rival, India. After it lost the 1971 war over Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), there were real fears the rest of West Pakistan would Balkanize. Strategic depth is seen as necessary for Pakistan because of the conventional superiority of India. Some political scientists, namely the late Kenneth Waltz, say the possession of nuclear weapons should eliminate states’ need for additional territory because the bomb guarantees their continued survival.
This has not proven to be the case with Pakistan. Instead, the bomb has become both a sword and a shield, encouraging the Pakistani military to double-down on its revisionist goals vis-a-vis India.
Domestic Political Pressure in Pakistan
Pakistan is often seen as a “mixed regime,” one that combines elements of illiberal democracy with military dictatorship. Civilian and military leaders do not rule alone but, rather, with kaleidoscopic coalitions that include a variety of factions and dueling interests. Leaders who back down in the face of international pressure not only risk being thrown out of office, but imprisonment and/or exile. This provides the current Pakistani leadership (in flux, as usual) with potent incentives to stand firm in the face of American demands to change their behavior.
C. Christine Fair points out that the Pakistani military is also believed to operate according to an aggressive strategic culture that emphasizes offense over defense. In addition to political incentives to resist compellence from the U.S., the mindset of the military itself stands in the way of cutting an anti-terrorism deal.
The Trump administration was right to call out Pakistan for egregious behavior and its shameless disregard for international norms against supporting terrorism. However, compelling Pakistan will be particularly challenging given three factors: the security trilemma, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and its pernicious domestic political scene.
Albert Wolf is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an assistant professor of political science at the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul. Formerly a Hill staffer, Wolf consulted on foreign policy for the Lindsey Graham and John Kasich presidential campaigns from 2015-2016.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
