National Security Council

[Maisum Ali]

I am surprised, no one has started at thread on this topic. What are people's thoughts on the NSC? The parliament seems to be divided on the issue. I can't make my mind up about it either. I do think it would give the Armed Forces quite a bit of say in how the government is being run. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. The problem with Pakistani politics is that, Security council won't just deal with Security. It will try to poke its nose into everything....

[H Khan]

With all due respect to the elected members in all three chambers of Pakistan, 90% (not a scientific proven number) of these people are utter stupid. The level of intellect these people show is shameful. The other day Qazi Hussian was saying "I don't consider President Musharraf as the President of Pakistan, and once he takes his uniform off he should be impeached" Qasim Zia was saying "NSC is an American idea to control Pakistan" and Nasir Chetta saying "President Musharraf should be court martial for treason," Aftab Sherpoa was saying "we will never move one person to make way for construction any size dam."

With all things consider I believe Pakistan should have local bodies governance and the rest should be run with technocrats and "elected officials".

Besides, you should know by know my take is that as long as people of Pakistan prosper and they feel secure both from internal and external threats, that is the best system.

[MohammedA]

In principle the NSC is supposed to guarantee "stability" and keep the military out of direct politics by avoiding the need (or excuse??) for coups. What are the powers of the NSC? Is it a purely "advisory" body or does it have any executive or legislative powers? How is the NSC different from the NSC in the USA or other advanced states? Exactly what areas of the state will it "advise" on? Are it's decisons or advice binding on the PM or president? We need to know these answers before making any judgement. IMHO, if the NSC keeps the military out of politics to a great extent, and the military leaves it's civilian roles/posts, and prevents national security being compromised then it is a good idea.

[MohammedA]

Pakistan law enshrines army role
Pakistan's Senate has passed a new law to institutionalise the role of the armed forces in civilian politics for the first time in the nation's history.
The law creates a 13-member National Security Council with four top military figures who will sit alongside top civilian leaders.

The council will advise the government on security matters and other issues of national interest.

Opposition MPs condemned the bill; one said it meant "permanent martial law".


Pakistan's lower house had already passed the bill, and the Senate vote was considered a formality.

However, some opposition MPs were angry it was adopted in just two minutes while they were absent from the chamber having stormed out in protest at a separate issue.


Mandate

Pakistan's powerful armed forces have been trying for nearly two decades to institutionalise their role in civilian affairs.


President Pervez Musharraf, the army chief who seized power in a coup five years ago, argues the National Security Council will help build a better relationship with the government and prevent direct military intervention in the future.


This bill was bulldozed in the absence of the opposition
Raza Rabbani, opposition MP

Previous parliaments had rejected the demand on the grounds that the military's involvement in civilian affairs was the problem, not the solution.


Opposition MPs accused the government of deliberately presenting the bill during their absence.

"This is the worst incident in Pakistan's history and the history of the Senate," said Raza Rabbani, of the Pakistan People's Party.


Raza Mohammad Raza, another opposition MP, said: "This is permanent martial law, and this country has become a military state."


Doubts cast

President Musharraf will head the council with the prime minister, several cabinet ministers, parliamentary heads and four army commanders serving under him.


The council will have a mandate to review security in Pakistan, discuss crisis management and advise parliament on policy.


Since the 1999 coup, President Musharraf has struggled with parliament over how much power he should have.

He finally pushed through a package of constitutional changes at the end of last year to legitimise his actions since the coup.

The changes allowed the president to dissolve parliament and dismiss the prime minister - although such a move would have to be ratified by the Supreme Court.

However, the president had to pay a price to prevent Islamic parties voting him down in a crucial confidence vote.

He agreed to step down as army chief by the end of this year.

However, this week he has cast doubt on whether he will indeed give up the role and became a purely civilian head of state.

He told the HARDTalk programme on BBC World he had not yet made a decision.

A number of governing coalition MPs have urged him to stay in both posts.

However, information minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed stressed President Musharraf would abide by his vow to quit the army post.

You can see the HARDTalk interview with President Musharraf on BBC World on Wednesday at 1630 GMT.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...ia/3625061.stm

Published: 2004/04/14 11:06:39 GMT

© BBC MMIV

[Shoaib]

should teach a few people not to 'storm out ' as a protest, but rather voice their disagrement and then move on ... not too sure about that though, as these people never learn

[Ali Mian]

AoA,

The NSC has been badly needed and should have been setup a long time ago. Unfortunately as H Khan pointed out, our politicians very much lack in intellectual ability. They have only one agenda and that is pursuit of their own self interest.

The role of the NSC on paper is to discuss matters of national importance and urgency. This includes economic, political and social matters and is not restricted to only matters relating to defence. The basic idea is to give all the key actors, the President, Armed Forces, and Elected officials a forum where matters can be discussed. Basicaly formalize the political dance that happens anyways behind the scenes. By bringing things into the open rather than having the usual political conspiracies, the elected government will be kept accountable. Everyone will know what the others feel and to some degree what the others are up to. Simply put, it will keep an eye on eleceted governments to make sure they are staying the course. If they are not, matters can be discussed in the NSC where the army's danda and the presidents sword (58-2b) will be there to convince them to mend their ways.

Another part of the NSC is that the president can bring in advisors and technocrats to make presentations and for advice. This is imporatant because here we will see experts like Shaukat Aziz come in and tell things as they are and how they should be. Political governments dont want that. They want to do as they please right or wrong.

In anycase, I think the NSC is important. My only regret is that it was not set up as a constitutional body and was rather done as a act of parliament which can be changed with a simple majority.

wasalaam
Ali Mian

[Abbas]

NSC does not give the military any unusual powers in governing Pakistan. Out of its 13 members, only 3 will be from the military (4 if you want to include President Musharraf) and the rest will be elected civilians. Thus there is no question of the military dominating politics. In any case, the NSC will not be a governing body, it will merely be a consultative forum to bring stability in Pakistan's body politic. The NSC will help to ensure that Pakistan's interests remain paramount in policy formulation and implementation, rather than narrow personal and party interests.

Those politicians who are opposing the NSC are afraid that it will serve as a watchdog over their activities. This begs the question that what kind of activities do they intened to undertake that they are afraid of someone watching over them? The most vocal opponents of the NSC are the ones who have forced the creation of this body, because when they were in power they did nothing to improve the citizens' welfare, and when they were out of power they spent all their time walking out and not fulfilling their responsibility as the opposition. I am not impressed by their crocodile tears now.

NavBaby.

[Shoaib]

Another thing the NSC could do, which such bodies do in other countries, is to create policy papers for what direction the country should take.

good to see you back btw Ali Mian, not seen you much here lately ...

[SSAAD]

NSC does not give the military any unusual powers in governing Pakistan. Out of its 13 members, only 3 will be from the military (4 if you want to include President Musharraf) and the rest will be elected civilians. Thus there is no question of the military dominating politics. In any case, the NSC will not be a governing body, it will merely be a consultative forum to bring stability in Pakistan's body politic. The NSC will help to ensure that Pakistan's interests remain paramount in policy formulation and implementation, rather than narrow personal and party interests.

Those politicians who are opposing the NSC are afraid that it will serve as a watchdog over their activities. This begs the question that what kind of activities do they intened to undertake that they are afraid of someone watching over them? The most vocal opponents of the NSC are the ones who have forced the creation of this body, because when they were in power they did nothing to improve the citizens' welfare, and when they were out of power they spent all their time walking out and not fulfilling their responsibility as the opposition. I am not impressed by their crocodile tears now.

NavBaby.

Not to be nitpicky but out of the 13, 4 will be from the military always (and not because PM is the current CoAS). The four perm. members from the armed forces will be CJCSC, CoAS, CNS and CAS.

The rest I completely agree with.

[Behjat]

Salaam,

I've always felt a dearth of checks and balances in our system. The concept of the NSC sounds like something that is much needed in many ways. It offers, conceptually, an outside view to politicians in parliament. It truly brings together civilian and military planners on a common table. It can act as a session for brainstorming and moots inclusive of presentations of scholarly work. It also 'diminishes' the army's potential to simply take over the country at whim.

Like everything else, however, its success will lie in its execution. If it's used as a back door for the army to permanently affect each aspect of civilian life or if it's used for feudal influences on army outlooks remains to be seen. I don't think either will be tolerated by Pakistani's in the long run. It should retain its integrity if it offers advice to ALL non-NSC govt institutions as part of quality assurance with proper outcome assessments. It's advice should be non-discriminatory and certainly free of any potential lobbying from interest groups.

How good or bad it is for Pakistna, only time will tell. We can just hope and pray it is not an institution that indulges in partisanship and nepotism, insha'Allah.

[Abbas]

Not to be nitpicky but out of the 13, 4 will be from the military always (and not because PM is the current CoAS). The four perm. members from the armed forces will be CJCSC, CoAS, CNS and CAS.

The rest I completely agree with.

Oops! You are right Syed Saad, I had forgotten about CJCSC. Nevertheless, the civilians outnumber the military 2 to 1.

NavBaby.

[MohammedA]

From Jang


Grappling with the NSC

Palvasha Von Hassell

In my column titled "The equation between power, patriotism and parliament", (The News, 16.01.2004) I expressed misgivings about the 17th amendment not requiring the President to consult the country’s political leadership before dissolving Parliament. Now, unexpectedly, provision for consultation has been made elsewhere, ie in the NSC Bill "on matters of national security, including the sovereignty, integrity, defence, security of state and crisis management", whatever all that might mean. The bemused people of Pakistan have already been witness continuously during the last five years to such a richly variegated pageant of happenings, some bizarre, some predictable, as to make life here in cool Europe seem positively anaemic. They are now wondering what to make of this, the latest in this seemingly never-ending process. Should they be relieved at the prospect of having an NSC watching over them, or alarmed, or a bit of both?

A bit of both. Seen dispassionately, the present shape of the NSC as it becomes law today is a mixed bag. First, the positive aspects. Compared to the original shape of the NSC created by executive order by Musharraf in July 2001, (now repealed), the present one is a dream of inclusiveness. At that time, membership would have been restricted to the armed forces and the governors of the provinces. Now, membership will consist of nine civilians who are elected representatives and four army chiefs. That in it is a major concession to the demands for more civilian presence in the Council. Second, instead of it becoming part of the constitution, as was originally intended, it was agreed to have it passed by an Act of Parliament; and Parliament, as is well known, can make or break any law. These two changes which, after all, had to be accepted by the government, give hope for the future: the opposition has been successful in forcing the government to water down an NSC that would have been even more powerful and less representative than it is now. In addition, it is very significant that the government has recognised the need to be responsive to the opposition’s demands. The very fact that a compromise solution has been arrived at is encouraging and ought not to be underestimated. Another plus is that the NSC has, at least on paper, a purely advisory capacity and can only make recommendations to the President and government.

That said, there are some grey areas about the NSC that do give grounds for concern. First, there is deliberate vagueness in its text to allow for it to be interpreted at will. While it attempts to avoid a direct mention of its right to interfere in internal politics, terms such as "crisis-management" and "security of state" might easily be understood to mean that. The maintenance of the "integrity " of the state might mean undue interference by the centre in the provinces. Among all the other uncertainties that this bill carries with it is the question: what constitutes a crisis? Is, for example, the decision to dissolve Parliament by the President a crisis situation calling for a meeting of the NSC? If so, it should have been defined as such. The prime minister and the leader of the opposition in the national assembly being members of the Council, this would go some way towards limiting of the president’s exclusive right to do so after referral of the decision to the supreme court. In this sense, the NSC might even prove to be a check on presidential power referred to in the above-mentioned article. But all this has been left unclear in the rush to get the bill passed post haste in both the upper and the lower chambers. There should have been much more debate on issues such as what the national security that the NSC is supposed to ensure actually means, or the widening of its membership to include federal ministers, or whether it should be chaired by the President or the prime minister. This latter might be of even greater significance if Musharraf decides not to quit the army by the end of the year after all. As matters stand, all amendments to the bill proposed by the opposition have been rejected, Senate has passed the bill and Pakistan has now joined the list of countries that have a national security council.

Taking the example of Turkey, after which our military leaders have unfortunately wanted to model Pakistan, the Turkish NSC has actively interfered in internal politics a number of times since its creation and has only now, under pressure from the European Union, sought to balance its military and civilian membership more evenly. Consequently, the voice of the Turkish army continues to carry more weight than can be measured by the reduced number of military members. Since Pakistan, unlike Turkey, is not seeking membership of the European Union, it is just as well that its NSC has made provision for more civilian than military membership at the outset. Not, however, as much as the Indian NSC, which includes many federal ministers and is chaired by the Prime Minister. This would have been difficult, considering the contrast between India and Pakistan as regards the importance given to the army in the decision-making process. There can be no doubt that the main motivation behind the creation of the NSC in Pakistan is the comfortable entrenchment of the army in whatever kind of controlled democracy is allowed to exist there, most probably with American blessings, thus rendering controversial takeovers by the military redundant. Ironically, then, this is presumably what Musharraf means when he claims that the establishment of the NSC will be conducive to democracy in Pakistan.

Somewhere, somehow, this hurts badly: the feeling is that we are not a people who could be trusted to rule himself or herself without army supervision. The fact is that owing to a complexity of reasons, Pakistan has produced only one institution worthy of the name, so far, and that is the army. But perhaps there is a silver lining to this largely self-created cloud. If our politicians are willing to learn their lessons, and the NSC does result in more stability on the political scene, they will try to now build other institutions that create a balance between military and civilian power. They indeed have no other choice, for the army came to stay a long time ago.

The writer is a Hamburg-based journalist and analyst

p_v_hassell@t-online.de

[MohammedA]

NSC's inaugural meeting today

ISLAMABAD: The inaugural meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) will be held here today (Thursday) at 11:00 am.

President General Pervez Musharraf will preside over the meeting in his capacity as Chairman of the Council.

The other members include, the Prime Minister, the Chairman Senate, Speaker National Assembly, Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan chief ministers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and the Services Chiefs while leader of the opposition and NWFP chief minister will attend the meeting.

The NSC has framed its rules and its secretariat has been established.

Majority of NSC members are duly elected and equal representation has been given to all the federating units.

Federal interior minister Faisal Saleh Hayat will brief the NSC on national security. Opposition feared that NSC will affect the supremacy of parliament.

The council will formulate and make recommendations to the President and the government in accordance with deliberations.

Any proposal on issue of national importance, which will ratify its implementation, would be referred by the Council to the National Assembly or the Senate for appropriate action.

The NSC is a consultative institution and will serve as a safety valve to the system to avoid disruption and derailment of the democratic process in the country.

[MohammedA]

Pakistan Security Council meets
By Paul Anderson
BBC correspondent in Islamabad

This National Security Council is not meant at all to reinforce the president, rather I would say it is meant to impose checks on the president
President Musharraf
Pakistan's new National Security Council has met for the first time amid continuing opposition protests that it is trying to usurp power.
It was called in Islamabad to discuss law and order after several months of militant violence across the country.

The council was formed this year as a consultative body to advise government and parliament on national security.

The meeting is reawakening the debate about President Musharraf's commitment to bringing Pakistan back to democracy.

Thursday's meeting addressed Pakistan's deteriorating law-and-order situation, the weeks of killings in Karachi, and anti-Al Qaeda operations on the Afghan border.

'Superior body'

The opposition alliance of religious parties, the MMA, however, was having no part in the talks.


We think the National Security Council will be a parallel or a superior body to the parliament as long as the president remains in uniform
Opposition leader Fazal-ur-Rehman
It fears the council - headed by Pakistan's military president, General Musharraf - formalises a role for the army in civilian democracy.
One leader said the council would become a parallel or superior body to parliament as long as General Musharraf continues to hold office as president and army chief at the same time.

The president says he will step down from the army post by the end of the year, but opposition leaders believe he is trying to amass power, not shed it.

After the meeting, President Musharraf said the council was designed to check his powers, not enhance them.

He said by bringing senior commanders into a forum to air their views with civilian leaders, the council would avert the need to impose martial law, as has happened in the past.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...ia/3837235.stm

Published: 2004/06/24 16:37:47 GMT

© BBC MMIV