KARACHI: War against Afghanistan may increase internal threat
By Our Reporter
KARACHI, Oct 10: The current allied campaign against Afghanistan is expected to extend over next six months until next spring, having far reaching consequences for the region.
This was said by security analyst Dr Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha, while speaking at ZABIST on “Security in South Asia-need for security sector reforms.”
“The necessary disengagement has not taken place. In fact, the turbulence in Afghanistan would continue for a while with some of the chaos seeping into South Asia as well. The military operation recently launched by the US and Britain is likely to continue for another six months until spring when the Northern Alliance is able to consolidate its position”, said Dr Ayesha.
The change of government in Kabul would not ensure the end of chaos that would continue for some years, she said adding that after all the society that was taught militancy for over 15 years could not be forced to unlearn its lessons in a day.
Meanwhile, she said, the continued availability of weapons of civilian destruction would not allow any improvement in the political climate of South Asia.
“Since the focus of the international community regarding terrorism seems quite limited at the moment, one does not see changes in countries like Sri Lanka where a conflict is exacerbated by the continues flow of weapons from external sources”.
She was of the view that the current situation would lead to intensification of internal threat that would be compounded by deliberate weaponization of non-state actors. She did not rule out the possibility of increase in ethnic troubles in the coming days.
Dr Ayesha stressed that Pakistan needed to change the definition of its threat perception and focus on the equipment acquisition needed to combat threat of insurgency.”It is vital to cut down non-military activities to maintain the professional capability”.
Dr Ayesha felt that we were spending far more on security from external threat and that there was lack of democratisation in defence policy making, lack of transparency and the major stake holders, i,e. the general public, was not taken into confidence.
She also dealt at length with the traditional animosity between Pakistan and India and their threat perceptions, each accusing the other. In this context she discussed Kashmir and the problems in Assam and Tamil problem.
The availability of small arms and light weapons compounded with the deliberate policy of encouraging the growth of militant groups in the country had increased insecurity tenfold, said the analyst and observed that the policy adopted during the days of General Ziaul Haq and the Afghan crisis had lead to a rise in religious extremism that would certainly intensify problems for Pakistan, especially in the current situation.
She said one apprehension was that the recent situation would increase the existing levels of extremism that would be dangerous for the state; over the past 15 years the number of militants had increased to about 2 million. After the signing of the Geneva accords, the number of trained militants was around 1,007,000. Given the peculiar bearing of Pakistan’s defence strategy the numbers increased. The militants operating in Pakistan were in addition to millions of Afghan people living in the country.
“Although not all Afghans can be termed as a security threat, their presence and free movement in the country that was encouraged by General Zia does add to the complexity of the security environment. Not to mention that ethnic cleavages will deepen in the current situation,” she observed.
Furthermore, she said, one of the emerging threats related to the power acquired by non-state actors in the last 15 years that they were willing to use in order to pursue their particular political objectives; having a different vision of the kind of political system that they wanted to see applied in the country.
“Unfortunately, the continued bad governance and lack of faith in the political or electoral system has convinced these actors that they need to use violent and coercive means to attain any forth of political control. The increase in religious militancy, the penetration of religious extremism in secular institutions in the country and the rise in ethnic and sectarian violence are signs of tension within the society. This is a far greater threat for which the policy makers and the armed forces are not prepared” said Dr Ayesha adding that “unfortunately, policy makers tend to see the situation as an extension of the external threat.
She said that according to one estimate, there were about 18 million small arms and light weapons floating in South Asia a substantial number of which transited through or were in Pakistan.
“Despite the government’s de-weaponization program, almost 90 per cent of the illegal weapons are still with non-state actors. These hidden weapons arsenals would contribute towards increasing levels of threat from internal sources”- “At this juncture it is not difficult to predict one of the likely outcomes of the present international crisis - deepening and intensification of internal threat in South Asia. The deliberate empowerment of non-state actors and the free availability of weapons compounded with a growing chasm between the goals of various societal actors could possibly lead to an increase in threat to most states in the region”, she said.
She said contrary to the views that low-intensity conflict would come to an end in the region, the situation was likely to remain constant with perhaps some changes in the mode of operations. “In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that a change is about to take place in the foreign or defence policies of regional and extra-regional states, that minimises the role of non-state actors”, she added.
Dr Ayesha dealt with the structure of defence planning at all levels (strategic, operational and tactical) and said the armed forces in the region were geared towards external threat.
She said that according to the US State Department estimates, South Asia’s defence spending during the period from 1993-97 grew at a rate of 6.8 percent; the arms imports growth rate for this period was seven percent (world total 4.1 percent).
She said that despite the huge investment in the armed forces or defence capabilities, the threat situation had not undergone a substantial improvement.
She observed that India had spent approximately US $ 160 billion on defence since 1984; this expenditure did not include resources spent on non-conventional defence. “Even with this huge budgetary allocation,” she added, “New Delhi has not been able to attain a two-front capability”.
The Kargil crisis, she maintained, further exposed the inefficiency of its nuclear deterrence as a factor that would enhance India’s military capability versus the enemy.
