How the NSC should operate

The just reconstituted Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) as Cabinet Committee on National Security (CCNS) is an exercise in futility because it is not structured and empowered to carry out the daunting task assigned to it.

The DCC was always reactionary and had never been discussed the real issues confronting the country and its national security. The prime minister needs to seriously consider setting up the National Security Council (NSC) and empower a full-time National Security Advisor to take the centre stage to effectively formulate a National Security Strategy and ensure its implementation.

NSC models that are working can be seen in the US, Russia, India, Taiwan, China, Turkey and Germany. Most of the models have the office of the NSA. The United State’s NSC is the president’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security adviser and cabinet officials.

An in-depth analysis of these models reveals that the establishment of the Office of the NSA will pay rich dividends and contribute towards making the NSC a potent organisation.

If the NSA is mandated and empowered to function effectively it should avert any chances of a military take-over and thereby act as a safety valve. It will help restore confidence in the political leadership regarding its role, and will be an organisation that is able to coordinate the efforts of certain prominent think tanks like the NDU, IRS, ISS and IPRI, etc and utilise their output to its best advantage. The most important imperative is to ensure dealing with all important matters related to national security through a well-coordinated and synchronised effort.

The compelling factors for formulating a comprehensive National Security Strategy (NSS) are: (a) misperceived distrust between the armed forces and the political governments; (b) lack of strategic thought process within the governmental structure due to the absence of any institutional guidelines; (c) lack of training, exposure and incentives for different government functionaries (as a result the desired output is missing); (d) no independent think tanks dealing with issues pertaining to formulation of NSS in its entirety; (e) our vital interests cannot be protected due to the absence of long-term strategic thinking and a proactive strategy; and (f) lack of a centralised institution for dealing effectively with the rapidly changing external/internal environment.

Needless to say no national strategy has been formulated for implementation in the last 66 years. The security council will have no shortage of issues to deliberate – just a few that come to mind are terrorism, homeland security, protection of nuclear assets, sharing of water resources, building dams, the peace process with India, the Kashmir dispute, liberalisation of global markets, ethnic strife and sectarianism, the Balochistan crisis, the South Waziristan operation, empowerment of the people, projecting Islam as an enlightened religion, etc.

The NSC will also formulate various contingencies for dealing with any foreseeable issues such as breakout of a regional war, further instability in Afghanistan, threat to nuclear assets, break down of the peace process with India, escalation of the Kashmir crisis, India’s threat to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty etc.

Because of bureaucratic channels, inherent inflexibility, and lack of response, the government structure is not cohesive and the desired results are not achieved.

The proposed structure of the office of the NSA will be able to provide timely and viable advice to the prime minister on any major issue confronting the country, and should also render various options for resolving any crisis.

The proposed structure will essentially act as a think tank, conduct in-depth analysis of any ongoing or foreseeable crises and present viable alternatives. Though the NSA will act as a think tank supported by its own staff, the main substantive work will be carried out within the concerned ministries thereby ensuring strict policy of non-intrusiveness.

The NSA, while being the Secretary of the NSC, will also perform the pivotal role of advisor to the prime minister and official spokesperson on all matters related to national security. The person chosen for the job should possess irrefutable character/ integrity, be known for his intellect and be generally acceptable to all; and he should be granted the status of a federal minister.

The Office of the NSA should be housed in the National Command Authority (NCA) which should provide security and logistics, and the NSA should be assisted by two deputy advisors, namely the DNSA (Planning) and NSA (Operations) – both with the rank and status of minister of state.

The DNSA (Planning) will be responsible for reviewing only some of the very important policies of ministries like interior, foreign, media, defence and finance. The policies being reviewed should be those that have a direct impact on national security – not those that are routine in nature.

The DNSA (Operations) should be a serving 3-star officer of the armed forces and should be assisted by three one-star officers from each of the three services.

Operations should coordinate sensitive matters with intelligence agencies (the ISI, the MI, the IB, the FIA and the SPD) and the proposed National Counter Terrorism Authority (Nacta) and Counter-Terrorism Rapid Deployment Force (CRDF). The DNSA (Operations) will also provide coordinated analysis for any overt and covert operations and act as the coordinator for the Special Situations Group (SSG) set up to monitor crisis situations on a day-to-day basis.

The issues identified to be studied by the NSA should be cleared by a Prime Minister’s Review Memoranda (PPRM), which will define the problem to be analysed, set a deadline for the completion of study, and assign responsibility for it to the DNSA (Planning) who will designate a member to serve as study chairman.

When the DNSA (Planning) is satisfied that the study has suggested meaningful options and supporting arguments, the study’s conclusions will be presented to the prime minister (through the NSC, when required) in a summarised format, which can then form the basis of a Prime Minister’s Directive (PMD). National Security Directives should bear the signature of the incumbent prime minister so that accountability is assured. The NSA will act as a prestigious think tank, the findings of which will not be published but will be available to the NSC forum when in session.

To achieve these aims, the NSA needs to be constituted and structured in a manner that facilitates serious deliberation of strategic threats and problems in an independent and objective manner. Civil bureaucrats and armed forces’ personnel cannot provide the required synergies and quick and effective decision-making without an institutionalised strategic thought process.

This daunting task has to be left to the NSA Secretariat, which should be composed of full-time strategic and intelligence analysts who can even be incorporated in a consultancy role for specific tasks.

The National Security Advisor’s office, as currently structured and constituted, reflects all the traditional shortcomings of 66 years. The crises handling highlights the ‘ad-hocism’ and centralisation of all decision-making, which remains in the hands of politicians and bureaucracy. No amount of external safeguards can work if the system is not stable internally. It must be remembered that democratic progress and stability grows from within.

The writer is an investment banker who attended NSW at NDU in 2004. Email: mnanwar@hotmail.com