Our political discourse has inflamed the justified public anger at Pakistan’s misdemeanours, with an eye on electoral gains, thereby making our Pakistan policy hostage to the most strident voices often promoting simplistic responses to complex foreign policy problems.

Right leaders like Trump seeks to reverse the process of global economic integration and freer flow of people across borders.

In his UN General Assembly speech last month, President Trump mentioned the words ‘sovereign’ and ‘sovereignty’ multiple times and spoke of a coalition of nations that embrace sovereignty to promote security, prosperity and peace for themselves and the world. However, his threatening language against North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela left no doubt that he was not announcing an American withdrawal into its sovereign shell, while letting other countries do as they pleased within theirs. His intent instead was to burnish his ultra-national credentials by emphasising the unbridled sovereign right of the United States to pursue its interests as, of course, defined by his parochial vision. He thus stated that he would always put America first, while paying lip service to the right of other leaders to put their countries first. Ultra-nationalism — extreme advocacy of the interests of a particular nation regardless of its effect on others — today holds sway not only in the US, but also Russia, China and Turkey and has come to increasingly characterise the strategic discourse in India. Extreme right wing parties, with an ultra-nationalist outlook, have gained ground in Europe, most recently in Germany. Trump did not explain how his idea of every country putting its interests first would square with the objective of security, prosperity and peace for the world, more so if every country defined its interests as narrowly as him. There would be no room for a spirit of compromise to promote and sustain a stable world order. How ultra-nationalism poses a threatUltra-nationalism of the Trump brand and the chauvinism accompanying it pose a threat to global stability in more ways than one:1 Space for rational foreign policy choices constricted: Firstly by encouraging bellicose discourse against real or perceived enemies – external and in many cases internal (such as particular religious or ethnic groups and immigrants). In his UNGA speech, Trump threatened North Korea with total destruction. He thus stood the sterling counsel of Theodore Roosevelt “Speak softly and carry a big stick” on its head, not because the Americans do not have the military capability to destroy North Korea, but the dangerous implications of such a move. Even if one were to ignore the possibility of North Korea, faced with complete annihilation, lobbing a nuclear bomb or two in its neighbourhood, such pronouncements would only make Kim Jong-un speed up his nuclear weapons programme. To be sure, leaders, have to make some tough statements to respond to public anger against annoying situations. However, it becomes a different ball game altogether when instead of being regarded as means to channelise public anger into rational approaches, such statements are used by ultra nationalist leaders to fuel  the anger for political gains. Thus, in recent years, our political discourse has inflamed the justified public anger at Pakistan’s misdemeanours, with an eye on electoral gains, thereby making our Pakistan policy hostage to the most strident voices.2 Promotes simplistic responses to complex foreign policy problems: During his campaign, President Trump promised to build a “great, great wall” on the Southern border and have the Mexicans pay for it to check immigration and drugs smuggling. The Mexicans have flatly refused to pay and the President now seeks funding from the Congress in the fond hope that the Mexicans would reimburse the cost later on. Trump also gave a simplistic twist to the US- Russia relations by asserting that under his Presidency, the US would not have the kind of problems with Vladimir Putin that it had under Obama, without giving a cogent explanation for his optimism. No wonder that his Russian agenda has gone completely haywire within his first few months in office. At home, the populist slogans of “Terror and talks cannot go together” and “Biryani vs muscular diplomacy” towards Pakistan have led to unravelling of the 2003 ceasefire and periodic killings on both sides of the LoC/International Border in the J&K sector. Facile and populist slogans invariably lead to unintended consequences. 3 Ultra-nationalist leaders present themselves as the best appraisers and defenders of national interest: Tactical gains are often described as strategic victories to sustain this image, thereby unduly raising public expectations. Trump declared in his inaugural address that under him, it would be ‘America first’, as if it was not so under his predecessors. He has described the recent tactical Pakistani move of securing the release of a Canadian-American family from the Haqqani network as the beginning of a much better relationship with Pakistan and its leaders. Vice-President Pence listed it amongst the President’s accomplishments to conclude that he is “achieving real results on the international stage”! Likewise, the brave surgical strikes mounted by our army after the Uri attack, though a legitimate tactical move to punish Pakistan’s criminal action, were sought to be presented in our ultra-nationalist discourse as the ultimate answer to our Pakistan problem, which they were not. 4 Leaders try to give xenophobic answers to the economic hardships faced by their people: In a world, comprising sovereign nations, each putting its interest first, peace and prosperity can be promoted only within a framework in which the countries concerned see some gain for themselves. Ironically, Trump, who envisaged such a world in his speech, has been quick to rescind certain carefully crafted agreements that provided such a framework. He has pulled the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, expressed his intention to withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change and virtually scuttled the Iran nuclear agreement by refusing to certify that Iran is complying with all its terms. He and the leaders of right/ ultra-right wing parties in Europe seek to reverse the process of global economic integration and freer flow of people across borders by giving protectionist and xenophobic answers to the economic hardships faced by their people and the wave of terrorism that has hit some European countries.The problems of economic downturn, unemployment, terrorism and irresponsible behaviour of states such as Pakistan and North Korea are real, but ultra-nationalism is not the answer to them. Its spread will make the world a more dangerous place to live in.The writer is former High Commissioner to Pakistan and former CIC.