Security is always a work in progress and there is nothing absolutist about it; it is always long-term in outlook. Yet, there are nuances which can be taken stock of, issues which have perhaps long been clamouring for attention but complexities of management have rarely afforded an opportunity to visit them.
10 ways to straighten National Security
1)National security strategy document-
For too long has the nation done without transparency in the domain of national security. No one doubts the sincerity of the government in this all-important area, but in a nation where the understanding of national security itself has not matured, there is a need to enhance awareness. If a National Security Strategy (NSS) document is available and regularly reviewed, there will be far greater awareness and understanding. Currently, national security is considered the domain of the military and is associated with everything robust, although the military itself is hardly given the leeway to advise on this. In an emerging era when “hybrid” is the label for all kinds of conflicts which threaten the nation, this awareness has to increase.
As a subset of this point, perhaps a push on the creation of the National Defence University (NDU) may be in order. This was a recommendation of the Kargil Review Committee. It took 12 years for the foundation stone to be laid. The need for giving it some impetus is because there is increasing interest in the country in matters strategic and we need an institution to satiate the thirst for knowledge in this crucial field.
2)Integration Of The MoD And Creation Of A Coordination Mechanism Between The MoD and the MHA-
This is again a recommendation of the Kargil Review Committee which was attempted to be implemented in a patchwork way by creating the HQ Integrated Defence Staff (IDS). The Services HQs were supposed to be integrated with the Ministry of Defence (MoD), but except for the cosmetic alteration of designation, nothing else changed. At the very minimum, the MoD needs professionals with ground experience to handle policy making appointments. There are models from all over the world where uniformed officers perform bureaucratic jobs as part of joint military-bureaucracy teams. The defense ministry has been examining this seriously but perhaps needs to commence an experiment with a few appointments.
Coupled with the appointment of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) or a Permanent Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee, this would be a transformational change which will send positive vibes within the uniformed community which isn’t too happy about the state of civil-military relations.
The coordination mechanism between the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the MoD needs a look, especially since border management is the domain of the MHA but contentious borders are with the MoD. A well-thought-out structure needs to be put in place and made to work for the national good.
3)Revamping Information Operations And Handling Capability-
Pakistan realised the importance of public information and information warfare as early as 1949. It set up the Inter Service Public Relations (ISPR) and progressively refined its entire approach to information as a domain. This has come into its own since 1989 when Pakistan launched its asymmetric war efforts in Jammu & Kashmir. Ever since the emergence of social media it has further refined its strategy. Sadly, there is no organisation in India, including within the Army, which is chartered to execute information operations. The domain of public relations, public information and information remains rooted within the archaic system of the PRO MoD which for no fault of its own is incapable or simply never considered as a General Staff arm.
4)Creation Of A Communication Strategy Board-
India faces fault line problems arising out of its heterogeneous composition. The need for integration or mainstreaming can never be overemphasised. While there is a Minorities Commission in place, it can only address problems of the minorities and not of regional or people-based grievances which sometimes manifest as internal threats. No doubt the intelligence services monitor this but the social environment needs a perception-based handling, not a counter-intelligence handling, to convey the right information and change minds based on the correct narrative.
J&K, North East and the Red Corridor have all witnessed large scale problems. These can be handled militarily through hard power but equally there is a need for a soft power approach too. For that, a permanent body which could be termed as the National Communication Strategy Board needs to be set up with representation from different walks of life to include military, police, intelligence, academia, media, psychologists and medical doctors, sociologists and even politicians who have a penchant for strategic affairs.
The tasks of this body could be worked out in detail but broadly it would be an ideating platform which would generate narratives and could even task agencies after due approval of the PMO or Cabinet Secretariat.
5)Civil-Military Relations-
These have not been in a healthy state for long and there is a history of standoff which is denying the nation the benefit of the best services of both the civil and the military authority towards management of security affairs of the country. Issues of protocol, control, turf, budgeting and many other areas of discord are preventing the optimisation of the armed forces, something only our adversaries would be happy to note. There is no magic wand solution to this but a conscious beginning must be made to arrest and reverse the trend. Perhaps directions are necessary from the highest level to set up a permanent composite body to monitor and report the state of civil-military relations.
6)J&K Affairs-
First, the benefits of good governance need to reach the people. The perception persists that much investment has been made in J&K but it needs more accountability to ensure the impact. Without impinging on the freedom of the state government, the central government possibly needs a department to handle J&K in a focused way and cater to governance needs in a fast track mode.
Secondly, all other aspects of security being equal, the significance of security of the rear areas needs attention, especially in the Jammu region where vulnerability appears higher, and this includes government installations, garrisons and soft spots such as schools. This attention could also expand into areas of North Punjab which may increasingly be in the crosswires of the planners across the border. Greater coordination between the Army and the police needs to be institutionalised.
Thirdly, the agitation in the streets through the second half of 2016 paralysed work in the Valley and also had Jammu seething. An ominous calm seems to have emerged, driven more by fatigue and exhaustion. It needs just a little tonic to get back to the negativism of 2016. In the window of 2017, a special strategy to reach the people needs to be made. This is no appeasement; an exhausted populace needs balm. How this can be done and done quickly should form the government’s focus. There are past best practices available which could be revisited with more consultation.
7)China, Russia And The US: The Big Power Game-
There can be no security consideration without the China factor. The threat from China is likely to loom large, but equally, China is likely to be more focused on the US under Trump. India being an emerging strategic partner of the US could inadvertently get sucked into the vortex of the US-China rivalry. This would not be to its interest and therefore tightrope walking may have to be the cornerstone of its strategy. 2017 is likely to be a year of greater uncertainty as a new US administration wrestles with its security concerns. Russia is gaining greater confidence after its involvement in Syria and has been testing waters in Pakistan. Equations in big power politics are not zero sum games. India’s relationship with Russia is very important and this needs to be developed with messaging that given all other relationships, the India-Russia equation is extremely dear to us.
However, India cannot be restrained by the uncertainty of big power relationships. Mr Modi’s hard work through three years of foreign policy development will fructify now if India retains balance without compromising in areas where it has already scored, e.g. the rapport with Japan and ASEAN needs to continue in the quest for the development of the Indo-Pacific idea.
8)Afghanistan-
India cannot take its eyes away from Afghanistan. 2017 may well be a decisive year in the future of Afghanistan as a strong military-oriented administration comes to power in the US. No doubt Pakistan will play an important role in whatever the US does, by sheer dint of its geostrategic location. However, India, having built its relationship with President Ashraf Ghani, cannot allow its position to be diluted. If necessary, military support to the Afghan National Army in terms of some lethal capability may also be considered in consultation with other stakeholders.
The complexities of Afghanistan are well understood in India’s diplomatic community and this understanding needs to harnessed optimally.
9)Bangladesh, Myanmar And Act East-
No security consideration in the current context can be complete without turning attention towards the East, and that includes the handling of India’s North East region. With Myanmar more stable, opened up and integrated with ASEAN, the situation begs for incorporating it as the virtual bridge to ASEAN along the continental continuity. With Bangladesh in the best state of relations with India, this is the time to exploit the Bangladesh-North East India-Myanmar continuum in turns of connectivity and economic corridors for the mutual benefit of the entire region.
Just as in the case of Nagaland, a more focused outreach in Manipur may convince the disparate groups of the opportunity for all.
China too is increasingly looking at the Maritime Silk Route and inner connectivity, which India is yet to be convinced about. Perhaps that may yet be early, but economics needs to be the driver for Bangladesh, Myanmar and North East India and through that to the rest of ASEAN.
10)Military Capability-
The last of the issues needing continued focus is the requirement for development of military capability. It is not as if India is weak, but in recent times there has been a trend to find fault with every single facet of the nation’s military capability. No doubt our equipment profile is getting dated and the promised fast track induction of equipment has not fully fructified.
All three services have their problems. The creation of a Chief of the Defence Staff or equivalent will contribute to the degree of clarity in priorities. Recent reforms in procurement and indigenisation have been pragmatic but the execution may need more energy through some policy changes in personnel management for those who handle this domain. We need the initiation of processes which will ensure continuity. Much has been done but equally, much still needs focus.
There is also the field of ammunition which needs attention. In 2013, the nation received a bit of a scare when it was revealed that our capability existed only to fight a 20-day war due to the restricted quantum of ammunition. In 2017, this needs to be holistically reviewed and if imports have to be resorted to, the same should be done. This is one domain where we need transparency for reassurance of the public and messaging our adversaries who may take our overall war waging potential lightly.
There can be a host of other issues on which one needs to deliberate but there can be no doubt that the government is well seized of these. The only challenge in the complex job of running a government is how to remain focused and prioritize without allowing events to dictate the course. National security from a geostrategic angle will obviously remain a key concern.
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.