Defining the role of the army
Editorial
In a guest editorial last week Wednesday on the day of the opening of a seminar designed to assist in the development of a national security strategy the danger of not having a clearly defined strategy was outlined. It was stated that such a strategy must address the core defence problems facing Guyana which include maintaining the integrity of our borders, preventing the plunder of our fisheries and combating narco-trafficking by land, air and sea. The seminar can be seen as the first step in the direction of defining such a strategy. It would have helped greatly if at the outset an effort had been made by or on behalf of the Defence Board to give a clear definition of the nature of the security problems facing the nation and some idea of the current thinking. The seminar could then have taken place within that context. Dr Roger Luncheon, the secretary of the Defence Board, did make a presentation but it was on the final day and was in any event too general to be very helpful. At present there is no formulated strategy and reports indicate that efforts by senior officers of the army to promote the discussion of strategy papers have not enjoyed much success. In the meantime, strategy is being formed by default. The army is about 2300 strong, it is starved of capital equipment of all kinds (the coastguard has no patrol boats, for example) and its effectiveness will gradually deteriorate. President Jagdeo in opening remarks at the seminar gave a convincing description of the nation's economic plight and the small amount available out of revenue for many competing priorities after debt servicing and the payment of public service salaries. He also noted that donors do not lend money for military purposes. But as one speaker asked, can we afford not to have an effective army given the hazards we face. Many tough issues need to be discussed. Can our borders be effectively patrolled? What would that require? Can technology help and to what extent? How many boats does our coastguard need to do a proper job? What is the extent of the drug threat? The Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, set up by the U.S. Defense Department to develop civilian specialists in defence and military matters among its other tasks conducts on-site seminars in Latin America and the Caribbean. The seminar was sponsored by the Center, the US Embassy and the United States Southern Command and the government of Guyana was involved in the organisation. The Center provided many of the speakers and their personnel were involved in the workshop sessions. The Center encourages a schematic approach to national security in its broadest sense which views security as a composite of many factors including the state of the economy, internal instability and environmental threats. There can be no doubt that all of those issues form a legitimate part of the total problem. However, trying to deal with all these factors in a seminar of this kind seemed counterproductive and there was a tendency to develop a kind of platitudinous consensus; yes, we need a stronger economy, and yes, we need political stability. In the process of doing this the focus on the immediate military and strategic problems facing the country and the army was lost. There was a strong sense among participants that the agenda was too broad and too diluted. There was a sense, too, that the government should have had a more thought out position coming into the seminar and should have played a larger role in crafting the agenda. Yet it was a beginning and one important feature was that civil society was fairly well represented. There were senior representatives from the PNC, which was a most welcome feature even though all of them did not last the course, representatives from business, the trade unions and the media. The real need, of course, as the President acknowledged, is to craft a national defence policy which transcends partisanship and that can be adopted in its broad outline, perhaps with minor changes, by any government that comes to power. A follow up agenda that continues to involve civil society was announced and it is to be hoped that the government will stick to it and do the necessary organisational work. Minister of Home Affairs Ronald Gajraj was there throughout the seminar and stuck manfully to his job as chairman but there was a noticeable absence of other ministers including one or two who are members of the Defence Board or closely connected with it in one way or another. Dr Luncheon, the Secretary of the Defence Board, popped in briefly from time to time but was apparently too busy with other matters to stay. President Bharrat Jagdeo made an input at the beginning and at the end. The national security adviser never attended, but on enquiry was said to be unwell. One senses that there is some political ambivalence in the government on the army and that the seminar may not have been seen in some quarters as a priority. Or perhaps the ministers just couldn't be bothered to attend. At the end of the day it's so often a question of will and human resources. Apparently at one stage a sort of think tank had been set up but it is not clear what, if anything, it produced. The debate should certainly continue. We do badly need a national defence strategy as we face various obvious threats. At the moment the army is being weakened by underfunding and a process of attrition. That is the de facto `policy' that needs to be addressed. At the next meeting the debate should be more focused and priorities should be set, and experienced army personnel, past and present, should be allowed to identify some of the problems in more detail. Not everything can or should be discussed in a public forum, of course, but lessons should be learnt from the first seminar on how to proceed.
|