Introduction of Security:

The term security is frequently used both in financial and political world. In finance it refers to a
financial instrument that represents: an ownership position in a publicly-traded corporation (stock),
a creditor relationship with governmental body or a corporation (bond), or rights to ownership as
represented by an option while in politics it refers to the safety of the state from deteriorating
actions of another State, organization or any other person.
Definition of Security:
The safety of a state or organization against criminal activity such as terrorism, theft, or espionage.
(Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary)
Security is the degree of resistance to, or protection from, harm. It applies to any vulnerable and valuable
asset, such as a person, dwelling, community, nation, or organization.

National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliament(s), should protect the
state and its citizens against all kind of "national" crises through a variety of power projections,
such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on.

The concept developed mostly in the United States after World War II. Initially focusing on
military might, it now encompasses a broad range of facets, all of which impinge on the non-
military or economic security of the nation and the values espoused by the national society.
Accordingly, in order to possess national security, a nation needs to possess economic security,
energy security, environmental security, etc.

Types of Security:

National security (NS) is protection of a state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity from
external military attack.
Non-traditional security (NTS) is protection of a state’s institutions and governing capacity
from non-military threats.
Comprehensive security: is combination of national security and non-traditional security.
Collective Security is one type of coalition building strategy in which a group of nations agree
not to attack each other and to defend each other against an attack from one of the others, if such
an attack is made.
Human security is people’s freedom from fear, want and indignity caused by domestic and/or
externally sources.
Common Security is security with (as opposed to security against) a potential or actual
adversary realized through transparency, mutual confidence and conflict resolution measures and
mechanisms.
Cooperative Security: Asia-Pacific rendering (localization) of common security (minus human
rights)
Homeland security: internal security measures against terrorism.
Introduction of National Interest:
The concept of the national interest is used in both political analysis and political action. As an
analytic tool, it is employed to describe, explain, or evaluate the sources or the adequacy of a
nation’s foreign policy. As an instrument of political action, it serves as a means of justifying,
denouncing, or proposing policies. Both usages, in other words, refer to what is best for a national
society. They also share a tendency to confine the intended meaning to what is best for a nation in
foreign affairs.
Definition of National Interest:
The national interest, often referred to by the French expression raison d’état ("reason of State"),
is a country's goals and ambitions whether economic, military, or cultural. The concept is an
important one in international relations where pursuit of the national interest is the foundation of
the realist school.
In early human history the national interest was usually viewed as secondary to that of religion or
morality. To engage in a war rulers needed to justify the action in these contexts. The first thinker
to advocate for the primacy of the national interest is usually considered to be Niccolò Machiavelli.
Who Decide about National Interest in Pakistan?
Our Ex-Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani says no one and no institution should singly
decide what Pakistan’s national interest is to be. In other words, a national consensus has to be
developed on the subject before it becomes a policy plank. In Pakistan, it is the army that decides
strategy. The other institutions, like the government, simply adjust to it.
Two questions arise: (i) Is there an institutionalized process through which the national interest
can be defined at a particular historical conjuncture? (ii) Is there a mechanism within the
governance structure through which the policy paradigm emanating from an earlier definition of
national interest can be reformulated in the light of actual experience?
In mature democracies, national interest at key moments is determined through an institutionalised
process of discussion and debate by professionals and politicians. In Pakistan’s case, however, due
to the pre-eminent position of the military within Pakistan’s power structure, national security
considerations as determined by the military, play a predominant role in defining national interest
even during formally democratic regimes.
National Interest and Strategic Decisions in Pakistan
In Pakistan’s history, strategic decisions have occasionally been taken by invoking the ‘national
interest’. These decisions have often had disastrous consequences — in the form of military
takeovers — but sometimes positive ones too.
In 1970-71 the military used force against the people of East Pakistan, the majority of Pakistan’s
citizens who were demanding their democratic rights: a selective genocide was conducted by the
state against its own people, presumably for ‘national interest’. This undermined the moral and
political basis of a united Pakistan and led to the emergence of an independent Bangladesh.
Similarly, the decision to nurture armed militant groups in Pakistan to conduct ‘jihad’ against
Soviet forces in Afghanistan was taken in the ‘national interest’, which has laid the basis for violent
extremism that has lacerated the fabric of society, polity and economy.
Finally, the strategy of linking with some Taliban groups while opposing others (during the last
decade) was to undermine not only Pakistan’s credibility in the comity of nations but was to erode
state sovereignty within its geographic domain.
By contrast, one of the few examples of a government decision taken in the ‘national interest’ with
a positive effect on the welfare of the people, was the restoration of the judiciary in March 2009,
but significantly this was done under popular pressure.
Pakistan’s National Interest:
1. Security (from the very beginning)
2. Economic Consideration (Alliances in the Earlier years of Afghanistan*)
3. Ideology Protection and Consideration
4. Cordial Relations with Regional and Non-Regional Countries
5. Foreign Trade and Investment
6. Communication and Tourism
Pakistan’s National Security Challenges
A. Internal Challenges:
1. Militancy and Extremism
2. Reviving the Economy
3. Resolving Energy Crisis
4. Education
5. Unemployment
6. Population
Pakistan’s principal challenge lies within – defeating militancy and extremism, reviving the
economy, resolving the energy crisis, educating its children and generating jobs to absorb the youth
bulge in our population to avert a looming demographic disaster. The implications of all these
problems for national security are apparent and can be ignored only at great peril.

Thus the strategic choices most consequential to Pakistan’s future concern these internal
challenges. However, the challenge within is, in several ways, linked to Pakistan’s external
environment, not least because a peaceful neighbourhood is crucial for Pakistan to focus
unhindered and undistracted on solving deep-seated domestic problems.

Unfortunately, the tyranny of geography – a volatile neighbourhood and the main fault lines of
geopolitics – and the burden of history have consistently put security at the top of Pakistan’s
national agenda. It is no different today.
 B. External Threats:
1. Relations with Afghanistan
2. Relations with India
3. Global Environment
i. Turmoil in Middle East
ii. Competition between Major Powers in the South Asian Region
iii. Tensions between a resurgent Russia and the West
iv. Rise of Daesh (ISIS)
v. Drone Attacks
Externally, Pakistan’s twin challenges are its relations with India and Afghanistan. Both fronts
have posed enduring security dilemmas. That is why Pakistan has, over the years, tried to avoid
being confronted by a two-front situation.
Before discussing these two relationships, the global environment needs to be considered. The
predominant trend is one of competition rather than cooperation. Great power geopolitics is
witnessing a resurgence with competition intensifying between the major powers. Tension among
major powers has, in fact, heightened the threat to global instability.
The three major global strategic developments of our time all have direct implications for
Pakistan’s security. One, the spreading turmoil in the Middle East crystallized by the collapse of
the post-World War order in the Arab world; two, the rise of China and the US pivot to Asia, which
has opened a new Great Game on this continent; and three, renewed tensions between a resurgent
Russia and the West, in what is being widely depicted as a new cold war.
The danger posed by Isis militants and their threat to seek allies and recruits in our region is one
that Pakistan’s security planners take very seriously.
Three, renewed tensions in Europe have already produced a closer relationship between Russia
and China. Moscow is likely to adopt a more balanced posture in South Asia, opening the prospects
of cooperation with Pakistan on a range of issues including Afghanistan, counterterrorism as well
as defence and security.
Pakistan faces a full spectrum of security challenges – terrorism and militancy, conventional
threats and the imperative to ensure the credibility of its nuclear deterrence, which is India-specific.
Countering militancy and violent extremism will remain the country’s overriding security goal.
The present military campaign in North Waziristan follows two earlier, effective operations in
South Waziristan and Swat, even though both have yet to complete their post-conflict stabilization
phase.