Terrorism has damaged the economy, polity and society of Pakistan on multiple levels, encompassing increased costs of maintaining law and order; cost of providing humanitarian aid to Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and refugees; fiscal costs affecting revenue and growth related programmes; economic costs in terms of reduced investment, flight of capital and lower growth rate; social costs comprising physical and psychological health; and cultural costs in the shape of adverse environmental effects. This is in addition to the more immediate costs of loss of human lives, destruction of property and infrastructure and curtailment of short-term economic activity and increased risk perceptions leading to lower rates of investment.
The cost of war on terror incurred by Pakistan rose from $2.66 billion in 2002 to $17.83 billion in 2011. The total cost incurred during this period is estimated at $67.926 billion. Pakistan’s investment-to-GDP ratio has nosedived from 22.5 per cent in 2006-07 to 13.4 per cent in 2010-11, with serious consequences for the economy’s job-creating ability. Going forward, Pakistan needs enormous resources to enhance its productive capacity. The security situation will be the key determinant of the future flow of investment, which means that Pakistan’s economy needs an early end to this war.
The events of 9/11 marked what the then UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, called a “seismic shift in international relations”. Given Pakistan’s strategic location and influence on Afghanistan, its role in the US-led war on terror implied changes in its domestic and global strategic posture. The government’s policies and decisions were also impacted by the Indo-Pak stand-off in the wake of the attack on the Indian parliament in 2001, which was blamed on the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Responding to Indian accusations, the Pakistani government assured the international community that ‘no one would be allowed to carry out any territorial or subversive activities in or outside the country’. It is also pertinent to note that in the post-9/11 phase, Islamabad is also obliged to fulfil the obligation of being a UN member and ensure the implementation of UN resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005), which require it to submit periodic reports to the UN Security Council’s counter-terrorism committee. In other words, anti-terrorism efforts are no longer a national enterprise and need to be upgraded and effectively monitored to be in line with UN guidelines.
Despite heavy stakes, the political will to deal with the crisis is confused, fragmented and elusive. Some political parties talk of dialogue with the militants, while others make vague references to development of regions where militant outfits find it easy to acquire new recruits. While independent observers repeatedly point to the sanctuaries and nurseries of the extremist mindset in southern Punjab, the provincial government appears to be in a state of denial. Pakistan has a substantial young population, without proper skills, which serve as the recruiting ground for terrorist and militant outfits. This is no way to deal with the gigantic challenge.
A national consensus is needed to eradicate militancy and come up with a counter-terrorism strategy. Pakistan needs to ensure that the use of collective state might, dialogue and development from a position of strength, long-term changes in the economic structure, enhanced understanding and wider arrangements with other countries and a meaningful investment in human capital are the core elements in this re-modelled counter-terrorism strategy.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2012.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
What an insightful and eloquent article that addresses a very complicated and unfortunate problem. I agree completely with the need of a collective effort to ensure the needed and necessary change.
The problems are grave that face Pakistan today and consensus is indeed the only way to get out of this malaise. There has to be a collective will of the people to change the treacherous path that we find ourselves in.
Dear Brother
With due respect, you are making a case that does not exist. A complete and total consensus already exists against unnecessary violence. If one's goals could be achieved using peaceful methods, those methods will be naturally prefered.
Your specific problem is not with violence but that you want other people to accept your vision of appropriate GOALS. Rather presumptious of you, is that not?
I suspect that the majority of Pakistani's have sympathy for the Taliban, OBL, and don't believe that Muslims had anything to do with 911. If so - you have a consensus which is unlikely to diminish terrorism.
A very well thought out and pragmatic piece. There is a clear lack of political will to address the issue of terrorism. I believe some of the commentators on this article are misunderstanding the idea of 'National Consensus' proposed by the author. My understanding, and I may be wrong, is there there is a need to unite all parties and display a clear political will by issuing a united stance against terrorism which has not been the case. Some political parties, such as the governing party in Punjab, have never openly condemned or stood up against terrorist or banned organizations. Worse, they have been been actively flirting with them to garner electoral support. A national consensus, meaning an outright condemnation of terrorist organizations by ALL parties will be the first step towards devising an effective counter-terrorist strategy.
There is a national consensus in Pakistan. Unfortunately, it's pro-terrorist.
Doctor Sahib - I agree with you that we certainly need consensus on the issue. However, I feel that the reason it is not emerging is that a thorough root cause analysis has not been done of the issue and even if done it is sitting somewhere in scholarly journals and has not been communicated or seriously evaluated. Furthermore, the willingness of some segments of establishment to keep some militants around as strategic assets while expecting it won't have a blow back effect on the country has worsened the situation.
Ooo, national consensus; so this was the real problem!!
"A national consensus is needed -"
Beware of seeking "consensus". "Consensus" implies the agreement of ALL parties; everybody must be in harmony and satisfied. Small societies and oligarchies may work that way because they kill or expel the extremists but democracy thrives on division and the triumph of party tempered by civil rights.
The extremists in Pakistan will always be driven enough to say "no" and veto any consensus. Seeking a majority and accepting a divided society means that decisive action that otherwise could not be done CAN be done. With strong civil rights the losers will not fear for their lives or property and can hope for a day when they can attain the reins of limited power themselves.
@P.S. If 'NATIONAL CONSENSUS' bore any meanings to the so-called leaders of the nation,'general public with no exception',occasion would not have risen to write this article.You have a heart filled with concern for the country but others do not think the way you do.Many a people prior to you have pondered,shown concern,given valuable solutions and given sacrifices but to no avail.Only some miracle (a very scarce commodity these days) can bring about some sort of national consensus.
@author::it is 65 years since the inception of Pakistan.the largest province,in terms of population,is in turmoil,the southern Punjab is serving as sanctuary and nursery of extremists as per sayings of independent observers,youth is unskilled and provincial government is in constant denial of all the above mentioned facts,situation in the country is going from bad to worse every day,If all is this bad then WHO is supposed to mend the affairs of the state.btw we have exhausted all possible 'models of improvement' and none has worked towards bettering the condition of people rather every thing is on the path of decay with no one ready to take the responsibility except putting blame on each-other.God bless this land of the pure