|
WHAT'S HOT?
––
ANALYSIS OF
RECENT HAPPENINGS |
|
Role
of the Military in Asian Democracies - Seminar |
|
New
Delhi, 28 March 2001 Asia
News Network (ANN), a group of Newspapers of South East and South Asia,
organized its Regional Conference in Delhi on 17 March 2001, in
collaboration with Konrad Adenaeur Foundation, on the topical subject of
‘Role of the Military in Asian Democracies’. The entire show was
hosted and coordinated by the Statesman group. The atmosphere in Delhi was
already heavy with the ‘tehelka expose’ a few days earlier and India
had no Defence Minister. The gathering at the Vigyan Bhavan’s main hall
was large as most were eager to know what the Prime Minister Vajpayee
would say in his keynote address. It turned out to be an illuminating but
controversial day. Besides the foreign participants, the audience included
many former Service Chiefs and retired Services officers, Defence Attaches
including those from Pakistan, media personalities and analysts. The dais
sported prominent speakers from India and South East Asia –– this
region has more military rulers than democracies –– but the organizers
hogged the show and did not allow enough time for questions from the
floor. IDC
found it very rewarding because the definition of democracy itself was
debated at length. It varied from what India perceives it to be to what
Singapore ordains it to be. The Philippines described democracy to be
‘People Power’ –– the toppling of two Presidents, Marcos and
Estrada, with military support but without bloodshed. A consensus on the
overall role of the military besides the most accepted task of guarding
the frontiers was therefore not forthcoming, but there were excellent
pointers on what the Defence Forces would be required to do in the 21st
century. Most speakers felt that transparency must be the order of the day
for the Armed Forces. Mr.
Ravindra Kumar, the Director and Managing Editor of Statesman, opened the
Conference and explained the working of the Asia News Network. The 10
leading Asian Newspapers –– The Korea Herald, Philippine Daily
Inquirer, The Star of Malaysia, Straits Times of Singapore, The Jakarta
Post, The National China Daily and Viet Nam News and so on, share their
analyses and data on the Net. He even told the PM who walked in slowly,
that he might find himself on the headlines in the East earlier than even
in India, if a story had broken and the Eastern papers decided it was a
headline stealer. He then invited him to deliver the keynote address. Vajpayee’s
theme was to glorify the Armed Forces, but he cautioned that they should
remain apolitical and not get involved in other issues of the State, as
that is what democracy is all about. He termed it the ‘will of the
people’ and an ideal form of governance. He however specified that the
Armed Forces must be accountable to the Government of the day and interact
with it on important concerns of security. He then shifted to terrorism
and extolled the problems and challenges that this new menace posed. The
PM left soon after his address and did not join at the tea break. There
was little new in his speech or anything of substance which one could
analyse. It was Indiacentric with highlights on terrorism and
understandably without any reference to the ‘tehelka’ affair, defence
procurement or any reference to the world politics of Kosovo and NATO etc. The
first session was intellectual in nature and full of stargazing titled,
"The Military in the 21st Century". Lt Gen Pongthep Tesprateep,
Asstt Chief of Staff for Operations in Royal Thai Army presented the theme
paper. His thread was to explain the post cold war developments and admit
that for quite some time USA will remain the sole super power in the world
arena. Unlike what PM Vajpayee had said, the Thai General propounded that
the Military has a role other than purely the defence of the country. He
felt that the military had a role in terms of development and to prevent
internal bloodshed, as some eight years ago there was a revolt in his
country and the Army was deployed. Then the civilian in him switched to
the effect of globalisation on the Military and so RMA came out loud and
clear. He highlighted the two issues at length. He also touched on NMD and
Theatre Missile Defence of USA in passing but did not elaborate. In
the discussion papers it came out that military-civil understanding was a
bugbear, which the militaries faced in the developing countries and hence
their role got diffused. It was just the opposite in the West, which is
becoming NATO-centric and Europe is planning combined forces to assist the
national governments as it did in Kosovo. To join NATO the new nation
applicants must be democratic and have free market economies. This is the
change that is being forced upon the East European States, which Russia is
opposing. The
subject shifted to the unipolar world and roles of USA, the UN and of
militaries in peacekeeping. As for USA, Gen Powell has articulated his
doctrine where he has argued that US troops should not be used where US
interests are not served. If military forces are to be used in
peacekeeping or war avoidance, then Powell wanted the definition of how
long the military should be employed, to be worked out. He also advocated
no piecemeal usage implying large application of force. It was questioned
but accepted that this may be policy as long as USA is the sole super
power, in spite of what Madeline Albright had said, "What is the use
of a powerful military which cannot be used". One could see the signs
of USA being the leader in the technology of military fighting in the 21st
century, where militaries will have to fight smarter if not harder. Again
it was RMA and reduction in force strength. In
the second session on the subject of ‘Role of the Military in Asia’,
Mak Joon Num a well-known researcher explained that Asian democracies are
not true democracies but self-styled democracies. He explained the Total
Defence Concept of Singapore and to some extent Malaysia. Dwi Fungsi and
Abri Masuk Desa of Indonesia had stressed the need for the military to
contribute to development of character and nation building by being
involved in national affairs, quite opposite to what PM Vajpayee had held
out. He then explained how retired senior military officers in Malaysia
and Singapore were inducted into Government and supported it with the
regional military policies. Malaysia he said had laid down self- reliance,
regional co-operation and external assistance with deterrence as its
hallmark. On Indonesia he was most uncertain and said the military had a
role in Parliament and the running of the country but it had been
curtailed so he saw trouble ahead. His paper was illuminating but careful
in not passing judgments on other nations. Lt
Gen Nambiar Director USI began by colouring the map of West, South and
East Asian nations in dark red, pink and blue to represent their
democratic traditions and concluded that there were more non-democratic
nations (red) in Asia, mainly in West Asia. This turned the tables, as
most red nations on the map were Islamic and it was suggested he may like
to recolour the same map by religious beliefs and may get close to the
same colour combination. Nambiar extolled India’s as a role model Army,
which had fought and won wars but conceded it had not contributed to
nation building. When asked if the Indian Army could contribute to
national development, he said it was already overstretched. He stressed
the military’s role in UN peace keeping. In
the last session on the ‘Role of the Military in Society’, Gen Jose T
Almote, a former National Security Adviser, spoke about Philippines and
people power. He gave examples of various countries and varied approaches.
In the case of Philippines he was clear that if the President lost the
will of the people to govern, the military had the right to intervene.
This was argued out but no conclusions were reached. By now the hall wore
a depleted look and in sum it came out that:
This
conference came at an interesting time when the above aspects were being
looked into in India and the world over. In UK, the Armed Forces are going
all out to help the Government contain the disastrous foot and mouth
disease, which may cost the country some US$1 billion. In Russia Sergei
Ivanov, a civilian and earlier National Security Adviser, very close to
Brajesh Mishra India's NSA, has taken over as the Defence Minister from a
serving General and the Minister for Atomic Energy Adamvov, who visited
India has also been changed. In
India Arun Singh, Security Adviser to the Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh
has the added responsibility of becoming the all powerful Adviser Defence
to the Defence Minister and this time Jaswant Singh will take some senior
Service officers along to USA to discuss security. All this augurs well
for the changes in thinking in India, just when structural changes for a
CDS, Inspector General of the Army and Commander Strategic Forces are in
the air. |