Armed Forces and Sustainable Development

Lionel WIJESIRI

If an average Sri Lankan was asked to name one organization that continues to do the nation proud after about 64 years of independence, the answer would probably be the Armed Forces. This institution has remained apolitical, insular and superbly efficient unlike the general deterioration of virtually every other establishment of the same vintage. Be it in their primary role of defending against aggression from any front, or helping civilians during natural or man-made disasters, our Armed Forces have conducted themselves exemplarily each time they have been called to action. This track record is reflected even in global theatres where the Forces have won admiration and accolades for the country.

With the successful completion of the war against LTTE, the Sri Lankan Armed Forces have begun to play a significant new role in the sustainable development, in addition to the national security. Secretary, Presidential Task Force for Resettlement, Development and Security, S. B. Divarathne recently categorised four key aspects of nation building which require intervention by the Armed Forces. (1) Maintenance of essential services in the immediate aftermath of a humanitarian operation, (2) partnering in resettlement activities including demining activities and restoration of damaged infrastructure, and restoring national irrigation systems (3) provision of skilled labour to improve the quality and standard of vocational training, (4) information management and administration to increase productivity in public sector.

The role for the Armed Forces in national development is an interesting topic that will attract different reactions from different people and organisations. While some private sector organisations and NGOs may see it as an incursion into their terrain, the civilians who have enjoyed the robust relationship with the military personnel will see it as a welcome development.

Involvement

Over the past few decades, governments throughout the world have begun to adapt their military strategies to include plans for development. This change is due to the increasing acceptance of the idea that development brings peace and stability.

However, there is a significant debate surrounding this change in strategy. Some support Armed Forces involvement in development efforts and believe military strategies can be effective in completing certain development initiatives. Others believe that development is best left to the government officers and those private organizations that are not associated with military operations.

Contrary to the pessimists’ view, domestic Armed Forces actually serve many positive roles for sustainable development once good civil-military relations are present. To hasten socio-economic development, the missions of Armed Forces can be modified from a traditional war-fighting machine to a focus on both war-fighting and development-implementing, especially when only a few external or internal conflict threats exist. Armed Forces can thus serve as direct development project/programme implementers to enhance state service delivery capacity and to modernize the population.

In Senegal, for instance, the Senegalese Armed Forces have an ‘Army-Nation’ component that conducts activities in public health care, infrastructure provision, and re-integration for demobilizing soldiers. Each of these is seen as directly contributing to security, so that the Armed Forces operate within their realms, and each clearly impacts the broader development of the country. According to the Gallup World Poll, the Senegalese Armed Forces are indeed the country’s most trusted institution among the populace.

Advantages

Armed Forces should be strongly considered for complementing civilian development organizations, both private and public, due to several comparative advantages in state capacity enhancement that Armed Forces have. For example, (1) culture of expedience and order-taking; (2) vast resource availability for manpower, infrastructure, and technology; (3) partnership possibilities for technology transfer; (4) human capital in a variety of skill sets since Armed Forces are societies within societies; (5) direct line to the country’s Head of State for ease of coordination and funding; and (6) few limits on areas of operation since Armed Forces have security training and weaponry for insecure places along with adequate transportation vehicles for remote locations.

Unity our strength

Along with these advantages, Armed Forces are significant sources of modernization in some ways such as: (1) source of hope and social-climbing for lower classes through a meritocracy; (2) social solidarity effects of forging a national identity; (3) international exposure for soldiers that increases idea-sharing; and (4) source of education and skills-training, especially when military skills relate to the socio-economic realm so that soldiers find related work after demobilization.

However, the importance of strong civil-Armed Force relations cannot be overlooked before any of these comparative advantages can be realized. Civil-Armed Force relations based in norms of military subordination to civilian authority is the only sustainable means of any policy regarding the Armed Forces’ function. To make this recommended policy workable outside the traditional role and operations of Armed Forces, strong civil-Armed Force relations are a prerequisite, with a professionalized Armed Forces and a civilian leader who respects the Armed Forces.

Nation-building

The 21st century looks towards security, justice, economic development and a democratic polity as the pillars of nation building. Security comes first in the pecking order because the other three pillars function effectively only if the security threshold on the nation, both internal and external, remains intact. This in turn facilitates smooth functioning of democracy and brings in its wake social justice and economic development.

Understanding the functional imperative of Armed Forces primarily as response to threat - whether internal or external - also downplays the important domestic socio-political role they often play, broadly categorized here as ‘nation-building’.

Armed Forces can play a nation-building role in two main ways. First, they can act as a symbolic representation of national sovereignty and values and a vehicle for promoting those values through universal male conscription.

These roles are perhaps most signi?cant in multinational states, but are also important elsewhere as well. In the Soviet Union, for example, conscription into the Armed Forces was one of the only truly common experiences. Military service was explicitly used as a mechanism to transmit ‘national’ values to all parts of the male population, regardless of ethnic background.

Similarly, across Europe today, arguments in favour of retaining conscription have often centred less on its utility in the face of changing functional imperatives and more on its important role in embedding the Armed Forces within the societies of which they are a part. In turn, the Armed Forces identify themselves as a fulcrum in the relationship between citizens and the state.

The Armed Forces can also be used a manpower resource on which the government can draw to support civilian infrastructure projects. This is a role that Armed Forces have commonly ful?lled in the past. In many countries, conscript labour was often used in agricultural or infra-structure projects. These nation-building roles remain strong and are becoming stronger. This role ful?ls important socio-political functions and is emerging as an important mechanism for legitimating the existence and budgetary claims of Armed Forces in the eyes of the wider society.

Under other circumstances, the Armed Forces can also be used as a parallel or substitute provider of state goods - such as welfare, labour, medical care and so on - where other government departments are not able to do so effectively. In states undergoing major socio-economic change, the social role of the Armed Forces also remains important.

The continued importance of nation-building roles for Armed Forces indicates the strength of domestic socio-political imperatives in helping to shape perceptions of their purpose. Many armies in the recent times have tried to share the economic burden of their country by undertaking nation-building projects. Noteworthy among them are the People’s Liberation Army of China, and the Malaysian, Iranian and Royal Thai Armies.

Another classic example is US Army Corps. This is a U.S. federal agency under the Department of Defence and a major Army command made up of some 38,000 civilian and military personnel, making it the world's largest public engineering, design, and construction management agency. Although generally associated with dams, canals and flood protection in the United States, USACE is involved in a wide range of public works.

The Corps of Engineers provides outdoor recreation opportunities to the public, and provides 24 percent of U.S. hydropower capacity. The Corps' mission is to provide vital public engineering services in peace and war to strengthen the nation's security, energize the economy, and reduce risks from disasters.