Re-Thinking Security: Traditional and Non-Traditional Threats in a Transforming World

Opening Remarks

Honorable Guests, Distinguished Panelists, colleagues and scholars.

At the outset, let me thank Dr. Tayyba Jaffery and the organizers of the conference for inviting me. My remarks are divided into nine sections and I will try to cover all in the allotted 10 minutes.

I will frame the threats and invite you to reflect on how modern wars and technologies have shaken the foundations of three core disciplines: International Relations, International Law, and Public Policy.

When I say modern, I mark 9/11 (2001) as a catalytic moment and, to understand its roots, we must look back to the roaring 1970s and 1980s: the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (1979) and the Iranian Revolution (1979). These were decades of ideological turbulence, technological acceleration, and societal transformation, and in my view these developments profoundly altered the nature of the State.

I. The State under Stress: From the Cold War to Globalization

The late twentieth century witnessed simultaneous ideological and technological revolutions. The diffusion of computers, satellites, and the internet during the 1990s made territorial boundaries increasingly porous. By the 2000s, globalization had raised existential questions about the relevance and resilience of the nation-state. Non-state actors, ranging from multinational corporations to transnational terrorist networks, emerged as powerful players, challenging the state’s monopoly over violence, regulation, legitimacy, and economic transactions.

This transformation posed dilemmas across three interlinked disciplines:

• International Relations had to revisit assumptions about state-centric power and security (primacy of state and realist theory).
• International Law faced the challenge of applying state-based legal frameworks to non-state actors and cyber conflicts. More importantly, the UN, its charter, and the International Court of Justice were petrified to uphold or enforce international law.
• Public Policy had to grapple with cross-border problems, terrorism, migration, pandemics, climate change, and digital governance that transcend national jurisdictions, raising concerns on surveillance vs. liberty.

II. 9/11 and the Erosion of Disciplinary Boundaries

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, became a defining moment for global order. For a brief period, scholars and policymakers debated whether 9/11 constituted a criminal act or an act of war. Foreign Policy magazine carried an insightful piece by Immanuel Wallerstein titled “The Eagle Has Crash-Landed,” arguing that America’s symbolic and structural dominance had been punctured, though the warning went largely unnoticed. Ultimately, international consensus, reinforced through UN resolutions and U.S. policy, framed 9/11 as an act of war, invoking the collective defense principles of international law.

Fast forward, two decades later, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan (August 2021) and the subsequent Taliban takeover reopened questions of recognition, engagement, and legitimacy in international law and diplomacy. The episode underscored the fluidity of statehood and sovereignty in contemporary world politics and revealed the limitations of military power in shaping political outcomes. Twin American projects of “state-building” and “nation building” through military force and occupation proved unsuccessful.

III. The Return of War and the Crisis of Theory

Recent conflicts, from Russia’s “special military operation” or war in Ukraine to Hamas’s October 2023 attack on a “civilized and democratic state, named Israel,” further expose the fragility of the post-Cold War order. These crises challenge long-held assumptions about:

• State behavior and accountability.
• Limits of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention.
• The treatment of occupied populations and the right to self-determination.

Increasingly, the state has become a personification of the leader: Trump’s America, Putin’s Russia, Netanyahu’s Israel, Modi’s India, and Xi’s China, blurring the line between institutional logic and personal ambition. This personalization of power undermines the theoretical predictability of IR and the normative clarity of international law. As a result, Public Policy finds itself struggling to reconcile national interest with global ethics, while scholars confront the erosion of established analytical categories.

IV. Mapping Contemporary Conflicts: Traditional and Non-Traditional Threats

According to the International Crisis Group and other monitoring sources, over 100 conflicts are ongoing globally, though only a handful dominate media attention. These can be categorized as follows:

1. Trade and tariff wars (non-traditional): Economic coercion has replaced open warfare as states weaponize trade and technology. Leaders opt for flattery or succumb to coercion; the smart ones adopt hedging as a policy tool.
2. Non-state actors and terrorism (traditional): Groups like TTP, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, and others continue to exploit ungoverned spaces.
3. Ethnic and religious conflicts (traditional): Identity-based violence persists; President Trump’s recent remark about “invading Nigeria to protect Christians” illustrates the volatile implications of faith-based geopolitics.
4. Territorial and boundary disputes (traditional): From Kashmir, Gaza, and Ukraine to the South China Sea, territoriality remains central to power politics.
5. U.S.-China rivalry and AI competition (non-traditional): Technology has become the newest domain of conflict, reshaping global hierarchies.
6. Artificial intelligence as an existential threat: The debate over AI, particularly between the U.S. and China, has introduced a new “security dilemma” that transcends traditional military competition.

V. AI and Ideological Competition

In a recent article in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Jinghan Zeng of the City University of Hong Kong argues in “ChatGPT as a Security Threat: U.S.-China Security Dilemma in the Generative AI Race” that American AI companies are collaborating with the U.S. military to integrate AI systems into defense applications. The United States frames China and the CPC as “existential threats,” embedding ideological undertones in the discourse on technology and security.

From the Chinese perspective, AI represents a new frontier of “ideological colonization.” Scholars such as Shang (2023) and Wang (2024) describe ChatGPT as an instrument of Western cultural hegemony, a tool that imposes epistemic biases and converts cyberspace into an arena of ideological warfare. Conversely, American policymakers view China’s assertive regulation of AI as an effort to shape global norms and governance standards, challenging Western leadership. Thus, AI epitomizes the fusion of technology, ideology, and national strategy, blurring the boundaries among IR, law, and public policy.

VI. Education, State Capacity, and the Chinese Model

To understand how societies build resilience amid global disruptions, Ruixue Jia and Hongbin Li’s forthcoming book, The Highest Exam: How the Gaokao Shapes China (Harvard University Press, 2025), provides a revealing lens. The authors argue that the Gaokao, China’s national examination system, is not merely an educational mechanism but a cultural institution rooted in merit, hierarchy, and legitimacy. Originating in imperial traditions, it fosters a ruling elite that commands public trust by blending meritocratic selection with state authority. This implies that the system underpins the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy and administrative competence.

For Pakistan, this offers a crucial lesson: nation-building begins with education and governance. Reforming and modernizing education, making it equitable, merit-based, and socially inclusive, is essential for developing human capital and strengthening national cohesion.

VII. Pakistan’s Geostrategic Relevance and Can We Learn from China?

Pakistan’s geographic position remains its most underutilized asset. The construction of the Karakoram Highway symbolized two critical linkages: national integration and a gateway to Central Asia. Yet, Pakistan has not transformed these connections into sustained nation-building, diplomatic, and economic opportunities.

Since the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, China has demonstrated that geographical barriers are conquerable through connectivity and regional integration. BRI offers an alternative vision to classical geopolitical theories: Mackinder’s Heartland, Spykman’s Rimland, and Mahan’s Sea Power, by proposing a global framework that bridges the Global South and technologically advanced North through infrastructure, trade, and cultural exchange.

China’s 15th Five-Year Plan provides another instructive model. It illustrates that planning is not merely economic; it is strategic: a tool for positioning the nation amid uncertainty. The plan’s integration of innovation, security, and governance offers insights for Pakistan’s institutions, such as the Planning Commission and the Council of Common Interests (CCI), on how to link long-term strategy with adaptive governance.

VIII. Emerging Security Priorities and the Regional Context

The C5+1 summit between the United States and five Central Asian states in 2023, and its renewal in 2025, signals Washington’s intent to deepen commercial and security cooperation in the region amid U.S.-China competition. Concurrently, Saudi-China and Saudi-U.S. naval exercises underscore the strategic importance of maritime security. For Pakistan, this implies an urgent need to modernize its Navy and Air Force, while rationalizing the Army’s size and role within a redefined national security framework.

IX. Managing Great Power Rivalry: A Concluding Thought

China has risen and arrived as a prudent, cautious, and reluctant great power. Following the insights of Kevin Rudd, David Lampton, and Joseph Nye, I contend that the future of global order hinges on U.S.-China competition management rather than confrontation. The imperative is clear: preserve mutual respect, identify areas of cooperation such as climate change, public health, and AI governance, and minimize escalation. A stable global order requires that both powers recognize the legitimacy of each other’s national interests while maintaining institutional channels for dialogue and restraint.

Modern wars and emerging technologies have disrupted not only global politics but also the intellectual architecture of International Relations, International Law, and Public Policy. The state, once the central actor, now operates within a web of non-state forces, ideological contests, and technological revolutions. Our task, especially in Pakistan, is threefold: focus on crafting domestic harmony, build internal capacity, ensure consistency of policies through education and planning, and navigate this new, increasingly multiplex world with strategic prudence.

Thank you so much for the opportunity and your patience.

Saeed Shafqat