DATE=2/3/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=ASIAN MILITARY
NUMBER=5-45378
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
INTRO: The military takeover in Pakistan and the
continuing military grip on Indonesia point up the
fragility of democracy in Asia. At a recent Washington
conference, (Tues., Feb. 1) Asian specialists
discussed what can be done to limit military power and
assert civilian control in countries lacking that
tradition. V-O-A's Ed Warner reports the discussion.
TEXT: Military in the East means something different
from military in the West.
That was a key point made by participants at a
conference on the Asian military held at the Woodrow
Wilson Center in Washington.
James Ockey [`ock-ee], a senior lecturer in political
science at Canterbury University in New Zealand, noted
that post-colonial armed forces were developed in Asia
to combat internal enemies. During the period of the
Cold War, the United States provided external defense.
This division of labor worked as long as the Cold War
lasted.
Today is another matter, he said. The Asian military
continues to concentrate on internal suppression of
groups that are no longer communist and often
democratic - a legitimate opposition.
But well-established habits are hard to break, said
Geoffrey Robinson, Professor of History at the
University of California, Los Angeles. The longer an
army stays in power, the less willing it is to give it
up.
He said a civilian government must directly but deftly
confront the military:
/// FIRST ROBINSON ACT ///
It must be prepared to rotate out disloyal
officers right up to the general rank. It must
be prepared to take control of promotions but to
do this in a delicate way. It must be prepared
to support the principle of accountability for
human rights abuses. It must be prepared to fire
people and to try people who do not live up to
these standards.
/// END ACT ///
But these steps cannot be taken without the support of
a relatively strong civil society, said Professor
Robinson. So democracy is crucial for curbing military
power.
He said the international community must also lend a
hand with timely persuasion and pressure against
countries under military rule. This means cutting back
U-S military aid and training where necessary, as in
Indonesia and Pakistan:
/// SECOND ROBINSON ACT ///
There is not any evidence from Indonesia that it
has helped, and there is some evidence that it
has hurt. I think that it has created an
impression over thirty odd years that it will be
possible to work this out among men over a beer,
and it did not work. It actually created a sense
of solidarity, which I think made decision-
makers here reluctant to be as tough as they
ought to have been.
/// END ACT ///
Babar Sattar, a Pakistani scholar from Oxford
University, said the tendency is for U-S military
advisers to bypass the normal channels of command in
Pakistan and deal directly with the officers they
know. In his opinion, this breaks down military
discipline and makes civilian control more difficult.
James Ockey (of Canterbury University) said what
worked before may not work now:
/// OCKEY ACT ///
In the 1960's and 1970's, a lot of this training
was counter-insurgency training, aimed at
fighting internal threats in these countries.
And twenty years later, we have to face the
consequences of that training in trying to
remove people from power who continue to resist
democratization on the grounds that there is
still an internal threat to the country.
/// END ACT ///
Conference participants agreed that whatever the
United States and other powers do, Asian nations bear
the main burden for establishing civilian control over
the military. (Signed)
NEB/EW/ENE/gm
03-Feb-2000 14:00 PM EDT (03-Feb-2000 1900 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
