War: an option or an obsolete concept

In the past, war was the only option to settle disputes. There was no tradition of table talk or discussion to find out an agreeable solution for the parties involved before the Vienna conference of 1815. This was the first diplomatic gathering to pacify the relations. War was not that much harmful so is today even after congress of Vienna. States would use war as an instrument to maintain their existence and power. The benefits gained by war would overweigh the net losses. But now in present era of globalization, the concept of war has become if not totally but partially irrelevant in international realm. Increased level of interdependence and role of non-state actors have changed the situation dramatically. Even a country with greater military power can’t afford war today. Simply accumulating military assets don't make sense anymore. Now power has been constrained by interdependence and globalization. If a country choses war as an option to overpower others, she may not be able to achieve her desired goals if well calculated all variables are not taken into account. Even the definition of power has changed. Territorial acquisition has become quite irrelevant. The decisive parameter of supremacy is not colonial territory but capital share in international market. Greece, that was once the center of civilized society and strong ideological base, has cast herself on the EU. She is about to face bankruptcy. Iran has acceded to the western demands of nuclear free Iran due to limitations imposed by current environment. State centric realistic theory is no more applicable as was in WWII. After the disintegration of the USSR, polarity has fallen in favor of the USA. Although the USA is powerful enough to declare war on any country in the Middle East for its national gains yet she seems to be avoiding war. The case of Iraq and Afghanistan are of worth attention. After long expeditions in these countries, the USA has finally chosen to call her army back. The USSR and China extend their maximum possible support to Iran’s interests in the Middle East generally and in Syria specifically. They do so to safeguard their own mutual ties with Iran. Both trade with Iran and political interests of the said countries have made the environment highly interdependent politically and economically. Similarly Germany has her own economic interests in Iran. That is why she has tried her best to conclude an agreement between P5+1 and Iran in Geneva on nuclear issue. In Europe, the EU is highly dependent on its member states to maintain the worth of its currency. Current situation in Greek supports the argument. Apart from state-level interdependency, the robust transnational influence of non-state actors has made the environment further inter-knitted fabric. From ordinary citizens to multinational corporations, interdependency among states can be observed at each level. They operate cross borders and pressurize the foreign policy. Bank transactions, transfer of capital, mutual trade partnerships and a direct link among different nations through internet are practices of daily life.

Presently, it is more than foolish statement to say that Pakistan being an atomic power should wage war on India or any other country to take advantage of situation. International realm is not a child’s game. A single miscalculation may lead to unbearable losses. Islamabad’s single miscalculated support to the Taliban government in 1990s pulled us to the ebb, which was reversed later by making so much effort. Recently, Pakistan’s policy on Yemen Crisis is worth to be appreciated. We depend on both Iran and Saudi Arabia in one or other way. So it was judicious response of Pakistan to keep away from the Middle East. Our counter response to India on Kashmir issue should only be a proposal for table talk. Military expedition is a dangerous choice for both of them. They are also interdependent if not directly then indirectly. Both have their economic, strategic and political alliances to different blocs which are part of international web. So, one wrong step may break the whole chain. Both sides will have to bear up sufferings. Blood and irons can’t be an option in today’s globalized and highly interconnected world.