Speaking at what may be his last Defence Day ceremony before his retirement Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif highlighted threats to peace of Pakistan. He underlined the successes of the Operation Zarb-e-Azb that was launched approximately two and a half years ago. He said that despite the progress made by the security forces, threats to peace persist, and there is a need to implement the National Action Plan (NAP) in the true sense. Furthermore, he also emphasised the need for legal and governance reforms to sustain army’s achievements against terrorists.
The army chief’s comments reaffirmed military’s concerns about government’s ‘sluggish’ performance in dealing with certain problems that are feared to be hampering the elimination of terrorism and achievement of peace across the country. He said the military considered the fight against terrorism a war for the survival of the homeland, and pledged to go to any length to ensure national security. The army chief also took a dig at detractors and critics of the military, saying that misgivings and accusations were being levelled by elements trying to create mistrust towards security and intelligence organisations, but they had failed to dent the forces’ morale. He also highlighted the changing power balance in the region, with the increasing US-India ties in recent times. Furthermore, he also stated his concerns regarding the situation in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
In his speech, General Sharif also shared the military’s view of the country’s external relations. Renewing the pledge to seek friendly relations with all neighbours, he said that they know how to abide by the bonds of friendship, and how to exact vengeance upon enemies.
What should have been a speech saluting the sacrifices of the martyrs turned into an address highlighting government’s incompetence and Pakistan’s foreign relations. While it is no secret that the military leadership is frustrated with civilian authorities’ sluggish response towards consolidating the gains made by the security forces against terrorism, the army should realise that civilian government doesn’t work like a military institution. While there might be political interests in play, such steps in a democracy need time to yield results. Moreover, underscoring the issue, again and again, will not send the right signals for strengthening of civil-military relations.
Furthermore, it is not the prerogative of the COAS to appear to be deciding the course of the foreign relations of Pakistan. The army should restrict itself to the work it is supposed to do. The influence of the GHQ on the foreign policy of Pakistan is no secret. Relations with the neighbouring countries would not be improved until the civilian government is allowed to freely work within its constitutional framework and domain. *