Regime Change in Pakistan: Is it the Outcome of 5G Warfare!

The end of WW2 brought peace for the nations, but only after showing unprecedented horrors to the world community. The nations concluded that wars bring more destruction to the fighting nations than what wars can be worth. The peace so achieved was short lived as the two leading nations; emerging out of WW2, engaged one another in the long cold war era. The era was marked with espionage, covert operations leading to many proxy wars between the leading nations.

The situation became further complicated as leading nations decided not to resort to all-out war, but keep the opposing country engaged in the grey zone. It is unfortunate that the peace zone, underlines the grey zone and resultantly the cold war has turned into a ubiquitous war (5GW), where nations must always be in a state of active pursuance of their international interests.  Palmgen adapted the Sweden’s Military Strategic Doctrine (MSD 16) and mapped the actions that different state-organs like Diplomatic, Economic, Political etc. perform in the new scenario.  Palmgen also placed these actions on a war-peace continuum, showing that lines between war, grey zone and peace are not distinctly marked, but rather one zone diffuses into the next. The practical implications of the above means that countries are dynamically moving on the war-peace continuum.

Source: Palmgren (2016) with modifications by Weissmann (2019)

If we review the latest happenings in Pakistan, Imran Khan Government in Pakistan has accused the Americans of blatant interference and dislodging of their lawful Government through foreign aided vote of no confidence. The issue was raised, when the country was moving towards stability and there was no possibility of an indigenous move.

The American planners were successful in overturning the Government, but in the process they have lost the friendship of the people of Pakistan. The American analysts may have calculated that N-League have the support of the majority of population or at least near majority, but they may have been hasty and were not able to correctly map the branding of political parties involved. 

The Nawaz League voters are generally from rural background with low education and majority are coming from trading class or businessmen that have grown their businesses from small family business and some are now transforming their businesses into larger setups. The brand image represents a conservative mind-set that accepts power culture norms. The same can be seen in party leadership of Nawaz League, as the elder brother became the prime minister while the younger brother was Chief Minister of Punjab and now when the elder brother is; apparently out of politics, the younger brother takes up the Prime Ministership, while taking instructions from the elder brother in London.

On the other hand, PTI brand image is totally different, it represents mostly the educated and highly educated middle class that is not satisfied with the present state of affairs and want to change the system for better delivery of social services. The supporters are mainly from lower to highly educated background and with an international exposure. A large number of supporters of PTI are second generation citizens from developed countries. Therefore the mind set of this group demands interaction based on equality.

It is important for the international politicians to understand that the Pakistan’s younger generation are no longer growing in feudal environment, in fact they are the one rebelling against the previous setup. The ITC revolution has opened them to a different level of awareness. The very powers that were promoting the use of ICT are now feeling uncomfortable as the masses demand for the freedom of speech and choice. The anger on American interference is especially expressed by the urban and university going youth, as the media has provided them with an image of freedom and prosperity experience in the developed world, but the local circumstances restrict the freedom for the selected elite. 

Uncle Sam should comprehend that the dynamics of Pakistani culture is changing, the young generation cannot be confined back to power culture where tribal head is supposed to do all thinking and the rest of the society would just follow the orders. The culture of Europe and rest of the world is also changing, therefore dragging other countries into proxy wars over pseudo ideologies is not going to be, as it used to be.

Khan has accused America of promoting polarity in international politics as according to Khan Pakistan was given no choice, it was either to join American camp against Russia and China or join the other side and face the America’s wrath. Pakistan already has its share of domestic challenges to cater for and it prefers to focus on its domestic development for the provision of basic services to its population. The Ex-Prime Minister Khan had talk about being partners with USA in peace but never in war, which does make sense to Pakistanis, as they have suffered extensively due to the Afghan war spill overs. America should reconsider its interaction with Pakistan and reorient it to make it more balanced. Exerting excessive force on Pakistan is breaking the friendship strings and forcing the moderate sector of Pakistani community towards anti American camp.

The World Community made a wise decision at the end of World War when they decided not to use A-Bomb again as it will destroy all humanity from face of the Earth. Now once again the World Community has to make a conscious decision for its survival. The world cannot afford bi-polarity any longer, as it is not prepared for the upcoming challenges round the corner.  We do not know what impact would Nanotech, Bio-Engineering, AI, drones, robotics and similar disruptive technologies would have, as they find their way into active 5GW. These technologies would become uncontrollable, in the hands of separatist and terrorist groups. The way forward for the survival of humanity is to revive the essence of Non-Aligned Movement, promoting a mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression in domestic affairs for peaceful co-existence.