Search

This article argues that in the wake of 9/11, Pakistan engaged in two policy moves that were highly problematic and controversial from a domestic perspective: the alliance with the United States, and the simultaneous disengagement with the Taliban regime. While realist accounts largely posit these moves as a consequence of US diktat, this article is more interested in exploring how the actions were enabled by a domestic political narrative. Scholarly accounts in the post 9/11 era tend to marginalise the role of indigenous agency and ‘voice’, and overwhelmingly work within frameworks that emphasise the consequential effects of US hegemony. Conversely, in examining official Pakistani political discourses, the article argues that a number of identifiable rhetorical strategies played a performative role in enabling specific Pakistani policy outcomes in the wake of 9/11. In important ways, the analysis moves away from unproblematically assuming Pakistan as simply a passive recipient of American ‘empire’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the theoretical added-value of critical realist incursions into International Relations constructivism. While constructivism focuses on providing multi-causal explanations, its conceptual horizon and subsequent methodological framework fundamentally obscure and limit the opportunity to conceptualize social dialectic and multi-causality in world politics. In this respect, a critical realist meta-theory can provide constructivism with a greatly expanded conceptual framework that transcends material–ideational divisions, and a framework that is able to envision more clearly the process of social dialectic. Second, critical realism affords a methodological diversity that can withstand simultaneous constructivist investigations into the material, agential, ideational, or structural. Using the synthesis of critical realism and constructivism, I illustrate by way of example by employing Pakistan’s participation in the ‘war on terror’ as a case study. While constructivism can show that Pakistan’s role in the war on terror was preceded by a legitimizing narrative, it is a critical realist depth analysis that sheds new light on how a complex social reality was achieved through the convergence of multi-causal explanatory factors. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Despite years of wide-scale counterterrorism measures in Pakistan's FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), the injection of substantial funds, and the "close" collaboration between the United States and Pakistan, the ugly truth is that the extremism and militancy in FATA continues to recruit members. Moreover, there is little indication that the killing of Usama bin Ladin will have any significant effect on reducing support for militancy. While taking stock of these realities, this article will not seek to rehash the many successes and failures of the counterterrorist operations in FATA. Instead, its purpose will be to argue that while the causes of, and recruitment into, militant organizations are complex, the literature has paid too little attention to the relationship between discourse, social consensus, and terrorism. Arguably, the accommodation of, and sympathy for, terrorist violence emerges from specific discourses that legitimize and normalize these actions. Consequently, part of the solution requires that policies consider the substance of popular perceptions, representations, and discourses. In short, the article is concerned with directing attention away from a crisis-driven and short-term vision in FATA and moving toward acknowledging the value of long-term and sustainable peace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]