Third-Party Intervention in Ethno-Religious Conflict: Role Theory, Pakistan, and War in Kashmir, 1965
2005; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 17; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/09546550590929200
ISSN1556-1836
Autores Tópico(s)Peacebuilding and International Security
ResumoABSTRACT Third-party intervention in ethno-religious conflict is an old phenomenon, although scholarly attention with a general range of application is generally new and uncommon. This study with attempt, through a systematic review of religion and other factors that can impact upon foreign policy role performance, to explain Pakistan's intervention in Kashmir, which led to full-scale war in 1965. The article unfolds in six sections. The first provides an overview of thirf-party intervention in ethno-religious conflict. The second section introduces systemism a framework that brings together unit- and system-level factors. The theory of role analysis in foreign policy and its usefulness in explaining third-party, ethno-religious intervention is covered in the third section. Section four brings together systemism and role theory and eleborates linkages, with an emphasis on religion and other salient factors from the literature on foreign policy and intenational conflict. The fifth section presents the case study of Pakistan's intervention in India in 1965. Section six sums up the findings from the case study and offers a few observations about the contemporary situation in Kashmir. Acknowledgments We are grateful to Jonathan Fox, Saira Khan, David Rapoport, and Shmuel Sandler for helpful commentaries and Özgur Özdamar for research assistance. Notes David Carment and Patrick James, “Toward a Model of Interstate Ethnic Conflict: Evidence from the Balkan War and the Indo–Sri Lankan Conflict,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 29 (1996): 521–554. David Carment and Patrick James, eds., Wars in the Midst of Peace: The International Politics of Ethnic Conflict (Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997); Stephen M. Saideman, “Explaining the International Relations of Secessionist Conflicts: Vulnerability Versus Ethnic Ties”, International Organization 51 (1997): 721–753; David Carment and Patrick James, “Third-Party States in Ethnic Conflicts: Identifying the Domestic Determinants of Intervention” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 2001); Stephen M. Saideman, The Ties that Divide: Ethnic Politics, Foreign Policy, and International Conflict (Columbia NY: Columbia University Press, 2001); Stuart J. Kaufman, Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001); Jonathan Fox Comparative Political Studies (Forthcoming). “World Separation of Religion and State in the Twenty First Century” (Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Canada, March 2004). This point is highlighted by Jonathan Fox, “Towards a Dynamic Theory of Ethno-Religious Conflict,” Nations and Nationalism 5, no. 4 (1999): 444; K. R. Dark, ed., Religion and International Relations (New York: St Martin's Press, 2000), 52; Jonathan Fox, “Religious Causes of International Intervention in Ethnic Conflicts,” International Politics 38 (2001): 517; Jonathan Fox, “International Intervention in Middle Eastern and Islamic Conflicts from 1990 to 1995: A Large-N Study” (paper prepared for the Israeli International Studies Association Convention, February 2002), 5; Jonathan Fox, Ethnoreligious Conflict in the Late Twentieth Century: A General Theory (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2002). Fox, “Religious Causes,” 54, 59. Fox, “Towards a Dynamic Theory;” Jonathan Fox, “Clash of Civilizations or Clash of Religions: Which Is a More Important Determinant of Ethnic Conflict?,” Ethnicities 1, no. 3, (2001): 295–320; Jonathan Fox, “Two Civilizations and Ethnic Conflict: Islam and the West,” Journal of Peace Research 38, no. 4 (2001): 459–472; Jonathan Fox, “Religion as an Overlooked Element of International Relations,” International Studies Review 3, no. 3 (2001): 53–73; Fox, “Religious Causes”; Jonathan Fox, “Civilizational, Religious, and National Explanations for Ethnic Rebellion in Post-Cold War Middle East,” Jewish Political Studies Review 13, no. 1–2 (2001): 177–204; Jonathan Fox and Josephine Squires, “Threats to Primal Identities: A Comparison of Nationalism and Religion as Impacts on Ethnic Protest and Rebellion,” Terrorism and Political Violence 13, no. 1 (2001): 88–102. Fox, “Religious Causes,” 522–523. Fox, “Clash of Civilizations,” 310. Fox, “International Intervention.” Patrick James, International Relations and Scientific Progress: Structural Realism Reconsidered (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2002); Patrick James, “Systemism in International Relations: Toward a Reassessment of Realism,” in Millennial Reflections on International Studies, ed. Michael Brecher and Frank Harvey (Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press, 2002). While systemism expresses the linkages in a functional form to establish whether they are monotonic or step-level, that task is left for future research. Mario Bunge, Finding Philosophy in Social Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 149; the presentation of systemism that follows is based primarily on James, “Systemism in International Relations,” and James, International Relations and Scientific Progress. The examples that follow are intended to show the range of possible connections within systemism rather than to advocate any specific vision of how the linkages might work in practice. Stephen G. Walker, ed., Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987). Stephen G. Walker, “Introduction,” in Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, 2–3. ed. Stephen G. Walker (Dunham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987). Ibid, 2. Ibid, 3. K. J. Holsti, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,” in Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987); James N. Rosenau, “Roles and Role Scenarios in Foreign Policy,” in Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987); Walker, “Introduction”; Stephen G. Walker, “Conclusion: Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis: An Evaluation,” in Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987). The idea of “national role conceptions” has its limits. These conceptions include policy maker “definitions of the general kinds of decisions, commitments, rules and actions suitable to their state, and of the functions, if any, their state should perform on a continuing basis in the international system or in the subordinate regional system” (Holsti, “National Role Conceptions,” 12). Furthermore, national role conceptions may be more influential than role prescriptions, although the former concept is static and offers no ideas about sources (ibid, 36). Rosenau, “Roles and Role Scenarios.” Ibid., 46. Stephen G. Walker and Sheldon W. Simon, “Role Sets and Foreign Policy Analysis in Southeast Asia,” in Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987) 142. Walker and Simon, “Role Sets and Foreign Policy,” 142. See notes 6, 16, 23, 25–27, and 30 for references that establish the importance of these respective factors. See David Carment and Patrick James, “Internal Constraints and Interstate Ethnic Conflict: Toward a Crisis-Based Assessment of Irredentism,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 39, no. 4 (1995). To be more precise, this factor focuses exclusively on the leadership involved in foreign policy decision making, that is, the body that includes the head of state and cabinet colleagues and advisors, foreign secretary and defense secretary, ambassadors, and the heads of the armed forces, each of whom is expected to play a highly significant role in any interventionist strategy implementation. Yuen Foong Khong, Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien, Bien Phu and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992). James, International Relations and Scientific Progress. In a classic exposition, Waltz asserts that “the structure of a system is generated by the interactions of its principal parts” and the “units of greatest capability set the scene of action for others as well as for themselves”. In other words, the great powers of the time determine international politics at the system-level: “The fates of all the states and of all the firms in a system are affected much more by the acts and the interactions of the major ones than of the minor ones… . To focus on great powers is not to lose sight of lesser ones. Concern with the latter's fate requires paying the most attention to the former… . A general theory of international politics is necessarily based on the great powers” (Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1979), 72–73). Gilpin reinforces that point in observing that equilibrium of the international system is maintained “if the more powerful states are satisfied with the existing territorial, political and economic arrangements” (Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 11). Bruce M. Russett and John R. Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001). Ibid. Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965); Todd Sandler, Collective Action: Theory and Applications (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992). Douglas Lemke, Regions of War and Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Ibid. Ibid., 49 Sheton U. Kodikara, ed., The External Compulsions of South Asian Politics (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1993), 18. Although beyond the scope of this paper, there also are linkages to consider between the international and regional power hierarchies in terms of generating different role expectations for a state (Lemke, Regions of War, 51, 53). Although not a part of the present study (i.e., for future research), links between the external and regional levels also can be important. For an example related to the balance of power and hierarchy, see ibid. Carment and James, “Third-Party States in Ethnic Conflicts.” Khong, Analogies at War, 10. Carment and James, “Third-Party States in Ethnic Conflicts,” 13–14. Fox, “International Intervention.” Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler “The Question of Religion and World Politics,” Terrorism and Political Violence, 17 (2005): 293–303. Harbaksh Singh, War Despatches: Indo-Pak Conflict, 1965 (New Delhi: Lancer International, 1991); cited in Rajesh Kadian, The Kashmir Tangle: Issues and Options (New Delhi: Vision Books, 1992), 130. Sumit Ganguly, Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 41. Ganguly, Conflict Unending, 41–42. Ganguly, Conflict Unending, 45–47; Shahid Amin, Pakistan's Foreign Policy: A Reappraisal (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2000), 52–56. Lawrence Ziring, The Ayub Khan Era: Politics in Pakistan, 1958–69 (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1971), 85. It should be noted, however, that the United States might at times be seen as tilting toward Pakistan throughout the 1960s and 1970s, with assistance in the 1971 war over Bangladesh as one example. G. W. Choudhury, Pakistan's Relations with India, 1947–1966 (New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1968), 252–266. Ibid., 273. Ganguly, Conflict Unending, 32–35. No regional organization, such as SAARC, existed as a potential influence on both India and Pakistan in 1965. Hence no role expectations emerged from this direction. Ayub Khan and Jawaharlal Nehru previously had resolved a number of issues, such as signing the Indus water treaty. Khan had tried to settle differences with India in 1959 when he suggested a joint defense regime for the subcontinent. Nehru turned down that offer. Fox, “Civilizational, Religious, and National Explanations.” Hasan Askari Rizvi, Military, State and Society in Pakistan (UK: St Martin's Press, 2000), 4–5. Ibid., 113. Ibid., 113–117. Ganguly, Conflict Unending, 5; Norman D. Palmer, Pakistan: The Long Search for Foreign Policy, Duke University Center for Commonwealth and Comparative Studies series, no. 43 (Durham, NC: Duke University, Press, 1977), 418. Partha S. Ghosh, Conflict and Cooperation in South Asia (New Delhi: Manohar, 1995), 22. Ghosh, Conflict and Cooperation, 22. Ayub Khan, Friends Not Masters (London: Oxford University Press, 1966); see Sangat Singh, Pakistan's Foreign Policy: An Appraisal (New York: Asia Publishing House, 1970), 12. Freeland Abbott, Islam and Pakistan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968), 223–26; cited in Ghosh, Conflict and Cooperation, 23. Singh, Pakistan's Foreign Policy, 13, 14. Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, The Myth of Independence (London: Oxford University Press, 1969); cited in Ganguly, Conflict Unending, 32. Stephen Phillip Cohen, “Identity, Survival and Security: Pakistan's Defense Policy,” in Perspectives on Pakistan's Foreign Policy, ed. Surendra Chopra (Amritsar, India: Guru Nanak Dev University Press, 1983). Fox, “Towards a Dynamic Theory.” Donald Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). Sumit Ganguly, The Origins of War in South Asia: Indo-Pakistani Conflicts Since 1947 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986), 13. Myron Weiner, “The Macedonian Syndrome,” World Politics 23: 665–683; Ganguly, The Origins of War, 11. Ganguly, The Origins of War, 11. Singh, Pakistan's Foreign Policy, 19–20. Saee Shafqat, “From Official Islam to Islamism: The Rise of Dawat-ul-Irshad and Lashkar-e-Taiba,” in Pakistan: Nationalism without a Nation? ed. Christophe Jaffrelot (London: Zed Books, 2002), 133. Paul Wallace, “Countering Terrorist Movements in India: Kashmir & Khalistan,” (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 2004), 7. Paul Wallace, “Globalization of Civil-Military Relations: Democratization, Reform and Security” (paper presented at the International Political Studies Association, Bucharest, Romania, June 27–July 3 2002). Paul Wallace, “Introduction: The New National Party System and State Politics,” in India's 1999 Elections and 20th Century Politics, ed. Paul Wallace and Ramashray Roy (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003), 20. David C. Rapoport, “The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism,” in Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy, ed. Audrey Kurth Cronin and James M. Ludes (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), 61–62, 67. Rapoport, “The Four Waves,” 62.
Referência(s)