In the first of a two-part series, the NSP’s promises on the economy, security, India and terrorism are dissected through a critical lens
Seven years of “rigorous analysis and consultation”; over 600 academics, civil society members, students consulted; inputs taken from civilian and military stakeholders; independent experts engaged in multiple rounds of consultation—all this to produce a National Security Policy that a think-tank intern, armed with nothing more than good Googling skills, a flair for jargon and politically-correct hackneyed phrases, and an ability to cut, paste, and collate different elements, could write in under seven days. For anyone to call this anodyne and unimaginative document—which contains no new ideas, floats no new or exciting concept, reflects no fresh thinking, breaks no new ground, indicates no change in the ruling paradigm of Pakistan—a “historic achievement”, is nothing but a travesty.
The NSP 2022-26 is suffused with rehashed ideas like the “Islamic welfare state”, “regional connectivity”, “shared prosperity”, “human security”; borrowed concepts like “unity in diversity”; and glib terms that strike a resonance, especially in the West, including “melting pot for global economic interests”—that are fitted in the context of Pakistan projecting an image of a country that is breaking with its sordid past and forging a new path for itself. But, the fact is, when you cut through the verbiage, and the use of too-clever-by-half turns of phrase—“We are interested in providing economic bases, not military bases”—there is nothing new or novel, and nothing that signals any change on the ground, in this ‘new’ National Security Policy. It is, therefore, at, best a superficial enunciation of desires and aspirations with no clarity on how to achieve these vaulting objectives. Perhaps, that bit is in the classified portion of the NSP. But if the public document is anything to go by, it is unlikely that the classified portion has anything even closely resembling a policy, let alone the building blocks and the roadmap underlying the purported policy.
The sovereignty slogan sounds hollow considering the alacrity with which the current dispensation has bulldozed the bill making the State Bank of Pakistan completely autonomous under the diktat of the International Monetary Fund.
The NSP opens with a message from Prime Minister Imran Khan, who talks of “bold visions and big ideas”, neither of which are present in the document. He then declares that the NSP “centres on my government’s vision, which believes that the security of Pakistan rests in the security of its citizens. This citizen-centric approach to national security prioritises national cohesion and the prosperity of people, while guaranteeing fundamental rights and social justice without discrimination.” But this is laughable because the Imran Khan regime is actually a negation of all these values, as is his proclaimed desire to achieve the full potential of people through, “delivery-based good governance through strengthening of institutions, rule of law, transparency, accountability, and openness.”
The fact is that his hybrid regime has undermined institutions—he has politicised the army and his ministers have threatened to burn down the Election Commission; rule of law is non-existent—the Sahiwal encounter and repeated instances of enforced disappearances stand testimony to that fact, as does the extra constitutional authority exercised by the first husband of his third wife; claims of transparency were exposed to be false when Imran Khan tried to block release on information on gifts received as head of government because he is alleged to have sold off an expensive watch gifted by the Saudis and pocketed the money; and accountability has become a euphemism for political victimisation of opponents. No surprise then, that the main opposition party, Pakistan Muslim League–Nawaz (PMLN) has already debunked the NSP and made it clear that they don’t subscribe to it.
The national security framework in the NSP states that, “Pakistan is committed to safeguarding its sovereignty in all its manifestations by ensuring national cohesion and harmony, preserving territorial integrity, enhancing economic independence, and ensuring the writ of the state.” But this very same regime has compromised the writ of the state with its abject surrender before the Tehrik-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) just a few months back. As for economic independence, it is a little rich coming from a regime that has been surviving on foreign loans for budgetary support. The sovereignty slogan sounds hollow considering the alacrity with which the current dispensation has bulldozed the bill making the State Bank of Pakistan completely autonomous under the diktat of the International Monetary Fund.
Economic security has been placed as the “core element of national security”. But the ‘policy objective’ is just so trite: To join the ranks of “upper middle-income countries by focusing on enhanced productivity, investment, and savings, addressing the external imbalance, and astute fiscal management.” What the NSP doesn’t lay out is how Pakistan will enhance productivity, generate savings, promote investment, practise fiscal prudence and address the external imbalance. The section on economics lists external imbalance, horizontal inequalities (between regions) and vertical inequalities (between different classes) as the three challenges to national security. But the prescriptions offered are typical high school textbook—correct the current account deficit through export growth, attract foreign direct investment, increase remittances, and ensure fiscal deficit is kept in check.
The mismanagement of the economy—high inflation, low growth, shortages of energy and other essentials, joblessness, and skyrocketing tariffs on fuel and energy—have actually raised economic distress levels to unbearable levels.
Vertical inequalities are sought to be addressed by “preventing elite capture of policy, removing barriers and expanding opportunities for low income households.” All very nice, except for the fact that under the Imran Khan dispensation, ‘elite capture’ has only gotten further strengthened with favours being doled out to cronies, especially those involved in the real estate business. The mismanagement of the economy—high inflation, low growth, shortages of energy and other essentials, joblessness, and skyrocketing tariffs on fuel and energy—have actually raised economic distress levels to unbearable levels. Imran Khan’s idea of expanding opportunities is to give the poor a hen or a calf or free langar, night shelters, etc.
The lack of imagination and bias of the ruling Punjabi elite is even more manifest on why they think horizontal inequalities need to be addressed. Instead of saying that the acute regional disparities fuel grievances in the deprived and exploited regions like Balochistan, the NSP seems to believe that the problem really lies in how these disparities “have been used by sub-nationalist elements to generate a narrative of grievance”. The solution offered—economic packages—has been done to death in the past. If NSP was a serious document, it would have gone beyond these packages that just haven’t worked. On the contrary, it is doubling down on the same old failed policy.
Geoeconomics is, of course, the new buzzword that the National Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf has introduced in the Pakistani strategic lexicon. But from a time when geoeconomics was supposed to drive geopolitical and geo-strategic imperatives, to the NSP where geoeconomics only supplements the focus on geostrategy, there has been a somewhat nuanced shift, something that the old, reconstructed legion of ex-servicemen in their new avatar of ‘strategic analysts’ had been labouring on. The NSP only regurgitates the oft-heard claims of “Pakistan's prized geoeconomic location”, which provides “north-south and east-west connectivity for South and Central Asia, Middle-East and Africa”. It also admits that “Westward connectivity is also a significant driver for Pakistan’s continued push for regional peace and stability in Afghanistan.” The foreign policy section says this with even more clarity: “Afghanistan’s potential as a gateway for economic connectivity with Central Asian states is a key driver for Pakistan's support for peace in Afghanistan.” This has been one of Pakistan’s dreams since the collapse of the Soviet Union and emergence of the Central Asian states in the early 1990s.
The NSP only regurgitates the oft-heard claims of “Pakistan's prized geoeconomic location”, which provides “north-south and east-west connectivity for South and Central Asia, Middle-East and Africa”.
Pakistan has wanted to control and dominate Afghanistan to serve as the trade and transit hub for Central Asia. The only difference is that this ambition is now couched in the new jargon of connectivity and geoeconomics. The thing is that the location advantage never had any real economic utility, only strategic—first in the context of the USSR and then in the context of Afghanistan. The geoeconomic aspect of this location is relevant only in the context of India, without which Pakistan is a bridge to nowhere. After all, without India, South Asia doesn’t really matter in an economic sense. But Pakistan has itself severed all links with India in a knee jerk reaction to the constitutional reforms in Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.
Watch this space for Part 2 of the series that looks into the NSP’s promises on security, Kashmir and India, and the rivalry between the US and China
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Sushant Sareen is Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation. His published works include: Balochistan: Forgotten War, Forsaken People (Monograph, 2017) Corridor Calculus: China-Pakistan Economic Corridor & China’s comprador ...
Read More +
PREV
