Last month, Pakistan released its “so called” aspirational National Security policy document, in which it has attempted to project itself in a new dimension to the external world, by seemingly attempt give itself a new direction in pursuance of its national security objectives and its geopolitical Interests. Although there is no roadmap towards the execution of this policy, this gives us a sense of covert lament and appeal of the Pakistanis to a global audience to save its economic travesty which is well known to everyone. It’s perhaps a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that its highly turbulent internal developments are damaging the external relationships of Pakistan.
The Key points of its national security policy are;
Economy is said to be at the core of the policy, with claims of economic resilience and vibrant economy with a geostrategic location.
It calls for opening up of trade and Investments with India.
Its foreign affairs section has been divided into five parts 1) Afghanistan 2) China 3) Iran 4) India and 5) Rest of the world; interestingly it has placed USA in the rest of the world section.
Kashmir is not to be seen as an impediment to trade with India. But Kashmir would remain a “Vital National Policy”.
Around 50% of the document is classified.
Analyzing the national security document:
This document does not have any clear vision beyond the traditional paradigm of military security, as there is no further policy strategy or indication to be considered this on a serious note. It is a part of an elaborate image building exercise to whitewash the fact that Pakistan is seen as an epicenter of terrorism, or in other words “the mother ship of terrorism”. It can be considered purely as cosmetics and once the true face is unraveled, the Pakistani establishment would continue to escalate the same hostilities towards India and with its continued pursuance of terrorism as a state policy. This is at best a statement of desire, an Ideal that they might be aspiring to achieve, with its economic, political and external situation being under control, which in most likelihood is impossible given its current state of chaotic distress. Moreover if we look at the building blocks of the policy, based on which unrealistic claims that are made, it looks like a shallow swamp in a slippery slope. Perhaps no one in the Pakistani establishment is even faintly aware of an implementation strategy to this policy. One of the cabinet ministers in Pakistan has said that “We have announced the policy right now, but there is no framework for it as of now; and how we are going to achieve the objectives of the policy is unknown”. It is quite evident that Pakistan is facing serious economic compulsions. The series of IMF (International Monitory Fund) bailouts have almost made the regulatory frameworks of the country extremely fragile; currently it has cleared a bill in its parliament that would make the state bank of Pakistan completely autonomous under the diktat of the IMF. In other words Pakistan’s monitory policy is being controlled and regulated by the IMF currently. In fact its Fiscal situation is so bad that even a substantial part of the defence budget is being met through market borrowings through both internal and external sources.
It’s perhaps an irony that as of now, there is no evidence of any real changes in the handling of security and military affairs especially on terrorism and Islamic extremism, where its deep state continues to foster its roots quite firmly. On the contrary, there deep state and intelligence agencies are brokering power sharing in Afghanistan, which as per their national security policy, holds the primary significance towards protecting and safeguarding their strategic interests. In this context it’s important to note that the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, i.e. the Durand line is not accepted by the Afghan Taliban regime and this dispute in most likelihood would be simmering. The Afghanistan-Pakistan issue will continue to have constant friction points, and it would continue to be a terror nuisance in the subcontinent. Yet Pakistan would continue its extraction from Afghanistan to meet its own ends as a negotiating pawn its external affairs.
Interestingly on the issue of Kashmir, this document does not mention the abrogation of Article 370 and 35A to be essential conditions for rebuilding the trade and commerce relationship with India. But it states on a very daunting note that India’s politics is dominated by Hindutva ideology which shows a constant hostility towards Pakistan, and this factor would enforce military options on Pakistan. This situation would compel both the sides to enhance both its traditional and nontraditional dimensions of security. Since Pakistan has made its issues with India into a civilization conflict since its inception, negotiating any long drawn peace strategy would be an oblivious failure. If we try to read between the lines in this document, Pakistan clearly articulates that it follows a policy of zero tolerance towards terrorist activities on its soil, but its utterly silent on the terror camps and training infrastructure that it nurtures, which originates in its soil but has devastating impact on other countries, therefore covertly accepting that the latter is tolerated and even nurtured to its own benefit. In fact it doesn’t talk about reviewing its nuclear deterrence against India in any conflict or war, which keeps the threat of its tactical nuclear weapons quite intact. By continuing to celebrate its initiatives like the controversial Kashmir Solidarity day it has made little or no efforts towards de-escalating its hostilities towards India. If one carefully observes the language of the document, it’s indicative that the hostilities would continue against India. Also since there is no clarity in either its approach or its framework towards India, we cannot ascertain their intent for a normalcy of relationship with India. In the words of Ambassador TCA Raghavan “we must judge Pakistanis by actions and not by mere words”. However for deciding the road ahead, in this chequered relationship, both sides need to have a clarity in their goals and policy objectives that would propel their goals, in order to develop a long and a stable relationship.
The trust deficit with Pakistan especially over its overt statements and policy emanates from its own murky establishment. There is more credence to gossip circles and conspiracy theories in Pakistan, than its official policy statements. Its famously said that “Rumors in Islamabad are nothing but premature facts; sometimes they mature and sometimes they don’t”. This is the reason why we must not be carried away by the eloquence of their jargons but instead search for real substance to ascertain both their national Interest and national security objectives. Its deviant notion of security becomes quite chaotic and a great cause of concern to the whole world because it presumes that its national security is the same as its national interest and the national interest would have a wider implication in its security paradigm and would be central to its military actions. The buss word of ‘Geo-economics’ also seems to serve as a supplicant to furthering the geo-strategic focus of the country. In other words geo-strategy would have primacy over geo-economics. Its statement on Indian ocean region which says, “We don’t like the Idea of any country claiming or becoming the net security provider for the Indian ocean region (with a clear reference to India) ” it proves the significance it attributes to its geo-strategic location, which indicates that Pakistan is punching way above its weight.
Pakistan, by continuation of its human rights violations and crimes against humanity in both Sindh and Baluchistan provinces, has proven the continuation of its past notorious track record. This in itself is a clear sign of policy inconsistency and even state sanctioned malignancy. Pakistan must not make irredentist claims of pursuance of a vital national security policy, without fixing its systemic fault lines. The well known Pakistani journalist Zahid Hussain says “A confused and chaotic foreign policy has complicated Pakistan’s external security challenges amid fast changing regional geopolitical developments”. He also adds that “ most Important is the political will, to take the hard decisions needed to change the policy direction”. He is indirectly pitching the concern that strategic progress would experience major logjams as there is little challenge to the hegemony of the Pakistan’s army. Serious efforts in a positive direction would not take off in the hyper-realpolitik which is practiced and systematically imbibed by the Pakistani establishment.
To sum up there is not much that India or the rest of the world could expect from this “ambitious” national security document, as the status quo would most likely prevail, with the cosmetics of geo-economics and geo-strategy that this document pitches for. Despite this reality, India must observe, engage and involve with Pakistan, both on tactical and strategic fronts. As Shekhar Gupta says India must never get into a mode of “never talk to your adversary, never read their lips and never read anything they publish, especially on their strategic vision”.
Comments
Post a Comment