Pakistan’s security challenges are becoming blustering for its citizens. Previously initiated military operations to counter terrorism-advanced sectarianism caused insecurities nationwide. Both the society and the state institutions are intolerant of each other inducing an urban war situation. Securitization theories help us understand (in)security in Pakistan. They reveal how agents are securitizing insecurities and affecting citizens’ lives. There is a wider trust deficit between the citizens and the state on the definition and classification of security measures. Thus, the recently adopted military strategy, Azm-e-Istehkam, is being tagged as a gateway to resolve political, economic, and social insecurities. But Local resistance mounts as security forces struggle for acceptance. Political parties and certain regions challenge their authority, eroding legitimacy. Efforts to establish control face growing opposition from skeptical communities, creating a complex standoff.
With the advent of a multipolar world order and strategic crises all over the world, international, national, and many other forms of security imperatives are prevailing on global agenda lists. Almost every state in the world, whether it is superpowers like UNSC-5, middle powers (India, Turkey), or developing powers, is facing some sort of security, economic, political, ideological, and social instability. In the Aftermath of 9/11, the whole global society is facing unmeasurable and unprecedented risks that are deteriorating the fabric of global societies. War on terror has positioned reflectivity within local communities and lasted incalculable damages to human development. There is a common factor of fear, distrust, and sensitivity of insecurities against safety measures in suffering communities. Pakistan’s society extremely suffered from these hemorrhage wars and is showing highly resilient behavior in a state of exceptionalism. Pakistan’s security dilemma has transformed into a reflexive security dilemma and emphasizes reflexive security norms.
Pakistan has encompassed enduring security and unprecedented threats since its inception. To understand the intersubjective nature of the term ‘security,’ we need to employ a critical security studies approach to address Pakistan’s critical security challenges, which can be strategic, related to rivalry with India and Afghanistan, or connected to social, economic, and political concerns. Theories of international relations have been a milestone in understanding the shifting nature of security in the 21st century.
Pakistan is facing multifaceted and multidimensional issues, both internal and external. Internal security issues are breaking the fragile governing structure and impacting the robust diplomatic interests of Pakistan. For internal securitization, consecutive security measures have been taken since 2001, ranging from the Wana Operation to Rad ul Fasad, but all these security measures lack security agencies’ coordination, which Bigo called a banopticon, and enough local community affirmations and cooperation. Threats born from tech advancements, like social media and AI-driven deep fakes, target security forces and established governments, creating novel obstacles. Society has developed countermeasures to offset security efforts and pursues actions that erode national progress and harmony.
Critical security studies form a niche within security studies, rooted in a social constructionist approach. It focuses on the construction of security and the subjectivity of threats rather than objectivity and encompasses a variety of theories including feminist, new-Gramscian, post-structuralism, Marxism, and queer theory. defining critical security studies has proven perplexing, like defining the meaning of security. It rejects the conventional way of approaching security questions based on its ground objectives, incorporating individual rationality to examine the meaning of security, and evaluating the ethics and securitization practices while assessing the politics surrounding it. Critical security studies entail three mainstream schools of security studies: the Copenhagen school of thought, the Welsh school of thought, and the Paris school of thought.
When we hear about security in electronic and print media, what comes to mind? The case is similar in both catastrophic events and peaceful circumstances. You may respond to the idea that military, state, and elite forces dominate this security realm perception. It might be the chance to reconsider our security concepts. The people of Pakistan are not alone in the classical understanding of the security paradigm, but most of the prominent theorists of international security and global governance have emphasized the state’s role in constructing and deconstructing the security environment. We know of the work of great realists, Morgenthau, Waltz, and Mearsheimer. However, we have a limited grasp of the work of critical security theorists like Barry Buzan, Didier Bigo, and Keen Booth.
In critical security studies, the most prominent school of thought that aligns with the thoughts of Pakistan’s people is the Copenhagen school of thought. According to it, the term security is intersubjective and it is based on speech act and constructivism theories. Our military and state officials (e.g., political leaders) are the primary factors that label securitization. Securitizing actors shape an issue into national security concerns by viable speech acts and approved legitimization through public empathy and politicization. According to the Copenhagen school of thought, securitizing agents must identify an issue as an existential threat to the country to classify it as a national security concern. Thus, the Copenhagen school emphasizes that political actors frame and articulate the meaning of security in contemporary global politics through institutions’ voices.
The Copenhagen school’s 21st-century security definition has notable gaps. It reflects a traditional view prioritizing state and military power. This narrow focus omits other vital security aspects. There is a lack of clarity in the definition advanced by the Copenhagen school. It does not consider 21st-century security issues, like non-state actors, state actors, the media, technology, and societal insecurities caused by the state. There are three key issues with the Copenhagen school’s definition of security. First, it states that the state could be both a source of security and insecurity, which can hinder state institutions from securitizing against the state. Second, if the assumption of security as described by the Copenhagen school holds, we understand that security encompasses issues that are in state interest and the state holds a monopoly over security construction. Non-state actors function as mere extensions of established governments.
The Copenhagen school has failed to describe the term subjectivity in clear terms, and along with the term subjectivity, it has also failed to describe the reasons why securitizing actors take extraordinary measures and why they construct the matter as a security issue. Therefore, to analyze the (in)securities of people, local communities, and state agencies, one needs a holistic understanding of security. According to the Welsh school of thought, security is the form of including both state and non-state actors and the most vulnerable communities to securitize the issue. But it is also problematic to realize that the sense of security and securitization is open and any actor can securitize a referent object. Pakistan is well-suited within the frame of the Paris school of thought, which has criticized both the Copenhagen and Welsh schools of security. Securitization, fueled by political speeches, yields security and insecurity outcomes. It argues that everyday technology and Weberian routines of rationalization embed securitization.
Didier Bigo has lamented the fact that security is socially constructed and speech acts alone are not adequate in addressing insecurity. Security is not a factor of one-sided labels; rather, it is a correlation between a state and its citizens. In the context of the war on terror, the military justifies its operations as necessary due to the insecurity fostered by citizens of society and other non-state actors in order to establish security. Michael Foucault’s theory of governmentality assists in apprehending the wave of insecurity. According to Foucault, the state adopts policies of panopticon and banopticon to counter-terrorism and organized crime. For the sake of the management of unease, securitizing agents adopt policies of controlling anti-terrorist activities, counter-espionage, information technologies, long-distance systems of surveillance, and maintenance of human activities. The emerging technological threats are compelling the state to adopt panopticon policies. It is discriminatory to label state policies as subject to few areas and people. The government of Pakistan recently implemented policies that are diverse and varied, involving a network of inter-agency cooperation and transnational collaboration. Banopticon yokes three dimensions of security, i.e., exceptionalism, exclusion, and normalization. Anti-terrorism acts and military operations, which we have seen across the globe, are outcomes of these insecurities. The disguising factor of the Paris school of thought is that it not only covers state securitization but also incorporates liberal practices and civilian protection, and prevents human rights violations and forceful displacements.
Reflexive Societal Security Dilemma in Pakistan
Pakistan is not the only state that is suffering from a recurring series of terrorist attacks, hindering the vision of CPEC phase 2 success. Along with political, economic, and strategic security threats to Pakistan, it is facing a mild state of civil war which could be intensified and requires extraordinary measures to counter these emerging instabilities and create societal normality. The war on terror, which emerged after the incident of 9/11, imposed multilayered security concerns and challenged the traditional paradigm of security. The USA implemented domestic measures like the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2005 to curb terrorist activities. It also launched international programs to combat terrorism financing and provided anti-terrorism assistance to curb terrorist activities. But with the rise of the Russia-Ukraine war, the threats of terrorist activities are still hovering. The case study of France, which launched Vigipirate plans to counter terrorism within state boundaries with the help of military institutions, is relevant. By analyzing the French counter-terrorism strategies, military involvement within national boundaries in countering terrorism and introducing surveillance of citizens is not only legitimate in France but also an effective strategy in Pakistan for countering terrorism. The intelligence strategy employed by the government of Pakistan to counter digital terrorism and recurring attacks on Chinese nationals is a burning question in Pakistan and is facing the issue of public legitimacy as well as political opposition on a vast scale. Social media campaigns are proactive, and blustering protests are being conducted by the local people, particularly in the Bannu region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, and in the Gwadar southwestern region of Baluchistan, Pakistan, aimed at sabotaging CPEC.
These theories provide insight into public opinions on security issues and military strategies for coping with emerging threats in Pakistan. Pakistan has been consistent in launching strategic operations, both major and minor, in vulnerable areas. The recently announced counterterrorism military strategy operation Azm-e-Istehkam is part of previously taken measures countering terrorism and other insurgents’ militant groups posing an existential threat to Pakistani residents and Chinese engineers working on the project CPEC. This military operation aims to curb deep-faked propaganda against the military institutions of the state, provide security to Chinese officials, and ensure social stability and security within Pakistan. As public and political parties, to some extent, agree on the aspects of labeling digital terrorism as propaganda by our military institutions. Military officials are projecting the issue of political instability as a national security threat via speeches and extrajudicial measures, as projected by the Copenhagen School of Security Studies. However, it is a biased perception based on allegations due to certain reasons. First, Pakistan’s military is not docking it; instead, Western powers particularly India have been framing perceptions about Pakistan as a terrorist state since the aftermath of 9/11. Second, a wave of inflammatory speeches targets the military, portraying it as a rival power source. This feeling of mistrust causes deep unease in state institutions and beyond. Third, Chinese state officials are feeling insecure in Pakistan, and their investment is shuddering to enter into the second phase of CPEC. So, it is less a state-labeled concern and more non-state entities and other entities that are labeling this threat as a Pakistan national security issue and calling for extrajudicial measures and collaboration of inter-agency operations to tackle it.
The emancipatory act of the Welsh school of thought was also adopted by Pakistan to resolve the issues of local communities with the help of non-state channels. Pakistan called for collaboration efforts by Pakistan and Afghanistan to mitigate threats posed by hideouts of terrorist organizations. During the Doha talks, Pakistan asked Afghan officials to cooperate with us on terrorist insurgencies and organized crimes near border areas to maintain peace in the region, but Afghan officials did not show a pragmatic response to mitigate Pakistan’s insecurities. The much-awaited diplomatic corner with Afghanistan proposed by Pakistan’s security institutions was not proven fruitful in overcoming security challenges. The realist initiatives recently taken by Pakistan’s security forces are blustering; rather, these are steps to maintain diplomatic and strategic relations with friendly countries exclusively with china. Pakistan’s recent military strategy, Azm-e-Istehakam, is not limited to Pakistan’s boundary, but it could escalate to Afghanistan’s soil to wipe out the roots of terrorist hideouts. This strategy is evidence of Pakistan’s serious concerns about dealing with terrorists not only within Pakistan but also to expand its objectives to resolve regional issues for the sake of regional prosperity and economic growth.
The war on terror is still in its place, but the security challenges posed by civilians using social media platforms are increasing day by day. State projection as a security agenda builds on a narrow basis. It overlooks the societal rationalization factor emphasized by the Paris School. The statistics show that about 750 Indian-backed channels across the world have been spreading anti-military hatred content on social media to fragilize its domestic security environment. No doubt, hate speeches and deep-fake agendas are being labeled by military institutions as ‘Digital Terrorism,’ but the implications of using surveillance technologies are to lessen insecurities caused by anti-national extremist individuals, groups, and organizations. Therefore, the accountability of these nontraditional security threats is a pressing issue for Pakistan and requires substantial measures such as monitoring social media. In addition, the ground reality of these surveillance technologies and media handling is not any sort of genie in Pakistan while it is being adopted and implemented in many global states including the USA, China, Russia, Turkey, France, and Germany. Thus, we can consider Pakistan’s robust strategy Azm-e-Istehkam as a strong and strategic initiative to address both non-traditional and traditional security challenges and to move towards stability in Pakistan.
In a nutshell, the term security is transparent to describe and change with the nature of threats imposed by society on the state and vice versa. a critical robust understanding of security is the need of the hour to adapt and implement. society has to recognize the nature of threats to national development and provide collective affirmations to security measures, and state institutions have to consider human rights preservation while pushing up security measures towards societies. what awaiting ahead is public institutions’ cooperation to wipe out terrorism’s curse from society and standardized national image to hunt economic welfare.
Be the first to comment