Please assess the ans to a question of IR-2011.

[TheUniter]

Please assess my answer,which i actually wrote in the exam hall,to the following question.

Q.8. Explain why, despite being target of terrorism, Pakistan's international allies often publicly express dissatisfaction with Pakistan's counter terrorism policy and actions ? Is this a failure of Pakistani diplomacy or weakness in its policy? Identify the fault and suggest corrective measures, if required.


My answer:

Theoretical and historical background:
• Historically different nations have given different world orders from time. Starting with the rise of Islam, Islam gave its own world order; it was Islamic democracy, sovereignty of Allah(swt).After decline of Islam and rise of the Europe after the treaty of Westphalia, the Europe gave its own world order. The latest world order, called new world order, was given by the U.S after defeating the Soviet Union in the cold war and this order is still continuing.
• It should be noted that any superpower does not only give its world order but also maintains it. And in order to maintain its order, the power does everything in order to maintain its order. The present war on terror is also a step in that direction. In other words, the U.S took this step (war on terror) in order to maintain its world order. They attacked Afghanistan under the garbage of war on terror. But hidden motive of the U.S in this war is to check the china’s growing influence in the world.
• It should further be noted that in pursuance of the world order by any superpower, the national interests of that power are automatically served. Thus the U.S attacked Afghanistan in order to promote its own interests.

Why the Pakistan’s allies do not trust Pakistan?:
• Because of Indian factor in Pakistan’s foreign policy and strategic depth.Pak considers afghan as its strategic depth and as a counterweight to India.
• The U.S has its own national interests while Pak has its own.
• Pak has limited resources while the U.S is the superpower.Pak cannot pursue national interest of the U.S.
• India also defames Pak in the U.S parliament; there is Indian and Jewish lobby in the U.S parliament.
• Pak’s allies believe that there are pro-Taliban elements in the Pakistani establishment.

Failure of Pakistani diplomacy or policy?:
• This is failure of both. In diplomacy, Pak has failed to convince the world that Pak itself is a victim of the terrorism, Pak has no soft corner for the Taliban. On the hand, Indian diplomacy has excelled at Pakistani diplomacy. Indian diplomacy has succeeded to defame Pak. On the policy side, Pak’s foreign policy has been unsuccessful right from the start of the war on terror.

Where is fault?:
• Fault is in the national interests of Pakistan and its allies. National interests of Pak and its allies collide.Pak interest may go against the interests of its allies.

Suggestion:
• Both sides should sit together and sort out differences. They should frame a method or policy in which interest of the both sides can be served.

[aqs]

Originally Posted by TheUniter

Please assess my answer,which i actually wrote in the exam hall,to the following question.

Q.8. Explain why, despite being target of terrorism, Pakistan's international allies often publicly express dissatisfaction with Pakistan's counter terrorism policy and actions ? Is this a failure of Pakistani diplomacy or weakness in its policy? Identify the fault and suggest corrective measures, if required.


My answer:

Theoretical and historical background:
• Historically different nations have given different world orders from time. Starting with the rise of Islam, Islam gave its own world order; it was Islamic democracy, sovereignty of Allah(swt).After decline of Islam and rise of the Europe after the treaty of Westphalia, the Europe gave its own world order. The latest world order, called new world order, was given by the U.S after defeating the Soviet Union in the cold war and this order is still continuing.
• It should be noted that any superpower does not only give its world order but also maintains it. And in order to maintain its order, the power does everything in order to maintain its order. The present war on terror is also a step in that direction. In other words, the U.S took this step (war on terror) in order to maintain its world order. They attacked Afghanistan under the garbage of war on terror. But hidden motive of the U.S in this war is to check the china’s growing influence in the world.
• It should further be noted that in pursuance of the world order by any superpower, the national interests of that power are automatically served. Thus the U.S attacked Afghanistan in order to promote its own interests.

Why the Pakistan’s allies do not trust Pakistan?:
• Because of Indian factor in Pakistan’s foreign policy and strategic depth.Pak considers afghan as its strategic depth and as a counterweight to India.
• The U.S has its own national interests while Pak has its own.
• Pak has limited resources while the U.S is the superpower.Pak cannot pursue national interest of the U.S.
• India also defames Pak in the U.S parliament; there is Indian and Jewish lobby in the U.S parliament.
• Pak’s allies believe that there are pro-Taliban elements in the Pakistani establishment.

Failure of Pakistani diplomacy or policy?:
• This is failure of both. In diplomacy, Pak has failed to convince the world that Pak itself is a victim of the terrorism, Pak has no soft corner for the Taliban. On the hand, Indian diplomacy has excelled at Pakistani diplomacy. Indian diplomacy has succeeded to defame Pak. On the policy side, Pak’s foreign policy has been unsuccessful right from the start of the war on terror.

Where is fault?:
• Fault is in the national interests of Pakistan and its allies. National interests of Pak and its allies collide.Pak interest may go against the interests of its allies.

Suggestion:
• Both sides should sit together and sort out differences. They should frame a method or policy in which interest of the both sides can be served.

This is around 440 words answer. Ideally if one focuses on quality rather than quantity then what should be the answer length for any 10 and 20 marks CSS question?

[aqs]

The answer should be between 600-800 words with as much conciseness possible.

[TheUniter]

The answer should be between 600-800 words with as much conciseness possible.

@AQS. it is not the quantity but quality which matters.if one provides all points even in 300 words,it would suffice.

[zeeshan1001]

The question is well formed but I have one reservation. The question is about Pakistan and its allies and you have included a lot of history in the start.

In the first paragraph you must write what you have understood about the question itself. History should only be used as an examples. That's what I prefer.

I attempted this question the same way you did ignoring the history in the first paragraph.

[TheUniter]

The question is well formed but I have one reservation. The question is about Pakistan and its allies and you have included a lot of history in the start.

In the first paragraph you must write what you have understood about the question itself. History should only be used as an examples. That's what I prefer.

I attempted this question the same way you did ignoring the history in the first paragraph.

You are right,many people write what they understand about a topic in the first paragraph. This is a direct method and people call this method DIRECT-HIT. But i had learnt that I.R is different from current affairs and it is necessary to give history of the topic. I agree with you that i have given the history in excess but i deemed it necessary for the very nature of the subject.

Nevertheless i want to ask you if the answer or any part thereof is relevant?

[kjay]

Originally Posted by TheUniter

You are right,many people write what they understand about a topic in the first paragraph. This is a direct method and people call this method DIRECT-HIT. But i had learnt that I.R is different from current affairs and it is necessary to give history of the topic. I agree with you that i have given the history in excess but i deemed it necessary for the very nature of the subject.

Nevertheless i want to ask you if the answer or any part thereof is relevant?

good attempt, but i think fault does not lie in pakistan's national interests but infact in the diplomacy,priority fixation and implementation of of foreign policy to achieve our national interests.

[zeeshan1001]

Originally Posted by TheUniter

You are right,many people write what they understand about a topic in the first paragraph. This is a direct method and people call this method DIRECT-HIT. But i had learnt that I.R is different from current affairs and it is necessary to give history of the topic. I agree with you that i have given the history in excess but i deemed it necessary for the very nature of the subject.

Nevertheless i want to ask you if the answer or any part thereof is relevant?

Well, it is a current affair question but in IR so the difference should not be in discussing or pasting the historical perspective but to link the current scenario to the theories of IR and examples from history.

For instance, in the question being discussed, you should have related problems of Pakistan with its allies in the light of concepts like Diplomacy, International laws, idealism/realism and political economy. You should have given a touch to all of these while answering the questions. Further you can elaborate the issue by the terms of image deficit, image control, tag of double game, Pakistan as safe-heaven for terrorists, do-more, war on terror, proxy war etc. This way the question will become crispy as well as linked to the scope of I.R.

That is what I did on my question in the exam.

[TheUniter]

Well, it is a current affair question but in IR so the difference should not be in discussing or pasting the historical perspective but to link the current scenario to the theories of IR and examples from history.

For instance, in the question being discussed, you should have related problems of Pakistan with its allies in the light of concepts like Diplomacy, International laws, idealism/realism and political economy. You should have given a touch to all of these while answering the questions. Further you can elaborate the issue by the terms of image deficit, image control, tag of double game, Pakistan as safe-heaven for terrorists, do-more, war on terror, proxy war etc. This way the question will become crispy as well as linked to the scope of I.R.

That is what I did on my question in the exam.

I tried my best to relate my theoretical knowledge with the question and to make the question interesting by using theoretical concepts. I used all theoretical concepts which i deemed relevant. In the question, i have used concepts such as national interests,new world order,super powers,diplomacy,foreign policy,treaty of Westphalia and strategic depth.

Actually i wanted to emphasize on the concept of world order. If you see this question or the topic in overall framework,the game is related to the american world order. This was my point of view. You may differ.