Connect with us

Defense

President Trump, NATO and the trade war with China

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

The last Summit of the Atlantic Alliance saw, at least initially, a clear divergence between the United States and NATO’s European allies.

For President Trump, who is above all a businessman, budgets and investments count, rather than strategic doctrines, about which there was very little talk.

The US President, who arrived at the Summit with premeditated and carefully-considered delay, polemicized especially with Germany, saying that its low spending for defence makes it “prisoner” of Russia.

President Trump cannot get over and deal with the NORDSTREAM pipeline, headed by Mathias Warnig, former director of STASI in Dresden where,at the time, Vladimir Putin worked for the KGB, the intelligence service that was the “master” of STASI.

He wants Europeans to buy the North American shale gas and oil – but it is a very difficult goal to reach.

Europe is disputed by two energy oligopolists.

Furthermore, President Trump ignored the long and irrelevant discussions about Afghanistan and Georgia, where the EU counts less than nothing, and warned   NATO’s European members that if they did not increase their defence budget up to 2% of the GDP as from January 1, 2019, the USA would do on its own, by actually walking out of the Atlantic Alliance.

After some initial disconcertment, the NATO Secretary General organized a confidential meeting between the European members of the Atlantic Alliance, which made no concessions to the US requests.

Let us analyse, however, the data on defence spending within NATO.

As to the USA, by far the largest contributor to the Atlantic Alliance, the 2017 defence budget was equal to 686 billion US dollars, equivalent to 3.6% of GDP.

Again in 2017 the total defence spending of all the other NATO members amounted to 271 billion US dollars.

Only nine members of the Atlantic Alliance, except for the United States, spend over 10 billion US dollars per year, namely Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Turkey, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands.

Moreover, the United States must control other regions, such as the Pacific and South America, which are of no interest to NATO’s European members.

Currently three European countries already exceed the 2% target, namely Great Britain, Greece and Estonia.

Romania, Lithuania and Latvia are very close to this 2% target and miss it by just 0.3%.

Hence if all the Atlantic Alliance’s members spent 2% of their GDP in defence, we would have additional 114 billion US dollars available.

However, how much would be needed to make the European Armed Forces really efficient?

As to Germany, the very recent Bartels report informs us that – after years of budget cuts and total neglect on the part of politicians -the German soldiers have no sufficient protective devices, winter clothes, tents, etc.

In late 2017 for the German Armed Forces there were no submarines available for operations and none of the 14 large transport aircraft was ready for flight, considering that the entire sea and air fleet was under repair.

Lack of spare parts and technological backwardness are widespread in the German Army, both for jets and ships, as well as for tanks.

21,000 posts of German officers are vacant – with obvious effects and repercussions on soldiers.

In fact, in 2017 Germany spent just 1.2% of GDP in defence and the results and consequences are before us to be seen.

There is still the complex of the defeated country. If all goes well, it will take decades to go back to the situation when the German General and military theorist, Erwin Rommel, wanted to engrave on a basalt plate in the Tunisian desert the following sentence: “The German soldier amazed the world, the Italian soldier amazed the German soldier”.

The German Armed Forces (but this holds true also for the Italian ones) were designed for the first clash with the Warsaw Pact, so as to later give way to the nuclear attack, and still bear the brunt of the old strategy not permitting any defence of the now global German international interest.

As to France, its military system is much more efficient than the German one.

But the recent vote in favour of Article 14, which enables the Minister for Economy and Finance to veto the spending proposed by the Minister for Defence, as well as to impose a ceiling on all State spending for the current year (106 billion euros),undermines the necessary renewal of the French military system.

The veto permitted under Article 14 comes just when France has become a member of the Permanent Structured Cooperation, i.e. the group of 25 European countries that is organizing an integrated and autonomous EU defence.

To replace NATO? To have an autonomous foreign policy from the USA? And what would be the current European foreign policy?

Italy, the third European Armed Force, has an almost perfect system of projection outside borders, not only in terms of empty peacekeeping, but a military system that is probably inadequate to defend the whole Italian territory from external attacks. And this applies to all European countries’ Armed Forces.

The Italian Armed Forces, however, are better trained and equipped than those of many other NATO’s European allies/competitors.

The Carabinieri Special Forces known as GIS  trained the Navy Seals, the Sayeret 13 of the Israeli Army and the Japanese SAT.

Hence President Trump’s requests are made against the background of a largely obsolete European military system that is the primary victim of the various government’s “budget cuts”. Certainly the US President has got a point there.

Nevertheless without good defence, there is no political and strategic credibility and probably not even commercial credibility.

Moreover, in private meetings, President Trump asked the European allies to rise not only to 2%, but even to 4% as a new ceiling.

In this case, the US defence spending would amount to  762 billion dollars and all the other NATO European countries should spend 735 billion dollars.

For President Trump, however, it all hangs and fits together from the fiscal and economic viewpoints: while travelling back from Brussels, he said that the European allies spend too little – hence, in his mind, there is an obvious connection with the issue of EU’s trade surplus. Europeans spend too little because they behave like pirates in international trade.

The core of the issue is mainly the German surplus which, coincidentally, is combined with an almost ridiculous military spending.

Meanwhile, China has decided to increase its military spending by 8.1% in 2019, which is – in volume – slightly lower than the US one.

It amounted to 151 billion US dollars in 2017. Nevertheless the Chinese budget must be studied carefully.

Many resources of Ministries such as the Transport, Education and Communications Ministries are closely connected with the People’s Liberation Army.

Moreover President Xi Jinping has recently established a new “Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development” – a clear sign of the strong permeation and interpenetration between these two sectors.

This will probably be the policy line that will enable  NATO’s European countries to spend what is needed for defence, even with a significant impact on “civilian” spending.

The Russian Federation is spending 1.35 billion US dollars for the current year, with an 8% increase compared to the previous forecasts for the same year.

The 2% target of desirable military spending by NATO’s European countries dates back to long time ago. It was first discussed at the NATO Summit held in Prague in 2002, but it was only a gentleman’s agreement.

At the meeting of NATO’s Defence Ministers held in 2006, mention was still made of the “willingness” to spend “at least” 2% of the State’s yearly budget. But it was only lip service. Just hollow words, as usual.

At the NATO Summit held in Wales in 2014 the Heads of State and Government raised again the issue of spending at least 2% of public budgets for defence.

As already noted, only four Western countries spend 2%, namely USA, Greece, Great Britain and Estonia. Greece, however, spends most of its military budget on salaries and pensions.

Ukraine is the only country exceeding 2% and reaching a “US-style” rate of 3.57%, while Georgia and Poland are just below the 2% level.

With specific reference to equipment, NATO’s “policy line” requires at least 20% of defence budget spending. Currently we are at a much lower level.

Within the Atlantic Alliance, only 3.11 of the 28 NATO members do spend 20% on equipment. Germany, the country that in 2019 should lead the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, invests only 14% of its defence budget in materials and equipment.

Conversely, three nations of the former Warsaw Pact spend according to the target set by NATO’s policy line, namely Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria.

Slovenia and Belgium are at the bottom of the list, with only 4-5% of spending on equipment.

Russia, however, has already increased its defence budget for  2018 by 95 trillion roubles, equivalent to 51.53 billion US dollars, while its military spending, as share of Russian GDP,is slowly decreasing, according to the plans adopted by President Putin in 2015. If the GDP increases, everything will work well.

Obviously the problem raised by President Trump is only quantitative and not qualitative.

In fact, so far NATO has carried out many peacekeeping operations – a sort of strategic refrigerator that preserves  regional tensions for  long time – or has supported the weak and fragile democracies resulting from Eastern Europe and the former Warsaw Pact.

Moreover Europeans cannot afford to arm and train the Rapid Reaction Force led by the EU – initially by France and Great Britain with 60,000 soldiers – which will be hard to put together, but always for peacekeeping and peace enforcement purposes and for humanitarian missions.

Currently Eurofor is composed of forces from France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. According to plans, there are  60,000 soldiers available, but readiness is to be verified.

So far it has carried out operations in Albania, Macedonia, Chad and the Central African Republic.

Eurofor has also an intelligence service provided only by the United States.

The EU battlegroups, military units that each EU country provides, are financed only with ATHENA funds – a pool of funds already allocated by European countries. Will they be enough?

What happens, however, if – with specific reference to the use and deployment of Eurofor and EU battlegroups – there are differences between EU countries on foreign policy?

Furthermore, President Trump’s request to European countries for more defence investment actually means only one thing.

According to the United States, currently European countries are too heavy a burden to bear. The EU -initially supported by the United States during the Cold War – has become a troublesome economic competitor and, with its Euro, a dangerous rival for the dollar.

If the United States reaches a sort of “cold peace” with  Putin’s Russia – which wants to rebalance power in  peripheral regions, but also in Europe – the EU will have no longer meaning for the USA.

Indeed, the European Union could become a competitor or even an enemy.

It would be possibly better to share it out with Russia and put an end to NATO as a collective security organization.

President Trump thinks that, if they wish so, Europeans can continue their wars of the buttons in the Balkans or in countries that apparently need the cosmetic exercise called peacekeeping.

In the future, however, without the NATO umbrella mostly paid by the United States.

If the agreement with the Russian Federation goes on, President Trump will claim for the United States not just a part of the EU, but a political stake in all EU countries, i.e. by buying a traditionally Atlantic political region which is currently vaguely and vocally pro-European.

President Putin will take possession and control of the so-called “anti-establishment” or “nationalist” parties, which will undermine the EU mechanisms. The United States will enjoy the spoils, without having to bear any longer the huge cost for NATO defence to the benefit of economic competitors, as well as for very harsh European tariffs and duties, and finally for the Euro.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Comprehension of the S-400 Crisis

Published

on

Turkey’s air defence has had a severe weakness for decades. Hence, Turkey was in a position to base its air defence on fighter aircrafts. It proves the fact that Turkey has a lack of medium-altitude and high-altitude air defence systems. This is a critical vulnerability for a country like Turkey. The countries surrounding Turkey are considered to have ballistic missile capabilities. They also control the missile defence systems. Naturally, it demonstrates that Turkey is in a problematic geography for security. Therefore, Turkey must have an air defence system. For this reason, Turkey has requested from NATO, historical partners of Turkey since 1952, to reinforce its air defence system against the ballistic missile threat. Ergo, between 2013-2015, the U.S., German and Dutch’s Patriots took up military duty in various cities in Turkey.

Hereupon, because of the off-duty of these deployed Patriots systems, since 2015 and 2016, Spanish Patriots and the Italian SAMP-T‘s have been carrying out military duty at the southern part of Turkey under the umbrella of NATO.These solutions are evaluated to be temporal in order to meet Turkey’s air defence system needs; additionally, the strategic necessity of these systems are too vital to be left to another country’s control.

Ipso facto, Turkey initiated a tender and negotiated with several countries. As a result of this tender, in 2013, the Chinese company had won the tender, but due to some pressure of the USA and NATO countries, Turkey had to cancel the agreement. The displayed reason was that the Chinese company has previously penalized by Washington. At the meantime, the purchase of the Patriot missile defence system from the United States also negotiated in 2013, but due to the U.S. refusal to share the technical specifications of the Patriots with Turkey and the high cost of the system, Turkey desisted from the MIM-104 Patriot. Therefore, decision makers started to work with different countries in order to purchase the air defence system to fulfil its need. After several meetings, Turkey’s expectations in terms of price, delivery, co-production and technology transfer allowed Turkish bureaucrats to approach S-400 purchasing positively with Russia.

After the signing of the agreement between Turkey and Russia in September, 2017, Turkey acquired two S-400 systems with a total of four; two will be produced in Turkey and batteries from Russia for $2.5 billion. In line with statements made by Turkish officials, the first delivery of the S-400 took place in recent months, as of 2019.Some days after the parts of the S-400 system began to get transported to Ankara, the U.S. Department of Defence officially announced at a press conference by the Pentagon that Turkey would be removed from the F-35 Joint Air Strike Fighter program. The U.S. and other F-35 partners are aligned in this decision to suspend Turkey from the program and initiate the process to remove Turkey from the program formally. The decision was taken jointly with the founding partner countries of the F-35 program (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom). The only discernible difference here is that the move was taken against Turkey’s decision to purchase Russian-made S-400 air defence systems.The U.S.’ argument is that the use of the S-400, some sensitive information of F-35 technology and important electronic intelligence, might change hands. However, the same dangerousness also present for Russia because the S-400 system is at the centre of Russia’s air defence. Russia is also opening up the performance of its system to NATO member states and therefore to NATO.

Moreover, Russian weapons are still in active use in many countries. Eastern European countries have the most Russian weapons. Aircraft, tanks, even missile systems and helicopters are still on duty. Many of these countries are under the umbrella of NATO today. Moreover, Greece, Bulgaria and Slovakia, which are also NATO members, use Russian-made S-300s which is considered still among one of the most potent medium-range air defence systems in the world, while Turkey has been criticised for acquiring the S-400 air defence system from Russia. Further, Greece acquired the S-300 systems from the Greek Cypriot Administration while they were in NATO. Another NATO member, Bulgaria, is known to have S-300 systems. Slovakia has S-300 missile battery inherited from Czechoslovakia. Slovakia had asked for its air defence system to be modernised by Russia in 2015. Astonishingly, Greece system participated in the joint military drill conducted by the Greek and Israeli Air Forces. The fact that Slovakia’s Air Force, which participated in a joint exercise in France and Germany , also brought in S-300 missiles was welcomed as contributing to NATO countries’ experience with these missiles. Bulgaria also tested its S-300 missiles at 2015 in another military exercise with Slovakia. Obstreperously, the U.S. has not made a definitive comment on the activation of the S-300 missile system mentioned above when used by NATO countries. Notwithstanding, Turkey has been signalled by the U.S. to be devastated with additional sanctions while calling the missile purchase an “unacceptable” move. Herein, the application of double standards on Turkey is plain to see.

Turkey has played essential roles within critical operations under NATO. Turkey’s role within the organisation is remarkable. Turkey is a durable and robust country of NATO and has been a reliable ally of the USA, even though Turkey’s capacity to take responsibility for NATO is beyond dispute. It is Turkey’s own decision to buy the S-400. Every NATO member country can buy any weaponry in accordance with the decision of their state interests.

It is some kind of attempt to isolate the Republic of Turkey, even with its allies, by removing it from a programme it is a partner in and applying another standard to Turkey compared with some other NATO members. This is a significant point to highlight. While Turkey has fulfilled all its responsibilities to NATO, it is incredibly wrong that its acquisition of the S-400 should not be associated with the F-35. This is a negative image that contributes to Turkey’s disengagement from NATO. The political and economic pressures applied or that would be applied and would interfere with Turkey’s sovereignty rights do not coincide with NATO’s spirit of alliance. Turkey must decide its future and what type of weapons to buy without any political pressure from any country.

Continue Reading

Defense

From Trade War to Strait War: China Warn U.S. Stop Stretching its Muscles in the Contested Waters

Asad Ullah

Published

on

Up till now, no one distinguishes the actual explanations behind the hostile faces. If a trade war isn’t the exact cause, the rise of China, the Hong Kong and the South China Sea questions added further fuel to the fire.  

War of words or trade war no one knows as the dust has not settled yet. When the dust settles, the practical ins and outs for the aggressive faces will appear. Peter Navarro, the US Director of Trade and Industrial policy, said Chinese wish to get Trump to the so the called bargaining table and let them keep having their will with the US. Whereas Wang Yi (王毅), China’s foreign minister, said, the US never desires to negotiate, and we still don’t know if they wish to transact over many issues or not?

More convincingly, the leading cause of the degraded relation isn’t just the trade war, America is trying to keep its universal notion fixed, for which the US considered China is a direct threat. To undermine Chinese strength, the US deliberately interfering in Chinese domestic affairs, recently in Hong Kong, and the South China Sea. China considers such actions a direct threat to China’s sovereignty and taking all possible measures to counterweight such moves. Such US actions are not just undermining Chinese strength but also pose a significant danger to regional stability and harmony. In the international arena, if power is essential for self-survival under the so-called anarchistic system, in the same vein undermining someone’s strength can be detrimental for both states, as China and the US are now not only economically abundant but also possess more sophisticated weapons then ever before.

As trade war favour China up to some scope, Trump Administration is looking for alternatives to overwhelm China of fortifying their universalism notion. The recent intervention in Hong Kong, the Human Rights and Democracy act by supporting the pro-democracy movement there, and more freedom of Navigation in the South China sea,  Trump still losing all his strategies against China. To some degree, the dyadic relationship trapped in the cross-fire, the US aggressive actions against China, and the lenient Chinese response against the US dazed the rest of the world.

In the international arena, the US, instead of a trade war, now moving its muscles in the contested water in the South China Sea. The issue became more exposed when the US Defense Secretary Mark Esper concluded his Asian tour aimed to build a coalition against China in the South China Sea. Esper tour came amid annoying stiffnesses in the South China Sea, with China deploying its new aircraft carrier while warning the US against “moving its muscles” in the disputed waters. Recently both the states have increased their navy and used evermore armada, weapons and military assets in regional contested water.

As the US navy increased its freedom of navigation operations in the disputed water lately, the tension between the two power intensified. A few months ago, China, for the first time deployed domestically, builds aircraft called Type 001A to the disputed water through Taiwan strait. Responding to China’s action, the US deployed the USS Gabrielle Giffords littoral combat ship stationed in Singapore’s Changi naval base. Such action-reaction spiral is the leading cause of their fragile relationship. Chinese officials claimed that the deployment of new aircraft means to allows the crew to become familiar with water, where it will often sail in the future. In the same vein, the US officials claimed that deploying any combat ship to the South China Sea is not that we are opposing China. We all believe and stand for international rules and laws and want China should abide by them as well.

The possibility of a hot war between China and the US is inevitable, as argued by the legendary diplomat Kissinger. Pointing towards China and the US, he said that the two most powerful economies could spill over into a military conflict.  He argued that the trade war is not the leading cause of hostility. The chief objective he mentioned is Honk Kong recently and the South China Sea. The devasted world war 1st was broke out because of the minor issue. Today, US-China hostile relation is because of a small issue but now the weapons are more potent than ever before he described.

The dyadic relationship between the US and China is getting shoddier day-by-day. The Chinese side has extended hands for peaceful resolution of the issues; being a dominant state, the US is always looking at the world more radically. Recently the US passed two bills into laws, supporting the pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong, and imposed sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials alleged responsible for the human rights violation.

In response, the Chinese government suspended the US military and ships from visiting  Hong Kong and spanked sanctions on some  US-based non-governmental organisations believed for alleged spaying and encouraging Hong-Kong anti-government protest. Beijing also warns Washington to correct their mistakes and stop interfering in Chinese domestic affairs. Beijing correspondingly said, they would take all measures against any actors, who are allegedly interfering in China’s internal affairs.

The competition between the two significant power poses a great threat to regional stability. Since 2017 the US interference in the South China Sea increased than ever before. Till now, the US dispatched almost two or three destroyers to the contested water and enhanced their routine based freedom of navigation. Beijing warns such actions repeatedly and called the US to stop such illegal activities in the contested water; although the US never responded to Beijing. Probably such actions reactions would spill over into a hot war. For a reason, we know that, as long as there are potent nations with devastating weapons, conflict is inevitable. 

Continue Reading

Defense

Why Sri Lanka needs a “National Securitism” oriented National Security Policy?

Kasuni Ranasinghe

Published

on

“National Security” was one of the main discussion points in the propaganda campaigns of all major contenders of the Presidential election. War-time Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapakshe, was elected as the 7th president of the country, stressing the security gap. The Easter Sunday attack brought attention to the security of the country that appeared as religious fundamentalism and extremism again after a decade of the end of the 30 years brutal war. Many have pointed this as a failure of the government and accused of dismantling the military intelligence service. Even the report of the select committee of parliament on the Easter Sunday attack (21st April 2019) has accused the President, former Secretary Defence as the Director of SIS and IGP as failed in fulfilling duties. “……. the PSC observes that the President failed on numerous occasions to give leadership and also actively undermined government and system including having ad-hoc NSC meetings and leaving key individuals from meetings…….”.

And regarding Defense Secretary and others, PSC noted as “that whilst the greatest responsibility remains with the Director SIS, others too failed in their duties. Within the security and intelligence apparatus, the Secretary MOD, IGP, CNI and DMI failed in their responsibilities. All were informed of the intelligence information before the Easter Sunday attacks but failed to take necessary steps to mitigate or prevent it…” However, now former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and IGP Pujith Jayasundara were arrested for further investigations. The victims are not pleased with the solutions tabled by the government, which created a trust deficit between the government and citizens.

Meanwhile, the country is in an alarming debt trap with China and a drastic economic downturn. India’s interest over strategic infrastructures such as Mattala Airport, newly open Jaffna International airport and Trincomalee harbor is becoming a challenge to the sovereignty and peace of the country. Also, other threats (apart from interest over infrastructure) coming from India is crucial, and that has historically proven. South India seems to be the key customer of Jaffna International Airport, and at the same time, the Southern Province of India is one of the primary breeding grounds for ISIS as well as for the LTTE. Thus the potential of the airport to be a floodgate for Islamic extremists and LTTE is high if the immigration is not carefully monitored.

Meanwhile, proposals coming from USA such as Status of Forces Agreement-SOFA, Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement – ACSA and now with the Millennium Challenge Cooperation- MCC. None of these agreements is completely evil, and the theory of conspiracy is not directly applicable for any of them. All pros and cons are visible if terms and conditions are prudently appraised. Practically, implementations of SOFA and ACSA are challenging to Sri Lanka as the power of negotiation with the USA is limited. The MCC is an important initiative addressing two of the crucial issues of the country; transport development and digitalizing land titles. Both are identified as key parameters of poverty reduction and human development initiatives of the government. However, the security concern is with the proposing GIS and CCTV monitoring systems which has the potential of accessing personal information of individuals. The closure or termination is also problematic to the country. Sri Lanka has no potentials to terminate the agreement, if a case, the grant will be converted to a loan and has to repay the grant, interest, earnings as well as assets. In case of a breach, the country will be financially trapped with USA and consequences will be similar or worse than the cancellation of the Colombo Port City project of China. Sri Lanka will be another significant case study digitalising to Djibouti of how massive investments go wrong for the hosting country and becoming a regional facilitator for Military bases. The results would be terrible if the SOFA has signed with no reviews.

Cyber is another source of threat which has capabilities of disabling vital websites and networks for the stability of the nation. Further, it has the potential to paralyze the economy by stealing and destroying classified information via hacking relevant data-banks. Illicit drugs and small arms are other two challenges which identified by Hon Maithreepala Sirisena His Excellency, the President of Sri Lanka as critical threats to peace and security. Climate change, modern slavery, corruptions, poverty, piracy, lack of identity, IUU fishing issue, racism, separatism, ethnic unrest, misinformation and unregulated social media networks are some of the other critical challenges to the present national security.

In this context, national security should be the prime duty of the President and also the government. Overall, it is proven that the lapses of the current policies are the foundation of the discussed coercions. Unclearness of national purpose, values and interests are also foremost roots. The National Security Policy, which defines the national purpose, values, interests, threats and challenges would be a pathway.

What is the National Security Policy?

The “National Security Policy” is considered as the “Grand Policy” where skills of soldiers, civilians and politicians merge to ensure the stability of the territory. In other terms, NSP can be characterized as the integration of military, foreign and domestic policies to coordinate its economic, political, social and military capabilities in preventing actual and potential external and internal adversaries. Thus, the NSP should be aligned with all ministerial portfolios to achieve the ultimate national purpose, values and interests of the island. The ministries related to defence, foreign affairs, economic and finance, socio-cultural, environmental and technologies and information should respectively convey their policies and strategies to reach the ultimate goal of NSP.

However, what type of Security Policy does Sri Lanka need is questionable? Defence and security theorists are coming up with the number of them and amongst them “National Securitism” oriented policy would be appropriate for Sri Lanka.

National Securitism” oriented Security Policy for Sri Lanka?

“National Securitism” is for the states which practice democracy and continually using the law of emergency to resort conflicts. The characteristics of a democratic regime appear to exist and practically the civilian leader (political) of the country, the President controls over the tri forces and police. The rule of law is supreme, and the political leader directs military and civilians with the instructions of the constitution.

As the national purpose and interest of the island appreciate democratic “National Security State”, the National Security Policy should in line with the same. Thus, the NSP of Sri Lanka should not just a state of emergency to meet threats to the democratic process. It is a permanent policy with timely amendments, which combine civil and military establishments to safeguard the national security of the county in general. Further, the policy consists of the tools to stricter the control Political, Economic, Social, Technologies, Ecology and Military arms (PESTEM) during the exceptional state of emergency. Roles of civilian, military and police forces should blend to bring democratic approaches (human rights) to the mandatory military exercises in political conflicts. The NSP mandate to fill the gap between investment requirement for national developments and threats arising (internally and externally) due to the same. The military involvement in economic and social development projects also all other social welfare activities necessary to appreciate. Aligning with other policies in a democratic and political process such as defence, foreign, economic and finance, technology and information is necessary to ensure the democratic values of the nation. Line policies and strategies as mentioned above, should be interconnected and NSP should derive all of them. More importantly, defence, foreign and economic policies should interconnect as well as the strategies to ensure the success of the NSP. For example, National Defence Policy which is already compiled by the Ministry of Defence, should connect to the foreign policy of the country. If two policies interconnected, Sri Lanka capable of exercising foreign policy for the use of military, in the form of technical assistance, training, arms supply, sharing intelligence and also the military industry activities. Intelligence sharing through proper channels would be a more exceptional solution to mitigate threats coming from other territories which fires the home. Such as Islamic fundamentalism which exported from Saudi Arabia and fuelled by the fundamentalists living in South India and Sri Lankan.

Further, national securitism would bring up the approach of human rights to the national security of the country, which may ensure the practice of ordinary jurisdiction. In the context, NSP would be an excellent initiative for Sri Lanka to answer the Geneva Human Rights Council. However, NSP of Sri Lanka if it is under the ideology of securitism, will function the military and civilian establishments as moral censors to the government warring potential activities destabilizing the peaceful political arena of the country.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending