Security crisis in Pakistan

0
262

News of Pentagon not paying Pakistan $300 million as reimbursements through the Coalition Support Fund for its role in war against terror should be a wake-up call for Pakistan and a moment of deep introspection. The refusal to pay $300 million was because US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter did not tell Congress that sufficient action was being taken by Pakistan against the Haqqani network. Previously, Advisor to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz had said that Pakistan is wary of a “blowback” if it moved too fast against militants, implying that Pakistan had to consider its limitations when making these policy decisions. While there is nothing wrong in going about the operation against militants in a systematic manner and sequencing it in a way that would make it effective, nevertheless, the state needs to realise that it is responsible for the difficult position it finds itself in right now. And as Pakistan’s name continues to be associated with militancy and terrorism, it must appear sincere in its efforts to eliminate this menace without distinction for groups that carry out activities outside it so that it can shed this negative image.

The military establishment has shown certitude in its fight against terrorism and many soldiers have embraced martyrdom in this fight. Moreover, the people of Pakistan have suffered a great deal from it, and not just in terms of violence and deaths, but also in terms of poverty and economic underdevelopment. Terrorism has impeded economic growth by preventing free mobility of labour as foreigners are reluctant to come to Pakistan or even invest here. Tourism, which could have been a booming industry in Pakistan, has not been able to develop on an international scale because of the tenuous security situation in the country. Facing crippling energy crisis, rampant illiteracy, and abysmal healthcare facilities, the state has to divert scarce resources to this costly fight, and continue to beef up its security apparatus.
All of this is not to say that funding for the fight against terrorism in Pakistan must be reduced as the country is indeed in a very grave situation and this fight needs to be continued. However, what must be mulled over is the past policies that led to this juncture. All those great games that were played by certain actors in the avenues of power, which were far grander than could be managed, have ultimately and ironically led to this security crisis. While it would be naïve to say that Pakistan did not face threats from external forces, whether they were in the form of support for ethnic independent movements or a crisis of isolation in the wake of reduced geopolitical significance, but an overwhelming fixation on these issues has led to the preponderance of looking at everything from a securitisation lens. And this has resulted in excessive spending on defence and neglect on economic development so much so that the military’s shopping list can only be serviced by foreign aid.
Now Pakistan must navigate itself out of the cycle of dependency that it has fallen victim to. Relations with the United States have been tense ever since the cancellation of the F-16 deal, and while there is much resentment in Pakistan over it, Pakistan cannot to afford to diplomatically isolate itself from the US. In any case, Pakistan-US relationship has historically been one of vested interests, in which both were aware of being used by the other for their own objectives. For example, during the 1960s the US was aware that Pakistan was using its military aid not for the purpose of containing communism but to equip itself in case of a possible war with India, but the US continued to provide aid since it needed an ally in the region. Hence, wise choices need to be made now that would serve Pakistan’s interests and space should not be given to impetuous decisions informed by a false sense of jingoism. Simultaneously, foreign support, which in the present case is in the form China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), must not be the sole basis of development, and Pakistan should also look inwards and address the underlying structural issues that have for long prevented from embarking on the course of peace and prosperity.
Only Pakistan can change its destiny and for that it has be to be very smart about the choices that it makes. Starting now.

The positive role of SAARC

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif addressed the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Interior Ministers Summit held in Islamabad, and called for joint efforts to curb regional challenges such as terrorism. Furthermore, he also stressed upon promoting ties amongst member states for the goodwill of the region. This is indeed a positive statement in light of recent issues and tensions amongst certain member states especially Pakistan and India over Kashmir and alleged cross-border terrorism. However, the interior minister of Pakistan and home minister of India notably chose to ignore each other, levelled accusations on each other’s states and even refused to shake hands.
Ever since the Modi-led government came to power in May 2014, relations between the two states have largely remained frosty despite efforts to mend them. Moreover, Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan and Bangladesh have also deteriorated to a large extent owing to multiple factors that include a systematic blame-game on fomenting terrorism and the controversy surrounding Bangladesh’s questionable war crimes tribunal on the 1971 war. The Bangladeshi government also chose not to send its interior minister and instead sent a secretary level delegation to mark its presence at the summit.
Nevertheless, there was some considerable progress on the future course of action being devised on SAARC’s integration policies. Discussions and proposals on SAARC Visa Exemptions (SVEs), counter-terrorism, drug smuggling and human trafficking were held at proceedings of the summit. The potential introduction of SVEs would make it easier for government officials, businessmen and artists to easily shuttle between SAARC member states without any hindrance.
Unfortunately, such ambitious proposals may not see the light of the day, as the environment is not feasible due to simmering rivalries within the bloc. The onus largely lies on the bloc’s two most vocal and powerful states, Pakistan and India, to devise plans for ensuring long-term peace and stability. These countries need to resolve their key issues in a friendly manner for SAARC to realise its true potential without getting selective or pursuing one-point agendas. The frosty environment witnessed at the Islamabad interior ministers summit was reminiscent of what initially happened at the Kathmandu summit in November 2014 when Prime Minister Sharif and Prime Minister Modi ignored each other. It was only after the Nepalese leadership intervened to break the ice — so to speak — that the two leaders shook hands.
Other member states such as Maldives and Sri Lanka that largely enjoy good relations with other SAARC members should push for collective efforts in pursuing regional stability. Once that is achieved, the regional bloc would have the potential to follow the footsteps of the European Union (EU), which has emerged as a shining example of a supranational trading bloc. Such efforts take years for implementation, which the EU managed to achieve within 36 years of forming the European Economic Community that was established under the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Certain member states should learn from the EU for achieving peace after two disastrous world wars in the former half of the 20th century. Hence, it is hoped that SAARC manages to achieve similar goals in order to promote lasting peace in the volatile region.