War on terror and Securitization expansion in Pakistan
Terrorism is an old phenomenon which has been prevailing in the world in distinct shapes by different groups like communists, fascist, radicals and separatists to gain their interests and sometimes it was used as a weapon of poor in 1960 when Palestinians raised their voice to get their rights Actually after 9/11 terrorism emerged in a new shape when America started war on terror without analyzing the root cause which can be political, economic and military attacked Afghanistan in 2001 in which Taliban sought as a safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal area FATA due to the internationally porous border of the country to tackle American forces presenting in Afghanistan. Taliban started their activities by provoking the deprived politically, socially and economically people of FATA against Pakistani government to support their agenda, proving great well-wishers than the government and agencies of the country. To weaken security apparatus and to threaten the government interfering in their work they did also great job in FATA. Unfortunately in spite of hampering the militant’s agenda and activities that were being done in the pursuance of getting will of mentioned area’s people, Pakistani forces did support to Mullah Nazar and Gul Bahadar to keep them divide and to overcome international militants threat.
The term War on terror is popular in area of study and is very helpful to understand the political stability. The Pakistani people group has been influenced by the Iranian transformation and its counter progressive powers, the Afghan jihad culture and the Taliban routine. General Zia gave Pakistan another philosophy in the late eighties during the time spent Islamization. Numerous madrasas, which later turned into the focal point of the Afghan jihad, were in their routine. This prompts the foundation and backing of the jihadist culture of the political-religious gatherings. In the fundamental instruments of Pakistan’s inward international strategy, during the 80s, Islamization. In 1979, it turned into a partner of the United States and the Soviets to confine the developing impact of socialism. The new Taliban-style powers in Afghanistan have created results after the Soviet annihilation of Afghanistan and a long fight with the Afghan mujahideen. Pakistan has become the main source of international contacts for the Taliban. The events of September 11 were followed by Pakistan, which overthrew the Taliban and became one of the main countries that support the United States in its anti-terrorism policies, expelling the Taliban and the remains of al Qaeda. Terrorism and extremism are the main challenges for Pakistan after the US invasion of Afghanistan in September 2001.Today, terrorism and extremism have become the new threat to Pakistan’s security. Technological developments and globalization have access to the latest technologies, knowledge and resources. Due to its role in Afghanistan, Pakistan faces many domestic threats. Foreign forces are widely condemned as a danger to the sovereignty and security of states throughout Pakistan, on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Foreign hands in Pakistan are affected mainly by internal terrorism and extremism. In the late 1970s, plants infected with this virus were sown as government policies until September 11. Pakistan can now manage and control this threat within an enlarged team, but Afghanistan must face these challenges after the war, provided the expected nature of the crisis is very serious.
The conceptualization of the protection of speech acts is very important because it shows that words do not explain reality, but that they are a reality, which in turn generates a definitive answer. In the practice of describing the reality we see, we interact with this world and take action that can help us see that reality in another way. For example, talking to an immigration camp in Calais because ‘Selva’ did not correctly describe the camp, but described it as a place (Barker & Whiskey tango foxtrot, 2011). The threat is not only based on character risk but is also collected through speech as a risk. In order to convince the public to take extraordinary measures, the securitization actor must concentrate and, often, exaggerate the urgency and level of this threat, translating the point of not being able to return, that is, “When we do not deal with this problem”. others probably will not matter “and will constitute a potential solution (raising the issue above politics), often organized under military conditions, and by doing so, the securitization actors make certain activities more understandable than others and also reinforce the regime of facts On the character of the danger and the character of the objects of reference.
A problem becomes security as soon as the public supports the action and confirms the nature of the danger. In this case, the emphasis on procedures and the public requires more than “security.” This generates criticism from several researchers who advocate the understanding of security as a process of continuing the structure and discussion between the speaker and the audience. Each security problem can be presented in a spectrum that ranges from non-politicization (the problem has not yet been the subject of public debate) to politicization (this problem has posted public problems and also according to the foreseen timetable) through protection (this existential threat problem). Once the problem is solved, the activities are legitimized on the basis of the terminology “emergency” and “existential danger” and, therefore, are stages that could be considered antidemocratic in the situation. Security measures, such as the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, which uses torture, citizen surveillance, extraordinary renditions and attacks with unmanned aircraft, illustrate the logic of exclusion. If the war against terrorism is not designed in circumstances in which a political suspension is allowed and is necessary, these security measures will not exist and cannot be maintained until today.
Effective securitization creates extraordinary security in an empire, investing the securitization actors (declaring themselves nominally) with the total possibility of choosing when to postpone the democratic framework and with all the capacity to manipulate the population. For Weaver (2015 and 2000), the theory of security was constructed to protect policies that contradicted the disproportionate power of this country by placing the failure and success of the guarantee in the hands of the crowd, rather than the actors put in security. Lent, the choice is “to ensure” – the return to politics. However, the indulgence of its actors in the securitization has not deceived the audiences. By making the process more transparent, the theory of securitization has given the office a lot of space and responsibility. In these circumstances, the security adviser’s part analyzes the danger of analyzing a procedure in which the stakeholders of the securities industry obtain a common understanding of what is considered a danger. The theory of securitization is not so concerned with answering “why” a problem is securitized (Gregory, 2013). It is more important that people are concerned about all the conditions that make security possible by asking the question “how” language allows players.
As the theory of security shows, by examining the “corrected language acts” in which the problems are “safe” and treated as security problems, by acts that not only explain, but also turn them into a security situation, the development of the community in security issues (whose or what is obtained and what with which) is examined. Many empirical gifts have since been analyzed in order to examine and improve increasingly diverse theoretical frameworks by various problems, such as immigration, international health and cyber security. In this theory, the aspects of non-language use are now considered, from the effects of images on the perception of hazards (for example in bureaucratic / administrative functions and safety models to psychological dynamics linked to risk diffusion.
Whilst I have no radical insight into this, I believe that the securitization study will benefit from its methodological diversification. I affirm in particular that using theory can contribute not only to the deficiencies in the general methodology which describes securitization studies in general but also, more importantly, to addressing one of the major securitization projects, which are determinants of their success or failure to ensure certain problems.
Initial Security Theory, conditions influenced by speech-based safety movements, emphasizing the “interior, grammatical and linguistic” variables and the “external, social and contextual” variables. These conditions remain unchanged and do not arise. Decades after, for example, continues to note that “public consent constitutes a heart condition associated with effective securitization, but multiple securitization studies have tried to show the effect on the target audience of the securitization discussion.” But as Williams maintains, in principle, securitization transactions are most likely to success, their types and elements are usually highly sedimentary (rhetorical and discursive, cultural and institutional) and their social positions are arranged in such a way that security is predictable.
The sub-component is, therefore: (1) what are the most likely successes or failures of securitization movements? (2) How do audiences and securitization actors interact, which increases or diminishes the chances of successful securitization? And (3) which context more likely makes or succeeds security?
The concept that securitization comprises more than a term called a speech act is strongly supported by Balzacq. It has [translation] “different artifacts (metaphor, sensation, stereotype, movement, silent-ness and lies).” While the speech is central to the security theory, Balzacq’s position is now common and encourages academics to look at non-linguistic elements of securitization transferal both in non-linguistic (with emotions) and in non-linguistic (non-linguistic) elements. Watson, for example, illustrates the possibility to strengthen the security study by agricultural literature analyzing the impact of “choosing framing devices outside of the language.” Claims on these various aspects, however, affect securitization dynamics.
The first design is a tool for assessing the effects of different types of securitization aid. For these comparisons, the design is the best choice. The study compared decision-making in one state of the world and the answers of people in various classes16. For instance, Nyhan discovered that text information about the dangers of MMR vaccines forms attitudes not images or graphs conveying exactly the same message. Among other things, these results reveal that the movement of state titles in written texts does not have any justification for good public attitudes, as opposed to persons relying on images.
The laboratory experiment also allows research questions to be answered using various phases of the dependent variable. That is very important for exploring the kinds of efficient securitization movements because people cannot recognize that they have taken steps to guarantee that a problem is securitized or openly recognize, even if the subtle physical responses are opposed to it. For example, if an immigrant’s images are presented, an individual might not have to accept that immigrants feel threatened but an increase in cortisol levels may appear different. The first measurement level is widely discreet and can also be used easily in the test design of the questionnaire (the participants, for instance, can be asked about their meanings or services for a certain perimeter or to report fear or other emotions). Other dimensions can be derived from the lab and are typical emotional experience, because the consequences caused by experimental manipulation can be detected by bodily processes. Evidence that drugs produce certain effects could include increased stress due to blood and cortisol, a functional magnetic resonance imaging anxiety experiment or aggression, as shown by levels. Evidence that the drug produces certain effects.
Secondly, experiments can also be useful in estimating the impact of variations in communication styles of securitization media type (or mix). For instance, does exposure to particular types of images (e.g. shocking symbolic images) cause psychological reactions which then give rise to different kinds of support for claims about insecurity? Or are different ways of getting discourses more or less supported (for example, very psychological or very rational)? By applying an experimental factor design, researchers are able, in some theoretical variables, to compare reactions among vulnerable people to the highest or lowest. Brader shows, for example, that adding songs that increase or are a graph Positive has recently identified elements that substantially reinforce the audience’s support when they are present in a film with the president of America.) They showed images of participants showing presidents from a variety of backgrounds in the United States: soldiers, students, children or ‘ normal ‘ people, and found that military designs the preference of participants in a significantly altered manner to raise defense instead of education.
The assessment in some securitization services of the influence of variables in communication styles helps to assess the effect of variables which have never been fully integrated into security theory, but which play an important role in communication and understanding of hazards in adjacent fields. Emotions that were prominent in neuroscience and strongly influence the taste of politics and the way decisions are made but remain limited to the theory of securitization are an important example of these variables. For instance, in the same video clip (the same security vulnerability) that has an image content (in experimental conditions) or unsafe content, an experiment can be carried out with the same security message provided by the same security actor. Awesome (other terms). It is important to measure the analysis by the participants of the general psychological significance of these various conditions to protect the internal validity of these manipulations (Jalal 2010). However, the values of the elements which are included after the dependent steps are included during operations. In the first instance, an experiment can study, for instance, the implications of the special steps of psychological polarization of the essential constituent groups, which are relevant for the analysis of the emotions in securitization procedures as distinct variables or as dependent factors or even mediating factors of the connectedness between two variables of different interest. In respect of the latter, there had been an essay with coercive questioning that had already concluded that the psychological context influenced the effects of different factors on participant’s readiness to use coercion.
Another field in which experiments can be a useful tool to check for differences in communication styles in a security communication service is the impact of certain security words. Is it true, however? What words are capable, as Austin would say, of “doing something,” that is, of affecting the possibility of successful securities transfer? What exactly is electricity powered by? Is that strength strengthened by replicating the words? To our knowledge, the securitization study programs did not answer these questions directly and clearly nor have they had excellent experiences in isolating these variables. Watson is correct in directing securitization researchers who are willing to explore this kind of questioning to framework studies that have fantastic experience in the analysis of voice performance with sometimes directly related results to dynamic securitization. For example, by conducting experiments on disciplines and internet based surveys, Baele, Sterck and Coan analyzed the impact of the use of volumes in security communication. In that various texts were published on tuberculosis safeguards (security risks and claims of single actions, such as the strict police order, the criminalization of immigrant people and low-income’ target residents.’ One scenario uses a text full of quantitative assertions, and the other uses the same specific text, replacing the highest qualitative equivalent for each quantitative statement. There are very specific differences between treatments, which indicate that the need for experimental evidence is directly related to its effects. Communication style specific. The use of a sketch-based disciplinary experience enables them to evaluate the various per formative forces of their “terrorist” and “Islamist” labels, showing increased anxiety and acceptance of delicate policies of mass monitoring, and extraordinary for more “impartial” labels, such as shooters. Studies like these are very relevant for the analysis of securitization movements and may not be explicitly based upon the securitization theory and may be included in the securitization theory testing program
Recent report on US aid and development programs inadequate functioning in the United States by the Center for global development entitled, Beyond Bales and Bombs: Improving the US approach to Pakistani development. This report contains proposals to improve the program for responding to the development needs of countries currently in crisis, infringements of public order and weak political institutions.
But most of the development argument in this country is that stable Pakistan will also serve the interests of US security. According to the report, “insecurity in Pakistan constitutes a critical threat to the safety of American people and the stability of South Asia in general.”
The relations between development and security have frequently been seen by people since the United States ‘ declaration of the war on terrorism. In fact, the US cannot link international development policies more and more to security problems. In multilateral development organizations and bilateral donors, changes are being made towards this development approach. They are trying to overcome security threats in developing and industrialized countries that are bankrupted by development aid. But this interdependence between security and development presents new challenges and can adversely influence international development.
Nexus-security is legitimized by the fact that on the international stage there are several arguments which support the argument that chronic poverty causes chronic disputes and vice versa. This recognition has led to a major discussion on the importance of developmental security. In this debate, there are two clear positions.
The first is the “Human Security Agenda” for people’s security in developing conflict areas. The argument is that poverty reduction will cause conflict and terrorism to collapse. However, the link between poverty and terrorism is not clear. The spiraling conflicts of poverty are too simple and detrimental to the agenda for human security because they do not provide a more nuanced understanding of the complaints causing the conflict. In Balochistan in southwestern Pakistan, for example, rebellions and violent conflicts are the result not just of poverty incapacitation in the province but also, inter alia, the fight for complex power and political issues related to ethnic frustration. The objective is therefore that security reinforcement will depend only on low poverty development and poverty reduction.
The second, which I think is more problematic, is securitization of development, i.e. the danger of global security from developing countries ‘ backwardness. Countries like Pakistan that fail or fail have become a US political issue. Pakistan, considered a fertile terrorist area, is seen not only as a threat to itself but also to the US and the world. Development in Pakistan has therefore become a means of overcoming and not an end in itself global security issues. These connections between security and development have a significant negative impact on Pakistan’s development path.
This is one of the problems emphasized in the report on the United States development mission in Pakistan, “Beyond Bullets and Bombs.” The AfPak approach combine the development efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan with broader diplomacy and defense policy, and it states that one of the reasons for the failure of US development initiatives in Pakistan is that the AfPak ‘ integrated approach’ has’ disrupted the development mission in Pakistan.’ This link between security and development policy has created many obstacles to Pakistan’s development programs.
First, assistance will be determined by anti-terrorist targets in the United States and will not be compatible with Pakistan’s own development needs. “Integration has made long-term development problems more vulnerable, for instance in Lahore, the government of the United States, to disruptions caused by security and diplomatic emergences in Pakistan. The United States revokes the trilateral economic meeting draft and the press reports,” says the report.
If the security problems in the US start to determine how development support is supplied, measures to reduce poverty could be undermined and the overall objective of human development could be unclear.
Linking development to security may also create confusion and incoherence as it is intended to integrate military, political and development aid projects with the same overall goal, excluding any constructional development in Pakistan.
As part of the Development Mandate that ultimately politicizes development initiatives, the US developments agenda in Pakistan seeks to outweigh them. Therefore, Pakistani society as a whole is no longer regarded as autonomous and neutral development programs.
While the report identifies “securing development” as a key hurdle to US aid and development missions ‘ success in Pakistan, indicating the need to separate Pakistan’s development mission from its security agenda, I think that it falls in the trap of developing safety itself.
The study group that includes this report says that Pakistan’s long-term development is linked to the US, as it serves its security interests. Therefore, development in Pakistan is not an end in itself and instrumental calculations of safety are taken. In the name of development in Pakistan the aims of international measures for development, such as poverty reduction and human rights, are currently undermined. I think it is very important to separate Pakistan’s development paradigm from America’s security problems. If not, this country is threatened by the search for development and the growing humanity.
Source » moderndiplomacy
