Debating transformation in the Global Order

Last week, we discussed the salients of annual International Programme for Development and Stability (IPDS-26) conducted recently by Institute for Strategic Studies, Research and Analysis (ISSRA) at the National Defence University (NDU) Islamabad. We discussed the contours of 'Emerging Global Order (EGO)', the role and rise of China and the US/European dimension of the EGO. We continue. Pakistan's former permanent representative at the UN, Munir Akram, identified three challenges and three opportunities for Islamabad under the EGO. Economy, Indian hostility and Afghanistan were challenges; whereas war in the ME, connectivity and balancing of ties with the US and China were exploitable opportunities. He emphasised 'developing' relations with the US and 'preserving' ties with China, and opined that the war in the ME will create regional security architectures with Pakistan as a security provider, as indicated through Makkah Agreement. The second plenary of the Conference dealt with technology redefining power. Brig Gen Wharton of the US remained focused on the human dimension of technological development, emphasising technology's subservience to humanity. This, he posited, remains under stress due to 'potential' loss of human control over AI. He was appreciative of China's 'industrial capacity at scale' in the service of humanity at low cost, and as a critical element of national power. On AI, South Korean speaker, Dr Park, emphasised expert control, while discussing AI development and AI risks. Unlike many countries ambivalent about AI regulation, Pakistan, she said, should have its own AI regulation. Russian panelist, Ms Oksana, also called for country-specific AI regulation and pressed for investing in people, emphasising humanity to be at the core of AI in its genesis, development and proliferation. Panelists equated data security with national security, pointing out challenges of data centres – including hacking, uninterrupted electricity supply and water needed for cooling – warning about the perils of putting too much data online. On AI regulation, the dominant view gravitated towards the mechanics of doing so, defending 'human cognitive security' without controlling thought, and the dos and don'ts for governments. The third plenary dealt with EGO-driven changing character of warfare and impacts on strategic stability. An eminent American scholar Dr Robert Pape, while enumerating the lessons of the US war with Iran, declared that the US was in an 'Escalation Trap'. The US dilemma was acute: conceding Iran's control of Hormuz emboldens states like China and encourages countries like India to undertake military unilateralism (against Pakistan). Recent Indian Navy incursion in Pakistan's EEZ is a case in point. While contesting Hormuz control risks escalation and is militarily untenable indefinitely for the US, as of now. In his opinion, the Iran War is in many ways the 'inverse' of the 1991 War with Iraq. Since the Iraq War, there has been global diffusion of technology and 'democratisation' (inexpensive availability) of precision weapons, challenging the global powers. Prof Pape identified continued smuggling of Iranian oil through Pakistan as an ongoing challenge, and refugee influx and instability as the likely consequences of US ground invasion of Iran through Chahbahar beachhead, etc. Brig Gen Kimmitt of the US Army theorised whether warfare was undergoing a 'Revolution in Military Affairs' (RMA) or an 'Evolution'… (EMA). In his opinion (correctly), the conduct of warfare had changed with new tools at hand, while its nature (principles) remains unchanged. He, however, considered the 'principle of Mass' irrelevant without 'concentration'. He was reminded that 'technological mass' was the likely contemporary manifestation of 'Mass' as a cardinal principle of war; and that AI was the new RMA. Gen Kimmitt suggested guardrails for AI regulation, postulating that 'unmanned platforms' were the new horizon in warfare, rendering pilots redundant, as machines could handle greater G Forces compared to humans. Swarming the battlefield with inexpensive weapons was the new normal, saturating adversary's response and raising his interception costs. Effective counter-drone capability was still away. And 'Internet of Things (IOT) was being replaced by 'AI of Things' (AIOT). Russian speaker, Dr Alexey, spoke about the 'Drone Revolution' contextual to the war in Ukraine. Pakistan's Admiral Faisal discussed Iran's 'sea control' vis-à-vis America's 'sea denial'. Iran was employing 'compellence and deterrence' and the US was reacting to it. Iran, by default, decides shipping safety, insurance, freight costs, etc. He considered Hormuz control, Iran's Centre of Gravity and Tehran's political, diplomatic, economic and military leverage. He considered Hormuz critical, whether under Iranian control or under the world, and theorised the Iran war introducing 'strategies of choke points', making security more expansive and global trade more expensive. The fourth plenary debated global competition and conflict prevention. Brazilian view was 'pro-hedging', as hedging provided more flexibility and strategic autonomy. Hedging by BRICS was beneficial, as BRICS participants shared the table simultaneously with myriad players, without dispensing with the UN/other forums. Platforms like BRICS provide low risk space for Middle Powers (MPs) to operate at universal, multilateral and bilateral levels. South African panelist described reform at the UN, and supported effective mediation, arbitration and facilitation under the UN's good offices. She identified 'middle power diplomacy' as multilateral tool for conflict prevention. Pakistan's Dr Moeed Yusaf considered EGO another historic continuum. But this time around, the hegemon (US under Trump) had announced voluntary retirement without being displaced through historic decline, like in the past; leaving a fragmented Global Order, and vacuum/uncertainty. This allows MPs to formulate issue-based partnership as opposed to ideological camping; Brazil being a case in point. He suggested that MPs, sidelining NAM, will challenge Western hegemony. He defined MP as a country that cannot be ignored by either the US or China. He concluded that the future is likely to have a 'rule-based order', albeit with different set of rules, bringing together MPs under a resurgent UN. As per Dr Moeed, Pakistan has a major opportunity under the EGO and it must become part of regional mechanisms. It should optimise its crucial geography like its location, mineral wealth, connectivity and transit potential. Islamabad needs to pursue internal cohesion, cheap energy and cooperative geoeconomics, shunning camp politics. He underscored good relations with both America and China and considered stable Pakistan critical for regional and global peace and stability. He suggested that Islamabad cannot and should not be a 'net security provider' regionally. Continued…