Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Author Adam Weinstein

1. Normalizing U.S.–Pakistan Relations

Author:
Adam Weinstein
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The U.S.–Pakistan relationship is often portrayed negatively among the lawmakers, media, and general public of both countries, with a focus on mutual resentment and dysfunction. The early relationship was burdened by mismatched expectations regarding support in conflicts with India. Different priorities from the start of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980s further strained the relationship. The United States also sanctioned Pakistan and India for developing nuclear weapons, which had a disparate impact on Pakistan, causing ongoing tension. Many in Washington’s policy and journalistic communities hold negative views of Pakistan, viewing it as an enabler of terrorism that seeks geopolitical rents but rarely delivers. Pakistanis often resent what they view as Washington’s use of the country as a “frontline state” in both the Cold War and the War on Terror, claiming tens of thousands of lives, only to discard it later. These grievances are largely dismissed in Washington as self–inflicted. Despite the negative public debate, serving officials in both governments generally hold a more nuanced view, recognizing the broad overlapping interests shared by the United States and Pakistan in areas like climate change, trade, and counterterrorism. There is already an exhaustive literature on terrorism in Pakistan, nuclear security, and potential conflicts along the Line of Control with India. This brief will instead focus on revitalizing U.S.–Pakistan relations through innovative diplomacy in areas that have received less attention, such as trade, regional integration, people–to–people connections, and climate change. Its principal recommendation is that Washington should resist viewing Pakistan through the narrow lens of the “War on Terror” or great power competition. Instead it should pursue its interests through more normalized relations, while recognizing U.S. limitations in influencing events in Pakistan or the region.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Counter-terrorism, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

2. Russian Phoenix: The Collective Security Treaty Organization

Author:
Adam Weinstein
Publication Date:
01-2007
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University
Abstract:
Russia’s quest for security and power did not die with the collapse of the USSR in 1991, though it did face new complications. Fifteen republics arose from the Soviet rubble, and with them, fifteen competing notions of national prestige. While media images in the West reinforced a uniformly positive view of communism’s death throes—statues of Lenin and Marx felled like dead timber, red flags and banners ripped down—little sober thought was given to what might rise in their place. To the lay observer, the age of cold war alliances, arms races, and geopolitical competition was now strictly a concern for historians. Not so in the Russian Federation and its surrounding regions. Although independence—both from the strictures of Soviet communism and the expenses associated with leading the USSR—was a priority for Russia, life in 1992 presented a bevy of new defense concerns. Control of the Soviet nuclear and conventional arsenals was a priority, as was the prevention or control of sectarian violence in the former USSR, particularly where large numbers of ethnic Russians were concerned. Furthermore, seventy-four years of communist rule, preceded by centuries of czarist domination, reinforced a sense of security interdependence (as well as a Russian sense of imperial pride and responsibility) in the Russian “near abroad.” The breakaway republics shared many such concerns with Russia but disagreed over how to address them. Most of these fledgling republics preferred a “lone wolf ” or regional approach to any Moscow-led form of security cooperation. That appears to have changed in the interceding years. While collective measures and deference to Russian authority were nonstarter issues for most of the postSoviet states in their infancy, these nations have achieved a degree of stability and sovereignty that enables them to reconsider their old military ties—particularly as shared apprehensions have grown over the threat of terrorism and extremism in the post-Soviet space. The evolution of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) reflects this sea change.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Post-Soviet Space, and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
Political Geography:
Russia