Examining the core issues

The word “corps”, meaning an army formation, is sometimes used interchangeably by some with the word “core” – so what should be the Corps Commander’s Conference gets reported as the “Core” Commanders’ Conference – not really significant except that in our environment ‘core commanders’ could take on the connotation of some kind of inner body of what is called the ‘deep state’! Better to stick to the corps commanders – who held their 139th Conference at General Headquarters on Thursday, June 9, 2011 and subsequently the Inter-Services Public Relations Directorate issued a carefully-worded and detailed statement. This statement is important and deserves analysis.
The statement mentions a “perceptual bias” that is driving the virulent outbursts against the armed forces, thereby drawing a distinction between constructive criticism of the acknowledged lapses and the attacks intended to weaken the institution and drive wedges between institutions — something that is specifically mentioned as being undesirable and not in the interest of the country. The military’s support to democracy that has been a constant since the present government was elected, but never before stated, has now been spelt out and that too as support for democracy and not a political party. This implies that the military wants no part in politics and accepts the democratic structure without reservations — as it should.
The statement indicates that the military-to-military relations between the US and Pakistan will be within the overall ambit and context of the bilateral relationship between the two countries and not a separate facet of the country-to-country relationship. The implication being that it is up to the government to determine the contours of this relationship. While clarifying the exact status of US military aid and the amount actually received by the military, the statement indicates that such aid could be utilised for economic purposes thereby giving the government the final word on dissemination of resources to the military as well as reviewing allocations. Going further, the statement clarifies that future military operations would be conducted on the basis of political consensus – the clear implication being that political directives to the military would be translated into military strategy. In this context there is reference to the joint parliamentary resolution of May 14 and also to the proposed national commission for investigating recent events, as something the military accepts and supports. The military had already briefed a parliamentary committee earlier. Without specifically saying so the statement in its reference to the people signifies the military’s acknowledgement that in a democratic dispensation the centre of gravity is in the people and that the military as a national institution is sensitive to public opinion and criticism. There is more. The military has stated that on its part and staying within its sphere, it has asked for a reduction in the US training presence in the country and that its intelligence cooperation with the US would be on the basis of reciprocity and transparency and foreign intelligence agencies should not be operating in Pakistan. Earlier, the Peshawar corps commander had said that “intelligence cooperation (with the US) had been curtailed but not cut-off”. Here too the implication is that it is up to the government to decide the exact extent of cooperation with the US in other spheres. This ties in with the reference to the overall relationship with the US mentioned earlier. The military has a realistic view of the relationship with the US and its importance.
Going further, the ISPR statement in the context of North Waziristan states that the operation in the western border areas is being conducted as a well thought out campaign plan and no pressures could be accepted to deviate from this for a particular action at a particular time. This is something the military has been consistently saying as it is the best judge of overstretch, balance, scale and duration of operations within the overall evolving situation. This, of course, has to be in line with any political directive by the government.
Significantly, the statement urges the people of North Waziristan to evict foreigners and not allow their soil to be used for terrorism elsewhere. This, when considered with the view expressed that the internal security situation is the highest priority, implies that this is something that could be done on a larger scale within the country and the focus could be on those destabilising the country internally, creating vulnerabilities that are being exploited externally. The restricted tone of the statement indicates that the military does not want to overstep bounds even in an advisory capacity. Finally, on drone attacks (recently stepped up by the US) the statement says without ambiguity that the policy needs reconsideration – obviously a reference to the overall negative impact of unilateral action by a foreign nation.
In conclusion it can be said that the ISPR statement has come after some game-changing events within the country and have led to justified outrage. The statement itself could be considered a game-changer because within its carefully constructed structure is the clear indication by the military that it considers itself to be within the overall civilian supremacy that a democratic structure demands. The military has clearly indicated that it has a full understanding of the economic and internal security situation and their linkage with each other. It is inevitable that the military will take a hard inward look to remove weaknesses. It would be wrong to consider this statement as a signal for ill-considered, hasty actions. It would be right to take this as a signal for a future civil military relationship in which the military can strengthen democracy, help in stabilisation and ensure that a nuclear power orchestrates the strength of all its elements of power to present the globalised world with the image of a country that has learnt from its follies and is determined to march forward.

The writer is a former army chief and heads the Spearhead Research Organisation.