Sajjad Malik
Wednesday, December 21, 2011

National security is a comprehensive concept covering various subsets of security, including its military aspect. It was traditionally considered very important due to its actual and perceived potential to ward off foreign aggressions and safeguard the territorial integrity of a state. According to Emil J Kirchner and James Sperling, the concept of security can be defined in different ways where the main definitions highlight military defence (security from war and peace), political security (security from extreme political oppression and persecution), economic security (security from hunger and deprivation), social and cultural security (cultural and minority rights) and environmental security (security from environmental degradation and disasters). Hans J Morgenthau, renowned scholar of global politics and international relations, gives more a precise and comprehensive overview of security by saying that it means integrity of national territory and institutions.

It shows that geography and territorial integrity are closely linked with other key elements like economic development, social welfare and political stability, and it would be unwise to ignore one aspect of national security for another.

The idea of national security has been in a state of flux in these days. It has come under a lot of pressure due to the emergence of new threats to the states, which obviously cannot be controlled by traditional armies or strategic weapons. Some of these threats can dent the core values of the nation and damage the interests which are considered vital. A number of new threats, like propaganda in the guise of free flow of information, are out of the ambit of the military dimension of security and require non-traditional measures to protect the state’s interests.

Attacks like the Nov 26 airstrikes on the Salala outpost in Mohmand, which killed 24 soldiers, fall in the category of threats to the military security of the country. It can be branded as one of the most serious challenge for any state as it not only endangers the territorial integrity but also questions the military capability to respond to such attacks. Further, it erodes the credibility of the institutions of national importance like the armed forces and intelligence agencies to thwart future incursion by more powerful countries.

Pakistan’s initial angry response to the 26/11 incursions was natural and within the accepted norms of international law. But as time passes the policymakers essentially need to calibrate the reaction, keeping in view the national power of the country. They should know that no matter how lethal the foreign attacks are, they should not be allowed to destabilise the political order and economic system of the country because a state may lose without military power but it cannot without a strong economic and viable political systems.

The serious mistake made by military and political leaders after the Mohmand incident was to whip up public hysteria in order to bring popular pressure on the US and Nato, but they should understand that charged up masses also become a big hurdle to any future talks which ultimately are needed to solve problems on a long-term basis. It would have been wiser to set lower benchmarks to start normalisation of relations with the US, like the vacation of Shamsi airbase and a symbolic month-long closure of supply lines than blocking them for an indefinite period. Similarly, instead of demanding an outright apology and refusal to join a joint probe, Pakistan should have opted for joint investigation by putting some conditions. It would have given more space for diplomatic manoeuvring than boycotting the process. But demanding formal apology has put the country in a blind alley and there may not be many policy options if Washington and Brussels refused to tender apology once their investigations are completed.

The key issue at a stake is the economic health of the country and one wonders if the national leaders made an unbiased analysis of economic realities and whether the country can afford to alienate the US for a longer period of time. It is clear by now that Washington is weighing all options to tame Pakistan and its military which was once considered very pliant. The reported decision by a US congressional panel to freeze $700 million in aid to Pakistan until it gives assurances that it is helping fight terrorism in the region, can be considered as a move to hit Pakistan where it will feel severe pain. The decision is one of many options the US policymakers can think of to bring Pakistan to knees. Bigger actions may follow, like some official saying that Pakistan was harbouring terrorists or that its nuclear weapons were in danger of falling in the hands of rogue elements. Already calls in the US administration and Congress are growing to do something about Pakistan as it had failed to tackle the militants organisations.

We need to do some sombre thinking about the consequences of continuing tension with the US. It is important to realise that Pakistan still needs partnership with the US, not for any heavenly purposes but simply to safeguard Pakistan’s core national interests. If we endangered some of our interests by getting too close to the US, we will also damage some other interests by moving two far from Washington. That is why it is said that neither close friendship with a superpower nor enmity with it is in the national interests of a country. It looks that we are moving from one extreme to another.

It is vital that armed attacks like the Mohmand strikes are not allowed in future but it is even more important that such incidents are handled with utmost care in the larger interests of the country, and they are not allowed to imperil the other vital components of national security, like short- and long-term economic and trade prospects and strategic relations with a number of other developed countries, which can be influenced by the US in their relations with Pakistan.



The writer is senior correspondent for German Press Agency dpa based in Islamabad.

Email: sajjmalik@yahoo.com