There was much exultation on TV channels this week over Pakistan’s growing “isolation” after the Uri terror attack; much has also been made of the formal condemnation of terrorism by the US, Russia, Britain, France and even China. The Times of India ran a big graphic today (22 September) talking of a “Big Chill in US-Pak ties”, pegging the story on a bill in the US Congress to designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terror and the US decision to block military reimbursements worth $300 million last month.

While Pakistan’s discomfiture over the fingers pointing in its direction may give us some psychic satisfaction, we have to be realistic about thinking that some degree of diplomatic isolation is going to make any difference to Pakistan’s terror infrastructure targeted against us. While there is no harm in trying to rub Pakistan’s nose in the dirt through diplomatic manoeuvres, “isolation” will never achieve anything. There is almost no instance in recent history – the exception possibly being the ending of apartheid in South Africa - where “diplomatic isolation” has achieved any desirable end.

Consider three cases.

There is no greater international pariah than North Korea, but it continues to do what it wants, exploding nuclear device after nuclear device, and the net result has always been concessions by the international community.

There were strong international sanctions against Iran for pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, and despite the harm done to the Iranian economy for years, in the end the US did a deal with Iran that can in no way be called a full climb-down by that country.

Syria was declared an international violator of human rights and rebels were armed by the Saudis and Americans to topple the Bashar Assad regime. But both Iran and Russia batted for Assad, and the “isolation” of Assad is nearly over. He may still be toppled at some convenient time, but once again this only proves that there is no alternative to coercive action.

In Pakistan’s case, as in North Korea’s, neither the US nor China is ever going to abandon it or declare it a terrorist state. Not when it has a nuclear arsenal. The US considers Pakistan both an asset and a liability, and so will continue to engage with it to make the ledger positive for itself. The US is not going to go after Pakistan to please us. Even the EU and Russia will not do so. If none of this happens, what good will its “diplomatic isolation” achieve for us? At best, Pakistan will feel unloved for a while, and take its anger out on us ever more forcefully. Not that we should fear that, but one should underline the relative pointlessness of diplomatic isolation as a key element in anti-terror strategy.

The only isolation the Pakistani Deep State may actually fear is to become unloved in its own country. This means we must court the civil society in Pakistan, to the exclusion of the army. If, at some point, this defangs the Pakistani army, well and good. But diplomatic isolation won’t work, for when the world is seen as your enemy, the tendency of citizens will be to close ranks with the government.

In any case, when China is never going to abandon Pakistan as long as it can be used to keep India in check, where is the isolation?

The world fears bad boys more than good boys, and will thus go out of its way to humour bullies who can do damage, and not those who try and practice “strategic restraint” – like us. Strategic restraint will get us a pat on the back, some theoretical brownie points, but no tangible benefit. And if strategic restraint only means impotence, and is not backed by real underlying power, we will be laughed out of court.

In realpolitik, it is the ability to cause harm that draws attention, not the inability to do so. Bad boys will always get what they want; the good boys will get nice words. And nothing else. We should stop courting compliments from the world and get real about building our long-term economic and military might. The world respects strength, not weakness.

Realpolitik

Get Swarajya in your inbox.