Socialization of Political Hegemony: Defining US-Pakistan Relations in the Aftermath of September 11th

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished ManuscriptReview Method: Peer ReviewedAbstract: Pakistan's General Pervaiz Musharraf's immediate and unequivocal support for the US-led war on terrorism in the aftermath of September 11th might be a surprise to those scholars who were betting on more independent foreign policy by Pakistan owing to the possession of nuclear weapons. For others it was a case of pure power politics, which could be explained within the realist/neorealist paradigm, according to which an economically bankrupt and militarily vulnerable Pakistan had no choice but to cooperate with the United States. In this paper, drawing the arguments from the theory of hegemonic stability and constructivism, I contend that the institution of military, the main architect of Pakistan's foreign policy, was socialized in a way to accommodate and welcome politically hegemonic relationship with the United States. US hegemonic role was institutionalized in Pakistani army during the period of first military ruler General Ayub Khan in 1950s and 1960s, when the United States provided military and economic aid to perpetuate Ayub Khan's rule for more than ten years. Ever since, civil-military relationship within Pakistan depended on the hegemonic role of the United States. Military in Pakistan looked towards United States as the major source of military and economic assistance to protect it against both the domestic as well as international threats. However, military leaders in Pakistan also recognized that US help would be forthcoming only if Pakistani military's services will be needed, either to counter Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or to fight war against terrorism. Following are the major theoretical and empirical implications of this paper. First, the case under study shows that major dynamics of international relations in the post-September 11th world are not primarily different. Historical precedents can be found for the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. Second, dynamics of domestic politics are important in defining the foreign policy of a country. Third, early construction of institutions (like military in the present case) is important in defining their future behavior. Fourth, argument of the theory of hegemonic stability, which mainly emphasizes socialization of economic hegemony, can be applicable to more political and security related issues. Fifth and most important, an attempt is made to prove that the road to political hegemony is not a one way road, but it depends on the desire and interest of both powerful and weak countries.