DEFENCE POLICY MAKING

DEFENCE POLICY MAKING HAS BEEN FAR REMOVED FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF POLICY MAKING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. WHY IS THIS SO? WHAT IS THE EFFICACY OF A DEFENCE POLICY FORMULATED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES? HOW WOULD A DEFENCE POLICY MADE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BALANCE BETWEEN SERVING NATIONAL INTERESTS AND REGIME INTERESTS? HOW CAN SUCH A SITUATION BE RECTIFIED?

Introduction

The process of making the national defence policy in the developing countries is very complicated. It depends greatly on military technology capability and the purchasing capability of the nation or the stability of their economic. Upon achieving their independence, the developing countries have found themselves confronted with the problems of law and order and initiating developmental programmes. Problems of national identity, social cultural divergences, population pressures, minority problems and economic difficulties such as unemployment, poverty, hunger and at certain cases a few of them are too rich or too powerful) could undermine any strong government. No wonder all new government in the developing countries found themselves weak and unstable. Beside these problems, the developing countries also have facing political maturity such as regime stigma. Those problems are fundamentally different from those of the developed countries. In such situation what defence policy means to the people in the developed countries is not what it means there but it becomes more critical to understand that the developing countries has been controlled by a certain regime.

To the developed countries, defence policy becomes very important and is given much allocation and keep upgraded every year but for the developing countries, defence policy means that they have to divide their money into two; to keep alive or to defend for live which is still not guaranteed. For whatever reasons, the developing countries also will have their own defence policy either to accommodate the national interest or regime interest. These two aspects especially regime interest is quite difficult to avoid because even in the developed countries, such regime interest is exist but in different form. They probably did not call regime but the concept such as political group which backup by their own government. The statement by Malaysian backbencher parties is regards to the government parties which benefits only the elite group in the party is such a kind of regime too. Therefore, to answer the question given, the paper will analyse on the meaning of the developing countries. If there is such a kind of developing countries, it also developed countries or most developed. Who are they? The explanation will construct according to the four questions in the title. During the explanation, a few examples which are from ASEAN perspective will be coded.

Definition of Developing Countries

During the cold war period, the term of 1st and 3rd world country is quite seldom used in social science. In fact, there have no 2nd world country. 1st world country is refers to the most developed countries such as the United States, Soviet Union and Germany. The 3rd world country was referred to the undeveloped countries which just gotten their independence. The term of ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped’ are very subjective and depending on the subject of references that have been used. In this explanation, both terms will be used accordingly which 1st world country was referred to developed countries and the 3rd world country was referred to developing countries. Asif (2003), has stated that in the World Trade Organization (WTO) which there is no definition of what comprises a developing countries. Characterization is up to a point dependent upon self-selection.

However, the WTO recognizes the categories of ‘developing’ and ‘least developed countries’ as being those which have been so designated by the United Nation. To make a simple understanding, ‘developing countries’ includes ‘least developed countries’ members. According to International Institute of Social Studies, developing countries are vulnerable to internal and external shocks and regularly suffered from periods of economic instability. Stabilization policies are required to prevent and manage such shocks. However, macroeconomic stability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for growth and poverty alleviation. Khor (1998) stated that many developing countries suffered from endemic poverty, slow economic growth, unequal distribution of income and wealth and poor environmental conditions caused by low and inefficient investment, shortage of foreign exchange, and the lack of effective government services.

Defence policy making has been far removed from the democratic process of policy making in developing countries. Why is this so?

Actually, defence policy making in the developing countries is not totally removed from the democratic process. It is just not seriously considered but has been thought at various levels because of certain reasons such as the thought or effort is given to that others thing is more important at domestic level. For example, Malaysia itself till now does not have a clear defence policy which is only discussed at higher level. This is because of the limited ability to develop our own defence policy. The limited ability is not only constraint by knowledge but also involved the allocation given to the Ministry of Defence by the Government. To answer the question of why, this paper will discuss on four factors which are the influencing of the developed countries, influencing of the potential adversary and the cost of defence development.

The Influencing of the Developed Countries

To formulate the defence policy is not a difficulty to any country but to formulate the defence policy which realistic and achievable is quite difficult. This is because of the involvement with many factors which to be considered such as budget planning (will influence arms procurement), availability of skilled manpower, time factors, neighbouring nation capability (to consider deterrent or balance of power), political disturbance and the government priority. Other than that, the condition of relationship with developed countries also plays important roles in making developing countries defence policy becomes reality. The facts are defence policy of developing countries are always much influenced by the developed countries which they are allied too. This related to the ability of purchasing the defence equipments.

The significance factors are the developed countries such as the United State and Soviet Union which they will possess their own arms production, which results in greater independence in formulating their defence policy. The developing countries such as Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia are incapable of their own military technology because of budget constraint or unstable government. Therefore, they are not independence or free to design or making their defence policy according to what they want. To overcome such kind of problems, they have to depend on major power with developed countries in term of anything especially military equipments and defence technology. This dependence makes the developing countries in the difficulty for making their OWN defence policy without considering or influencing by the developed countries. A classical example is the Philippines. The government of Philippines have to formulate their defence policy, which more advantage to United States because their defence budget is 70% depend on United States defence grant. Therefore, Philippines government must buy the defence equipments from United States or the defence grant itself is given by virtue of defence equipments, not the money. Those equipments are very much influence in shaping the defence policy. Philippines government did not have much choice because of limited economic resources and domestic problems. Because of such kind of influencing and facing serious domestic problem, some of the developing countries did not consider the defence policy making in their process of policy making for the country. To them, the survival of the peoples becomes more important.

According to Anthony (1993), in producing military equipments, states can be categorised into four. Firstly, are the countries such as the United State and Soviet Union having full control of ability to produce it and sell it? Secondly, is country like Japan which they did not produce anything even they have the ability to do so. This is because of the government priority in spending their allocation or others restrictions. Thirdly is the country which only capable to produce very significance equipment which only for internal use. And the last category is the country which doesn’t have such kind of ability due to their economic or political reasons. Therefore, third and fourth categories (developing countries) of country are totally relying on the first category of the country for getting of military equipments and the technology. They have to oblige what ever cost and the constraint putting by those countries. For example, Malaysia has to agree for not having the ‘source code’ during the procurement of the combat aircraft from the United States. Due to those situations, most of the developing countries do not really consider to formulate their defence policy in their nation policing making process. Such as Brunei, they only formulate their defence policy in 2004 after 20 years of independence. At some point, even Malaysia did not really clear on their defence policy before year of 1991.

The removing of the defence policy making from democratic process in the developing countries are not merely domestic strategic and an economic resource issues. The relationship with developed country will influence the decision. It does not matter what kind of relationship between developed countries and the developing countries but it will give an impact significantly on their defence policing making process. By looking at their roles and relationships, we can clearly see the impact on the defence policymaking. Developed countries such as the United State and Soviet Union become a main resource provider and a policy constraint. It becomes their role to provide the resources such as military aids, economic aids, defence assistance, weapons sales, daily needs items, cheaper food supply and even a guideline how to defence the country. The percentage of dependency will automatically provide the hidden power for the developed country to influence on the developing countries defence policy making.

When the developing countries internal issues such as economic and politic has been solved, it is a nation culture to develop their own defence industries and start looking on their more independencies to defend the country. They start to suspicious their allies. They cannot avoid that military technology is so complicated which they cannot run away from depending on their allies. Therefore, developed countries always play a very important role on the military technology as a seller or producer. For example, Malaysia has upgrading the MIG-29N into four extra capabilities, which it cannot run away from the Russian. Even in buying the defence equipments, Malaysia is totally depending on the developed countries. By becomes an ally or equipment and technology provider, the developed country will use mutual defence as a pretext to influence or taking part in the formulation of the defence policy. At the same time, the defence policy of developing countries is also depends on their ally interest and strategic needs. They always limit and influence the defence policy of developing countries.

Normally, other than facing the internal problems, the developing countries also face military threats. Because of the incapable to defence themselves, the developing countries has to sign the mutual defence treaty. The developed countries will provide a protection on their strategic interest and the region. At some place they will send the military troop to assist the developing countries defence. For example, until now Brunei still has two battalions of British Ghurkhas in their land to protect certain important value such as the sultanate. If they did not sign any treaty, the developing countries always lack of sufficient military technology capabilities to prepare them to face threats from hostile nation. Therefore, the developing countries always seek to upgrade or to develop their military capabilities by purchasing the technology from outside especially from their allies. For example, during the cold war era, the developing countries will have their own allies either on the United State or on Russia side, so they will get their military capability from the bloc that they supported or sided.

Due to insufficient military capabilities, the easiest way to overcome the problems is by relying on weapons system from the developed country. The level of weapons system supported from the developed countries will affect the formulation of the developing countries defence policy. Even later, when they become more stable, often the developing countries try to reduce their reliance on developed countries. Then, the developing countries will attempt to develop its own defence industry to achieve independence in national defence. The facts is the developing countries still lacking in technology means that they still need to be provided by the developed countries. At this level, the process of making defence policy becomes complicated which they have to tie up with another form of treaty. The developed countries will control over the supply of weapons and technology to suppress the wrongdoing of developing countries. When the developing countries have increased in their military capabilities, their military strategy probably has changed from ‘defence principle’ to more active ‘effective deterrence’ or ‘strong defence posture’. Simultaneously, the developed countries will protect their strategic interest and retain it stability to influence the developing countries political, military and international relations. Therefore, the volume of military resources provided and the limitations imposed by the developed countries play a critical role in the developing countries defence policy making.

The Influence of Potential Adversary

Besides the developed countries, the potential adversary countries also have significant influence on developing countries defence policy making. The influence of potential adversary is not only limited in military threats, they also can use politic or diplomatic power to disagree the decisions made by developing countries. The decisions such as supplying or buying of defence equipments or agreements to place outside military power into their land. All this disagreement is impacting on their defence policing making. For example, when Philippines decide to agreed on the United State army to remain on the Philippines land, most of the developing countries around have not agreed to that decision. For what ever reason, later, Philippines slowly to reduce the United States roles in their country. On the other hand, if looking at Singapore, they often receives advances weapons technology from the United States, thus have a military advantages on their potential adversary. Later the potential adversary are going to buy something capable than that. This scenario automatically will affect the defence policymaking.

In different perspective, the developing countries defence policy making is also greatly influenced by the interaction between the potential adversary and the developed countries, which they become a strong ally. The closer they are, the greater of the potential adversary ability to influence the developed countries. This hampers the developing countries ability to acquire necessary weapons system or military technology. Conversely, the more polarized the relationship between them, the less the potential adversary is able to influence the developed countries level of support for the developing countries, improving their chances of acquiring the necessary weapons or military technology. This kind of relationship is reflected on the changes to the developed countries defence policy making. This implication becomes clearer after the end of cold war in 1991. The relationship became more dynamic and complex and at the same time the defence policy formulation in the developing countries also became dynamic and complex too.

The Cost of Defence Development

At the early stage of their independence, most of the developing countries are too weak or far capable either on military and economic aspects. Therefore, most of the developing countries will depend with their alliance to assist on the aspect of military and economic on supporting them to develop the country. During the cold war period, they really depend on the United States or Soviet Union to provide military aids. The amount of support from the developed countries is depending on how close of their relationship. For example, Philippines is one of the United States main military or economic aid recipients in South East Asia. It also became a place for the United States temporarily camp. After the end of cold war in 1991, the United States became the sole remaining superpower and has claimed the role of world police. The United States will send their army to any corner of the world to resist any kind of threats which threaten their interest or so called collective security.

The end of cold war also witness the former communist countries have cut their defence spending which led to decrease demand in the global arms market. This kind of situation off course will affect the defence policy making at each state which will involve the United State defense industries. To overcome the problems and helping their defence industries business, in 1992, the United States has authorized the sale of F-16 air combat fighters to others country in order to make arm race move. The sale of this aircraft to certain nation such Singapore and Malaysia have influenced their defence policymaking. The similar agreements have been achieved between the United States and Thailand whereby Thailand also has received Patriot Missiles (PAC-11) and AH-1W cobra attack helicopters. Subsequently, Singapore has received their latest attack helicopters form the United States whereby Malaysia has eyeing on attack helicopters from South Africa. Those equipments are so expensive and the government has to give an extra allocation for the purpose of buying it. For example, the buying of two Scorpion submarine by Malaysia is cost more than RM 3.4 billion. It also will affect the formulation of current defense policy because the defence ministry has to divide the allocation ‘package’. Therefore, for the period of more than 5 years, the development in the army and the air force will be limited because of not enough ‘cake’. It automatically will effect the future defence policy.

However, in the case of Brunei, it gives difference perspective. With the average of 8.9% GDP per year and 1% inflation rate, Brunei’s really did not fond on the budget constraints for the purpose of procuring defence equipments . But still Brunei’s only have their own defence white paper after 20 years of their independence. Therefore, budget constraints are not so absolute. This is because of every developing countries have their internal and external problems or priorities. For example, Brunei has facing manpower shortage while the others are not. Due to small size of Brunei’s population (393 000), it has severely constraint the modernization or expansion of Brunei’s defence capabilities which will shape the defence policy. According to Anon (2009), in 1995, the strength of RBAF has increased 15.3% (650 personnel) to 4,900 personnel. 650 personnel is only 2.3% from Brunei’s population which increase from 1991 (267,000) to 1995 (295,000) . From 1995 to 2000, Brunei’s armed forces personnel only increase at 2.04% (100). Refer to Chart 1. This amount is only at 0.27% from Brunei’s population which increase from 1995 (295,000) to 2000 (332,000) . Other than military service, there have also another service which really requires manpower such as civil service. Therefore, the manpower constraint will become Brunei’s major obstacle in their defence modernization plan.

Chart 1: RBAF Manpower Increment From 1991 to 2007

What is the efficacy of a defence policy formulated under such circumstances?

The developing countries do not talk about the efficacy of their defence policy. The most important is to have the defence policy which will become guidance in developing their country and even in the distribution of function between related ministries. At the earlier stage, most of the developing countries defence policy only stated about the function of related ministries, vision, mission and objective. The discussion on defence doctrine, defence strategy, and defence procurement is not too detail. The design of their defence strategy only involves the defence equipments that currently in their inventory and other than that are planning for the future. For example, in 2004, Brunei had produced their first defence white paper. The Brunei defence white paper is more general rather than specific in its discussion of defence policy assumptions, threat assessments, force structure, equipment, training, defence industries and personnel . About half of its pages have featured some photographs with a human interest slant as well as plenty of colourful design elements which give the feel of a coffee table book rather than a policy document upon which specific and discernable policy debates were trashed out and the details of policy implementation set forth.

Normally, developing countries defence policy will keep changing according to the budget allocation given to the defence ministry and the security environment. In 2007, Brunei had come out with their new version of defence white paper. Therefore, it is quite difficult to measure the defence policy efficacy because there have no such measurement skill. However, in each defence policy, it will clearly state the vision and mission to achieve it. If the efficacy of defence policy will be measured by considering the percentage of achieving their vision and mission, the answer is yes.

Even though the developing countries have their own defence policy but the independencies are still limited because of so much dependency on their ally. Even, if there is the independencies factor but the developing countries are still incapable. They cannot afford to spend so much money on defence policy because of the domestic needs. There is no study has been done on the efficacy of defence policy in the developing countries. As mentioned earlier, the efficacy is not an objective but to have own defence policy will give certain value in nation sovereignty. However, by looking at the ASEAN members, they are still intact to each other until now and the development of their security forces keep on going with the involvement of new equipments, upgrading or having new structure. The defence policy, which was formulated under such circumstances, has managed to keep their country safe and remain the sovereignty. In these respects, there is efficacy in their defence policy. However the fact is the defence policy document or white paper is not laid down everything. The outsider only knows at the surface level and therefore the country itself only knows either their defence policy is efficacy or inefficacy.

How would a defence policy made under such circumstances balance between serving national interest and regime interest?

Military threats become force motivation for the developing countries to formulate their defence policy in the interest of both national and the regime. This is because of the military threats by potential adversary which will threaten both either towards national interests or regime interests. For example, in the ASEAN arena, each member will access quietly at other members as their potential adversary. Both members did not spell out this clearly because of the ASEAN spirit. However, if we are looking at their reaction towards other development especially in defence technology, everybody is seemed to deter each other. If the neighbouring countries increase their defence expenditure and buying new defence technology, the related country will be forcing to increase its arms procurement budget in order to maintain the parity. The close examples are the buying of combat aircraft Skyhawk, MIG-29N Interceptor, SU-30 by Malaysia and F-16, F-18A and Skyhawk by Singapore. The defence budget had been increased every year for the reasons of to counter the military threats. This leads to arms race. By putting military threats as a factor of the necessity to have defence policy and it will balance both sides interest.

Most of the developing countries especially ASEAN will consider much on their national interests compared to the regime interests. Even though they cannot run away from fulfilling the regime interests but national interests will be considered first. If they cannot entertain both interests, it should be better. Regime interests seldom expressed and it will be fulfilled quietly with the most ethical manners.

However, in Myanmar, the defence policy cannot coupe with the regime and national interests. This is because of the regime is too powerful and have full capacity on making the government decision. The regime will make decision, which benefits the regime more. For example, in 2007-2008, Burma has earned US$ 2.56 billion, 40 percent of its total export revenue from gas. The amount have put Burma's energy sector in the international spotlight. According to Asian Development Bank report (2008), the military regime has failed to make sure the income from oil and gas been used for national interests. The saddest fact is that the military leaders are happy with cronyism, a scale, which they could manage, and a cause, which continues fundamentally to back pedal the country's economy. The Generals still pursuing cronyism in economic affairs even they continue to ignore the interest of the people by failing to take up economic reforms. Therefore, gas in Burma can only entrench the power of the military junta as long as the policy makers fail to come up with a measure to best utilize it.

How can such a situation be rectified?

There are few factors should be taken into consideration during the formulation of the defence policy. The factors are national interests, the capability, ability to achieve and the threats. The most important factors are the people or national interests. However, either developed or developing countries, they cannot escape from the regime interests. In the developing countries, they do not have absolute regime per say as per Myanmar but they do have cronyism. Both countries will try to follow defence procurement as per stated in the defence policy but in the same time try to fulfill their regime interests.

There is such a way to rectify it. First, in any defence procurement, the non-sided body must analyses the type of equipments, which they wanted to buy. The non- sided body will decide which equipments to buy or to reject it. By practice this; defence policy will serve the national interests more. But the problem here is when the regime is in power, they didn’t entertain such requirements.

Conclusion

On making the defence policy for the first time is quite difficult and becomes more complicated for developing countries. Furthermore, simultaneously on facing the domestic issues and security dilemma with limited allocation. The new and unstable government has to decide between national interests or to develop their defence capabilities. However, even a small nation with weakest defence capabilities; they still required the defence policy in order to guide them move forward. The main problems are defence policy much more on procuring of defence equipments which so expensive. From the defence equipments which available, they can develop their defence strategy and defence doctrine. If not, their defence policy only based on assumption or notional/imagination. Developing countries cannot hide the defence equipments which they bought because it involved with developed countries whose supply it to them. At the beginning, their defence policy will influence so many elements such as developed countries, potential adversary, and economic capability and to fulfil requirement of national interests or regime interests. The effectiveness of the defence policy is the second issues but still important because it can outer or keep changing year to year. If there have enough allocation, the planning will continue, if there are not, the planning will halt temporarily.

The government does not have many choices for not having their own defence policy. They star the most significance to developing countries is independence on making defence policy. Either it is complicated or not, weak or strong, the developing countries should have their own defence policy. It does not matter if they have relied to developed countries or so, but for the start is acceptable. The developing countries must come to terms with this reality and adjust its defence policy in response to surrounding changes Then can seek to profit from this complex and dynamic situation.

References

Anon. 2007. Least Developed Countries. http://www.unescap.org/ LDCCU/ LDC .asp [7 Apr 2010].

Anon. 2008. Natural gas favours regime. http:// www. mizzima/ com/edop/ commentary / 981 [2 Apr 2010].

Anon. 2009. Military Technology. Defence in Brunei: The Royal Brunei’s Armed Forces development plan. Military Technology Vol. 33(8): 112-119.

Anon. International Institute of social science, http://www.iss.nl/iss/specialisation/ 10?gclid=CPK0ub7dzZ8CFRwUawodbjSE0 [31 Jan 2009].

Anthony .I. 1993. The ‘Third Tier’ Countries: Production of Major Weapons in Herbert Wulf. Ed. Arms Industry Limited. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chiou-Guey Jan. 2003. Policies for Developing Defense Technology in Newly Industrialized Countries: A Case Study of Taiwan. Technology in Society, 25: 359.

Martin Khor. 1998. why developing countries cannot afford new issues in the wto seattle conference. http://www.ifg.org/newissues.html [7 april 2010].

Robert M. Rosh. 1990. Third World Arms Production and the Evolving Interstate System. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 34 (1): 59.

Stockholm International Peach Research Institute (SIPRI). World armaments and disarmament. (SIPRI yearbook). London:Taylor & Francis, annual.