National security doctrine
Share:
Saad Rasool
January 16, 2022
This week, Pakistan formally issued its first comprehensive National
Security Policy (NSP) document, through a consensus of the civilian and
military leadership in the country. The NSP, only 50 pages of which have
been released for public consumption, attempts to articulate a citizen-
centric ‘Comprehensive National Security’ framework that places
“economic security” at the “core” of Pakistan’s new national security
paradigm. For this purpose, the NSP emphasises on the importance of “a
geo-economic vision to supplement the focus on geo-strategy, and
recognises that sustainable and inclusive economic growth is needed to
expand our national resource pie”, which in turn will “allow greater
availability of resources to bolster traditional and human security.”
Expanding on this overarching economic and geo-security objective, the
NSP document tranches policy imperatives into eight distinct sections,
encompassing details concerning 1) Policy Formulation; 2) National
Security Framework; 3) National Cohesion; 4) Securing Economic Future; 5)
Defence and Territorial Integrity; 6) Internal Security; 7) Foreign Policy In a
Changing World; 8) and Human Security. Each of these sections include
policy statements, in broad (almost unascertainable terms) the respective
overarching objectives of Pakistan. What is missing, however, is the
‘mechanism’ for achieving the stated objectives.
Murree tragedy occurred due to the negligence of administration: Reports
It is heartening that Pakistan has finally moved away from its narrow
prism of military-based security doctrine, and instead articulates a broad
and encompassing definition of ‘national security’, which encompasses
economic and human factors. To this end, of course Pakistan wants to
maintain peace in the region, expand its economic connectivity routes,
deepen its strategic entrenchments, ensure food security, water reserves,
and some mechanism to stem the unbridled population control. However,
many questions remain unanswered: how will we do it? Does articulating
the policy—encouraging as it is—translate into necessary action? If not,
what processes and objectives have been envisioned to ensure that such
action is taken in due course? What steps have been stipulated for
charting this course? What is the monitoring mechanism for
implementation of the NSP? In case some department or ministry of the
Federal or Provincial government(s) fails to act in accordance with the
NSP, what would be the consequences?
PM Imran Khan will convene cabinet meeting on Jan 18
Also, how does the National Action Plan, formulated in 2015, fit within the
ambit of the NSP? Since no action has been taken against civilian
institutions that failed (at least in part) to implement the National Action
Plan, is there any reason to hope that the NSP will be implemented in
letter and spirit? Furthermore, the NSP outlines the policy objectives for
the period of 2022–2026. However, in all likelihood, at least one civilian
government will lapse during this time, and perhaps multiple changes will
take place in our military leadership. In the circumstances, what is the
mechanism for institutional entrenchment of the NSP, designed to ensure
that change in civil or military leadership will not uproot this plan?
These questions need answering. And we hope that the national security
establishment of Pakistan will provide answers, in due course. In the
meantime, the new national-security doctrine, articulated through the
NSP, promises a better and brighter future for Pakistan. While
implementation of this ideology will require consistency in political will,
and a conducive domestic environment, the endeavour itself is admirable.
Turkish hematologist Professor Megay diagnoses Thalassemia patients in Lahore
The world is changing. And Pakistan needs to change with it. The past two
decades of international policy and regional strategy have been a
tremendous challenge for Pakistan. In the aftermath of 9/11, and the
consequent war in Afghanistan, international powers started to view
Pakistan exclusively through the lens of ‘global Islamic terror’ (to use
Donald Trump’s words). Making matters worse, Pakistan had to fight its
own internal war on terror, which has claimed thousands of innocent lives
and cost us billions of dollars in economic fallout.
Throughout this time, the ‘enemies’ of Pakistan (led by neighbouring India)
lobbied the Washington circles to permanently realign its vision of
Pakistan. It was argued that US’ policy concerning Pakistan could no
longer be seen in the context of ‘South Asia’ or the ‘subcontinent’. Instead,
Washington was gradually persuaded to view Pakistan in the context of
Afghanistan alone, decoupling other countries of South Asia from this
region of ‘terror’. As a result, owing primarily to India’s lobbying in
Washington, a tectonic shift in the US policy took place in 2008, when
Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special representative in the
region, started using the term “Af-Pak” to club Pakistan with Afghanistan,
as having a single political and military situation, requiring joint policy for
‘war on terror’ in the region.
Ayeza Khan shares glimpses of her birthday celebration
Even more importantly, with the introduction of ‘Af-Pak’ policy by the
United States (the only global super-power on the scene at the time), India
had successfully disentangled itself from Pakistan, seeking ‘greener’
pastures on the international stage. India was made part of Pentagon’s
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD, also known as the Quad)—created
in 2007, which included Australia, India, Japan and the United States.
While Pakistan was still trying to grapple with the new foreign policy, India
pushed its global agenda forth. Specifically, it portrayed itself as a
counterweight to China in this region. The most concrete step, in this
regard, came on May 30, 2018, when the United States Defence Secretary
of the time (Jim Mattis) announced that Pentagon’s Pacific Command was
being renamed as ‘Indo-Pacific Command’, giving India a larger role in the
Pacific theatre, in pursuit of containing and countering China. This was a
significant policy shift in Washington. It meant that Delhi had convinced
the Pentagon that it could serve as a counterweight to China in the Pacific
region, while also destabilising China’s economic interest across the
region—and in particular the CPEC project. Thus India’s open threats of
infiltrating Gilgit-Baltistan, and disrupting the CPEC supply route.
Govt imposes taxes, duties of Rs31 on petrol
However, the past two years have exposed India’s bluff. As China crossed
over the borders of Indian-held Ladakh, claiming important vantage points
in Pangong Lake and the Galwan Valley, there has been no real resistance
or counter from India. In the aftermath, Nepal has also claimed territory
within the Indian boundary. Making matters worse for India, Chinese have
continued to expand their influence (and military presence) across the
Indian Ocean (including Gwadar), with no real challenge or interference
from India. In fact, many areas close to India (e.g. in Sri Lanka) are places
where the Chinese have made long-term investments, and exercise
control that can result in a blockade of the Indian Navy. And all attempts
by India to involve its coalition partners from the Quad (i.e. United States,
Australia, and Japan) have fallen on deaf ears.
In this new and dynamic regional/global environment, Pakistan must take
proactive steps to claim its space. And the NSP is an important step in this
regard.
The real challenges, however, still lie ahead. The most important of which
will be Pakistan’s resolve to implement what it has articulated in the NSP.
And for this, our State institutions and political operatives must set aside
petty quibbles, and (together) grasp the reigns of tomorrow.
