FINALLY, the prime minister has appointed a full-time national security adviser. The move was long overdue given Pakistan’s dire internal security and fast-changing geostrategic environment at a time when there is an urgent need for a more coherent strategy to deal with multiple challenges. Although the government had established a national security secretariat, it has never been fully functional. It was indeed hard for Sartaj Aziz to juggle between the two most critical offices of national security and foreign affairs adviser. National security is too serious a matter to be dealt with on a part-time basis

But the choice of a recently retired army general with no experience outside his own institution does not inspire hope of a significant change in approach beyond the narrow defence prism. Surely Lt Gen Nasser Janjua was an able commander and has had sound experience in dealing with a low-intensity insurgency in Balochistan. The current position, however, requires much greater understanding of the broader concept of national security.

The NSA is supposed to not only coordinate with other government departments, but also provide expert and intellectual input guiding foreign and national security, as well as other facets of state policies. The general’s appointment only reinforces the perception of the military’s continuing domination over all spectrums of foreign and security policies.

A major problem is that neither the government nor the military is willing to accept the modern concept of national security and continue to still see it as a purely military matter. The military dimension of national security is, of course, an important component of national security, but it is not the only one. To be truly secure, a nation needs other forms of security. In today’s world, national security encompasses a broad range of facets that include economic, food and environmental security. Security threats involve not only external forces, but also, as in the case of Pakistan, violent non-state actors. Notwithstanding the rhetoric, there is no indication of the government changing its narrow approach. The appointment of a retired general is a clear testimony to that.

Neither the government nor the military is willing to accept the modern concept of national security.

Given the wider spectrum of the national security concept, the position of the NSA is considered a most critical part of the administration in countries such as the United States. Thus we see intellectuals and foreign relations experts like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski being appointed as NSA and not US military generals. No doubt, the United States with a presidential form of government has a totally different system and a comparison may not be valid. But we can at least learn from countries with a parliamentary form of government.

For example, Britain created the office of NSA in 2010 to work closely with the prime minister. He coordinates with intelligence agencies, the foreign office and other relevant departments. The Cameron government has recently appointed Mark Lyall Grant, a seasoned diplomat who served as the country’s envoy at the United Nations and previously as high commissioner to Pakistan, to the post. Surely he comes with immense experience and knowledge of the international situation that helps policy formulation.

India has almost a similar system in place. Traditionally, retired senior diplomats were appointed to this advisory position with the exception of the incumbent Ajit Deval who is a former police and intelligence official. As in Britain, the Indian NSA also heads the country’s National Security Council and coordinates with the intelligence agencies and other departments. A board that includes security and foreign policy analysts, retired diplomats and other officials also advises the NSA. But Pakistan has never had such a tradition. In fact, no government has been serious about making the position of the NSA effective.

Former president Pervez Musharraf revived the National Security Council and appointed a civil bureaucrat and his close friend Tariq Aziz as NSA. Although there were only a few meetings of the council, Aziz carried out back-channel negotiations with successive Indian security advisers. There was no proper establishment under him to make the office effective. Obviously, it was also to do with the fact that it was essentially the military in charge of national security.

The PPP government appointed retired Maj-Gen Mahmud Durrani, a former Pakistan ambassador to Washington, as national security adviser directly reporting to the prime minister. But predictably, he did not last long and was forced to resign after a few months in office for ‘not consulting the prime minister’ while giving statements on Mumbai gunman Ajmal Kasab being a Pakistani national. The office was abolished after Durrani’s unceremonious exit.

Prime Minister Sharif revived the office when he appointed Sartaj Aziz to the post. With his vast experience both as foreign and finance minister in the previous Sharif governments, he was certainly the right choice for NSA. But he never had the full confidence of the prime minister. He was not even invited to some critical meetings directly related to national security. In fact, there has never been any clarity about the NSA’s role. The promised national security policy has never surfaced fully.

A major problem that also affected the working of the NSA is the non-functioning of the Cabinet Committee on National Security, which was formed under the Constitution. Basically, this is a consultative forum of the top military and civilian leadership on strategic matters related to foreign policy and external and internal security. The forum is also supposed to work as a bridge between the civil and military leaderships. But there have been very few meetings of the council in the last two and half years. Instead, the prime minister prefers to directly interact with the army chief on important national and international issues.

There is certainly a need for strengthening the office of the NSA as an effective advisory and coordinating body guiding the government on foreign, internal and external security policies. But, more importantly, there is a need to clearly define our national security imperatives. National security is not confined to defence alone and must not be treated as the sole domain of the military.

The writer is an author and journalist.

Published in Dawn, October 28th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play