Sovereignty comes first
https://arab.news/vxjhn
History provides invaluable insights into the intricate interplay between a nation’s sovereignty and its pursuit of economic well-being. The struggle for sovereignty was at the heart of the Chinese revolution, with economic concerns being a secondary but crucial aspect. Mao Zedong’s vision of a socialist China was deeply rooted in the assertion of national sovereignty against foreign imperialist forces. Roderick MacFarquhar, a prominent historian of China, notes, “Mao believed that China could only achieve true economic prosperity if it first asserted control over its political destiny.” Sovereignty was prioritized to pave the way for subsequent economic reforms, underscoring the strategic evolution of the nation.
In the mid-19th century, Japan faced the looming threat of Western imperialism, which exposed the vulnerabilities of its traditional feudal system. Recognizing the need for self-strengthening, Japan underwent a radical transformation known as the Meiji Restoration. Scholars like E. H. Norman underscored the strategic prioritization of sovereignty in the Meiji era, stating, “The Japanese were determined to maintain their independence, even if it meant sacrificing short-term economic benefits.” This commitment to sovereignty paved the way for Japan to emerge as a major global power in the subsequent decades, showcasing the long-term dividends of prioritizing national autonomy.
Pakistan needs to take a page from the history books of other successful nations and grasp the indelible truth that the pursuit of short-term economic gains can never be a reason to negotiate on sovereignty. Doing so will invariably result in adverse consequences for both independence and the economy. General Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorship became a key ally of the United States in the early 2000s, following the 9/11 attacks, and played a crucial role in supporting the US-led coalition’s efforts in Afghanistan. In return for supporting the war on terror, Pakistan received financial assistance from the United States and other international donors, providing a boost to the country’s economy. The inflow of dollars led to consumption-led growth and superficial prosperity, especially among the elite.
History and timeless wisdom suggest that prioritizing independence is not only a means to ensure the protection of individual liberties but also a strategic imperative for laying the groundwork for sustainable economic development.
Javed Hassan
However, despite accruing substantial geo-political rents, or possibly because of it, Pakistan failed to implement necessary structural reforms, such as liberalizing trade, increasing the underlying competitiveness and complexity of the industrial base, and, most importantly, ensuring fiscal discipline. Moreover, due to Pakistan’s participation in the war on terror, the country faced internal conflicts and an increase in militancy, deteriorating the overall business environment. Military operations in the tribal areas and border regions with Afghanistan caused economic disruptions, displacement of populations, and damage to infrastructure. The war on terror exacerbated existing social and political challenges in Pakistan, contributing to governance issues, political instability, and social unrest. In short, the financial assistance for support in the war on terror was more than offset by the associated security challenges and internal disruptions. The same can be said about earlier elite bargains, such as those in the 50s, 60s, and 80s, that the country made with the US at the expense of not pursuing a strictly non-aligned foreign policy.
While economic prosperity is undoubtedly a crucial aspect of a nation’s well-being, the governing class must ask itself: can it be sustainably pursued at the expense of national sovereignty? Is it wise to allow its allure of tenuous economic prosperity to risk the suspension of sovereignty? Should the state make compromises in its supreme authority to govern itself without interference from external powers? On decisions determining the nation’s destiny, is there any sacrifice too great to preserve it against undue influence or control by external entities?
To answer these questions, Ho Chi Minh, the revered figure in the Vietnamese struggle for independence provides the time-tested guiding principle. The charismatic strategist, otherwise known for his steely pragmatism, saw no price too great to pay for the ultimate goal of sovereignty. Despite the war exacting a heavy toll in terms of Vietnamese lives and on the country’s economy, the country attained reunification in 1975. The preservation of Vietnamese sovereignty paved the way for subsequent economic reforms. Vietnam, in the post-war era, has emerged as one of the fastest-growing economies in Southeast Asia, underscoring the long-term benefits of prioritizing sovereignty.
More specifically, in the context of the subcontinent, the legacy of the East India Company provides a rich historical backdrop for economic exploitation and the erosion of indigenous sovereignty. The extractive policies that contributed to the prosperity of the Company and the British Empire came at the expense of the indigenous population. The relationship between dominion and economic prosperity is dynamic and complex. History and timeless wisdom suggest that prioritizing independence is not only a means to ensure the protection of individual liberties but also a strategic imperative for laying the groundwork for sustainable economic development. When the American revolutionary politician Patrick Henry stated, ‘Give me liberty, or give me death!’ he was emphasizing the fact that sovereignty comes before all else, including economic prosperity.
– Javed Hassan has worked in senior executive positions both in the profit and non-profit sector in Pakistan and internationally. He’s an investment banker by training.
