In an era when anyone can use a microphone, the global conversation on sensitive topics of international relations, politics, diplomacy, and defence sometimes poses a threat to national security.
Everyone who owns a smartphone and has an opinion and a camera today thinks they have a say in crafting stories about war, peace, and national strategy. Freedom of speech remains a vital component of any functioning society. Still, the necessity for a government to set appropriate limits has never been more critical, mainly when content creators discuss religion, national security, and foreign policy.
History shows us that words may build or destroy nations if they are not kept in check. In the early days of State formation, empires saw diplomatic correspondence as sacred. The British Foreign Office, the Ottoman chancery, and even the Caliphate councils were responsible for regulating what people discussed outside the palace. These actions were not meant to silence anyone, but to safeguard national coherence. During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union both established strict guidelines regarding what could be publicly discussed about military operations or diplomatic talks.
The digital revolution started to break that balance. The emergence of independent YouTube experts and social media influencers has given rise to a new, largely unregulated group of “foreign policy commentators.” Some of these individuals are well-informed and deeply passionate about their country. But a large majority doesn’t know anything about diplomacy or statecraft, and often blow complicated matters out of proportion to get more views. As a result, there are numerous half-truths and fabricated stories that can alter perceptions, exacerbate diplomatic relations, and even compromise security operations.
Recent examples demonstrate the dangers of propaganda being unleashed against the armed forces by making false claims, which were subsequently proven wrong in national and international legal forums. When an opinion is based on false information or emotional sensationalism rather than well-thought-out analysis, the state’s credibility suffers.
So, regulation isn’t about censoring; it’s about being responsible. China’s recent decision to establish comprehensive rules for regulating online commentary on international issues represents a significant step forward in this regard. In mid-2024, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) stated that individuals and platforms must obtain permission from the government before posting or live-streaming content related to foreign policy, national defence, or diplomatic affairs. The rule also states that “self-media” accounts that haven’t been vetted cannot discuss significant international events or interpret government policies. The Chinese methodology may seem draconian, but it is based on national security and information integrity. It makes sure that only competent people, with requisite qualification/knowledge and permission, talk on such issues of national importance as can directly impact the country´s global standing.
Pakistan should set up a dedicated Digital Information and Security Authority (DISA) to keep an eye on and control what individuals say online about diplomatic and strategic issues and to train them. This group shouldn’t try to dictate to others what they should think. Instead, they should ensure that what people say is factual, relevant to the situation, and in line with national values. readers who write on foreign relations or defence should have to sign up, get some basic training on how to write correctly, and let readers know about any money or sponsorships that could alter their reports. This not only ensures that people are held responsible, but it also prevents serious analysts from being confused with propagandists.Second, freedom of expression does not include the right to lie or offend. So, the regulatory framework should be based on Islamic ideas of truth (Haqq), responsibility (Amanah), and restraint (Adal). This strategy will embody Pakistan’s distinct identity as a contemporary democratic nation founded on religious principles and ethical discipline.
Third, the government needs to work with universities, think tanks, and policy groups to make sure that training programs in foreign affairs commentary are recognized. The Prophet (PBUH) said, “Those who believe in Allah and the day of judgement, should speak what is good stay silent.” In the context of modern media, that wisdom translates to speaking with responsibility and purpose.
Freedom of speech is a right, but it is not a license for recklessness. When the subject is national security, diplomacy, or religion, words are not just words — they are instruments of power. And like any instrument of power, they must be wielded with care, wisdom, and above all, responsibility.
— The writer is a International Law expert with a rich experience in negotiation, mediation and Alternate Dispute Resolution.
Read more on Pakistan Observer
