OPINION Vol.1, No.1 June 2013 - National Defence University

Spatial Level
International Systems
International Subsystems
Political Units
Subunits
Individual
Examples
Economic, financial, aerospace, maritime systems, etc
Regions with distinct social dynamics like geographical
Europe or political EU
States, nations, organized religions, etc
Political parties, states’ bureaucracies, pressure groups,
interest groups, etc
Human beings considered individually, with or without
significance as political actors
Traditional security generally focuses on first two levels, wherein, realism places great emphasis
on militaries in its approach to world politics while liberalism emphasizes on economic interdependence
and prevalence of democracy in international society to explain the phenomenon of war and peace. It is
argued that because human security aims to place the analysis at the individual level while widening the
threat spectrum, it results in twofold disadvantage; lack of focus on collective political units and failure in
identification of those vulnerabilities that need to be ‘securitized’. Thus, in Cunha’s opinion, challenge lies
in connecting Human Security (of the individual) with National Security (of the State) without trampling
over Traditional Security Studies.
Intellectually, Pakistan has made some progress in steering its national security discourse towards
a comprehensive framework. As an example, a nongovernmental panel of Pakistan Ex-Servicemen
Association led by Admiral (Retd) Fasih Bokhari suggested a national security policy for Pakistan, Peace
at Home and Peace Abroad, in October 2011. After criticizing earlier manner of defining national security
in Pakistan as “the integrity of the national territory and its institutions” as given by Morgenthau in Politics
among Nations, they argued that secure nations have tended to accept Arnold Wolfers “absence of threats
to acquired values” as a more wholesome classification. This definition, the panel argued, “emphasizes
values that enable us to overcome risk from poverty, hunger, and from poor and unequal educational and
job opportunities”. It emphasized freedom from risk of internal and external threats to values and
highlighted the dangers emanating from absence of a well defined ‘common identity or purpose’.
This concept has obviously been under intense debate in our strategic discourse since long and
cannot be termed as conclusive. Our strategic culture remained tilted towards the realist, state security
paradigm, owing to legacies of insecurity. Over the course of our history, this led to abysmal neglect of the
human security paradigm to a degree that the state has become more insecure from within than from
without.
Pakistan’s national security approach stands at strategic crossroads. However, rather than seeing it
as ‘either-or’ dilemma, it will be useful to adopt an integrative approach, but with priority to human
security. External threats need to be managed by way of diplomacy, deterrence, co-opting approaches and
getting mainstreamed in a globalized world by reinvigorating our core values. We need to focus on good
governance as the single most important precept of human security. The ‘guns versus butter’ dilemma is
not as serious for us as the irony of poor administration of potential resources versus requirement of their
humane utilization. We ought to focus upon building the much needed human institutions and skills
through human empowerment. Thucydides’ trinity of fear, honour and interest needs to be rationalized in
the national security calculus for better economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and
political security of individuals in Pakistan, within safe internal and external frontiers.
Endnote
Mahbub ul Haq, Reflections on Human Development (New York: OUP, 1995), 4.
1 Mahbub ul Haq et al., UNDP Human Development Report 1994 (New York: OUP, 1994), 22.
2 Sadako Ogata et al., Human Security Now (New York: Commission on Human Security, 2003), 10
OPINION Vol.1 No.1 142 June 2013