National value and national interest are two core elements of nation-state configuration. Their compromise may put sovereignty, dignity and independence of a nation into jeopardy. "National security system" is among the most important tools devised to safeguard those values and interests, which finally leads to the protection of the citizen and national territory.Definition of 'security' has dramatically transformed in the modern times. Protection against weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons), regional power's aggressions, global terrorism, ethnic and religious conflict and state/anti-state sponsored subversion and sabotage are among the biggest challenges nation-states face today. For economically, socially and politically fragile third world countries like Nepal fighting such animosities is definitely an onerous, costly and intricate undertaking.
In many countries, National Security Council (NSC) is the state's apex advisory body to look after national security. Although composition varies from one nation to other, generally cabinet members (ministers having important portfolios), leadership of armed forces (especially military) and defense/security specialists under head of state or government remain as members and advisors of NSC.
The US and Britain serve as relevant examples. In the US, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and in Britain, Chief of Defense Staff, is the advisory members of their security councils. Sri Lanka and Maldives, our SAARC counterparts, also have similar provisions. The provision is a little different in India. Chiefs of armed forces (Army, Navy and Air force) tend to be active members of Strategic Policy Group (SPG), which is also the nucleus decision-making component of NSC. Nonetheless, it's obvious that most of world's democratic countries have embraced the concept of keeping military leaders as NSC members.
In a modern democracy, NSC has also become a common forum where civilian and military leadership can discuss issues together to achieve a common goal of defending nation-state, its values and interests. In the modern world civilian control over security forces can't be undermined. But expecting an 'ideal civil military relation' by keeping military at bay is a mere daydream.
Recently, the constitution making process has gained pace with the promulgation of the initial draft, which has contemplated the provision of NSC under Prime Minister. The responsibility bestowed to the council is to promulgate National Security Policy (NSP) as well as to offer advice to national government to mobilize, control and manage Nepal Army when required.
"It's a crap", says Retired Major General Rajendra Thapa, who had spent many years of his career in the Secretariat Office of the Council. "Until Army Chief is given membership (active or advisory) it will not receive full shape and to make it proactive 'conduct of regular meetings' should be ensured. To think of formulating council without army's leadership is like thinking of operating a patient without the medical doctor", he added.
Security experts say that there might be two reasons for this move. Either the political leadership wants to sideline the military to keep the organization subservient or they are afraid that the organization may trespass the limit of authority if kept too close to them. But none of the reasons make sense.
In its history—whether under Panchayat, multiparty democracy or federal republic—Nepal Army has always remained subordinate to the government. That is why Nepal has been able to witness such enormous political transformations on its soil. Similarly, the army has always kept the feeling of Nepali people on its foremost priority and has never dared to challenge it. Instead time and again the organization has unhesitatingly stood on the forefront when the nation demanded.
Why is it so important to include Chief of the Army Staff into the council's organizational structure? Following are the reasons. First, the job of Security Council itself dictates the need of an active defense member who can guide the council at the time of decision making so that the army could become more competent, professional, efficient and modern. Second, if we see the current composition, only cabinet members are present (Prime Minister, Defense, Home, Foreign and Finance ministers). "It looks like a mini-cabinet or just a political team", says Retd Major General Thapa. Hence, to render the virtual feeling of 'Security Council', representation from defense force is a must. Third, CoAS must be in the NSC to maintain ideal Civil Military Relations, to foster mutual understanding and to strengthen democracy. It will not only send positive message to the people but also help improve the shaky political image of the country in the international arena.
Similarly, to make the council efficient and more effective, sub-committees like advisory and policymaking, adorned with government officials, defense experts, scholars and many more, can be created under its umbrella. That will definitely lessen the burden of council members, delegate responsibilities and help to handle sensitive issues like 'border encroachments.'
We shouldn't forget that South Asia is the zone that the world has eyes on due to economic boom, militarization, nuclear proliferation, religious and social conflict, global terrorism and the military importance of the Indian Ocean. Compromise by any nation-state on its national security may lead to the compromise of international security. It may lead to the recession of regionalism, without which 'global peace and security' is not possible.
Unfortunately, Nepal is still vulnerable to conflict, violence and insurrection. Prevalent political fragmentation, widespread poverty, social disparity, economic deficiency and excessive foreign influence and interference have made our country more susceptible to state failure. Nepal requires robust national security/defense mechanism to avoid this path.
Constitution of Nepal 2015, a compilation of fundamental principles or established precedents acknowledged to govern the state accordingly, is on the verge of promulgation. Each of its contents is vital. Compromise with any vital issue may lead to chaos, confusion and convulsion in the long term. Now we only have a draft which can still be amended. Let us think seriously about provision on National Security Council before we prepare the final draft.
The author is a graduate in Strategic Studies and Political Science
shrijan7malla@hotmail.com
Related story
EU-SAARC Think Tank Summit to be held
