Need for an integrated approach for survival in a global world
When it comes to creating a National Security Policy (NSP), which means collective and individual self-defence, we need to be crystal clear as such a document not only reflects government’s resolve to ensure internal security for its citizens but is also an image building instrument in the global world. Though a commendable effort, the 11-page document on Pakistan’s first ever NSP needs to be looked into objectively for it to be amended and recommended as our stance against internal security hazards.
What needs to be kept in mind is that the NSP is usually a comprehensive document which not only presents threat perceptions, but also presents an integrated approach to countering security hazards within the borders. Since NSP is superior to all other security policies e.g., military doctrine/strategy, or strategies of any other security related organisations, therefore it has to structure clear policy guidelines for all security agencies or departments to avoid repetition and clash. The important point to be considered is that every agency has its own defined role; however, none can be overridden or preyed on. While only the executive can have all the information coming from various sources, yet the experts should define a clear stance of the government in NSP which need to be practically implemented by respective security departments/agencies, meaning one needs to be quite an expert in the field to achieve this.
Another thing which needs to be taken care of is that there is a thin line between a ‘republic’ and a ‘national security state’, and Pakistan has a high probability to transform into a ‘security state’ from a ‘republic’ if one sees the present 11-page document. There are four arguments that can be presented for Pakistan’s vulnerability to become a potential security state: one, having unresolved Kashmir issue, Balochistan and Karachi security problems, Shia-Sunni clash, and spill-over effect of the on-going war in Afghanistan.
Our past history of wars with the neighbouring India and military strategy which focused on external border threats and infiltration through porous borders, have raised the threat perception to significantly higher levels, making military and bureaucracy security conscious with a need to avoid trauma and trouble at any cost. Unfortunately since our military has a tendency to step in, invited or uninvited, as a saviour, there should be a mechanism to take them on board before finalising the document as an effort to keep them a mile away from democratic process.
We also have a history of economic depression, migration, population boom and joblessness which while providing breeding grounds for criminal activity and prospective future induction grounds for criminals, funded either from inside or abroad, is a constant headache. The martial laws have actually been quite successfully used as a tool to ensure public order, introduce reforms and counter any revolutionary movements both in parliament and in public in the past, and martial law being an instrument of security state stays at the back of our mind always.
Keeping in mind the arguments for the sake of democracy, the whole concept of internal security needs an overhauling where winning wars should not be associated with deployment of troops/police force but incorporating the concept of winning hearts and minds, and where society as a whole participates in ensuring implementation of internal security strategy. Our state, bureaucracy and military unfortunately still seem to be hostage to the old Big Brother responsibility syndrome where they need to take care of the situation on their own, which will in the end put all the blame on them for any failure.
The NSP document seems to focus on terrorism as the only internal security hazard, which is actually just a small component of the national internal security plan. It has created another powerful organisation by the name of NACTA, which already existed, and an army of elite force to handle any bad thing happening or likely to happen in the whole country. The document is a repetitive expression of four words over and over again: extremism, sectarianism, terrorism and militancy, which sound a bit heavy after a while, as these four words present just one aspect of the national security but not the holistic internal security scene in Pakistan. Such rhetoric indicates lack of depth into security related issues along with creating an impression as if an organisation’s job description was being written to suit certain experts’ definition of what it should be.
Another sentence defined NACTA’s role as designing a programme for de-radicalisation of society, along with starting a dialogue with leading stakeholders that include media, religious leaders, intelligentsia, educational institutions to ‘strengthen democratic values of tolerance and diversity in society’. Are we in the making of another political wing of ISI to mould society’s behaviour by propaganda and mind changing techniques? And if yes, why invent the wheel? Just fund the ISI; they are more experienced and already blamed for it. It’s this aspect which made interior minister say on TV that they had no plans to put ISI under NACTA. It’s like killing the idea of NACTA before it has even blossomed, and though NACTA is the need of time, the name suggests the need to focus on counterterrorism as a specialised authority and not on political or social aspects of internal security matters.
NACTA should start functioning immediately with real focus on counterterrorism alone, conducting indigenous research to provide unbiased security analysis, both factual and predictive, along with focusing on making a culturally viable counterterrorism strategy involving media and general masses in guidance of already existing security organisations. Making a counterterrorism strategy will again be one hell of a task as countering terrorism will take much more than raising pickets; it’s a war against ideology and you can’t kill a bacteria with anti-viral medication.
The present document should be amended. The PM needs a team that could prepare policies without bias so that emphasis is not on inventing the wheel but strengthening the already existing institutions, which would not only be politically wise but economically sustainable.
It is needless to say that countering asymmetrical security threats like terrorism, cyber security risks, uncontrolled mass migration due to armed conflicts, kachi abadis, and disruption of flow of information are just few of the risks in the new world which need joint efforts and not an isolated one. Another wise step would be to keep joint intelligence directorate directly under the PM and shared with NACTA on matters of counterterrorism as intelligence is not simply countering terrorism alone.
