An Austrian-born American diplomat, Robert Strausz-Hupe (1903-2002) coined the term ‘geo-politics’ (or, Wehrgeopolitik, in German) as mentioned in his book, “Geo-politics: the struggle for peace and power” published in 1942. An American political scientist, Frederick L. Schuman, used the term ‘geo-strategy’ in his article “Let us learn our Geopolitics” also published in 1942. Later on, US Presidents’ advisors such as Zbigniew Brzezinski (who was a Polish-American political scientist) and Henry Kissinger (who was a German-American political scientist) adhered to the terms as practitioners of realism (or realpolitik). Though Kissinger used the term ‘geo-strategy’ in the post-Cold War era in his book, “The grand chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives,” published in 1997, the term has lost its significance in the face of the phenomenon of globalisation. One of the tyrannies of the Cold War is that it not only assigned Pakistan with a regional role of a substitute to the Western bloc but it also fobbed off Pakistan with the skill of persisting with conflicts and not with negotiations to resolve a crisis. That is, though both the US and the Soviet Union kept the door of mutual dialogue open, Pakistan was tasked with rasping and snarling at every sight of Soviets, in return for money and weapons. Pakistan imbibed the lesson well. Consequently, Pakistan feels now more delighted in episodes of conflict than in rounds of negotiation. For instance, in the post-Cold War era, for Pakistan, the Kargil war of 1999 was a war of choice, which could have been jettisoned from the invidious agenda at least temporarily just to see if the Lahore Declaration of February 1999 yielded any fruit. However, the lesson of persistence of conflict militated against patience and denied a chance to the process of earning peace through negotiations, whereas a conflict to resolve the Kashmir issue was opted. Currently, after closing the conflict options in the geo-strategic context, Pakistan has been asking India to restart the rounds of negotiation on Kashmir. The Cold War prodded Pakistan to learn a regional role in the geo-strategic context that “Pakistan is a bulwark against communism,” and, now in the post-Cold War era, Pakistan is unwilling to unlearn the same. The conflict machinery is still intact and it has been waiting for a new or a recycled foe as a quarry. To extend this point further, Pakistan thinks that the conflict between big economic and political giants of the world makes its geographic position central and this offers it a leeway to redefine and reassert its geo-strategic importance. Embedded in this belief is the hope that a new Cold War may begin offering Pakistan a role, which is a replica of the previous role. Here, Pakistan is overlooking the fact that monetarily rich areas of the world such as the US, UK, Europe, Japan, Australia are not just market-oriented economies but they are also vibrant democracies. Established in the post-Cold War era, the liberal-democratic order cobble them together by alliance, both economic and military. The monopoly of these countries (or areas) on the free-market-cum-democratic order is so strong that the laggards such as China and India and their former rivals such as Russia aspire to join them. India has projected its image internationally as a democratic country founded on the challenge of heterogeneity and consequent ethnic conflicts and which never resorted to the military dictatorship as a solution. Though Russia and China have resisted political reforms, they have willingly plumped for economic reforms, thereby letting their societies drift away from the ideals of communism (or socialism). The Cold War made Pakistan a victim of the delusion that the war was meant to persist forever. Now, since 1991, Pakistan is rummaging for a glimmer of hope for any new Cold War. Many in Pakistan envisioned their dream come true when the war on terror initiated in the wake of 9/11; however, the dream is still lying frustrated. The Cold War made Pakistan a victim of the delusion that the war was meant to persist forever. Now, since 1991, Pakistan is rummaging for a glimmer of hope for any new Cold War. Many in Pakistan envisioned their dream come true when the war on terror initiated in the wake of 9/11; however, the dream is still lying frustrated. Instead of becoming a cynosure of parties involved in the conflict, Pakistan is considered a party to the issue Instead of becoming a cynosure of parties involved in the conflict, Pakistan is considered a party to the issue. Despite enjoying a Major Non-NATO Ally status since June 2004, Pakistan’s scope has been reduced to a conditions-based relationship with the US. Similarly, when a disagreement appeared between the US and Russia on Syria in October 2011 (when the Syrian crisis turned worse), and in September 2015 (when Russia defended the regime of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from crumbling under pressure), the proponents of the new Cold War got rejuvenated in Pakistan. However, to their consternation, Russia started pressuring the Syrian regime to work out a political solution to the crisis. On December 11, 2017, after two years of engagement, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Syria and at the Khmeimim Air Base operated by Russia where he announced the partial withdrawal of Russian forces. The announcement has not only petered out the prospects for a new Cold War but it has also cast a pall over Pakistan’s Cold-War qualified and inspired conflict machinery. The Cold War over-taught Pakistan of its geo-strategic importance. However, in the post-Cold War era, Pakistan has been found reassuring its citizens that “Pakistan is a gateway to Central Asia” without understanding the point that the Central Asia Republics (CARs) are still economically dependent on Russia. The only country that has offered the CARs a gateway is China through its infrastructure development initiatives and not Pakistan. The development has unnerved India which wanted to secure a trade access to the CARs traversing Pakistan. Now, India has been trying to reach the CARs through Iran and Afghanistan. Pakistan’s role as a dog in the manger has not only wrested the initiative from Pakistan’s hands but it has also insidiously affected the economic equilibrium in Asia. The Cold War bequeathed to Pakistan many visionaries who are around in the form of retired ambassadors and retired generals appearing on various TV talk shows as analysts and misleading viewers. What they are failing to understand is that, compared to Pakistan’s overwhelmingly confrontational posture, more countries in the world are thinking in terms of peaceful coexistence. The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com Published in Daily Times, December 19th 2017.