Security and Economy

The purpose of writing on this subject is to initiate a debate in Pakistan on the paradoxical linkage between security and economy and reach an understanding to determine who must decide whether for security one needs a strong economy or a strong economy is a prerequisite for the sound security of any state.

When the erstwhile Soviet Union disintegrated as a political entity, there was no dearth of security apparatus on its inventory, especially once the dissolution process started in 1988, and was completed within three years before it lost its identity in December 1991. Likewise, the illogical invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, resulted in Iraq’s own destruction following a war between Unequal Military Powers (UMPs). Iraq was neither poor nor militarily weak that any of its neighbours could run over it.

However, without going too far back in the history of wars and conflicts, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War also calls for introspection into this paradoxical linkage between security and the economy.

Russia launched a ground offensive on Ukraine on 24 February 2022, fearing that the latter was about to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which would have brought a perceived hostile alliance to Russian doorsteps. Ukraine, a developing country by European standards, has vast natural resources, and the second-largest reserves of natural gas, after Russia. Moreover, Ukraine accounts for 10% of the world wheat market, 15% of the corn market, and 13% of the barley market. With more than 50% of world trade, it is also the main player in the sunflower oil market.

Ukraine may have been a poor country by European standards, but neither its economy nor military was so weak that any of its neighbours, except Russia, could launch an all-out military campaign at will. Russia has not only invaded Ukraine but has started slicing its eastern territories and so far, has declared at least four Russian ethnic regions as autonomous, meaning it has no intention to leave unless it gets defeated, which is highly unlikely.

Hence, there are many examples from history and contemporary times where states were ruined in wars and conflicts between UMPs, in which neither the country was so poor, nor its military was so weak that it could be run over so easily. Therefore, the debate that I want to initiate is to determine how much military power is adequate to ensure security, and how much economic strength is needed to sustain it. However, this must not be confused with the nuclear threshold, because that is a different debate.

While security in a changed paradigm is contested vis-Ă -vis human security, the economy remains a cornerstone in any debate. Therefore, it is extremely important for each state to determine its security needs and corresponding economic strength to maintain and sustain it.

The next question would be who determines the security policy of a state. According to the Chinese sage Sun Tzu, it is the Emperor (the Chief Executive) who would identify the needs and allocate resources to achieve the assigned tasks. However, it would be the job of the Commander of the Armed Forces to employ the allocated means and make a suitable strategy to accomplish objectives.

Sun Tzu further illustrates his dicta that none would interfere in the job of the other, meaning that once the political leadership identifies the security needs and allocates the requisite means, then it is the responsibility of the military commander to ensure that the assigned tasks are accomplished to the best of their abilities. In case, the military commander thinks that the assigned tasks are beyond his material capacity, then he can always go back to the leadership for revision of the task or allocation of more resources.

It is understandable that material resources may not be adequate for the assigned tasks, therefore, it is incumbent upon the political leadership to assign only doable tasks and the requisite resources to demand the military’s output. Concurrently, it is the responsibility of the military commander to ensure that his assessment of the strategic environment is based on sound and realistic information.

The politico-military leadership has to correctly determine the strategic needs vis-Ă -vis available means. Any imbalance between the two will either compromise human security needs or the security needs of the state. Therefore, in my view, an intense debate on the subject is essentially required, especially in a country like ours, where the security needs are also genuine and the economic outlook is also not very promising.

Dr Zia Ul Haque Shamsi is the author of ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan’ and ‘South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace.’ He is presently working as Director (Peace and Conflict Studies) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in Daily Times. He can be contacted at: [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »