Pakistan First

By Dr. Ahmed Saeed Minhas | April 2020

The New York Times has recently revealed that before publishing stories related to national security, it routes them through US government channels, including security institutions, for safeguarding national security interests. This is quite surprising as it amounts to muzzling freedom of expression in the US, a country otherwise treated as a champion of liberty and freedom of expression by the world.

The admission by the New York Times has kicked off a new stream of thinking among liberals and realists. The liberals believe in independence and autonomy for portraying any paradigm related to information, whether it pertains to national security, government or societal issues. Realists, on the other hand, believe in controlled sharing of information, especially that which could directly or indirectly influence national security. They profess that in an anarchic, self-centered and power hungry international system, security-related debates or stories have to be handled cautiously to keep national security cards close to the chest. The choice is between liberty and self-imposed reality.

The New York Times story has left very little to imagination about the strong links between national security interests and the supposedly independent American news organizations. Perception building is directly proportional to the kind of reporting that is done. Third world countries have also tried to copy the so-called western liberal approach without caring for national security elements. The New York Times and perhaps other important newspapers like the Washington Times, etc. must have been working hands in glove with national security agencies to protect US national security interests. Do they still need to be liberal about breaking national security related news or should they be realistic? This needs to be analyzed.

The New York Times template can be applied to Pakistan’s national security requirements and responsible national security-related news management. The issue has been debated at various think tanks and national security forums that have concluded that Pakistan is subjected to hybrid warfare in which the information element has a lead role. While Pakistan’s information management has been objectively done under the Inter Services Publics Relations (ISPR) department, its civilian counterpart, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), has not been as effective.

PEMRA, exercises its constitutional jurisdiction to protect religious rights, besides ensuring integrity and national security of Pakistan. The ISPR, being a disciplined institution, fulfills its responsibilities and remains relentless, under its Director General, to protect national security interests. This has been acknowledged in loud and clear words by Indian hybrid warfare champions who say that if information management has to done in the national interest, the ISPR is a good example. PEMRA comes under criticism though not always for being politically biased. There have been instances when PEMRA exercised its jurisdiction to protect national security interests. This was, however, vetoed by suo moto notices by the judiciary in the name of freedom of speech and human rights.

Pakistan remains subject to security challenges due to its unique geographical location, its nuclear weapons and its resource-rich status. Revisionist ideology-oriented India is frustrated by Pakistan’s capabilities and is unable to checkmate its military might. It has now found respite in employing information warfare as a part of its overall hybrid warfare campaign. Unfortunately, Pakistani media have fallen prey to the Indian bait and do not leave any stone unturned to keep the news sizzling.

Recently Pakistani media created hysteria about the country facing the prospects of being black-listed by FATF. The reporting resulted in damage of billions of dollars in terms of a big drop in the ratio of foreign investment. Then there was unrealistic criticism of the Pakistan Government’s response to the Indian mischief of abrogating Articles 370 and 35-A. The media in Pakistan did not hesitate to blame the armed forces for not taking kinetic action against Indian atrocities in Indian-held Kashmir. Such reporting demonstrated a clear lack of understanding about on-ground realities. It created pessimism in the public about their national institutions and indirectly strengthened Pakistan’s enemies.

Pakistan needs to take a lead from the so-called most liberal society in the world, i.e. the US. The country’s media needs to work hand-in-glove with security institutions. Media workshops can be held at the National Defence University or at the ISPR for media anchors and reporters on a regular basis and detailed discussions should be held on national security issues.

Before reporting a news story, national security implications must be verified from the ISPR or PEMRA. The inferiority/superiority complex between civilian and security institutions should be done away with. No one is inferior or superior. There should be pride in respective identities. The country’s armed forces are from the people and of the people. There is nothing about sharing of power; national security demands that all institutions and news outlets work together and in cohesion. It is only covering each other’s back that can lead to survival.

The aim here is not to promote censorship or to put a check on the media’s autonomy but to create a system of checks and balances that leads to national harmony and a common approach towards protecting the nation’s ideological borders. This would contribute to the creation of a common and coordinated approach that would address national security challenges and build a ‘Pakistan First’ approach.

Amber Anjum
April 3, 2020 at 3:28 pm

An enlightening write up on pardoxical situation of increasing liberalism and on other hand no compromises and contradictory attitude on sensitive security issues. It indicated a certain need to create a well knitted system to release information on state’s security matters in Pakistan where the journalism and security institutions hardly sit together to impart information to masses. Furthermore the very focus is also provided to halt the absurdity of being liberal and following a blind way going nowhere.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Update

One thought on “Pakistan First”