Editorial: Parliament began a discussion of Pakistans security situation yesterday even as President Asif Ali Zardari signed eleven agreements in Beijing mainly relating to the countrys economy. The finance adviser, Mr Shaukat Tareen, returned from his tour abroad Wednesday after telling Pakistans friends that they had to do more to buttress an economy that was sustaining economic losses in its war against terrorism. Talks with India are also on the cards over the Chenab waters that Pakistan is allegedly losing to the Baglihar Dam. And there is an unprecedented nation-wide 12-hour load shedding going on in Pakistan that is bound to hurt whatever remains of the industrial sector.
Parliament hopefully will concentrate its mind as well as that of the people of Pakistan on what security should mean in the given circumstances. There is always the traditional way of linking the economy to preparedness for war which can be leaned on to confuse the debate. Military ineptness will be brought up again and again which will be deemed a consequence of following a wrong policy on terrorism. This means that no effort might be made to separate the disorder caused by terrorism from the economy as a pragmatic solution to the crisis. Should we say: sort out the Tribal Areas by declaring a ceasefire first and then look for economic solutions? Or should we look for ways to buttress the economy the best we can while we deal with the long-term problem of terrorism?
Security today is clearly linked to the economy. People are suffering because of an economic turndown that has little to do directly with terrorism even though there is certainly some economic fallout from it in some sectors. In the past, when we did not have terrorism to contend with, the trend in Pakistan was to link national security to military preparedness and that meant a kind of arms race with India. Even in the worst of economic times, our defence budgets remained steady and at times threatened the economy by becoming too large a part of the GDP. Even as Al Qaeda and the Taliban threaten us today we are adhering to the programme of nuclear deterrence by testing our delivery system. The irony becomes unbearable when the army maintained by us at great expense takes up the task of deterring the terrorists inside Pakistan and is asked by some politicians to relent and seek other foes such as the US and India.
As never before in our history, national security is linked to economic survival. It has to be addressed even when terrorism is rampant. The compulsion of enhancing the countrys capacity to produce electricity has nothing to with what is happening in the Tribal Areas, and our energy crunch will not be sorted out by a ceasefire. What is needed are funds to steady the economy that is less able than Indias, for instance, to withstand the shocks being delivered by the global economic crisis. We need investments in Pakistan at a time when local investors have either abstained or run away because of the law and order situation and lack of infrastructure facilities like water and power. Yes, investments are being made in the world in areas which are prone to unrest and violence but where opportunities of investments do exist.
The agreements signed in China point to the direction in which we should move. We have to defuse tensions with neighbours alienated by our earlier perceptions of national security. The recent visit of the Iranian foreign minister reminded us that we have a crucial fence to mend on our western border. Together with China and India, Iran is in a position to invest in Pakistan during these tough times. The special conditions of trade and investment that we have agreed in Beijing will have to apply to anyone who is willing to come to Pakistan at a time when no one else from our traditional partners is. These are the neighbours that have been linked to our military security in the past; a new economic relationship will remove the old paradigm of fear that has not worked as policy and has in fact brought terrorism into Pakistan. If change cannot come in normal times, let it come at a time of adversity.
Let us redefine national interest mainly in economic terms and not list troublesome items like the Kashmir cause and nuclear deterrence in the short-term the policy agenda of the state. Both have been rejected by the world because of the linkage seen between the two during the Kargil Operation in 1999. Both presume that Pakistan is economically surplus and has attained the status of a regional hegemon with the capacity to change the status quo. The jihadis of Kashmir are today fighting alongside Al Qaeda against our army, and Dr AQ Khan has to be protected against international inquiry into his past activities as a proliferater. For Pakistan to appear worth investing in at the forthcoming Friends of Pakistan forum in Dubai, our parliament must focus on the economy as security and be willing to give it the priority it deserves.
