3 Lecture Strategic Approaches To IR

Strategic Approaches to International Relations
1 - War: Causation of War, Total War, limited War,

Asymmetric War, Civil War, Guerrilla War.
2 - Strategic Culture: Determinants of Strategic
Culture of Pakistan .
3 - Deterrence: Theory and Practice with Special
reference Nuclear India and Pakistan.
Lecture by: Zahid Mehmood Zahid, PhD (IR) NDU, NOA Islamabad.
Why do states go for war?
Elements push states to the war
 Interest
 Fear
 Honor/prestige
Causes of War
 Kenneth Waltz provides three level of analysis to explain the
causes of War.
1- The Individual.
 Its about psychological behaviour of an individual.
 Leader is aggressive.
 Ruler is irrational.
2 – State/Society
 When a society has domestic issues:
1. Poor economy,
2. Ethnic divisions,
3. Political inconsistencies,
4. Civil military issues or dictatorship.
 Rulers divert the attention of the masses by going into war.
Rulers do it for two reasons;
1. Greater Internal cohesion
2. Prolong rule.
Examples: India, Iran, and North Korea.
Question?
Why do prosperous/states societies not go for war?
3 - International System
 Anarchic Int. System.
 Insecurity and mistrust about others. (law of Jungle)
 National Interest brings nations into clash.
Why did Iraq invade Kuwait in 1990?
Iraq/Kuwait war 1990: Three level Analysis
 Individual Level
 Saddam was dictator, aggressive, insecure.
 He miscalculated, no one will come to rescue.
 State/Society Level
 Attack on Kuwait served to unite Iraqis divided on religious and
ethnic lines.
 Historic claims of territory & Iraq needed more oil to overcome
poor economy.
 International Level
 Iraq had ambitions for regional domination – Iraq war was just
the start.
Total war
 Objectives: Social and Economic.
 For victory, involved parties willing to any sacrifice.
 They use every weapon in their arsenal. Why?
 “Wars cannot be fought by laws”, Clausewitz
 Examples: WWI & WWII.

Limited Wars
 Objectives: Political.
 Fight for political gains without causing harm to civil

infrastructure.
 Limited weaponry is used.
 Example: Gulf War 1990-1991, US-Iraq war 2003.
Civil Wars
 Wars among factions within a state over;
1. Control of territory,
2. Control of Capital,
3. Toppling govt.,
4. Establishment of govt.
 Examples: American civil wars (1861-65) Russian civil wars

(1917-1922), Afghanistan in 1990s.
Proxy War
 War fought by third/Fourth parties rather than by the enemy

states themselves.
 Many conflicts during the Cold War, such as the Korean War,
Vietnam War, and Afghanistan War.
 Iran Saudia in Middle East, neither of which wanted to fight

each other directly.
Asymmetric War
 “War between parties of unequal strength”.
 Weak party uses non-traditional tactics against the powerful

enemy.
 The weaker party seeks to reduce opponent’s strength.
 Victory does not necessarily go to the militarily superior force.

(US lost in Vietnam, USSR lost in Afghanistan).
Guerrilla war
 A strategy of asymmetrical warfare, where weaker party often
utilizes population for supplies like food, shelter, & intelligence.
 Hit-and-run tactic used. Why?
 Weaker side avoids direct confrontation and frustrate the

enemy.
Examples: Kashmiris vs Indians, Mujahedeen vs Soviets.
Strategic Culture: Determinants of
Strategic Culture of Pakistan.
Definition
 “Strategic culture is a set of beliefs, norms, values, and
historical experiences of the elite that influences its threat
perception and shapes its responses to the threats.” (Rizvi)
 It serves as a screen through which the policymakers view the

security environment, and take policy decisions.
Pakistan’s Strategic Culture

 Pakistan is one of the least secure countries on the planet.
Why?
 It has best equipped armed forces with growing arsenal of

nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
 Sources of its insecurity are rooted in its past.
Pakistan’s roots of insecurity
 Indo-Pak enmity since 1947 partition.
 1.2 million people slaughtered during partition.
 Pakistanis feared - India would reject the “two-nation theory,”

the logic behind partition.
 Dhaka Fall in 1971 deepened threat perception that India wanted
to re-unify India, or to reduce Pakistan to mere Bhutan &
Maldives etc.
 Kashmir dispute, Wars, Siachen, Nuclear, Water, etc.
 Durand Line, Pashtunistan, Refugees, Failed state.
Key Determinants of Pak's Str. Culture
Opposition
Irredentism
to Indian
of Afghanistan
Hegemony
Islam
(1) Opposition to Indian Hegemony.
 In 1944 & 1946, QA MA Jinnah proposed India & Pakistan to
proclaim a Monroe Doctrine;
“We join together as good friends and neighbours and say to
the world, Hands off India.”
 But, Three developments changed the perspective of Pakistani

elite;
 First, the communal riots and refugee influx.

 Second, disputes over the distribution of civil & military assets.
 Third, the dispute over the accession of Junagadh and
Jammu/Kashmir.
 Hegemonic aspirations and Nehruvian FP.
 Conspired in 1971.
 Became assertive after 1971.

(2) Irredentism of Afghanistan
 Afghan irredentist intensified insecurity in Pakistan.

 In 1947 it laid claim on KP and parts of Balochistan.
 It opposed Pakistan’s entry into the UNO.
 Border clashes in the 1950s and the 1960s (1955-62)
 India and USSR emboldened Afghanistan.
 Two front war was perceived by the security elite of Pakistan.
(3) Role of Islam in SC of Pakistan.
 Islam shapes societal character & thinking of policy makers.
 Islam is closely associated, “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.
 No law can be enacted that violates the basic principles and
teachings of Islam.
 All political parties recognize the centrality of Islam.
 Education sector at all levels covers Islamic studies.
 National narratives glorify Islam, Muslim identity, and Muslim
rule over India.
National Security Policy guidelines
These determinants and sources of insecurity shaped elite’s threat

perception with following policy options;
 Security as highest priority.

 Countering threat from India & Afghanistan.
 Alliance with the super power to balance India.
(discussion about civil military balance)
1 Acquire Nuclear Capability for Deterrence
 Acquired nuclear deterrence after 1971.
 Developed its missile technology as Indian military might

continued to grow.
 Deterrence is built on (strong conventional & nuclear capability)

with willingness to run high risks and pay high costs to deter
aggression.
2 Foreign financial Aid
 Resource constraint of Pakistan.
 Had to rely on US financial assistance and IMF etc.
 Turning Pakistan from aid dependent to aid addicted country

and vulnerable to the lenders.
3 Stability on Western Borders
 Old Policy
 Curtailing nationalism.
 Keeping India away from Afghanistan.
 Friendly relations with Afghanistan.
 New Policy (After 9/11)
 Contain Taliban & alike militant group.
 Check the Influx of refugees,
 Check drugs trafficking
 Efforts to stabilize Afghanistan
 Have friendly or at least neutral Afghanistan.
 Ensuring India out of Afghanistan.
Conclusion:
 Early days acute insecurity (Indo-Afghan) continues to influence

strategic elite.
 Indo-Pak trust deficit is the result of pre-partition and post-

partition narratives. (M.B Qasim, Muslim rule, etc)
 Pak will not accept Indian hegemony in South Asia.
 Stability in Afghanistan will add to the security in Pakistan.

Deterrence: Theory and Practice with
Special reference Nuclear India and
Pakistan
Two Perspective about Nuclear Weapons;
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything, and

we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe”.
Albert Einstein 1946.
“Nuclear deterrence will produce stability, and safety will be the

strong child of terror, and survival will be the twin brother of
annihilation.”
Winston Churchill, 1955.
Deterrence Defined;
 “An effort by P to dissuade I from an attack against the interests
of P by threatening I that the costs of doing so will outweigh
what I hopes to gain by attacking.”
Alexander George
 “Deterrence is an attempt by P to prevent I from an attack on P,

in response P threatens to inflict unacceptable damages upon I in
the event that the attack is undertaken.”
Phil Williams
 Simply “dissuasion by means of threat”.
 The term has French roots - “to frighten from”.
 The most developed form of the deterrence came in Nuclear era

after 1940s.
 Defining feature of deterrence is threat of punishment.
Deterrence in Nuclear Era
 The idea was articulated by Bernard Brodie in 1946;
“The chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win

wars, from now on its purpose would be to avert them.”
Why States go Nuclear?
 Security challenges,
 Prestige and power,
 Technological imperatives,
 Push and pull factors.

N. Weapons’ effects on state-to-state relations;
 First, Provide an “infrangible guarantee to its independence

and territorial integrity”.
 Second, mutual deterrence among enemy nuclear States places

limits on violence and in turn acts as a brake on total war.
 Third, by altering the “offence-defence balance”– war can be

prevented if defence gains an advantage over offence.
Components of Deterrence
 1 Capability
 2 The intention to employ it
 3 The ability to communicate both capability and resolve.
Deterrence Effects
If you wish to measure – how effectively deterrence works, one can

measure capability & intent and find the answer.
Estimated Cap x Estimated Intent = Deterrence Effect
Steps in Deterrence
 Evaluate interests at the stake (e.g. Pulwama)
 Convey commitment to defend those interests
 Back commitments by threats to respond if the opponent

acts.
 Make such threats appear credible in the eyes of the

adversary.
How deterrence is different from defence?
 Defence - is the ability to defend oneself against an act of

aggression.
 Deterrence is the ability to persuade the adversary from

committing an act of aggression.
 Defence starts when deterrence fails.
 Deterrence is based on the threat of retaliation with force to

inflict unacceptable damage.
Assumptions of Deterrence Theory
 Both state rationally calculate.
 Threat of Nukes prevent the aggression.
 Both place their security at the top.
 Both have strong communication.
Nuclear Deterrence in Indo-Pak case …
 India - Pak protect their strategic autonomy through nuclear

capability.
 India & Pakistan rejected UNSC Resolution 1172 which urges

India and Pakistan not to engage in further tests.
 India and Pakistan, in terms of Nukes have behaved rationally

the way USSR & USA in the past.
Conclusion:
Negative View;
 Indo - Pak nuclearization has not deterred 1999 Kargil,
2001-2002 standoff, and 2019 dogfight.
Positive View;
 Nuclear deterrence has successfully prevented war.
 Kargil was not a war between two states.
 Indo–Pak agree on nuclear risk-reduction measures, e.g.
non-attack on each other’s nuclear installations &
Missile Test/military exercise notifications.

Questions ..
 What is the role of nuclear weapons in 21st century politics

and how effectively nuclear deterrence has averted war
between India and Pakistan since 1998?

3 Lecture Strategic Approaches To IR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Lecture Strategic Approaches To IR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Approaches to International Relations

1 - War: Causation of War, Total War, limited War,

Why do prosperous/states societies not go for war?

 Anarchic Int. System.

 Insecurity and mistrust about others. (law of Jungle)

 National Interest brings nations into clash.

 For victory, involved parties willing to any sacrifice.

 They use every weapon in their arsenal. Why?

 “Wars cannot be fought by laws”, Clausewitz

 Examples: WWI & WWII.

 Fight for political gains without causing harm to civil

 Limited weaponry is used.

 Example: Gulf War 1990-1991, US-Iraq war 2003.

 Wars among factions within a state over;

 Examples: American civil wars (1861-65) Russian civil wars

 War fought by third/Fourth parties rather than by the enemy

 Iran Saudia in Middle East, neither of which wanted to fight

 “War between parties of unequal strength”.

 Weak party uses non-traditional tactics against the powerful

 Victory does not necessarily go to the militarily superior force.

 Hit-and-run tactic used. Why?

 Weaker side avoids direct confrontation and frustrate the

 It serves as a screen through which the policymakers view the

 It has best equipped armed forces with growing arsenal of

 Sources of its insecurity are rooted in its past.

 Indo-Pak enmity since 1947 partition.

 1.2 million people slaughtered during partition.

 Pakistanis feared - India would reject the “two-nation theory,”

 Kashmir dispute, Wars, Siachen, Nuclear, Water, etc.

 Durand Line, Pashtunistan, Refugees, Failed state.

 But, Three developments changed the perspective of Pakistani

 First, the communal riots and refugee influx.

 Hegemonic aspirations and Nehruvian FP.

 Became assertive after 1971.

 Afghan irredentist intensified insecurity in Pakistan.

These determinants and sources of insecurity shaped elite’s threat

 Security as highest priority.

 Acquired nuclear deterrence after 1971.

 Developed its missile technology as Indian military might

 Deterrence is built on (strong conventional & nuclear capability)

 Resource constraint of Pakistan.

 Had to rely on US financial assistance and IMF etc.

 Turning Pakistan from aid dependent to aid addicted country

 Early days acute insecurity (Indo-Afghan) continues to influence

 Indo-Pak trust deficit is the result of pre-partition and post-

 Pak will not accept Indian hegemony in South Asia.

 Stability in Afghanistan will add to the security in Pakistan.

“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything, and

“Nuclear deterrence will produce stability, and safety will be the

 “Deterrence is an attempt by P to prevent I from an attack on P,

 The term has French roots - “to frighten from”.

 The most developed form of the deterrence came in Nuclear era

 Defining feature of deterrence is threat of punishment.

 The idea was articulated by Bernard Brodie in 1946;

“The chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win

 Prestige and power,

 Push and pull factors.

 First, Provide an “infrangible guarantee to its independence

 Second, mutual deterrence among enemy nuclear States places

 Third, by altering the “offence-defence balance”– war can be

 2 The intention to employ it

 3 The ability to communicate both capability and resolve.

If you wish to measure – how effectively deterrence works, one can