Security Sector Reforms
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The concept of security is often vague. It was defined as a mechanism to defend the boundary of a country from external threats. However, with the march of time, the concept of security has changed drastically, and its scope widened. Now the concept of security touches upon multiple facets of the state and its people.
During the Cold War period, the focus of security was laid more on the security of the state. Thus, security cooperation among the states was guided purely by political motive aimed at strengthening the friendly regimes from the military standpoint. This was so because of the erstwhile international situation when the world was divided into two military camps, with each bloc trying to bring as many countries into their respective camps. Dictators of different kinds and colours took advantage of this international power politics and ruled with an iron fist, often denying the people their basic rights and freedom.
Citing external threats, the regimes spent heavily on weapons and modernising the armed force - money that could have been spent on building development infrastructure and uplifting the social and economic condition of the people, eradicating poverty and providing health and education to children. International powers also backed these dictatorial regimes and supplied and sold them arms to be used against the people, suppressing the genuine struggles of the people.
The regimes that either received grants in the form of military aid or purchased sophisticated weapons from international powers were generally not incline to defend the country from external threats but to retain their repressive rule by the means of force.
Military intervention
In the present inter-connected world characterised by information and technological revolution, no country can choose to occupy the territory of another country through military means. Instead, they try to invade through other means like economic domination, trade, cultural invasion and technological control. This approach has been adopted by the international powers to give them a soft power image.
The international powers resort to military interventions only when other options get exhausted. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are cases of direct military intervention after the West’s soft power strategy failed. Military intervention is often risky. In most cases, military intervention from outside has boomeranged. Vietnam is an example of national humiliation faced by the United States. The Russian occupation of Afghanistan and Vietnam’s aggression in Cambodia are yet other ugly instances of foreign military intervention in another country, all of which have proved very costly for the occupiers.
Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has not achieved what it had earlier expected. In our own neighbourhood, the Indian military mission in Sri Lanka in the name of containing the LTTE was yet another fiasco. Based on these experiences, the international powers do not usually opt for military intervention but use alternative methods to ensure their control in other countries.
The regimes, instead, are facing threats from within their countries. Inter-state conflict has shifted to intra-state conflict. The conflict between the state and the non-state actors is intensifying in several developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The main threat to the regimes in the present context is from the oppressed, exploited, marginalised and discriminated people, who are struggling for their equal and just rights and share in the governance of the state and decision-making.
The regimes have responded to the struggle of the people with oppressive measures, which have resulted in violent conflicts. However, the regimes often try to equate a people’s struggle with either terrorist activities or a threat to national sovereignty and territorial integrity ostensibly to mislead the international community and get international support for their repressive measures.
With the change in the international power politics and the balance of power, the concept of security has undergone a paradigm shift. This is particularly so after the end of the Cold War that marked the collapse of the Soviet bloc, paving the way for the emergence of a unipolar world dominated by the United States - the only super power. In the present unipolar world, human security has topped the agenda of all countries.
It has been widely accepted that human security or the security of the people can be ensured only when there is a guarantee of freedom from fear and freedom from wants. Freedom from fear is ensured by maintaining effective law and order internally whereas freedom from want can be guaranteed only when the state provides its people with ample opportunities for meeting their basic needs like access to adequate food, shelter and clothing to live a dignified life.
It has been globally acknowledged that human insecurity is the root of all conflicts. The widening gap between the rich and the poor, as a result of the state policy of exploitation, repression, discrimination and marginalisation of the majority of the people, is the prime cause behind the increasing human insecurity in the world.
The root cause of Nepal’s conflict is also this human insecurity perpetrated by the feudal political system. The Maoist party raised this issue effectively which brought the masses into its fold and accordingly launched an armed insurgency against the feudal state under the monarchy. The Maoists demanded the abolition of all kinds of political, economic, cultural and religious exploitation and discrimination, and the establishment of a republican system with inclusive democracy, federal state structure and religious secularism.
Within a decade of their guerilla insurgency, the Maoists were able to control almost 85 per cent of the country whereas the state’s presence was limited to a few urban centres. Sensing the grave situation, an agreement was brokered between the Maoists and the rest of the parliamentary parties, in which most of the Maoists’ demands were met.
Although there was clarity on other issues, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed between the state and the insurgent Maoist party, did not clearly define the modality of managing the Maoist guerilla, which is, perhaps, the most pressing and important issue of the peace process. In the CPA, the terminology ‘army integration’ has been incorporated but not defined and elaborated. As a result, different parties and people have interpreted this terminology differently, which has created confusion among the people and delayed the peace process.
The CPA has treated both the Nepal Army and the Maoists’ People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on an equal footing, and it gives the impression that army integration means only the merger of the two armies. The Maoists have raised and demanded that this provision of the CPA on army integration be implemented in both letter and spirit.
In more recent times, the parties have become a bit flexible on the issue of PLA management. However, at the same time, attention has to be given to restructuring and reforming the entire security system and bodies of the country. As the concept of security has changed globally with the focus shifting from state security to human security, the emphasis has to be laid on addressing the security of the people while taking any decision on security sector reforms and restructuring.
National Security Strategy
The first and foremost necessity at this point is the formulation of a national security strategy and policy, which does not exist at present. The security strategy and policy alone would assess the nature of security threat and determine the security requirement to cope with it. Based on the security assessment, the size of the different security organs of the country can be properly and scientifically ascertained. This would facilitate the process of security sector reforms.
The concept of security is often vague. It was defined as a mechanism to defend the boundary of a country from external threats. However, with the march of time, the concept of security has changed drastically, and its scope widened. Now the concept of security touches upon multiple facets of the state and its people.
During the Cold War period, the focus of security was laid more on the security of the state. Thus, security cooperation among the states was guided purely by political motive aimed at strengthening the friendly regimes from the military standpoint. This was so because of the erstwhile international situation when the world was divided into two military camps, with each bloc trying to bring as many countries into their respective camps. Dictators of different kinds and colours took advantage of this international power politics and ruled with an iron fist, often denying the people their basic rights and freedom.
Citing external threats, the regimes spent heavily on weapons and modernising the armed force - money that could have been spent on building development infrastructure and uplifting the social and economic condition of the people, eradicating poverty and providing health and education to children. International powers also backed these dictatorial regimes and supplied and sold them arms to be used against the people, suppressing the genuine struggles of the people.
The regimes that either received grants in the form of military aid or purchased sophisticated weapons from international powers were generally not incline to defend the country from external threats but to retain their repressive rule by the means of force.
Military intervention
In the present inter-connected world characterised by information and technological revolution, no country can choose to occupy the territory of another country through military means. Instead, they try to invade through other means like economic domination, trade, cultural invasion and technological control. This approach has been adopted by the international powers to give them a soft power image.
The international powers resort to military interventions only when other options get exhausted. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are cases of direct military intervention after the West’s soft power strategy failed. Military intervention is often risky. In most cases, military intervention from outside has boomeranged. Vietnam is an example of national humiliation faced by the United States. The Russian occupation of Afghanistan and Vietnam’s aggression in Cambodia are yet other ugly instances of foreign military intervention in another country, all of which have proved very costly for the occupiers.
Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has not achieved what it had earlier expected. In our own neighbourhood, the Indian military mission in Sri Lanka in the name of containing the LTTE was yet another fiasco. Based on these experiences, the international powers do not usually opt for military intervention but use alternative methods to ensure their control in other countries.
The regimes, instead, are facing threats from within their countries. Inter-state conflict has shifted to intra-state conflict. The conflict between the state and the non-state actors is intensifying in several developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The main threat to the regimes in the present context is from the oppressed, exploited, marginalised and discriminated people, who are struggling for their equal and just rights and share in the governance of the state and decision-making.
The regimes have responded to the struggle of the people with oppressive measures, which have resulted in violent conflicts. However, the regimes often try to equate a people’s struggle with either terrorist activities or a threat to national sovereignty and territorial integrity ostensibly to mislead the international community and get international support for their repressive measures.
With the change in the international power politics and the balance of power, the concept of security has undergone a paradigm shift. This is particularly so after the end of the Cold War that marked the collapse of the Soviet bloc, paving the way for the emergence of a unipolar world dominated by the United States - the only super power. In the present unipolar world, human security has topped the agenda of all countries.
It has been widely accepted that human security or the security of the people can be ensured only when there is a guarantee of freedom from fear and freedom from wants. Freedom from fear is ensured by maintaining effective law and order internally whereas freedom from want can be guaranteed only when the state provides its people with ample opportunities for meeting their basic needs like access to adequate food, shelter and clothing to live a dignified life.
It has been globally acknowledged that human insecurity is the root of all conflicts. The widening gap between the rich and the poor, as a result of the state policy of exploitation, repression, discrimination and marginalisation of the majority of the people, is the prime cause behind the increasing human insecurity in the world.
The root cause of Nepal’s conflict is also this human insecurity perpetrated by the feudal political system. The Maoist party raised this issue effectively which brought the masses into its fold and accordingly launched an armed insurgency against the feudal state under the monarchy. The Maoists demanded the abolition of all kinds of political, economic, cultural and religious exploitation and discrimination, and the establishment of a republican system with inclusive democracy, federal state structure and religious secularism.
Within a decade of their guerilla insurgency, the Maoists were able to control almost 85 per cent of the country whereas the state’s presence was limited to a few urban centres. Sensing the grave situation, an agreement was brokered between the Maoists and the rest of the parliamentary parties, in which most of the Maoists’ demands were met.
Although there was clarity on other issues, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed between the state and the insurgent Maoist party, did not clearly define the modality of managing the Maoist guerilla, which is, perhaps, the most pressing and important issue of the peace process. In the CPA, the terminology ‘army integration’ has been incorporated but not defined and elaborated. As a result, different parties and people have interpreted this terminology differently, which has created confusion among the people and delayed the peace process.
The CPA has treated both the Nepal Army and the Maoists’ People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on an equal footing, and it gives the impression that army integration means only the merger of the two armies. The Maoists have raised and demanded that this provision of the CPA on army integration be implemented in both letter and spirit.
In more recent times, the parties have become a bit flexible on the issue of PLA management. However, at the same time, attention has to be given to restructuring and reforming the entire security system and bodies of the country. As the concept of security has changed globally with the focus shifting from state security to human security, the emphasis has to be laid on addressing the security of the people while taking any decision on security sector reforms and restructuring.
National Security Strategy
The first and foremost necessity at this point is the formulation of a national security strategy and policy, which does not exist at present. The security strategy and policy alone would assess the nature of security threat and determine the security requirement to cope with it. Based on the security assessment, the size of the different security organs of the country can be properly and scientifically ascertained. This would facilitate the process of security sector reforms.
Comments
Post a Comment