CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN EUROPE: LEARNING FROM CRISIS AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE (Cass Military Studies)

Civil–Military Relations in Europe

Democracy is unlikely to develop or to endure unless military and other security forces are controlled by democratic institutions and necessary safeguards, checks and balances are in place. The result of a two-year research project managed under the auspices of the European Group on Military and Society (ERGOMAS) and the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), this comparative study examines how contemporary European states, both mature Western democracies and emerging democracies of post-communist Europe, manage the issue of how best to control the very institution that has been established for their protection and wields the monopoly of legitimate force. This volume contains 28 case studies from 14 countries: the Czech Republic, Germany, Georgia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro, the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Switzerland, and the Ukraine. The studies cover a variety of situations from corruption to military incompetence, disobedience towards civilian superiors, lack of expertise among civilians, to unauthorised strikes and accidents. They focus on the relationship between political, civilian and military actors while identifying problems and dangers that can emerge in those relations to the detriment of effective and legitimate democratic control. This book will be of much interest to students of civil–military relations, military sociology, international relations and strategic studies. Hans Born and Marina Caparini are both Senior Research Fellows at the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). Karl W. Haltiner is Chair of Military Sociology at the Military Academy at the ETH Zurich, Switzerand. Jürgen Kuhlmann was the Former Director of the Research Department at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.

Cass Military Studies

Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome: Trust in the Gods, But Verify Rose Mary Sheldon Clausewitz and African War: Politics and Strategy in Liberia and Somalia Isabelle Duyvesteyn Strategy and Politics in the Middle East, 1954–60: Defending the Northern Tier Michael Cohen The Cuban Intervention in Angola, 1965–1991: From Che Guevara to Cuito Cuanavale Edward George Military Leadership in the British Civil Wars, 1642–1651: ‘The Genius of this Age’ Stanley Carpenter Israel’s Reprisal Policy, 1953–1956: The Dynamics of Military Retaliation Ze’ev Drory Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Second World War Enver Redzic Leaders in War: West Point Remembers the 1991 Gulf War Edited by Frederick Kagan and Christian Kubik Khedive Ismail’s Army John Dunn Yugoslav Military Industry 1918–1991 Amadeo Watkins Corporal Hitler and the Great War 1914–1918: The List Regiment John Williams Rostóv in the Russian Civil War, 1917–1920: The Key to Victory Brian Murphy The Tet Effect, Intelligence and the Public Perception of War Jake Blood

The US Military Profession into the 21st Century: War, Peace and Politics Edited by Sam C. Sarkesian and Robert E. Connor, Jr Civil–Military Relations in Europe: Learning from Crisis and Institutional Change Edited by Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann Strategic Culture and Ways of War Lawrence Sondhaus Military Unionism in the Post Cold War Era: A Future Reality? Edited by Richard Bartle and Lindy Heinecken Warriors and Politicians: U.S. Civil–Military Relations under Stress Charles A. Stevenson Military Honour and the Conduct of War: From Ancient Greece to Iraq Paul Robinson

Civil–Military Relations in Europe Learning from crisis and institutional change

Edited by Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

First published 2006 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group © 2006 Selection and editorial matter Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann; individual chapters, the contributors All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN10: 0–415–38540–7 ISBN13: 9–78–0–415–38540–4

Contents

vii

Contents

List of figures and tables Contributors Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations

x xi xiii xvi xvii

Part I

Introduction 1

Civilians and the military in Europe

1 3

H A N S B O R N , M A R I NA C A PA R I N I , K A R L W. H A LT I N E R A N D JÜRGEN KUHLMANN

PART II

Transition states 2

Stressed and strained civil–military relations in Romania, but successfully reforming

19

21

L A R RY L . W AT T S

3

Differentia specifica: military reform in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

35

M I RO S L AV H A D *I ¢

4

The impact of conflict and corruption on Macedonia’s civil–military relations BILJANA VANKOVSKA

48

viii Contents 5

Political irresponsibility and lack of transparency in Ukrainian defence reform

62

A NATO L I Y G RY T S E N KO

6

Striving for effective parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

79

D AV I D D A R C H I A S H V I LI

PART III

Consolidating democracies 7

Problems confronting civilian democratic control in Poland

95 97

AGNIESZKA GOGOLEWSKA

8

Civil–military relations in Hungary: from competition to co-operation

114

FERENC MOLNÁR

9

Executive decisions and divisions: disputing competences in civil–military relations in Slovenia

130

MARJAN MALEŠI (

10

Modernisation of the Czech armed forces: no walk through a rose garden

147

MARIE VLACHOVÁ

11

A battle for civil supremacy over the military in Israel

163

AMIR BAR-OR

PART IV

Established democracies 12

The military voice in France: on the streets and in the newspapers

175

177

B E R NA R D B O Ë N E

13

Democratic control of the Swiss militia in times of war and peace: ideal and reality K A R L W. H A LT I N E R A N D T I B O R S . T R E S C H

191

Contents ix 14

International prestige and domestic democratic values in civil–military conflicts: two Irish case studies

202

JEAN CALLAGHAN AND RAY MURPHY

15

His master’s voice? Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform

217

JÜRGEN KUHLMANN AND JÜRGEN ROSE

PART V

Conclusions

233

16

235

Patterns of democratic governance of civil–military relations HANS BORN, MARINA CAPARINI, KARL W. HALTINER AND JÜRGEN KUHLMANN

Bibliography Index

256 271

x

List of figures and tables

List of figures and tables

Figures 5.1 Should there be a fully professional army in Ukraine? 5.2 Assessing the present level of budget expenditures on national defence

74 76

Tables 1.1 Overview of case studies 1.2 Comparison of the armed forces and democratic framework in 16 countries 1.3 Applying UNDP indicators for determining the democratisation level of selected states 16.1 Cases by key dimensions of civil–military relations 16.2 Democratisation and civil–military relations 16.3 Key issues of democratic governance of civil–military relations and political leadership and political system in 14 selected European states

12 13 14 239 245

248

Contributors xi

Contributors

Amir Bar-Or is Head of the Military and Security Studies Program, The BenGurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. Bernard Boëne is Rector of the Academia of Reunion and Professor of Sociology. Hans Born is Senior Research Fellow at the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), Switzerland. Jean Callaghan is Deputy Director, Research Department at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Marina Caparini is Senior Research Fellow at the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), Switzerland. David Darchiashvili is Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation, Tiblisi, Georgia. Agnieszka Gogolewska is Senior Specialist of the Ministry of National Defence in Poland, Department of Defence System. Anatoliy Grytsenko was appointed Minister of Defence of Ukraine on 4 February 2005. He is also President of the Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies Ukraine, named after Olexander Razumkov, Kiev, Ukraine. Miroslav Had$i[ is Director of the Centre for Civil–Military Relations, NGO, Belgrade and Professor of ‘Global and National Security’ at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro. Karl W. Haltiner is Chair of Military Sociology at the Military Academy at the ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Jürgen Kuhlmann was Former Director, Research Department at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. He died in January, 2006. Marjan Male;i= is Head of Defence Research Centre, at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

xii

Contributors

Ferenc Molnár is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Strategic and Defence Studies in Budapest, Hungary. Ray Murphy is Director of the LL.M. in International Peace Support Operations at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, NUI Galway, Ireland. Jürgen Rose is External Research Fellow at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH), Germany. Tibor S. Tresch is Lecturer in Military Sociology, Military Academy at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ), Switzerland. Biljana Vankovska of the University of Skopje and Director of the Centre for Democracy and Security, Skopje, Macedonia, ex-DCAF Senior Fellow (2001– 2). Marie Vlachová is Senior Research Fellow at the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, Switzerland. She is seconded to the Centre by the Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic. Larry L. Watts is Security Sector Reform Consultant to Romania’s National Security Adviser, Assistant to the President of Romania’s Senate Oversight Committee for Defense, National Security and Public Order, Bucharest, Romania.

Preface

xiii

Preface

We are deeply indebted to the editors and contributors for the accomplishment of Civil–Military Relations in Europe: Learning from Crisis and Institutional Change. It goes without saying that there is a common understanding that civil–military relations should be governed democratically. Indeed, both the European Union and NATO have declared that democratic control of the military is a precondition for their member countries. But what is meant by democratic control of the military? How can such democratic control best be implemented? These are precisely the questions taken up and answered in this significant and path-breaking volume. These key questions have become especially timely following the end of the Cold War. The ‘new democracies’ in Europe have integrated the principles of democratic governance into their constitutional and legal frameworks as these provisions are seen as a necessary break with the dictatorial rule and one-party state of the past. Creating the institutions and mechanisms to achieve democratic control of the armed forces has been, not unexpectedly, complicated by numerous factors, such as internal political struggles, resource constraints, and legacies from the previous regimes. The volume also makes the significant, though not usually recognised point, that civilian control of the armed forces is not necessarily correlated with democratic governments. The Warsaw Pact countries were authoritarian political systems that, nevertheless, had strong civilian control over the military. The core issue stressed by this volume is how to have both democratic regimes and democratic governance of the armed forces. As described in the overview introduction, 14 nations are discussed in detail by experts of each country. These countries are sensibly grouped into three categories. One category consists of ‘transitional states’ moving towards democracy: Georgia, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia-Montenegro and Ukraine. A second category is made up of ‘consolidating democracies’: Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland and Slovenia. The third category consists of ‘established democracies’: France, Ireland, Germany and Switzerland. Noteworthy, there are similarities as well as differences in civil–military relations within as well as between these three categories. This is to say that internal political struggles and resource constraints also affect civil–military relations in the ‘established democracies’ as well as in the ‘consolidating’ and ‘transitional’ states.

xiv

Preface

In all European countries there are debates about the post-Cold War requirements with reference to new roles and missions, sending troops abroad, multi-national forces, the abolition of conscription, the downsizing of the military, among other concerns. From a policy viewpoint, this volume breaks new ground by adopting an inductive approach. That is to say, rather than forcing findings into preconceived theoretical categories, the contributors first describe the realities in each of their countries. These in turn are related to cross-national categories of empirical description. The common framework involves such central issues as the degree of information available on the military, the convergence and divergence of military and civilian cultures and the efficiency of the military in the performance of assigned missions. This is superbly documented in the country chapters of this book. Each of the contributors presents a factual description of civil–military strain at two levels. One level deals with an acute short-term crisis and the other with a discord arising out of long-term institutional change. Thus, with an empirical examination of 14 countries, we have in effect 28 case studies of the ups and downs in democratic governance of the armed forces. Very importantly, the purview in how governmental policy comes into being is not simply civil–military conflict, but also includes civilian–civilian conflict within the political structure and military–military conflict within the armed forces. Simply put, policy analysis for democratic governance requires looking separately at both the military side and the civilian government side. This gives the reader added insight to the more conventional analysis dealing only with the interaction between the two sides. A central point in this volume is that while constitutional and legal frameworks for democratic control are clearly important, these are not sufficient to explain civil–military relations. The focus of analyses must be on the roles and behaviour of political and military leaders within their own institutional contexts. Significantly, such an analytical framework takes us well beyond the usual academic parameters of civil–military relations and especially beyond the American-centric predominance in theories of civil–military relations. Not only is the American-centric model avoided in this volume, but the findings are framed in such a way that Americans themselves can see their own civil–military relations in a new light. Furthermore, the lessons drawn from the European countries described herein also have much bearing on our understanding of civil–military relations in other nations in post-authoritarian transition, notably in Latin America. Civil–Military Relations in Europe is most timely in another way. The expansion of NATO to the countries between the Baltic and Black seas will reflect both changes and consistencies in the countries examined. Expansion of the European Union and the possible development of a European military identity gives yet another dimension to democratic governance of armed forces. The stage is being set, albeit haltingly, for the European Union itself to become a military entity in its own right. This volume moves the academic discussion of civil–military relations to an entirely new level. By presenting the reader with an empirically based examination of the broad spectrum of democratic-governance of civil military relations, we

Preface xv arrive at an understanding of how democratic control really works in European states. A central point is that no single model applies to all countries. Policy makers, military members and concerned citizens alike will each find much of value in this volume. The reader is greatly informed on issues that have real-life consequences as well as scholarly value. Professor Dr Charles Moskos Department of Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois, USA

Editors’ note Sadly, our cherished colleague and friend Jürgen Kuhlmann died as we neared the completion of this book. We will miss his incisive intellect and good humour. The work remains as it had begun, a joint effort by the four co-editors.

xvi

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

The idea for this book started from a curiosity about how civil–military relations function in reality, beyond the elegantly drafted constitutional and declaratory statements of government leaders about the democratic control of armed forces. Equally, there was an uneasiness with the bias towards the US model of civil– military relations which was coined as ‘objective control of the military’ by Samuel Huntington in 1957 and which was taken for granted around the world and is so even today. Therefore, the European Research Group on Military and Society (ERGOMAS) and the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) brought together 14 European scholars to analyse civil–military relations in their countries according to a commonly agreed research framework. The international research team met twice, first for discussing the research framework in January 2002 in Morschach at the Lake of Four Cantons in central Switzerland and second for comparing the country studies in Portoroz in Slovenia in September 2002. Both meetings took place in a very constructive fashion and according to the best of European academic traditions. Before, between and after these two international workshops, the editorial team met various times in order to set up the framework for research and to analyse the case studies. The volume is the end result of this long research project, which was in no way an easy endeavour because of the complexity of the issues at stake as well as the cultural diversity and size of the research team. A number of debts have been incurred in the implementation of this project and we are delighted to acknowledge them here. We would like to thank Ingrid Beutler and Marlene Urscheler who provided invaluable administrative, organisational and editorial assistance in the course of this project. We thank Jonathan Bennett, (former) Assistant in Military Sociology at the Military Academy of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and Eden Cole at DCAF for their conscientious editorial assistance and Martin Noble who diligently undertook the language editing of book. Andrew Humphreys and Marjorie Francois of Routledge publishers steered us through the publication process with patience and encouragement. We would like to thank all of them and to express our special gratitude to the contributors of this book who did a wonderful job in meeting the great many demands the editors made on them. Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann Geneva, Zurich, Munich June 2005

Abbreviations xvii

Abbreviations

AIMS ANCESIAC APM AVF CEE CGS COMBALTAP CSAT CSFM (TK DAK DDR DDS DEMOS DIPD DMO DOS DPA DSS DUI EEC ERGOMAS ETA EU EUROMIL FIDESZ FRY GEL GSoA IDEA

Acquisitions Integrated Management System National Agency for the Control of Strategic Exports and Anti-Proliferation of Chemical Weapons acquisitions and property management All Volunteer Force Central and Eastern Europe chief-of-general staff Commander Baltic Approaches Supreme Defence Council of Romania Conseil supérieur de la fonction militaire (France) Czech Press Agency Department of Administration and Co-ordination (Poland) disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration Democratic Party of Serbia Democratic Opposition of Slovenia Defence Integrated Planning Directorate (Romania) Defence Minister’s Order Democratic Opposition of Serbia Democratic Party of Albanians Democratic Party of Serbia Democratic Union for Integration (Macedonia) European Economic Community European Research Group on Military and Society Euzkadi eta Askatasuna (Basque Homeland and Freedom) European Union European Association of Military Associations Hungarian Civic Party and Independent Smallholders’ Party Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Georgian Lari Gruppe Schweiz ohne Armee (Switzerland) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm (Sweden)

xviii Abbreviations IDF IMRO IPPNW IPU JCS KDU-(SL

Israeli Defence Forces Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War Inter-Parliamentary Union Joint Chief of Staff Christian Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People’s Party KFOR Kosovo Force in former Yugoslavia (UN) LVK Landesverteidigungs-Kommission (National Defence Commission, Switzerland) MoD Ministry of Defence NADGE NATO Air Defence Ground Environment NASA National Army Spouses’ Association (Ireland) NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NCO non-commissioned officer NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NIK Supreme Control Chamber (Poland) NLA National Liberation Army (Macedonia) NPP National Peasant Party (Romania) NSDC National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine ONUC UN operation in the Congo OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe PA Palestinian Authority PANA Peace and Neutrality Alliance PD Democratic Party (Romania) PDF Republic of Ireland’s Permanent Defence Forces PDFORRA Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association (Ireland) PDSR Party of Romanian Social Democracy (Social Democratic Party after 6/2001) PfP Partnership for Peace PPBES planning, programming, budgeting and evaluation system (Romania) PPBS planning, programming and budgeting system (Georgia) PSD Party of Social Democracy (Romania) RACO Representative Association for Commissioned Officers (Ireland) RAF Romanian armed forces RMND Romanian Ministry of National Defence SFOR Stabilisation Force in former Yugoslavia (UN) SOWI German Armed Forces Institute for Social Research SPD Social-Democratic Party (Germany) SSR security sector reform STANAVFORLANT Standing Naval Forces Atlantic TD Member of Dáil Éireann or Irish Parliament

Abbreviations xix UAH UCK UN UNAMET UNDP UNOMIG UNOSOM II USDM WEU WSI

Ukraine Hyvrna Ushtria Clirimtare Kombetare (National Liberation Army), ethnic Albanian guerillas United Nations United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor United Nations Development Programme United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia United Nations Operation in Somalia Union of Social-Democrats of Macedonia Western European Union Wojska Sluzby Informacyjna (Military Information Services, Poland)

xx Abbreviations

Civilians and the military in Europe

Part I

Introduction

1

2

Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

Civilians and the military in Europe

1

3

Civilians and the military in Europe Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

The theme of this book is the democratic civilian control of armed forces. It examines how contemporary European states, both mature Western democracies and emerging democracies of post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, manage the issue of ‘Who will guard the guardians?’ (‘Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?’ Juvenal, Omnia Romae, VI, 347). That is, how does a society, primarily through its legitimate, democratically elected political leaders and their appointed officials, control the military, that same state institution that has been established for its protection and wields the monopoly of legitimate force? From a normative point of view, as formulated in the constitutions of many countries, civilian authorities issue instructions that the military must obey. Some theorists add to this simple rule of civilian control that professionalism requires the military to be politically neutral and therefore not to intervene in political decision making, while civilian leaders should not interfere in the technical professional domain of the military, nor micro-manage its work. The social reality of civil–military relations is, however, too complex and too varied to be explained by this simple ‘order and obey’ paradigm. The normative rule of military subordination to civilian authority does not capture fully the social reality of political–military relations involved in democratic control. Political leaders can and do readily assert that democratic civilian control of the armed forces exists, yet experience has shown, both in established democracies and those struggling to become democracies, that the actual functioning of control over the armed forces is often not accurately reflected either in the broad declaratory statements of political leaders or in the elegant principles set out in constitutional-legal texts. Broad prescriptive guidelines concerning ‘international norms’ of democratic control of the armed forces are similarly limited in providing insight. The reality of democratic control is usually much more complicated, requiring a fine-grained understanding of the informal relationships between key actors in a specific setting and the political dynamics underlying situational contexts. The main research question of this study was how does democratic control work in practice in European states? Eschewing the formalistic approach of looking primarily at the legal and institutional framework of democratic control, the editors of this volume were more interested in going beneath the surface to examine the sometimes gritty empirical reality of how civilian authorities interact with the

4

Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

military, and thus, how democratic control has worked in practice in specific situations.

Objective of the book The goal of this research project was to examine how democratic control has functioned in a number of European states that are at different stages of democratic development, i.e. to compare experiences and insights and in so doing, to try to explain the realities that lie beneath normative prescriptions of democratic civilian control. More precisely, the objectives of the research project were, first, to analyse democratic control of armed forces in 14 European countries by setting out and comparing instances in which civil–military relations were under pressure or in conflict, both short-term acute crises and long-term institutional change. Second, the book sought to identify and to explain the gap between, on the one hand, the normative prescriptions and legal frameworks that govern democratic civil–military relations, including theories and principles of democratic control, and, on the other hand, the actual practice of democratic control of armed forces. Finally, the book undertook to identify the lessons learned for the practice of democratic civil– military relations in Europe, and the insights for policy-makers and others who are interested in the governance of this key sector of state activity. The aim of the remainder of this introduction is to identify the basic assumptions and analytical considerations that guided the drafting of the country studies. It provides a brief outline of the concepts of democratic control of armed forces and civil–military relations. The chapter will then explain the methodology of the research project and the case study approach, including guiding research questions.

The conceptual framework: what is democratic control of armed forces? The modern nation state has for much of its history been defined in part by its monopoly over the legitimate use of force. The military must command sufficient coercive power to protect the polity from its external enemies, but therein lies an inherent danger: through its management of organised force, the military contains the potential to pose a threat to the democratic polity itself or the values on which it is based. In the most extreme case, a praetorian military could threaten the society it is meant to serve by seizing political power in a military coup (or threatening civilian leaders with a coup), and enforcing its will on the state and society by means of the ensuing military (or military-backed) government. In lesser forms of military intervention and influence, military leaders might pursue the institution’s corporate interest or their own personal interests to the detriment of the public interest as defined by the democratically elected civilian authorities. Democratic control, then, is not only a matter of preventing the military from seizing power. It is about aligning the goals of political and military leaders sufficiently that military interests do not overtake the broader societal interests. It is about not allowing the military to subvert democratic constitutional authority

Civilians and the military in Europe

5

or to absorb a disproportionate amount of resources relative to other societal values and priorities, while ensuring that the military can and does fulfil its functions through the provision of adequate resources. In terms of ‘guns versus butter’ decisions, it is the civilian political masters, democratically elected and held accountable by the public, who must determine where society’s priorities and values lie. Indeed, it is a basic axiom of representative democracy that the people govern through their democratically elected representatives, who represent the will of the people in conducting the business of government. The democratic legitimacy of elected political leaders imbues them with the moral and political authority to make decisions, as well as the responsibility to govern in the public interest. This applies equally to the sphere of defence and security policy. Democratic control of the armed forces falls under the interdisciplinary subject of civil–military relations. Civil–military relations, most broadly conceptualised, concerns the social relations between the military and the wider society. It can also refer more narrowly to the political relations between civilian governments and the military. Democratic control of the armed forces, how civilian actors and institutions interact with, exercise control over, and manage the military, typically fits into this narrower conception of civil–military relations. However, the focus on the interaction between civilian political and military elites cannot be considered without understanding the broader context of civil–military relations because the relationship between a country’s military and society reflects the history, culture and political system of that country. Although in the past, academics have tended to define civil–military relations narrowly in terms of the interactions between the top military officers and political elites occupying the key national government positions in the state, a broader understanding is necessary and has become increasingly accepted in the post-Cold War era. The broadening of the ‘civil’ component of the term is especially important given our interest in ‘democratic’ civil–military relations, which argues for an inclusive approach that does not privilege civil political elites but views military relations with society in the broad terms suggested by democratic norms such as openness, transparency, accountability, legitimacy and pluralism. It has also been argued that the military component of civil–military relations should be similarly broadened to refer to ‘all national security structures (public and quasi-private) vis-à-vis civilian society …’ (Nelson, pp. 1–2). However, we maintain that the term ‘military’ must remain limited to the armed forces, both its leadership, separate services and the armed forces as a whole. Broadening the focus to include all national security structures would bring in intelligence, national police, customs and border officials and various other state agencies and government departments with an important role in national security. The concept of ‘security sector governance’ encompasses just such a broad approach (see for example, Born et al., 2003; Bryden and Hänggi, 2004). For our purposes, however, broadening the understanding of ‘military’ would be too diffuse to be of much use in analysis. Democratic civilian control of the armed forces then is about good governance, which is defined as the exercise of power through decision making and

6

Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

implementation that is effective, honest, equitable, inclusive, transparent and accountable and consistent with rule of law.1 It relies on mutual perceptions of legitimacy and trust among three key groups: those who make the decisions on behalf of the populace (civilian political leaders); those who implement the decisions (the state agencies that provide public goods, in this case the armed forces); and the wider society. Institutional restructuring will not, in and of itself, overcome mutual distrust in serving the public interest, or a fundamental disagreement over the distribution of public power. A state’s system of democratic control is a product of its system of government and institutional design, history, traditions and political culture. As there are many different cultures and political systems, different practices and modes of democratic control exist as well. Consequently, there is no single, definitive model of democratic control. As demonstrated by the experience of various Western mature democracies, democratic control can be exercised in different yet still legitimate ways. This view is the basis for the lack of specific requirements attached to the general directive that each state that aspires to join NATO must have democratic control of its armed forces. Notwithstanding the lack of any single definitive model, the civil–military relations literature offers certain insights into control of the state government and its civilian leaders over the military, from which can be derived some general outlines of a system of democratic control. Civil–military relations literature identifies mechanisms of civilian control that include the constitutional and legal framework, control over the defence budget, approval of senior promotions, restrictions on political activity by members of the military, inter-service rivalry, the development of civilian expertise in military affairs and inculcating norms for an apolitical military. In modern democracies, civilian rulers engage with the military as experts in the management of coercive force, and it is an established democratic norm that militaries (as well as other state instruments of coercion) be subordinate to democratically elected or appointed civilian authorities. However, just as our thinking about democracy has evolved to differentiate between ‘formal’ democracy (which focuses on constitutional-legal formulations and requirements such as that free elections are held periodically) and ‘substantive’ democracy (which focuses on the supremacy of certain values and principles such as justice, inclusion, tolerance and legitimacy), we need to develop our conceptual understanding of democratic civilian control of the armed forces beyond the blunt requirement that civilians order and militaries obey. As discussed above, civilian control over the military is not necessarily democratic control. It is possible to have a strong civil authority that exercises control effectively but not democratically, as was the case with communist party control of the Warsaw Pact militaries of Central and Eastern Europe. Civilian democratic control over the military, on the other hand, suggests a different type of relationship between the civilian authority and the armed forces. The understanding of democratic military professionalism rejects any suprapolitical role as guardians of the national interest. Indeed, the subordination of constitutional

Civilians and the military in Europe

7

authority to institutions or offices lacking democratic legitimacy is a fundamental contradiction of democratic principles. An international norm of democratic civilian control of the armed forces can now be said to exist, and this has also become a prerequisite for states aspiring to NATO membership.2 The norm of political non-intervention on the part of the military is based on the idea in democratic theory that no individual or group represents the national will, and that ‘only a fully enfranchised electorate can speak for the nation as a whole’ (Fitch, 1998, p. 176). Thus professionalism implies political subordination of the armed forces, as well as their subordination to the policy decisions of constitutionally designated state authorities. Civilian democratic control concerns the unequivocal supremacy of democratically elected governments and parliaments over key policy decisions concerning the armed forces, such as defining security threats, determining when force will be used, strategic planning, the allocation of resources to defence such as through the defence budget, defining the missions of the armed forces, deciding on arms procurement, force structure development and senior military promotions. Anything short of civilian supremacy suggests an incomplete democracy (Luttwak, 1999, p. 99). The other side of the equation of civilian democratic control is less often mentioned, but is just as vital. Democratic civilian authorities must not only exercise supremacy, but must be responsive to the needs of the military institution and enable the military to fulfil its functions adequately by providing it with the necessary resources and professional autonomy from excessive political interference (Michta, 1997, p. 8). Civilian authorities also have a responsibility to avoid short-term fixes based primarily on political factors rather than addressing long-term structural deficiencies and problems in the military. This is a potential problem everywhere, but it has been especially the case in the highly-charged atmosphere surrounding NATO enlargement in Central and Eastern Europe, where resource constraints and the overriding interest in deflecting Western criticism may result in superficial, politically expedient reforms aimed more at convincing external audiences than at taking into account the military’s institutional interests and addressing root causes of problems (Michta, 1997, p. 114). In other words, democratic civilian control requires not only civilian supremacy, but also a basic effectiveness in the functioning of civilian government; the courage to tackle military issues seriously; and expert and informed decision making that does not treat the military institution as a political pawn but as an executive agency with legitimate professional interests in its delivery of public goods. Civil supremacy also means that the military accepts as the fundamental norm that it does not intervene directly into politics. The military has a responsibility, while providing its professional expertise and advice to help inform decision making, to accept civilian control and guidance. However, if the military does trust the civilian authority to take its legitimate institutional interests into account, it is more likely to be politicised. Military intervention in politics may also stem from the perception that civilian government is ineffective, inefficient or corrupt (Kadt, 2002, p. 320).

8

Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

Europe in the post-Cold War era The successful establishment of democratic civilian control over the armed forces is particularly relevant in the context of the recent wave of democratisation which has swept across Europe with the end of the Cold War. Given the significance that military institutions had in supporting the preceding state socialist regimes and the absence of democratic accountability of political and military elites under the former system, examining civil–military interactions in post-communist states provides insights into the democratisation process, military professionalism and more broadly the quality of governance under conditions of profound social, economic and political change. In the countries of the former Warsaw Pact region, the armed forces were subject to strong civilian (party) control but not to democratic control or public accountability. The armed forces were the subject of a complex system of control and socialisation by the party, which was distrustful of the military’s coercive power and hence its potential for political intervention. Throughout the Warsaw Pact countries, party control of the military, through the establishment of party cells, systematic political education within the military and the exercise of surveillance and penetration of the military by party organs, was combined with co-optation of the military by giving its members access to special privileges (Szayna and Larrabee, 1995, p. 6). Moreover, in exchange for military subordination to party control, the CEE armed forces military command were granted a relatively high degree of autonomy in the sphere of military and defence matters. As state socialist regimes were replaced by democratically oriented governments throughout much of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in the 1990s, attention focused on reform of the armed forces because of its recent role as a primary institutional support of the previous regime, and because of concerns that military resistance could arise and pose obstacles to democratisation. The transformation of the armed forces in CEE has numerous unique characteristics in terms of the challenges of implementing democratic control. Not only did the CEE armed forces need to be depoliticised (or more specifically, departicised), but they required development of national defence planning capabilities, which had been deliberately left underdeveloped during the communist era, when national commands were subordinate to the Soviet high command. Further, the sphere of defence and security was highly secretive and the complete monopoly of the military, with the result that these societies lacked civilian expertise in these areas. A new approach of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness needed to be adopted Concerns raised by some Western observers about the potential for military coups – one of the most serious problems in civil–military relations – and the dangers of military subversion of democratic reform have generally not, however, been borne out in post-communist Europe. While conditions traditionally considered as leading to military coup have been present in many post-socialist states, including weak states and armed forces whose corporate interests have been threatened, the Russian and other post-Soviet militaries have not intervened directly in politics by seizing power through a coup, although they may exert

Civilians and the military in Europe

9

influence on politics by other means (Taylor, 2001, p. 925). One of the major reasons advanced for the passivity of the post-Soviet military is the rigid organisational culture and deeply embedded norms concerning an apolitical military and subordination to civilian authority that were inculcated in the Russian and Soviet officers corps (Taylor, 2001, pp. 937–41). Democratisation of civil–military relations in post-communist states involved, most immediately, removing the influence of the party, developing national capabilities in defence planning, especially those of civilian experts, and integrating the military into the state institutional framework, including its system of democratic oversight. The post-communist states, for example, shared a common experience under communism that continues to affect the polities and societies to this day. The members of this sub-region have also been influenced in their military and political reform by Western actors and processes, including NATO and EU enlargement (Caparini, 2003). International pressure in support of democracy has served to isolate authoritarian regimes, and international financial institutions and bilateral donors have provided material incentives for democratisation. However, it is worth noting that the effectiveness of such pressure depends on the aspirations of the target country. In CEE, NATO and EU membership have been top foreign policy goals of most of the post-communist regimes. Thus while a common goal for democratising states is achieving democratic civilian control of armed forces, the process appears to be influenced by various factors, such as the experience of the preceding regime (and hence legacies of the past), the new institutions that were created with the change in regime (e.g. presidential versus parliamentary forms of government), political culture and regional dynamics (including the influence of international actors). The achievement of effective democratic control of the state’s coercive institutions is, moreover, a necessary though not sufficient component of democratic consolidation. Failure to introduce democratic structures, procedures and mindsets into the armed forces may delay democratisation or create problems further down the road. Similarly, factors hampering the consolidation of democracy, such as weakness of the civil administration, weakness of parliament and its oversight committees, intra-executive disputes over division of power and responsibilities, and corruption, will affect civil–military relations. Democratic control of armed forces in mature or established democracies is less frequently the subject of study in comparison to those in other types of states, especially those considered to be in transition to or consolidating democracy, which have an abundance of studies on civil–military relations due to the potential influence of the military on the process of democratisation. This does not mean that problems in civil–military relations or democratic control do not arise, as was evidenced by periodic crises in the USA such as that over the Vietnam War or more recently the alleged civil–military ‘gap’ in the USA,3 or the controversy generated by the Somalia Affair in Canada in the 1990s.4 However, generally it would seem that societies in mature democracies have come to a basic consensus on the division of power and state institutional arrangements. Tensions may arise due to changing social conditions, evolution in the nature of warfare, or changes

10 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann in the types of roles and missions of the armed forces, and disagreement between political and military elites over the adaptation of the armed forces to these changes. Several useful studies have been undertaken on civil–military relations and democratic control of armed forces in post-communist states (Bebler, 1997; Betz and Lowenhardt, 2001; Cottey, Edmunds and Forster, 2001; Danopoulos and Zirker, 1996; Gow and Birch, 1997; Joó, 1996; Szemerkenyi, 1996). While these studies have yielded valuable insights on the common challenges faced by these states in transforming their defence establishments in the context of profound change, they may have inadvertently lent support to the myth that established Western states do not experience noteworthy problems in democratic control or civil–military relations. Moreover, with the passage of more than 15 years following the demise of state socialism in CEE and the installation of new political regimes, there has developed considerable diversity in outcomes of democratisation processes in CEE. As several of the post-communist states achieved membership of NATO and the EU, one can speak of international recognition of the advanced state of reforms to the political, economic and social systems of these various states. We believe it is time to look at civil–military relations not only within the narrow and exclusive category of post-communist states, but in a broader regional sense, comparing the experiences across the diverse range of polities in contemporary Europe. There exist very few comparative studies that focus on civil–military relations in both mature democratic states and in post-communist states (one exception is Kuhlmann and Callaghan, 2000), and none that specifically compare the functioning of systems of democratic control of armed forces across the two types of states. We maintain that it is incorrect to assume that mature democracies do not encounter any problems in this field, and that the time is due for a comparative evaluation of points of strain and even crisis in civil–military relations in mature and new democracies across Europe.

Methodology How do we know how democratic civilian control of the military works in practice? Using an analogy from the aircraft industry, we know that by subjecting an airplane’s wings to stress, we can assess how the plane would perform under a variety of circumstances. We think that such an approach is valid for civil–military relations as well; the behaviour of civilian and military authorities can be best studied under circumstances where they are under tension or when civilian and military actors pursue competing interests or goals. In such instances of conflict or crisis, the fault lines of civil–military relations become more visible. We have chosen a comparative approach to study civil–military relations under pressure in 14 European states.5 A more or less representative sample of European states was selected, based initially according to a basic matrix of characteristics that included type of state and political system, geographical location, whether armies were conscript or professional and military expenditures as percentage of GDP in 2000. Authors of the country studies were selected carefully as recognised experts on civil–military relations in their countries, based on the editors’ familiarity

Civilians and the military in Europe

11

with their work and on discussions with their colleagues in the European Research Group on Military and Society (ERGOMAS). Authors were instructed to select two case studies that they considered to be crucial for understanding contemporary civil–military relations in their country. Of the cases selected, one was to concern a short-term crisis, an event or controversy that occurred over a relatively limited time span and with limited impact, while the other case was to relate to an event or process that could be considered to have long-term implications or affect the institutional reform of the military, and thus had a major impact on civil–military relations. In a series of workshops bringing together the editors and country authors, the methodology, goals and structure of the book were discussed. The workshop meetings also provided the opportunity for questions and feedback from editors and authors about each of the case studies, with a view to determining whether they fit the two key selection criteria: (1) relevance to democratic governance of civil–military relations; and (2) constituting both a crisis case and a case of longterm institutional change. Some of the cases were rejected and replaced by others. The end result is shown in Table 1.1. The selected countries were then subject to further classification based on specific characteristics in order to facilitate clustering and comparative analysis. In contrast to some earlier comparative studies on civil–military relations in Europe (e.g. Forster et al., 2002; Betz and Lowenhardt, 2001), the sample of countries that was chosen was not limited to so-called transition or post-communist states, but also include long-established or ‘mature’ democracies from Western Europe. The 14 selected European states comprised both ‘new’ and ‘old’ democracies, and possessed either parliamentary political systems or presidential-parliamentary (ie. semi-presidential) political systems. In order to assess whether a country had a parliamentary or presidential-parliamentary political system, we used the Freedom House categorisation (Freedom House, 2003). We considered the type of political system an important background variable as division of powers and authority over defence issues diverge in ways that can influence civil–military relations differently in each political systems. In a presidential-parliamentary system, for example, the head of state is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, whereas in a parliamentary system the final responsibility for the armed forces lies with the cabinet or the minister of defence. The level of democratisation, the second background variable, implies a valuejudgement. Based on the assumption that the extent of democratic control of the armed forces in a state is closely linked to the state of its democracy, the country studies were divided into three categories of states according to the stage of its democratic development, based on area knowledge and basic indicators. We have tried to objectively categorise countries at different levels of democratisation by using the UNDP Development Report (2002) indicators which are related to accountability mechanisms, government effectiveness, degree of civil–political liberties, press freedom and level of corruption. Based on these indicators, we have ranked the 14 selected countries and divided them into three groups: transition states, consolidating states and established democracies. These groupings are reflected in the structure of this book (see Table 1.3).

12 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann Table 1.1 Overview of case studies Case on short-term crisis: Political–military decision making that provoked a crisis in political–military relations Czech Republic France Georgia Germany Hungary Ireland Israel

Macedonia

Ministry of defence’s efforts to deal with thefts of military ammunition Demonstration of Gendarmerie on the streets, demanding better labour (financial) conditions Misleading parliament, media and public on covert operations, 1998–2002 Jürgen Rose case: officer raising critical questions to minister in public, 1997 Resignation chief of general staff over defence budget cuts, 1999 Spouses demonstrate publicly for better labour conditions for their husbands in the military An (excessively) independent chief of staff: the case of Lt-General Mofaz (1998–2002) Corruption around defence minister, 2001

Poland

Corruption and procurement of planes for air force, 2001 Romania The 1999 miners’ strike and role of the armed forces (in civilian law enforcement) Federal Republic The case of CGS General of Yugoslavia Pavkovic (ancien regime general protected by Kostunica), 1999–2002 Slovenia Depala Vas affair: president illegally tasked intelligence officers with molesting civilian/former military officer, 1994 Switzerland Attempt to abolish Swiss military through referendum, 1989 Ukraine

Passenger aircraft hit by Ukrainian army missile, by accident, 2001

Case on long-term institutional change: Political–military decision making of an institutional reform project Modernisation of Czech air force and procurement decision of modern supersonic aircraft Behaviour of military in the press Failed attempt to install budget control over defence, 2002 Darmstaeder signal: development of Innere Fuhrung in 1980s Attempts to integrate ministry of defence with general staff, 1989–2001 Neutrality versus joining NATO’s Partnership for Peace Netanyahu government (1996–9) attempt of changing institutional role of military in political–military decision making Outbreak of violent conflict and impact on political–military relations, 2001 (Failed) civilianisation of MoD, 1999– Reform of procurement, 2001 Postponed security sector reform after 24 Sept 2000 Dispute concerning competence in the years 1993–4 between president and defence minister Shifting controlling power from the ministry of defence to the parliamentary defence committee, 1960s–present Difficulty of reforming Ukrainian armed forces, 2000–5

Civilians and the military in Europe

13

Table 1.2 Comparison of the armed forces and democratic framework in 16 countries Political system1

1 Czech Republic Parliamentary democracy 2 France Presidential-parliamentary democracy 3 Georgia Presidential-parliamentary democracy 4 Germany Parliamentary democracy 5 Hungary Parliamentary democracy 6 Ireland Parliamentary democracy 7 Israel Parliamentary democracy 8 Macedonia Parliamentary democracy 9 Poland Presidential-parliamentary democracy 10 Romania Presidential-parliamentary democracy 11 Federal Republic Parliamentary democracy of Yugoslavia 12 Slovenia Parliamentary democracy 13 Switzerland Parliamentary democracy 14 Ukraine

Presidential-parliamentary democracy

Type of Army (as of 2002)

Military expenditure as % of GDP (20002)

Conscription Professional

2.0 2.6

Conscription

0.9

Conscription Conscription Professional Conscription Conscription Conscription

1.5 1.5 0.7 8.0 2.1 1.9

Conscription

2.1

Conscription

2.6

Conscription Conscription based militia Conscription

1.2 1.1 3.6

Notes 1 2

Source: Freedom House, 2003. Source: UNDP Development Report, 2002.

Transitional states are understood as polities in which the formal institutional framework of a democratic system has largely been put into place, but which is not yet consolidated. All of the transitional states in this book are also postcommunist. The second category of states is consolidating democracies, which have progressed further and could be said to have achieved substantive democracy in most areas. Using the UNDP democracy and governance indicators (Table 1.3), interestingly, Israel fits into this second category. The third category is that of mature democracies, those that have experienced substantive democracy over a sustained period of time, including all of Western Europe. Interestingly, the 14 countries rank almost without exception in the same way according to these six UNDP criteria, implying that there is inter-correlation between the UNDP criteria. One of our key assumptions was that understanding democratic control must be situated within a specific societal, political and cultural context. In order not to overstretch the research project, and given the geographical scope of ERGOMAS, we limited ourselves to possible societal contexts within Europe, with the exception of Israel. However, this geographical limitation did not exclude making comparisons with civil–military relations outside Europe, for example, the wellknown system in the USA or the post-authoritarian transitions of Latin America.

Romania Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Macedonia Ukraine Georgia Poland Hungary Slovenia Czech Rep. Israel France Switzerland Ireland Germany

44 56 44 60 53 19 28 21 24 30 21 8 18 13

free partly free

partly free partly free partly free free free free free free free free free free

0.03 –0.31 –0.07 1.21 1.19 1.07 1.04 0.98 1.11 1.73 1.57 1.42

0.50 –0.20

Voice and Accountability3 –2.50 to 2.50 higher is better

–1.45 –0.59 –1.00 0.69 0.75 0.87 0.74 –0.54 1.04 1.61 1.24 1.21

–0.08 –0.90

Political stability and lack of violence5 –2.50 to 2.50 higher is better

– 4.0 – 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0

4.0

Law and order4 0 to 6 higher is better

Source: UN Development Report 2002.

Notes 1 Freedom House Index 2000. 2 Freedom House Index 2000. 3 Kaufman and Kraay, Worldbank Governance Indicators Dataset 2000–2001 (Serbia and Montenegro: 2002 figures). 4 International country risk guide. 5 Worldbank 2000–2001 (Serbia and Montenegro: 2002 figures). 6 Worldbank 2000–2001 (Serbia and Montenegro: 2002 figures). 7 Worldbank 2000–2001 (Serbia and Montenegro: 2002 figures).

Established Democracies

Consolidating Democracies

Transition States

Freedom House Press freedom Categorisation1 100 to 02 0–30 free 31–60 partly free 61–100 not free

Table 1.3 Applying UNDP indicators for determining the democratisation level of selected states

–0.63 –0.75 –0.72 0.27 0.60 0.70 0.58 0.87 1.24 1.93 1.79 1.67

–0.54 –0.73

Government effectiveness –2.50 to 2.506 higher is better

–0.51 –0.90 –0.69 0.43 0.65 1.09 0.31 1.12 1.15 1.91 1.16 1.38

–0.51 –0.80

Graft (corruption) index –2.50 to 2.507

14 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

Civilians and the military in Europe

15

Specific events and/or developments deemed critical for the civil–military relations in 14 European countries were identified. Case study authors were instructed that the phenomena studied should have involved a degree of conflict between civilian and military actors or raised political sensitivities, with potentially far-reaching political and/or military consequences. The events were to be related to the following defence/security topics:

• • • • • • • •

participation in peace support operations (perceptions of) threats to security new military doctrine, security strategy or changes in defence policy cuts in the budget for the armed forces social inclusion issues within the military (minorities, women, homosexuals) procurement of new weapon systems or equipment corruption downsizing of the military and (abolishment of) conscription issues.

Each country study entailed the analysis of two critical events or issues. The analysis of each event was to address five elements: 1 2 3 4 5

Whose preferences prevailed – those of civilian or military actors? Did one side (political or military leaders) prevail in the issue or event under evaluation, and if so, why? How did one party to the conflict prevail over the other? What types of strategies or networks of actors were involved? How did the conflict concerning the two particular events influence the future relations between the political and military leadership? What can the author identify as implications of the findings of the country studies for the theory of democratic control of armed forces and civil–military relations more broadly?

The country studies address the roles of relevant actors, such as the parliament, the government, the president, political parties, factions within the military, industry and media. The relations between these actors will be studied from several possible institutional perspectives:

• • • • • •

legal context (constitution, laws, parliamentary provisions) military cultural context international and regional embedding social context of the military the political system in relation to the military economy–military context.

Authors of country chapters were requested to include contextual material on the legal-institutional framework only on a need-to-know basis. The country chapters would focus as much as possible on the analysis of the critical events in political–

16 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann military interactions, with broader constitutional, political and historical factors limited to strictly that which would be required to understand the implications of the events being discussed for democratic control of the armed forces. On the basis of their analysis, each author was requested to identify lessons learned about democratic control of armed forces in their country, and, if possible, wider implications of their findings for theory.

Organisation of the book The remainder of the book is organised into four sections. As discussed above, the case study countries were divided into three categories based on indicators of democratic development. The first section includes those countries classified as ‘transitional’ states – those which continue to evince significant problems and would be categorised only ‘partly free’ by Freedom House. The second section contains those states classified as consolidating democracies – those which still have some issues to resolve but have established the basic features of democratic political systems. The third section contains the country studies of states with mature, long-established democratic political systems. The conclusion compares and analyses the findings across the 14 cases in an effort to verify whether one can identify distinct patterns of civil–military relations and democratic control within each of the three categories of states in contemporary Europe. The conclusion also identifies trends and insights from the comparative analysis concerning developments in Europe as a whole. As the reader progresses through the country case studies, he or she might want to keep in mind the following questions:

• • • •

What is the proper balance between civilian oversight and democratic control on the one hand, and autonomous professional military competence on the other? Can control over the armed forces be manipulated by civilian elites in ways that do not serve the public interest? Can civil–military relations in post-communist countries still be considered to constitute a special type, with unique features or dynamics? What are the differences in societal context between mature democracies and those that are undergoing democratic transformation or consolidation, that affect civil–military relations and democratic control of armed forces?

The final chapter takes up these questions and discusses the task of comparing the empirical findings of the various country and case studies presented by the book’s contributors. In examining the patterns of civil–military relations throughout a representative sample of contemporary European states, the concluding chapter seeks to synthesise and build linkages across area studies that have hitherto been characterised by distinctive approaches. We hope that the reader finds this exercise in comparative research and analysis as exciting as did the editors and contributors.

Civilians and the military in Europe

17

Notes 1 This definition adapted from ‘Good Governance’, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Online. Available at HTTP: http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/0/120E9700965D 51CE85256919006BF1E5?OpenDocument> (accessed 23 May 2005); ‘What is good governance?’ United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Online. Available HTTP: http://www.unescap.org/huset/gg/governance.htm> (accessed 23 May 2005). 2 See the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, NATO 2001, pp. 67– 90. 3 For discussion of the civil–military gap, see Feaver and Kohn, 2001; Kohn, 1994, pp. 3–31; Snider and Carlton-Carew, 1995. 4 The Somalia Affair developed from the torture and killing of a 16-year-old Somali prisoner by Canadian soldiers on a peacekeeping mission in Somalia in March 1993. The controversy generated among the Canadian public resulted in a period of acute civil–military tensions, the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment and a Commission of Inquiry that was shut down by the government before it could examine the role of military leaders in the cover-up of the affair. See Report of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1997). Online. Available HTTP: http://www.dnd.ca/Somalia/ vol0/indexe.htm> (accessed 23 May 2005). 5 Israel was included as a case study as a European-type because of its links to Europe as reflected in strong European influences on its political orientation, and its 2003 application to become a member of the EU.

18 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

Civil–military relations in Romania

Part II

Transition states

19

20 Larry L. Watts

Civil–military relations in Romania

2

21

Stressed and strained civil– military relations in Romania, but successfully reforming Larry L. Watts

Introduction The pursuit of democratic control, modernisation and NATO integration created a broad range of stresses and strains within the post-communist Romanian army. The long-term reform of acquisitions and property management (APM) in Romania and the 1999 crisis over the internal use of the military demonstrate the various factors involved in the actual exercise of democratic civilian control during fundamental military transformation. Long-term reform in APM highlights the issues of institutional and structural transformation, transparency, professionalism, personnel management and budgeting and planning reform – all central aspects of democratic control. The 1999 crisis over internal use of the military underscores the interplay of tradition, legitimacy, legality and public opinion in civil–military debates over the proper role for the military. Both processes occurred against a backdrop of extensive military downsizing from more than 320,000 personnel in 1989 to 120,000 in 2003, with corresponding active service peacetime army cuts from 270,000 to 90,000 during the same period. In 2001 alone, over 4,000 senior officers were made redundant and the number of general officers reduced from 440 to 90. Within this context of wide-ranging simultaneous change, divisions appeared within the officer corps and between civilian officials and the uniformed army.

Background Prior to 1989, Romania’s hyper-centralised communist dictatorship was considered the most oppressive in Europe. In response to the experience of excessive concentration of power in the hands of a single party state leader, the architects of Romania’s democratic system decided to establish a semi-presidential constitutional system where a democratically elected president appoints a prime minister who is then approved by parliament. The president is compelled to renounce party membership upon election as to ensure there is no excessive power aggrandisement by the state executive. The president is constitutionally responsible for national security and foreign policy while the prime minister is chiefly responsible for domestic affairs.

22 Larry L. Watts Similar considerations led to the separation of key security sector institutions, the intelligence organs in particular, from party-based government to direct subordination to the presidency. In practice, this set-up has facilitated their democratic control since majority parliamentarians are not faced with the dilemma of overseeing organs directed by an executive who is also their superior along party lines. The Supreme Defence Council – known by its Romanian acronym CSAT – was formed in 1990 under presidential subordination to further address concerns of power-sharing and political neutrality on national security issues. Decisions within the CSAT are taken by consensus and are binding on all state and government bodies. The CSAT included ten voting members – the president (who also serves as president of the CSAT), the prime minister (as vice-president), the president’s counsellor for national security (responsible for its agenda), the directors of foreign and domestic intelligence, the chief of the general staff and the ministers of defence, foreign affairs, internal affairs and industry. Thus, although the government cabinet did not have primary responsibility for national security decision making, it was a vital part of the process. Reform of acquisitions and property management (APM) The principal tasks of military APM are to acquire, invest in and manage the critical equipment, weapons systems and technologies necessary for current needs and future operations. Decisions taken within the APM process determine what is developed, purchased, maintained, withdrawn from service, sold or destroyed. Given the impact of these decisions on military capabilities, it is imperative that the APM process is driven by mission-defined requirements. APM reform was central for NATO integration because effective joint operations require standardised and interoperable military technologies. Intelligently managed, APM co-operation with alliance partners can offer significant economies of scale and advantages from technology transfer, division of production, shared logistics and common training. Although procurement and supply plays such a major role in the modernisation and alliance integration process, they rarely constitute early priorities of military reform because of the immense sums of money involved. The APM process determines from whom equipment is purchased, who will be paid to maintain/ upgrade existing equipment, and to whom equipment will be sold. The failure to inject sufficient transparency into the process can have a seriously negative impact on budgeting and defence security since economic interests can leverage acquisition policy ‘such that the support of national military industries and the ability to export military products are made national priorities, superseding modernisation requirements’ (Matache, 2002, pp. 145–6). Likewise, governments can be pressured to develop military products ‘more as a means of stimulating national defense industries and the interests they represent than to meet military requirements, such that domestic defence production fails to advance the reform and integration agenda’ (ibid.).

Civil–military relations in Romania

23

A transparent APM process, with clear regulations and consistent procedures, can ensure effective use of resources and minimise waste, corruption and abuse. Transparency also fosters public support as citizens are convinced that their taxes support national security and are not diverted for partisan individual or group profit. In contrast, a non-transparent and ineffective procurement and supply process can delay modernisation, block alliance integration, undermine international credibility, alienate the domestic public, diminish defence budgets, sabotage the military reform process and compromise democratic civilian control. A fairly wide range of values, issues and personal interests come into conflict over APM reform. After 1989, vested economic interests and legacy power-privilege networks operating with discretionary and monopoly powers clashed with reform, modernisation and NATO integration interests in Romania as those interests sought to block efforts that would increase the transparency of the APM process. In so doing, those interests were also hampering the exercise and extension of democratic civilian control. Until 2001, the exercise of civilian control over APM was further complicated by the continued existence of two parallel budgeting processes: one at the Romanian Ministry of National Defence (RMND) for current expenditures and personnel and one under the general staff for procurement and supply. The seemingly most intractable element blocking real control was the existence of a legacy interest group, composed of members of the armaments department, the defence industry and military security/intelligence which sought to preserve the opaque nature of the process and its own discretionary powers. Early attempts and failures Although some steps were taken to transfer the defence industry out of the military before 2000, the more than 30 defence enterprises continued to be treated as a single ‘defence industry’, thereby foiling attempts to separate the wheat from the chaff or diminish their political clout, and providing clear disincentives to reform. General Decebel Ilina, a former military intelligence chief who subsequently headed the armaments department before his appointment as state secretary to the Ministry of Industry for Defence Industries, frankly noted that: ‘We believed that the army would be obliged to give us orders, even if we did not make the best or the least expensive goods’ (Slavik, 2001). The decentralisation of the acquisition process had the unintended consequence of multiplying military suppliers and exporters, some of which then acted contrary to Romanian security and foreign policy. For example, in a joint sting operation with American agencies, the Romanian foreign intelligence service uncovered and foiled an attempt by Iraq to purchase missile guidance systems from the Romanian firm Aerofina in 1995, resulting in the dismissal of the firm’s director and the state secretary (deputy minister) responsible for procurement, along with a number of other senior officers (Matei and Dianconu, 2001). The continued operation of the armaments – industry – intelligence triad resulted in a number of decisions regarding internal acquisition and property management

24 Larry L. Watts that, while often not explicitly illegal, were questionable economically, ethically, and in terms of integration requirements. Public scandals accompanied the modernisation and purchase of fighter aircraft, the acquisition of telecommunications and electronic warfare equipment, and the sale and transfer of real property (Diac, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Fotache, 2001; Slavik, 2002; Dragomir, 2002; Artene, 2002). The common feature regarding each of these decisions was the lack of transparency in the identification of requirements and comparative offers prior to the decision, and the complete lack of a transparent and competitive acquisition process during their implementation. According to General Dumitru Cioflina, the chief of staff during 1991–7, the justification given for opposition to a joint budget was that the ailing defence industry should be protected with government subsidies until some ‘sunny day’ in the future when it could be resuscitated (Personal Communication, 4 October 2001). Apparently, successive military and civilian defence ministers saw some advantage in maintaining this arrangement until the end of the decade. For example, Law No. 78, passed in 1995 and remaining in force until 2001, granted defence industries and their workers special subsidies and full salaries even when they had no orders (Plangu, 1999, pp. 139–40 and Romanian Government, 2000, pp. 62–3). Indeed, champions of joint budgeting and the removal of subsidies to obsolete defence industries risked having their patriotism impugned when they pursued the issue. As a result, the procurement process remained a black box closed to democratic control. Political and economic interests were further injected into what should have been a technical process because the senior officers named to head the armaments department during 1990–2000 were also granted the status of government state secretary (deputy minister). The 1998 decision of the Democratic Convention government to reserve the naming of the head of military intelligence and counterintelligence to the prime minister instead of the defence minister further encouraged partisan political influence and created more obstacles for reform and accountability. The Party of Social Democracy (PSD) government adopted a similar decision immediately after its constitution in January 2001. Paradoxically, the 1997–2000 period was marked both by increasing procurement and supply scandals and by the first significant movement in procurement reform planning. While civilian defence officials actively engaged in such planning, they also presided over an increasingly dysfunctional civil–military relationship that inadvertently facilitated autonomous military control over defence budgeting and acquisitions (Watts, 2001, pp. 16, 21–3). As civil–military communications broke down at the top of the hierarchy, the general staff’s budgeting section together with its Directorate for Structures and Resources assumed de facto responsibility for formulating the entire defence budget. Concurrently, deriving in part from increased Western military assistance after 1996 and in part from internal military and civilian pressures for accelerating reform, the first plan for a modern APM system was drawn up for limited implementation on an experimental basis (Romanian Government, 2000, chapter 3; Plangu, 1999, pp. 139–40). While unquestionably a step forward, civil–military breakdown, the incoherence of political leadership in the disintegrating Democratic Convention

Civil–military relations in Romania

25

coalition, and a lack of political will rendered it ineffectual. Implementation was further hampered by: (1) the lack of any reliable inventory of existing equipment and real assets; (2) the continued refusal of successive governments to end subsidies to obsolete defence industries; and (3) the lack of ‘jointness’ in planning and budgeting: all of which are prerequisites to an effective APM system. Consequently, the civilian defence managers conceptualising the new system had little impact on an unmotivated general staff responsible for its implementation. Reform, 2001–2 The new defence minister appointed following the December 2000 elections, Ioan Mircea Pascu, publicly campaigned for a set of military reform measures, including depoliticisation, professionalisation and anti-corruption, which he had identified as key problems while chairman of the Parliamentary Defence Supervision Committee in the Lower House during 1997–2000 (Dragomir, 2001; Pascu, 2002, pp. 34–6). Along with reforms in personnel policy and supervision, Pascu and his deputy, State Secretary George Cristian Maior, pursued a series of measures aimed at ‘managing, if not eradicating, corruption from acquisition and property management such that procurement effectively serves the requirements of restructuring and modernising [the] military institution’, including:

• •

• •

the full separation of Defence Ministry procurement departments from defence industries, and the ‘civilianisation’ of the latter; effective regulations prohibiting active service senior officers or their firstdegree relatives from commercial involvement in procurement for or supply to the military, with similar prohibitions against commercial involvement in arms exports from domestic defence industry to other external buyers; monitoring mechanisms to ensure that acquisitions and property management are subjected to the largest possible level of transparency; and the institution of e-procurement systems to ensure that the best equipment is obtained at the best price, with the utmost transparency.

It took several months to lay the groundwork necessary for addressing the threefold challenge of: (1) implementing a NATO-style system where acquisitions and procurement were directly linked to missions with clear lines of accountability; (2) eliminating the ability of partisan interests to influence personnel policy within the military; and (3) introducing real civilian control over the budgeting and planning process.

26 Larry L. Watts In February 2001, the Pascu-Maior team introduced the RMND’s ‘series 1000’ instructions creating an Acquisitions Integrated Management System (AIMS). The new management system defined the acquisition process throughout its entire lifecycle, beginning with the establishment of mission needs and required capabilities, the identification of priorities and resources, the assimilation of new weapons systems until their retirement from service and ultimate disposal. AIMS established periodic reporting to responsible authorities including the CSAT, the government and the parliament. It was the first explicitly elaborated system of acquisition management in the Defence Ministry in over half a century, and the first integrated system of public procurement introduced in any Romanian state or government body (RMND, 2001 and 2002a).1 In July 2001, in an effort co-ordinated by George Maior and assisted primarily by British advisers, the team introduced a human resource management policy establishing clear military career paths and a Western-style promotion board process monitored by military and civil–military advisors from NATO member states. Further measures of transparency and efficiency were introduced after the first annual review of the system. The team also implemented a genuinely joint budgeting process under civilian control, dissolving the general staff’s Department for Budget and Structures and absorbing the staff’s budgeting section into a Defence Integrated Planning Directorate (DIPD) overseen by civilian defence authorities.2 Concurrently, the Programming, Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation System (PPBES) necessary for managing the process was implemented in the RMND and down to the unit level during 2001–2, with civilian and military specialists trained at a new Regional Center for Defence Resources Management that opened its doors in 2001. The US Institute for Defence Analysis, which has worked on PPBES in over 40 states, ranked Romania as the leading example of success, benefiting from the conditions necessary for its functioning and the political will for its implementation. Under the Pascu-Maior reforms, all state secretary positions within the Defence Ministry were filled by civilian specialists, as were all director posts, and civilian appointments were accelerated (some 600 in the first 18 months beginning in January 2001 compared to about 180 during 1997–2000). For the first time since before the Second World War, a civilian was named head of the armaments department. Along with a significant increase in transparency, these changes also did away with the autonomy and political clout of the armaments department, reintegrating it under the RMND. This effectively ended the practice of maintaining separate slush funds that could be used for unplanned, discretionary procurements. Procurement decisions could now legally be made only on the basis of the unified budget, and new procurements made only after an explicit decision process involving the trade-off of shifting funds within that budget. In the summer of 2001 the Romanian armed forces (RAF) undertook and completed its first inventory of all military equipment and real property since the 1989 revolution. This created the necessary premise for efficient and transparent administration and enabled a close monitoring of all excess and redundant equipment. An agency was subsequently established specifically to evaluate excess

Civil–military relations in Romania

27

and redundant material goods created as a result of the restructuring and modernisation (RMND, 2002b). A number of measures were also taken by the CSAT further to dismantle remnants of the armaments department–defence industry–military security/ intelligence network. In July 2001, the CSAT transferred ROMTEHNICA out from under RMND subordination and into the civilian sphere. This established a clear distinction between the military profession and industry and commerce and forced the senior officers who constituted some 25 per cent of ROMTEHNICA’s employees to choose between the two (Romanian Presidency, 2001). Successive government ordinances pursuant to this issued in 2002 cut six failing defence enterprises, ended the salaried ‘technical unemployment’ of defence industry workers by abrogating Law 78/1995, and eliminated the concept of ‘defence industry’ as a unit such that each enterprise would have to prove itself viable, convert to civilian production or fail. ROMTEHNICA personnel and former officers working as defence specialists in the Ministry of Industry were no longer entitled to receive direct reporting from defence intelligence, all state subsidies to defence industry were ended, and some 40,000 employees were slated for redundancy (Jurnalul National, 2001). In October 2001, the CSAT stipulated that the obsolete production of defence industries would no longer be purchased by the military purely to ensure their survival. At the same time, the RMND began work on a reform project for the restructuring and reorganisation of military intelligence. The mobilisation of the army during the 1999 miners’ protest At the end of December 1998, the Democratic Convention government announced its intention to close several dozen unprofitable mines throughout the country. The announcement provoked a protest by the miners’ trade union. On 18 January 1999, after the government refused to reconsider, the miners began to march towards Bucharest. Thus began a public debate with the press, military and opposition on the one side, and the government and presidency on the other, over the appropriate role for the military during a domestic conflict. The march ended several days later, on 22 January, when, simultaneously, the prime minister accepted negotiations with the miners and the president mobilised troops to block roads in Bucharest. Subsequent military resentment contributed to a deterioration in civil–military relations until the general elections of November 2000. Military tradition and internal security missions The RAF has no recent tradition of performing internal security missions that would legitimise its use in police operations. Although it was mobilised during miners’ strikes in the Jiu Valley region during the communist period, it took no active part in their repression. During the December 1989 revolution, the army was mobilised on the basis of operational plans designed to counter a foreign invasion – essentially a state of siege (Codrescu, 1998). Once manoeuvred in front

28 Larry L. Watts of crowds, catalytic provocations resulted in civilian deaths while, in other instances, armed civilians attacked military objectives such as local arms depots and the Defence Ministry in Bucharest. Within 48 hours the military command grasped the situation and returned the military to the barracks. RAF forces in Bucharest sided with the population and determined the success of the revolution, with the army suffering over 20 per cent of the revolution’s approximately 1,000 casualties. Responsibility for civilian casualties and the proper role of the military then became a highly charged political issue. Outside this political battle, popular consensus overwhelmingly held that the military sided with the population and that an internal police mission was not among its legitimate tasks, a position explicitly shared by Romania’s last four military defence ministers from 1989 until 1994. Legal framework While popular consensus held that the army had no traditionally legitimate domestic police role, the post-communist legal framework was more ambiguous. The previous communist constitution did not specify such a role, nor does the democratic constitution of December 1991. The 1994 Law on National Defence No. 45/01.07.94 is also silent regarding domestic missions and refers back to the Constitution. However, decree law No. 39/1990 establishing the CSAT appears to presume such a role by assigning it the task of ensuring the co-ordination of the defence and interior ministries in ‘instituting or reestablishing legal order’. Romania’s first democratically elected parliament placed several safeguards in the Constitution in order to limit the president’s power to mobilise troops or declare states of siege or emergency. Article 92(2) established the right of the president as commander-in-chief, ‘with prior approval of parliament’, to declare ‘partial or general mobilisation of the armed forces’, stipulating that ‘only in exceptional cases’ can he declare it before that approval, which he must obtain within five days. In the handbook, Democratic Control Over the Army in Romania, published in 1996 as a basic reference for the RAF, military jurists explained that: ‘The constituent legislature excluded the possibility for the president to have discretion in exercising this attribution, making it mandatory that the mobilisation of the armed forces be approved by the parliament’. In addition, ‘a further safeguard against the adoption of this measure in insufficiently motivated cases’ was provided by requiring the approval of the CSAT (Diaconescu et al., 1996, p. 157). The Constitution likewise stipulated that the regulation of states of siege and emergency could not be legislated by ordinances, which are passed either by the government or by a simple majority of parliamentarians in attendance. Instead, an organic law approved by two-thirds of the entire parliament (Section 3, Article 72(3)(e)) was required. According to military legal specialists, the intention of the constituent legislature was to ensure that ‘neither of these measures’ would be left to the discretion of the president without parliamentary and CSAT approval (Diaconescu et al., 1996, p. 158).

Civil–military relations in Romania

29

The government’s Emergency Ordinance on States of Siege and Emergency No. 1, issued on 21 January 1999, eliminated the CSAT from the decision process entirely, along with the obligation for prior parliamentary approval. According to Chapter II, Articles 10 and 12 of the ordinance: ‘the state of siege or state of emergency is instituted by the president of Romania through decree, counter-signed by the prime minister and published at the same time in the Romanian Official Gazette’. Political crisis and miners’ protests Since the 1920s, Romanian miners’ strikes have often became violent, due in no small part to the life-threatening working conditions of men who felt they had little to lose. Immediately after the 1989 revolution, in January and March 1990, miners’ delegations went to Bucharest and were granted a number of privileges that the government proved unable to deliver. In June 1990, Prime Minister Petre Roman called upon the miners to help clear University Square of opposition protestors, and his transport ministry arranged special trains for them. This event was characterised by violence and property destruction with distinctly political overtones directed primarily against the opposition National Peasant Party (NPP), for which several members of the Interior Ministry’s Intelligence Unit (UM 0215) were later arrested and convicted. In September 1991, the miners commandeered trains and travelled to Bucharest to protest the government’s failure to deliver on its previous promises, prompting Roman’s resignation. On that occasion, the miners were welcomed by the national conference of the NPP and encouraged to demand the resignation of both Prime Minister Roman and President Iliescu. The head of the NPP at the time explained that the government erred when it ‘did not respond to the desperate appeals which the miners made to them, requesting the presence of the prime minister among them’ (Cotidianul, 1999c). The ruling Party of Social Democracy (PSD) was voted out of office in the national elections of October 1996 and replaced by a government coalition – the Democratic Convention – whose principal members included the NPP, the National Liberal Party, and the Democratic Party (PD), which had been formed by Roman after his resignation in 1991. As the economy contracted during each of the first three years of the democratic convention government, public dissatisfaction increased. When miners’ grievances were raised in October 1998, Prime Minister Radu Vasile (NPP) met with them in the Jiu Valley, resolving the crisis. At the beginning of January 1999, between 5,000 and 15,000 miners struck in protest of the decision by the Minister of Industry, Radu Berceanu (PD), to close 37 mines with no apparent consideration for the timing and sequencing that might ameliorate the social impact on the mostly mono-industrial region of the Jiu Valley. Although predisposed to meet with a small delegation of miners that arrived in Bucharest, Vasile was persuaded by advisors to refuse direct discussion. Instead, the miners were accused of ‘political actions’ outside the realm of a bona fide labour protest. After these events Vasile asserted that he had been deliberately

30 Larry L. Watts misinformed by his advisors and apologised to the miners for refusing to meet with them (Curierul National, 2000). The press and opposition took the government and prime minister to task for obstinately refusing dialogue with the miners, and accused them of intentionally ‘provoking the miners to hysteria’ (Cotidianul, 1999b). The hardball attitude of the PD and the NPP leadership also drew criticism from within their party ranks. The NPP minister of interior, replaced on 21 January 1999, criticised ‘the complete lack of tact and diplomacy with which the problem was treated at the governmental level’ and the ‘arrogance’ evident in government declarations that ‘we will not cede, we will not sit down and talk, and there is no room for discussion’ with the miners (Cronica Romana, 1999b). On the evening of 21–22 January, the president decided to institute a state of emergency throughout Romania unless the miners began to return to the Jiu Valley by 1400hrs on 22 January (Romanian Presidency, 1999b). At the same time, the prime minister agreed to ‘involve himself directly in the dialogue with the leaders of the miners from the Jiu Valley’ in order to resolve the ‘reasonable demands’ of the miners and end the conflict (Romanian Government, 1999b). The miners accepted, and by 1400hrs an agreement was reached allowing the trade union’s participation in ‘jointly establishing a programme within 30 days for the restructuring and reduction of losses’ (Romanian Government, 1999c).

The civil–military debate Almost immediately after the miners’ strike began on 4 January, the president of the NPP, Ion Diaconescu, signalled the government’s hard-line position, declaring that: ‘An appeal will be made to the police and to the army if necessary’ (Libertatea, 1999). The media attacked Diaconescu for what it termed an ‘irresponsible declaration’, for ‘not knowing that soldiers do not have the assurance of public calm and order among their attributions’, that the ‘army is not a public order force’ and that ‘the implication of the forces of the RMND in settling social turbulence is illegal’ (Cotidianul, 1999a).3 The military signalled its reluctance to become involved. After noting that the only legal norm referring to internal security was in the decree law on the Supreme Defence Council mandating co-operation between the RMND and the Interior Ministry in ‘maintaining and re-establishing the legal order’, the RMND spokesperson emphasised that ‘only the CSAT can decide such a thing’ (Adevarul, 1999). ‘In the event such an order were transmitted’, he continued, ‘the military would have “serious reservations” about intervening’, and might ‘raise the question of the legality of the order’. The harsh public and especially military reaction persuaded Diaconescu to back away from his earlier statement, affirming that he ‘referred to the order organs of the Interior Ministry that are organised in military units – the gendarmes – and not to the army or to the Ministry of National Defence’. However, Defence Minister Babiuc asserted to the press that ‘the army will intervene’, insisting that ‘there was always a legal framework for the army to intervene’, that the ‘Constitution supported this’, and that such a move ‘did not need either the approval of the parliament or that of

Civil–military relations in Romania

31

the CSAT’ (Curentul, 1999). Arguing that an alleged constitutional mandate existed and that, as ‘simply a procedural issue’, no parliamentary approval was required, Babiuc then gave the example of 1907 and stated that ‘basically, [the army] is the shield of the country against external attacks and also against internal turbulence’ (National, 1999a; Libertatea, 1999). The 1907 repression of a peasant’s uprising resulted in the death of thousands of civilians. Babiuc’s statements, made without prior consultation with the Romanian general staff, exacerbated an already considerable cleavage in civil–military relations and sparked a new wave of media and opposition protest. The PSD warned of ‘the grave consequences which the implication of the army in the repression of social conflicts would have’, requesting that the government respect ‘the Constitution and the laws of the country in their totality’ (Cronica Romana, 1999a). A non-PSD former interior minister cautioned that ‘those who send the troops to fire against their co-nationals do nothing else than lead the [government] power of which they are a part into the abyss’, while another opposition party ‘urged the government into a dialogue with the miners, criticising at the same time the manner in which the executive had managed the conflict up to this time’ (Cotidianul, 1999b). According to a former member of the Democratic Convention government’s investigative branch, Babiuc’s statements disqualified him ‘as a jurist and as the chief of the army’, indicating a failure to learn from the ‘tragic experience’ of the revolution. Even worse, such a ‘confused and superficial approach to the role of the armed forces and the manner in which democratic control over them is organised and exercised could have the most serious consequences, of a nature to raise questions even about the democratic system and the constitutional order’ (Cotidianul, 1999d). By 18 January, the divergence in threat perceptions between the government and the military became more obvious. Embassies and journalists who called the RMND by telephone on and after 18 January received the following response: The events of the Jiu Valley represent, essentially, a labor conflict. And this type of conflict does not enter under the attributions of the RMND. Certainly, some social and political aspects have been registered in the development of events, but these modalities of conflict also do not enter into the preoccupations of the army. (RMND, 1999) This stood in marked contrast to presidential and governmental declarations maintaining that the trade union protest was a ‘political confrontation’ that purposely sought ‘destabilisation at the national level’ and endangered the ‘credibility and future of Romania’, specifically its integration into NATO and the EU (Romanian Government, 1999a; Romanian Presidency, 1999a). Babiuc again claimed that the army would intervene ‘with all the means at its disposal’ and ‘without reserve, if the forces of order cannot handle the situation’ because, according to the minister, the ‘army is the guarantor of the order of law in Romania’ (Mediafax, 1999; Hiza and Nechita, 1999).

32 Larry L. Watts The army, public opinion and a significant portion of the media saw the issue as fundamentally one of the military’s legitimate roles. The government and presidency took the legitimacy of an internal security role for granted – even citing non-existent constitutional support. For them, the problem was not the legitimacy or legality of the role, but the legal trigger and authority to invoke it. This difference of opinion was reflected in headlines proclaiming ‘Confusion in the RMND’, as other uniformed personnel, while noting that the protest movement might develop in a manner ‘threatening to national security’, maintained that there could be no talk of ‘the intervention of military forces in a labor conflict’ (Vladescu, 1999). According to the head of the RMND’s press bureau: ‘The protest of the miners is one of trade union nature and so the army will stand aside’. On the night of 21 January, the presidency and government decided to initiate a state of emergency. To this end, the minister of interior was replaced with Defence State Secretary (Deputy Minister) Constantin Dudu Ionescu, who transferred from his post at the RMND. In order to create the necessary military stakeholders, three general officers were transferred from the army to the Interior Ministry with him. One of those officers, General Mircea Muresan, was also made a government state secretary and given command of the military mobilisation. The action was also supported by the chief of the general staff, General Constantin Degeratu and opposed by, among others, chief of the land forces General Mihai Popescu. The government adopted an emergency ordinance invoking the state of emergency because of ‘the existence of a threat to national security or constitutional democracy, which makes necessary the defence of state institutions of law and the maintenance or reestablishment of a state of legality’ (Monitorul Oficial, 1999). According to the ordinance, states of emergency and states of siege were instituted simply by presidential decree and the approval of the prime minister. The constitutional barrier of CSAT approval was removed from the process, as was prior approval by parliament. The ordinance obliged the military to provide personnel for the maintenance or restoration of public order along communication lines, and to provide materiel, equipment and logistical support. The use of arms and rules of engagement were extremely broad; the only requirement was that the prosecutor deem the protest activity illegal (E.C.G., 1999). On the basis of the president’s verbal orders, troops were mobilised and military trucks, armoured personnel carriers and tanks were used to barricade roads leading to Bucharest. However, a confrontation did not occur because Prime Minister Vasile agreed to negotiate directly with the miners on the morning of 22 January. Within four hours an agreement was reached and the miners returned to the Jiu Valley. Media reaction referenced the events of the December 1989 revolution with headlines such as ‘The army is again ordered onto the streets’, ‘The army is drawn into a dangerous game’, and ‘Have the false targets of 1989 reappeared?’ In the immediate aftermath of the crisis, the press stressed that ‘the government called out the tanks in vain’ (Dimimeata, 1999).

Civil–military relations in Romania

33

Conclusion APM reform Prior to 2001, attempts to reform APM were defeated by vested interests in both the military and political spheres, and by the lack of personnel policies and budgeting and planning processes that would support such reforms. By the elections of 2000, politicisation and corruption around APM undercut the military solidarity that had previously protected the armaments department–defence industry–military intelligence network from serious threat. Although the very real social welfare costs were emphasised, as was an alleged ‘patriotic duty’ of the government to protect domestic defence industry above all else, popular military and civilian opinion had become less suggestible and more focused on the advantages that would accrue from genuine modernisation and NATO integration. Misinterpreting the nature and breadth of this change in attitude, certain groups with vested interests targeted the defence minister as their adversary and were taken by surprise when the executive, public support, broad military opinion, and international support aligned with him. Transferring defence industry out of the RMND and cutting its subsidies did not dissolve the legacy interest network and primary source of dysfunctional influence. However, defence industry was more restricted in its ability to purchase political and military support and real disincentives for such behaviour were introduced. The introduction of the AIMS measures compelled a higher level of transparency with more attention focused on the acquisition process and explicit accountability for each decision, significantly increasing the risk that abuses would be detected. This, in turn, provided a major boost to systematic modernisation and interoperability. Civilianising defence industries and establishing controls that regulated military–industry interaction advanced this process by weakening the legal defence for maintaining non-transparent commercial relationships directly within the military and by instituting a clearer separation between the military profession and commercial business. Domestic use of the military In the second case detailing the internal use of the military in 1999, the government and presidency apparently won in the short term in that the military mobilised and there were expressions of support from the USA and the EU (US White House, 1999). However, during the obligatory debate on the ordinance, the parliament rejected the ordinance and liberalised the rules of engagement for the police and gendarmerie (National, 1999b). Henceforth, the army could intervene only following the declaration of a state of siege and not during a state of emergency. Senior officers interviewed during and immediately after the incident were incensed that the army had been summarily ordered to mobilise against a sector of the population that was neither armed nor threatening any of the state institutions protected by the Constitution (the presidency and the parliament). It was not

34 Larry L. Watts uncommon for senior officers to remark that they would not honour any order to march during a purely domestic crisis unless they received it in written form, and they would not fire on the population during a purely domestic crisis no matter what form such an order took. An even greater sanction was applied by the population during the December 2000 elections when neither the Democratic Convention nor the NPP within it gained the minimum percentage of votes to enter parliament – resulting in the virtual dissolution of the NPP. Negative polling results also discouraged Constantinescu from seeking re-election (AZI, 2000). The new government appointed in January 2001 reaffirmed the institutional separation of the police and military and adopted a law demilitarising the police in June 2002. At the end of 2000, institutional ‘twinning’ arrangements were established between the gendarmerie and several NATO/EU member states with similar structures and, in February 2002, significant resources were shifted to the gendarmerie, increasing its size by 2,400 personnel (Romanian Ministry of Public Information, 2002). The military’s obvious reluctance, falling short of disobedience, in response to a desperate government’s preference to call it in against protesting miners in January 1999, may well have prevented unnecessary bloodshed and political instability. In the end, they were called in only after a political solution had already been found and were never forced to confront the demonstrators. Although the standing government was unable to draw the appropriate lessons regarding legitimate military missions, its successor took the lesson to heart and instituted reforms making its use in future crises unlikely and unnecessary.

Notes 1 The application of AIMS was made obligatory by a defence minister’s order (DMO) of October 2001. Two months later, a government decision approved the ‘Procedures regarding the public acquisition of goods and services which implicate national defence, public order and national security.’ A methodology for auditing public acquisitions was established in January 2002. 2 The DIPD was first set up at the RMND by General Alexandru Grumaz in 1999, but was then ignored (and Grumaz ostracised) by the general staff. 3 The opinion of Cotidianul was especially authoritative in that it was owned by a vice-president of the NPP, Ion Ratiu, committed to fair-play in journalism.

Military reform in the former FRY

3

35

Differentia specifica Military reform in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Miroslav Had)i¼

Introduction The direction of civil–military relations in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) until the end of 2003 was determined by the numerous situational circumstances and policies of participants of different backgrounds and uneven strength.1 Parties from the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) coalition have ruled the local political scene since the ousting of Miloševi¼. These parties were largely responsible for introducing the war and authoritarianism to the political scene, creating obstacles to changing civil–military relations. The ongoing disputes within DOS concealed the fundamental reasons for the lack of pro-democratic intervention of the new authorities in the civil– military domain. Numerous military and police incidents and affairs that marked the post-October 2000 period in the former FRY testify to this account. One of the cases which attracted the widest attention was the ‘Pavkovi¼ Affair’ – its range, its content and consequences demonstrate the failures in DOS strategy for security sector reform as well as the reasons for its postponement.2 Therefore, the aspects and meaning of this case will be discussed first. The case serves as a mirror for the condition and dynamics of civil–military relations in FRY after the regime changed on 5 October 2000. Hence, the reasons why DOS postponed its security sector reform will be analysed in the second part of the chapter. In order to explain the condition and dynamics of civil–military relations in the former FRY, the position of different political subjects on the scene, their actions and their failures are analysed. It is apparent that the political revolution in the former FRY was interrupted immediately after ousting Miloševi¼. The bearers of authority, political wording and symbols of legitimisation were replaced, but the ruling mechanisms of the old regime remained. The constitutional and institutional arrangements were not changed, and the old constitutions, even though incompatible, were still in effect. The principle of separation of powers was only a constitutional proclamation, and all the power remained in the hands of the supreme executive authority. Since political power was not returned to the federal and republic parliaments, they served only to legalise the decisions adopted outside the system. The former FRY’s sovereignty was and continues to be limited by NATO’s protectorate in Kosovo. Not one government has full jurisdiction in its domain:

36 Miroslav Had)i¼ the federal government is not competent in Montenegro and Kosovo, Kosovo was and still is outside the jurisdiction of the Serbian federal government, and the Montenegrin government is restricted by the presence of the federal army on its territory. Different armed forces formations continue to exist in parallel in the fromer FRY and act independently. The federal state has the army and its secret services, but no police forces. The Republic of Serbia has its own Police and Security and Information Agency, as does the Republic of Montenegro. There is no evidence that the services have been demilitarised, since Miloševi¼ developed them as an internal army, and Djukanovi¼ developed them as the core of a future army in a possible secessionist war. The army and the police forces of both republics have antiterrorist units and a new armed force, gendarmarie (military police), has been created in Serbia. The federal authorities are not even authorised to coordinate the work of these formations. The former FRY military reform case studies confirms that isolated reform of the security sector is not possible since a restructuring of the entire society is needed. It is difficult to assess the transformation capabilities of the army but it may be assumed that the military leadership is prepared to carry out reform orders, so long as they are given.

The ‘Pavkovi¼¼ Affair’ General Nebojša Pavkovi¼ was appointed VJ chief of staff by Miloševi¼ in 1999 after the NATO bombing was terminated by the Kumanovo Agreement. During the bombing, Pavkovi¼ acted as the commander of the Third Army and there are serious suspicions that he was responsible for ethnic cleansing during the Kosovo war. After he became chief of staff, he was one of the main supporters of the Miloševi¼ regime and even declared that the army could be used to protect the ruling elite. Therefore, after the elections on 24 September 2000, the public and political parties feared a military intervention in support of Miloševi¼. However, the officers and soldiers refused to protect Miloševi¼ by force, a fact that Pavkovi¼ later used to prove his loyalty to the Constitution and his dedication to democracy. In spite of this, DOS and President Koštunica, in particular, were under strong pressure by the public, media and some political parties to dismiss Pavkovi¼. Koštunica rejected these claims for different reasons. He claimed that Pavkovi¼’s dismissal would jeopardise the stability of the complex and sensitive military system, that Pavkovi¼ was necessary because he was the creator, executor and guarantor of the army reforms, and that Pavkovi¼’s dismissal would be a negative influence on the army’s morale. However, the first argument is not really valid because any army cannot and must not depend on any individual. The principle of substitutability is completely implemented in the military organisation, implying that no one is indispensable. For example, if any commander is killed or retired, including the chief of staff, the chain of command always includes a sufficient number of those trained to take over his duties immediately.

Military reform in the former FRY

37

The second argument fails because the army cannot be reformed without a clear national security strategy, but also without a state plan for its transformation that establishes the goals, costs, executors and means of control. Both these preconditions are still within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament and federal government. Since these documents had not been adopted at that time, it is not clear which programme Pavkovi¼ was using in allegedly reforming the army. It serves no purpose to discuss the third reason, since no one, not even Koštunica, had assessed how poorly Pavkovi¼’s lingering presence influenced the army’s morale. One could equally claim that after 5 October 2000, most of the officers awaited changes and were not pleased to see Miloševi¼’s generals remain in key positions. On 2 July 2002, the federal parliament adopted the Law on Security Services of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, placing the military security services under the control of the federal parliament and federal government. This repositioning of the military security services was resisted by the army leadership. In the process of its preparation, Pavkovi¼ stated that it was ‘nonsense and stupid that the Military Security Service should be subordinate to the Federal Defence Ministry while the Constitution is in effect’ (Danas, 22 May 2002). The first beneficiaries of the fusion of the new authorities were Pavkovi¼ and his associates. Having avoided being replaced, with Koštunica’s support, they consolidated their positions. Everything was directed towards suppressing the fact that they had been prepared to use force against the people on 5 October 2000.3 Pavkovi¼ issued a number of statements to the media for this purpose, without refraining from political intonation, since Koštunica did not prohibit Pavkovi¼ and the other generals to speak in public – especially on political issues. Pavkovi¼ then began to publicly court the president. It was the old game of the skilled generals guessing what the new ‘boss’ is planning and likes, since Koštunica did not react.4 It may certainly only be guessed how and to what extent the ‘Broz arsenal’ was applied in gaining the president’s confidence. It is no surprise that the then president had not minded the inherited head of the military cabinet, his key link with the army, and replaced him after seven or eight months. By mutual agreement, the president was placed under the securityintelligence protection of the army. However, the attention of the public and DOS factions was focused on the incidents linked to Miloševi¼’s arrest, the discovery of mass graves, and finally the uprising of the ‘Red Berets’. In the first incident, a clash between the police and army was narrowly avoided. Pavkovi¼ and the Serbian interior minister publicly exchanged accusations over the mass graves. Additionally, during the operation of re-entering the ground safety zone, the chief of staff publicly collided with the head of the co-ordination team for Kosovo (see Danas, 24–25 March 2001). In a country enjoying democratic control of its armed forces, a general would likely be suspended for politically coloured acts, if not sacked. Despite this fact, Koštunica did not react to Pavkovi¼’s behaviour in any of these situations.

38 Miroslav Had)i¼ It is easily deduced that Pavkovi¼ took advantage of the manoeuvring space that DOS leaders had left him. The army and the general staff had yielded to the new authorities and submitted to their control between 5 and 6 October 2000, without firing a single shot. It is precisely for this reason that Koštunica, Djindji¼ and his partners from the remaining DOS were fully responsible for the acts of Pavkovi¼, of the army, and of the Serbian police. Finally, on 24 June 2002, President Koštunica retired Pavkovi¼ by a presidential decree. Djukanovi¼ from Montenegro and Milutinovi¼ from Serbia had previously twice refused Koštunica’s request to dismiss Pavkovi¼. Koštunica then exercised his constitutional right, even though he had refused previous demands to do so from the public and from coalition partners.5 The remaining DOS, led by the Democratic Party (DS), then accused Koštunica and his cabinet of abusing the army. Additional arguments were provided by Pavkovi¼, who claimed that Koštunica had ordered the army to raid the Serbian Government Information Bureau.6 The accusation rested on the claim that Koštunica had previously submitted the Military Security Service to himself (and his cabinet). Since the federal parliament refused to form an investigative committee that would verify these claims, DOS formed a committee through the Serbian parliament. Three retired generals confirmed Pavkovi¼’s statement, while Koštunica and his associates refused to appear before the committee. Later, the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) accused Pavkovi¼ of financial and housing misuse.7 However, the entire affair was soon marginalised by another affair in the Serbian parliament. Owing to the media, the ‘Pavkovi¼ Affair’ was first interpreted as the consequence of the personal conflict between the former FRY president and his subordinate general. Even though Koštunica avoided a personal tone in passing the decree,8 Pavkovi¼ backed this thesis in his later statements. At the same time, he portrayed himself as an honourable officer who had fallen out of favour with Koštunica because of resisting the abuse of the army. Pavkovi¼ even tried, unsuccessfully, to challenge the legality of the decree before the Federal Constitutional Court and Supreme Military Court. One can speculate that Pavkovi¼ wished to maintain his position for several reasons. He could maintain his discretionary power in the army, which appeared to be the basis of his personal wealth. He could also use the position to ‘launder’ his biography and thus court the public and Koštunica.9 The aim was simultaneously to disguise his war and political service to Miloševi¼ and express his loyalty to the new authorities.10 This might be the explanation for his declaratory skills in reorganising the army, which Koštunica had presented to the public as its structural reform.11 Above all, had Pavkovi¼ perhaps secretly hoped that his position would protect him from possible criminal prosecution for the political abuse of the army, i.e. the suspicion that war crimes were committed under its protection in Kosovo? The personal motives of President Koštunica can again only be speculated upon. Since the reform of the military was not his priority, it seems that he saw Pavkovi¼ as an interim solution. He probably expected to provide the army’s

Military reform in the former FRY

39

obedience to the new authorities. It cannot be ruled out that the president soon discovered the army’s potential as an instrument for his own political goals. Even more so, since he may have realised too late that in the post-October distribution of power he received a ceremonial role only,12 while Djindji¼ had seized the central levers of power through the Serbian government. Although it is difficult to determine whether Koštunica was becoming annoyed by Pavkovi¼’s disobedience, he started to behave as a sovereign military commander and then sought support in the military security department and its head, General Tomi¼.13 Actions by DOS factions soon placed the ‘Pavkovi¼’ affair on the political scene. The affair crystallised the achievements and mishaps of the new authorities. It was confirmed that the reform had been postponed on account of the struggles of DOS factions for the redistribution of power. The ‘Pavkovi¼ affair’ could potentially bring significant benefit to the people of the former FRY, army officers and new authorities. For the first time in the modern history of the former FRY, the dismissal of the chief of staff was a public affair. It was also the first time that a general had disputed the order of a civilian commander. The public was also informed that the instigators, in control of their nationalist-patriotic rhetoric, were led by narrow personal, group and/or partisan interests. Above all, public statements that the army is not immune to corruption, financial and other abuse finally clouded its idealised image. Far more important is that on this occasion two key issues have been put before the public: the reform of the army and democratic civilian control over it. The view that the inherited army should be reformed is increasingly present in public opinion, including the view that the generals chosen and appointed by Miloševi¼ should be dismissed. This view is also encouraged by the increasingly frequent mention of the issue of Serbia and Montenegrin membership in the Partnership for Peace (PfP), with the awareness that this must include radical reform of the army. At the same time, the public is being familiarised with the concept of democratic civil control of the military. It is not to be excluded that the same idea has started circulating within the army, and that professional soldiers could soon discover the benefits that are to be gained from such control of the army. It looks as if DOS factions have finally understood that only by establishing procedures and instruments for democratic control of armed forces can they at least reduce the chances that their rivals might use the armed forces for their own interests.

Postponed Security Sector Reform in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia The elections of 24 September 2000 were the biggest crisis in the country. Before the elections DOS had promised radical democratic changes in the society and state. It was expected that the armed forces – the army, police and secret services – would be radically transformed according to the democratic model. However, keeping Miloševi¼’s generals in key positions in the army and police showed that the changes would not be fast or easy. The described incidents proved that

40 Miroslav Had)i¼ DOS leaders did not have full control over the special units of army and police – an additional reason to suspect the ability of the new persons in power. Events suggest that they did not even manage to protect themselves and their authority. It seems that – struck by the loyalty of Miloševi¼’s generals – they sought to use the army, secret services and special units for their political purposes and/or settling accounts with their political opponents. To explain the reasons for the hesitation of DOS, a brief reflection of the political background of DOS, i.e. the parties gathered in it until recently is necessary.14 The opposition parties in the former FRY were created in the 1980s on the ruins of self-management socialism. Anti-communism was their first basis and characteristic. As soon as the crisis of the second Yugoslavia was placed in the ethnic-religious frame by the will of the then national-republic elites (Banac, 1998), most of these parties sided with the fighters for unification of all the Serbs in one state, even by force. This was the crucial reason for their interestdirected, ideological war co-operation with Miloševi¼’s regime. Since the opposition supported all of Miloševi¼’s wars, it became the permanent prisoner of his conjectural needs. This is why they could not autonomously force changes in Miloševi¼’s policies. On the other hand, Miloševi¼ yielded only under the pressure of the defeat of the former FRY armies or his poor political judgments.15 In the meantime, the leaders of the opposition struggled more among themselves than they aspired to oust Miloševi¼. It is no surprise that DOS became operative only two months before the elections, even though the coalition was already founded in January 2000. The pre-election tactics of DOS clearly implied limits to the announced future reforms. Certainly, the main goal was to depose Miloševi¼. However, the programme offered for changing the system suffered from generalisation and easily given promises. Since the military and police generals had announced ahead of the elections that they would defend the regime by force, in the name of defending the constitutional order, DOS engaged in preventing a possible internal war. This is why it strived to widen the anti-regime front with the help of non-government organisations. The dispersion of civic resistance aimed at preventing the concentration of the army and police in Belgrade. At the same time, DOS leaders tried to gain influence over the special police and military units, sensing dissatisfaction among most of the soldiers and policemen, or at least to convince them to remain neutral if Miloševi¼ refused to hand over his authority peacefully. After Miloševi¼ was ousted, key DOS deficiencies in the civil–military sphere became apparent. It was immediately confirmed that they had neither a programme nor enough political will to reform the security sector. The postponement was originally justified by the need for DOS to get legitimate official authority in Serbia through elections, and later to prevent the Kosova Liberation Army from spilling over into southern Serbia. Another reason was the need first to redefine the new state union of Serbia and Montenegro. The hidden reasons for DOS’s lack of commitment can only be conjectured. It remains unknown whether and to what extent some of the DOS leaders became ‘captives’

Military reform in the former FRY

41

of secret agreements arranged with generals in the event of Miloševi¼’s ousting (Bujoševi¼, 2000). Even though the Democratic Party of Serbia and Koštunica portrayed themselves as legalists, they have so far not objected to the ‘constitutional holes’ that are occupied by the army and the Supreme Defence Council (Had)i¼, 2001). They never initiated a procedure in the federal or Serbian parliament for a democratic reorganisation of the status of the military and civil–military sphere. They also failed to place the Supreme Defence Council and the president under the control of the federal parliament. The president has so far not even reported to the parliament on his work or the situation in the army. On the contrary, it seems that part of his authority over the army has been transferred to his advisors – without legal basis. At the same time, Koštunica did not even initiate the procedure for creating a new security and defence strategy, as well as of a military doctrine without which the reform of the army is impossible to achieve. Instead, the ‘clericalisation’ was started, with his approval or his tacit consent,16 contrary to the Constitution and without the approval of parliament. Additionally, the president successfully kept the army away from the public, and the citizens still do not know how large it is, how well it is armed, nor whom it serves. Primarily the public, as well as DOS partners, have been and still are prohibited from entering the zone of personnel. In any case, the discretionary right regarding personnel is the essence of every authority, including the president’s. He regularly dictates lists of promoted and dismissed generals/ admirals, but avoids stating what criteria are being applied. The rest of DOS, then led by the Democratic Party and Djindji¼, also remained silent in public and in parliament on the topic of the necessity for army reforms.17 This was changed when the ‘Periši¼ Affair’ emerged: General Periši¼, former chief of staff of the army, one of the DOS leaders and Serbian deputy prime minister, was arrested by the military secret service, under suspicion of espionage. The occurrence of this affair urged them to organise the drafting and adoption of the Law on Security Services of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, through which they primarily wanted to place the military services under parliamentary control.18 Even with the justified preoccupation of the government with difficult socio-economic restructuring of Serbian society reforms, it seems that its reluctance to reforms of the army was politically motivated. The impression is that the remaining DOS took the ‘high stand’ after 5 October 2000, and left Koštunica to ‘wade in’ regarding the army, hoping that sooner or later DOS (meaning the Democratic Party, here) would have political (and electoral) benefits. A similar position on the army was assumed by the Montenegrin authorities after 5 October 2000. This is all the more strange since they had previously complained that the army was threatening democracy, which was a false pretence for gaining state independence. President Djukanovi¼’s abstinence, through which he apparently tried to avoid a conflict with DOS and the army during the local games regarding the independence referendum, could be interpreted as tactics. The true reason for the silence of the Montenegrin leadership seems to be derived

42 Miroslav Had)i¼ from the fear that their demand for an army reform could raise the issue in Montenegro of demilitarisation of the local police and security service. This, in turn, could lead to the reform and democratic civilian control of these forces, which would jeopardise the monopoly of Djukanovi¼ and his party over them. There is not enough evidence that the army was within the field of view of the economic expert part of the federal and Serbian government. The officials have so far been satisfied with trimming the part of the budget allocated for defence. However, there is no information that they have started controlling the way in which it is spent. It is difficult to claim, but this should not be dismissed, that their restraint has also been motivated by the desire to avoid a (premature) conflict with the leadership of the Democratic Party of Serbia, the remaining DOS and the army. This is more so since most of the experts are from the ‘G17 Plus’, which even though it is a non-government organisation has announced that it would transform into a political party in order to join the electoral struggle for power.19 Obstacles to reforming the army also originate in the war. The relationship between military and society was crucially remodelled by relying on the overlapping of the military and civilian elites. The army was involved in the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The wartime collapse was completed with the renaming of its eastern Serbian remains as the Yugoslav army. After the defeat of Miloševi¼’s regime, the army and its officers are still under pressure from the Hague Tribunal, which lessens the chances of their willing redirection towards who are or might be indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), reduces the willingness of the army’s leadership to redirect the army according to democratic social needs. Also, the deep-rooted and lasting devotion of the rulers of the former FRY, Miloševi¼ and Bulatovi¼ , and later Djukanovi¼, to the communist model of rule kept the army of the former FRY in a position of a single party, i.e. client army. The party thus unavoidably became (and/or remained) the heir to the army. The renamed army passed on the corporative spirit of its predecessor, based on which the consciousness of exceptionality and exception of the army are restored, and its leaders still publicly impose their special needs on the citizens (society) as general ones. The army is the bearer of all the wartime defeats. For this reason its members are socially, psychologically and professionally frustrated. Its personal and combat morale were systematically destroyed by wartime and political abuses. Following the ethnic cleansing of 1992–3, the communist principle of personnel policies was revived, thus only ideologically orthodox and ‘ketman’ lieges reached the top positions, chosen by the almighty Military Security Service. However, their personal loyalty to the leader and his family was crucial for their survival. The army’s social matrix was additionally destroyed by the growing corruption of the ranks and expanding list of hierarchical privileges. Soon the number of generals was increased, which made servicing this group more expensive. This was followed by internal redistribution of funds, benefiting the generals and to the detriment of the other members and their needs. Later, under the influence

Military reform in the former FRY

43

of society, a military zone of grey trade was created, hinting at a criminalisation of the army. Within such an army, the professional spirit could not even be conceived, the point of which was the professional code as the assurance for the neutrality of the officers regarding politics and interests, i.e. their primary loyalty to the Constitution and democratically elected civil authorities. This is also the army which around 28,000 citizens had deserted in previous years and during the Kosovo conflict.20 The army also suffers from the ‘refugee syndrome’, since a large number of officers and their families are still homeless.21 Due to its wartime and Bolshevik background, the army still does not have clear professional identity. Its legitimacy has also become questionable. This is made clear by the high situational dependency of its combat morale. The socialism ideology in the wartime phase was inadequately replaced by nationalist ideology, with a chauvinist and xenophobic charge. The period of apparent consolidation (1992–8) was marked by the desire to base the morale and identity of the army on nineteenth-century traditions of the Serbian, and to some extent the Montenegrin army (Negovanje, 1993). The fact that Serbia (excluding Kosovo) and Montenegro are multiethnic societies, where about 30 per cent of the population have a different ethnic background, was completely ignored. At the same time, the regime’s politicisation and ideologisation of its components was in progress. Passing on police duties to the army was included in the same package; preparing the army for internal use, i.e. the armed defence of the regime. The state reason for ‘producing’ combat morale was seriously applied for the first time during the crisis in Kosovo, and was effectively achieved during the NATO aggression. Weapons and equipment imports were prohibited because of the sanctions towards the former FRY, which accelerated the technical and technological lagging of the army. The wartime destruction of the economy also accelerated the impoverishment of army members. The circle was completed with the NATO strikes on the key sites of the state’s military industry, which impeded the subsequent revitalisation of the army through local sources. In view of all the factors discussed above, the achievements of DOS in reforming the army amount to a rather short list of mainly organisational changes, the main ones being: • • •

•

compulsory military service was reduced to nine months, and civil service to 13 months, and only under pressure by civil society;22 in spring 2002, the general staff announced the reduction of troops, in the first phase from 105,000 to 80,000, and 65,000 in the second phase; the federal parliament adopted a reduction of the military budget,23 but there is still no evidence that competent parliamentary committees have scrutinised the manner of its use; the General Staff Accounting Centre has been transferred to the Ministry of Defence, therefore it nominally allocates and controls the military budget;

44 Miroslav Had)i¼ • •

•

after 5 October 2000 it has become customary for the defence minister to be a civilian;24 the heads of the Ministry of Defence have on a number of occasions publicly shown their commitment to democratic control of the military;25 the general staff was also not far behind, taking advantage of the expression ‘civilian control of military’;26 the federal government officially initiated the procedure for membership in the Partnership for Peace (Djurdjevi¼-Luki¼, 2002).

Along with these formal and organisational changes in this sector, key processes between the army and DOS advanced in two directions during 2001. After the former FRY joined international organisations, the topics of co-operation with NATO and participation in the PfP ceased to be dangerous issues. This offered the generals the opportunity to prove their devotion to the new course, and they took part in many conferences or even organised themselves on such topics. On the other hand, the Generals publicly announced their resolve to change the army. They noisily announced a reorganisation, modernisation and a reduced number of soldiers and officers as the introduction to its future professionalisation. The postponed reform of the army caused changes to the map of security risks – after Miloševi¼ , only the sources, type and degree of security risks have changed, and there has been no improvement in the personal and collective safety of the citizens. On the contrary, the number of internal security risks has increased. In addition, even though DOS factions have gained power, it is apparent that they still do not have enough authority for the modernisation of Serbia, especially since no one has assessed the economic, political and destructive power of the war and crime lobby in Serbia. The authority, which DOS leaders have gained individually or collectively, has become a goal of its own, and serves to maintain and increase itself. The ultimate consequence is the increase in risk and price that the citizens pay for the ongoing instrumentalisation of the army, police and secret services. These formations can be adapted to the DOS and can also carry the restoration of the old regime or protagonists of monarchist, nationalclerical involution of society. The tasks of eliminating ideology and politics from the army are a priority. This includes demands for a modern organisation of civil–military relations, which requires respect for human rights and social interests of the armed forces’ members and their families. Also, legislation should provide the maximally allowed transparency of the armed forces, as well as their co-operation with media and civil society partners. A second group of tasks requires security changes in the Euro-Atlantic region and global community (Gartner et al., 2001). These countries have started the demilitarisation of the security sector, and the security of the citizens, society and state are increasingly considered as a result of the application of economic, social, political, cultural, spiritual, demographic and ecological lines of force.

Military reform in the former FRY

45

Conclusion It is difficult to assess the transformation capabilities of the army. It may reasonably be assumed that the military leadership is prepared to carry out reform orders – once they are given. However, it will be far more difficult to assess the readiness of the society for the trans-socialist reform. Individual and group readiness for accepting all and the ultimate consequences of such a choice is questionable. The ongoing political struggles, which are essentially over the contents, direction and price of reform, regardless of their ideological wrapping, testify to this effect. The future is discussed from the viewpoint of the enduring authoritarianism and the past war. This point shows the Serbian differentia specifica, because unlike the other ex-socialist counties, the citizens of Serbia did not opt for democratic reform. The ‘Pavkovi¼ affair’ is, after all, not only a metaphor of the former FRY’s departure from pre-modernity. The issue evokes challenges that military sociology seemingly conquered long ago. The problem of passing society and military from conditions of war to conditions of peace is reopened in a new manner, since it was a matter of an internal war. A novelty is the fact that the transition should be conducted with the successive change of the political and social regime. The example of Serbia and Montenegro, and also the other states derived from the former Yugoslavia, confirms that isolated reform of the security sector is not possible. Placing armed forces under democratic civilian control includes and requires the prior reconstruction and restructuring of the entire society. At that point, it becomes clear that the effect of the particularities of the civilisation and cultural heritage makes any attempt of (forced) implementation of the imported model of ‘democratic civil–military relations’ futile. Even more so because the fundamental characteristics of the (abstract) model following the NATO aggression on the former FRY are now greatly compromised in the mature western democratic states.

Notes 1 Throughtout the text of this chapter the name of former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) is used and not its current name Serbia and Montenegro (as of March 2003). The reason is that the military reform case studies discussed in this chapter occurred prior to the reforming and renaming of the FRY (in 1992, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or SFRY ceased to exist). At the time of the case studies, FRY consisted of two republics, being Serbia and Montenegro and two nominally autnomous provinces, i.e. Vojvodin and Kosovo (the latter temporarily under UN administration per UN Security Council Resolution 1244). 2 Public conflicts between the Yugoslav army and police leadership followed during Miloševi¼ ’s arrest (1 April 2001), the discovery of mass graves (May 2001) and the protest of the special police unit ‘Red Berets’ (November 2001). The chairman of the Co-ordination Committee and General Pavkovi¼ collided publicly during the entrance of the military-police units into the ground safety zone. In August 2001, Colonel Gavrilovi¼ was killed under unresolved circumstances, which was followed by strong mutual accusations by the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) and Democratic Party (DS). In March 2002, the ‘Periši¼ affair’ emerged when the Serbian Deputy Premier was arrested and accused of espionage. In July the affair of the alleged electronic surveillance of President Koštunica emerged, for which he accused the Serbian government and Serbia’s Premier, Djindji¼.

46 Miroslav Had)i¼ 3 This was testified by Stojadinovi¼, former head the General Staff Department for Morale, in the programme, ‘Who is Controlling the Army?’, Production of the Centre for Civil–Military Relations and P.G. Mre)a, scenario by M. Had)i¼ , directed by D. Kova=evi¼ , 2002, which was aired on TV B92 on 1 July 2002, at 8 p.m. 4 In the former FRY these skills were learned in the Guard Brigade, which serviced J. B. Tito, and it was not only the source of the president’s adjutants but also future generals. The same unit, despite the change in name and formation remains in the army, and today serves the federal president. 5 The following position of President Koštunica has methodical value in understanding Pavkovi¼’s belated dismissal: ‘To mention the persistent pressure for personnel changes in the Yugoslav army. Personnel changes are part of reform, but not its essential part, but only the normal consequence of reform [italics by M.H.]. The reform of the Yugoslav army is essentially not done by soldiers, but by the people through their representatives in parliament and legally elected bodies, executive authorities. However, I must say that pressure is coming from abroad, as well as from within: those abroad are more logical, and less aggressive than those from within’ [italics by M.H.], words of the former FRY president, October 2001 in Institute for War Skills, 2001, pp. 16–17. 6 The president and his cabinet were allegedly being monitored from the bureau, more in The Weekly Reporter, 2 July 2002, pp. 10–14. 7 An entire arsenal of accusations may be found in press clippings. Online. Available HTTP: www.ccmr-bg.org> (accessed 25 May 2005). 8 He said that he had passed the decree ‘for civilian control and for democracy, and for preserving the military as an institution’, according to Politika, 25 June 2002. 9 After Koštunica’s private visit to the Chilandar Monastery (the Serbian monastery on Mt. Athos in Greece) in late 2000, Pavkovi¼ immediately rushed to the Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarchate and introduced priests into the army, and included officers in church services. 10 See Pavkovi¼ ’s interview, Danas (27 October 2000) and Politika (1–2 November 2000), more on the issue: ‘Stipe Sikavica, Pranje biografije’ (Laundering the Biography), Danas (6–8 January 2001), p. 29. 11 After the 4th session of the Supreme Defence Council (December 2000), Koštunica stated that he had refused Pavkovi¼ ’s resignation because he had initiated and designed the reforms, and that the army had undergone the most extensive structural changes. See Tanjug, 27 December 2001. 12 According to the Constitution, the Serbia-Montenegrin president has mostly a representative function. Only the army is under his direct jurisdiction, which should be commanded ‘in compliance with the decisions’ of the Supreme Defence Council. His power over the military is derived from the power vested in him to appoint, promote, and dismiss generals (admirals), as well as judges and jurors of military courts. 13 It is probably for this reason that Pavkovi¼ expelled Tomi¼ from the School of National Defence, because he had not been attending class regularly. Graduation from this school is the legal prerequisite for promotion to the rank of general, which means that Koštunica had violated the law in promoting Tomi¼. 14 The formal split of the DOS was sealed with the annulment of the mandates of the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) deputies in the Serbian parliament in July 2002. 15 This includes the amendment of the Federal Constitution in July 2000, which introduced direct elections for the federal president, based on which he slated early elections for 24 September 2000. 16 The first indications came from the Regulation of Religious Issues in the Yugoslav army round table, which was organised by the army general staff in December 2000, following President Koštunica’s (private) visit to the Chilandar monastery. On this occasion it was mentioned that by the ‘clericalisation of the army’ nobody’s rights would be limited (Bujoševi¼ and Radovanovi¼, 2000, p. 31) or that ‘pacifism [is] therefore only one of the antichrist’s lies, because pacifism does not solve any problems, but is a form of special war [italics by M.H.] from a military and patriotic point of view, aimed against the specific army because it is precisely that which fights against evil’ (see Grozdi¼, 2001).

Military reform in the former FRY

47

17 The Democratic Party had allegedly only then discovered that General Tomi¼ had ‘completely privatised the Federal Security Department, by hiring a few people from Koštunica’s Cabinet and the Democratic Party of Serbia’, according to Danas, 20 March 2002, p. 4. 18 The law was promulgated on 2 July 2002 (Official Gazette, No. 37/2002), but the final version included amendments that derogated certain intentions of the workgroup. Thus Article 21, Para. 1 stipulates that the appointment and dismissal of heads of military services by the federal government requires the previous proposal by the Supreme Defence Council, which means President Koštunica. 19 This is confirmed in the nomination of Miroljub Labus for Serbian President. 20 On 26 February 2001, the federal parliament adopted the Amnesty Act that applies to persons that ‘carried out crimes against the army of Yugoslavia, against the constitutional order, security and honour of the Yugoslavia’ between 27 April 1992 and 7 October 2000; according to Vojska, 1 March 2001, p. 4. 21 About 27,000 members of the army still do not have adequate lodging, of which 17,525 do not have an apartment at all (Politika, 14 February 2001). It should also be noted that the Federal Constitutional Court has abolished the rulebook for resolving housing issues in the Federal Ministry of Defence and Army (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Official Gazette 3/2002, according to Vojska, 28 March 2002, p. 15). 22 Despite this fact, activists of the Network for Conscientious Objection claim that the ‘Army withholds the right to conscientious objection, that is, completing one’s military service in health, humanitarian and similar organisation. Moreover, young men who choose this form of serving the state are subjected to verbal abuse, accusations of working against the state and being members of sects’, Danas, 3 July 2002, p. 2. 23 The budget, amounting to about 57 billion dinars, was given in the form of a list, which did not facilitate insight into the true structure of their needs and expenses, which made suitable control of the spending of allocated funds difficult. Online. Available HTTP: http://www.propisi.com> (accessed 25 May 2005), Intermex IndOk, 3 July 2000. 24 The low level of (political) power of the Ministry stems from the fact that the DOS handed over the position to their Montenegrin federal partners, who first appointed a surgeon and then an agronomist to the post. It would be far less appropriate if it were a matter of a stable democratic order and competent Ministry, that would allow for the Minister of Defence to be a politician and not an expert. 25 The Ministry of Defence held a conference on the democratic control of the military in cooperation with the Centre for Civil–Military Relations, a Belgrade-based non-government organisation, on 4 April 2001 (see Mile and Zoran, 2001). 26 The army general staff organised an expert discussion on this topic in October 2001, which was attended by the top level of the former FRY leadership. The statements and discussions were published in the collection Institute for War Skills, 2001.

48 Biljana Vankovska

4

The impact of conflict and corruption on Macedonia’s civil–military relations Biljana Vankovska

Introduction This chapter is a critical discourse on the applicability of the classical theory and practice of civil–military relations to societies undergoing transition, conflict and trauma. An attempt is therefore made to assess how far (well-established) standards, models and recipes can facilitate democratisation processes, especially when it comes to war-torn societies. The starting premise is that the paradigm of interethnic conflict alone is insufficient to explain the specific shape of civil–military relations. As the Macedonian case illustrates, criminality has its own share in the vicious circle of violence and destabilisation. At the end of the day, application of models of democratic control of armed forces on corrupted and even belligerent political elites and largely ‘privatised’ armed structures calls for a serious reconsideration and revision of the basic concept. Macedonia, the only exception to the Yugoslav conflict pattern, had been living in a sort of ‘virtual reality’, believing in its uniqueness (in terms of allegedly better peace prospects in the region) and ‘normality’ (in terms of its belonging to the countries in transition). However, the image was definitively broken in 2001. The country has subsequently passed through a difficult phase of facing the ‘real reality’. When it comes to reconsidering the country’s civil–military relations one can identify two major factors that have heavily influenced developments – the criminalisation of politics and the structure of societal conflict. As corruption and criminality are intertwined with the intra-state conflict potential in many other countries in South Eastern Europe, the Macedonian case is instructive. Since the beginning of the Yugoslav turmoil in 1991, Macedonia has been the object of two types of analyses. The country was seen as a success story in conflict prevention as well as a relatively typical case of transition towards democracy. The year of 2001 appeared to be, however, a ‘year zero’ in both regards. The success of conflict prevention, however, was short-lived and in a very short time it fell like a tower of cards, while the record in terms of democratisation process had already been very obvious and could hardly have been promising. One of the missing links in the analysis of the Macedonian case, which would have established a discourse between the issue of peace and democratisation, was that concerning civil–military relations. Civil–military relations have the potential to give a special insight into the crucial issues of peace and democratisation, but at the same time

Macedonia’s civil–military relations

49

they are a reflection – for good or bad – of both processes. Another obscure question in Macedonia concerns criminality which affects the prospects for both peace and democracy. This problem has been particularly overlooked in previous examinations of civil–military relations in the country. Criminalisation of politics is hardly a new phenomenon, and not exclusive to the Balkans. Many countries are challenged with the problem of people with criminal dossiers who get elected, or with politicians who become corrupted during their terms in office (Sashar, 2002). Probably, it is a Balkan particularity that criminal activities are often disguised with ethno-nationalism as a vulgar form of quasi-patriotism. In a conflict-driven multiethnic society, the fight against crime may easily gain an ethnic connotation and thus transform into a political currency. An overt conflict becomes imminent at the moment that criminalised politics finds a state of emergency as an ideal time for war profiteering. The mirror process takes place with criminal guerrilla groups, which easily find their own interests in the outbreak of violence in the society. The culmination is reached when the former combatants are elected and become a part of the post-conflict ruling elite. The two major factors chosen as parameters for the study on civil–military relations in Macedonia are not independent and without a point of contact. On the contrary, the basic premise is that during the 2001 war crisis, they fed each other, finally erupting into an overt conflict which on the surface looked like an interethnic one. Criminalisation of politics in the pre-conflict period led directly to politicisation of the criminal in the post-conflict period. Added to the original conflict potential of the Macedonian society, this factor contributed directly to the outbreak of violence, i.e. to the use of armed forces and police in the intra-state conflict. This chapter focuses on the crisis of 2001, which should be seen as a consequence of the previous negative developments and also as a source of possible future deviations in the society. The analysis centres on two major events in 2001: a corruption scandal related to the then defence minister and the outbreak of a violent conflict, whose overt and bloody phase terminated with the signing of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, brokered by the international community. In early 2003 problems are still apparent – corruption scandals are shaking the society daily, while the conflict potential smoulders behind the façade of an allegedly successful post-conflict reconstruction. Their impact on the future of civil–military relations is likely to be significant in a longer period of time.

Criminalisation of politics and civil–military relations in the pre-conflict period The ‘oasis of peace’, as Macedonia had been known for a decade, has always been a ‘favourable’ climate for organised crime, corruption and illegal trafficking. In fact, the survival of the ‘oasis’ was often challenged by paramount domestic and regional problems. At one point, the country was under a double embargo, having to abide by the UN imposed economic sanctions against its northern neighbour (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), while at the same time its southern neighbour (Greece) imposed a unilateral economic embargo because of the same dispute. In

50 Biljana Vankovska addition, the UN embargo on the import of weapons affected Macedonia, regardless of its being the only peaceful actor in the Yugoslav drama. In effect, Macedonia became ‘demilitarised’ due to the fact that the Yugoslav army withdrew its troops altogether, including its armament and all mobile military equipment. The new security structures (army and the police) were built up in a rather secretive way. From the very beginning, the budgeting and procurement process was kept beyond any public scrutiny, whether internal or international. Domestically, it was quite easy to legitimise the non-transparent decision-making process on defence expenditures. Societal consensus was achieved on the need to create defence and other security structures at any cost, even if it excluded public debates. The chaotic manner of the defence build-up contributed to transforming the country into a vast depot of weapons, some of them gifts and others paid for. For years, the Macedonian security sector had not been overly affected by corruption scandals, partly because it was seen as a ‘non-patriotic’ act. Having not been given the highest priority, the security sector was not seen as the most lucrative source of income or resources for corrupted elites. Occasionally there were rumours and purges in the Ministry of Defence but they never reached the level of a public scandal. On the contrary, the level of corruption and organised crime in other parts of the society had reached a zenith during the USDM (Union of SocialDemocrats of Macedonia) led governments (1992–8) of Prime Minister Crvenkovski. At one point he was forced to ask for a parliamentary vote of confidence concerning his call to ‘fight against the Octopus’ (as he referred to the corruption in the governing political and economic elites). The lack of any result of the ‘fight’ contributed to the electoral outcome in 1998. The majority of citizens voted against USDM rather than for IMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation). Apart from state-sponsored criminal activities, there was also a vigorous nonstate criminality very much focused on the illegal trade of arms, drugs and even human beings. If the first phenomenon was of domestic origin, non-state criminality had a regional dimension. This ‘regional business’ was more focused on military equipment and arms trade. The dominant ethno-nationalistic agenda was used in order to create a better image for the arms business. Every form of ethnonationalism in the Balkans has been militant in its essence, crying out for a state of its own that could be achieved without weapons and military structures. Thus the rise of nationalism and outbreak of violent conflicts in the territory of former Yugoslavia provided a ‘golden opportunity’ for the Balkan mafia networks. The numerous ‘fronts’ could easily absorb the weapons and even asked for more. Paradoxically enough, at the expense of the nationalist fever and murderous politics of the leaders, the mafias could co-operate perfectly well without any nationalistic bias and with a lot of profit. According to some recent analyses (Xhudo, 1996, pp. 1–20), Albanian organised crime developed in the 1980s and peaked in the mid-1990s. Escalation of the situation in Kosovo and the collapse of the Albanian state, with the release of thousands of small arms and other types of weapons, worsened the situation overnight. One report pointed out that ‘the trafficking of drugs and arms is basically being judged on its

Macedonia’s civil–military relations

51

geo-strategic implications. In Kosovo, drugs and weapons trafficking is fuelling geopolitical hopes and fears’ (Geopolitical Drug Watch, 1994, p. 4). The NATO 1999 blunder in Kosovo caused further collateral damage in the region.1 Post-intervention Kosovo province resembles a European Columbia. Since 1999, there have been practically no border controls between Kosovo and Albania, nor between Macedonia and Kosovo. This ‘advantage’ made it possible for more than 40 per cent of the heroin reaching Western Europe to be transported through this region (Prentice, 1999). The 1998 parliamentary elections in Macedonia brought to power a most improbable coalition of two (allegedly) ethnically based extreme nationalist parties – IMRO and DPA (Democratic Party of Albanians). Following the first decisions of the new government, the immediate reaction of the public was suspicion of a possible agreement for division of Macedonia in two parts – one Albanian and one Macedonian.2 Behind the ethnic-political fog there was a further de facto division of the country between two spheres of mafia interest. The Albanian share consisted of control of the criminal routes through western Macedonia, while the Macedonian one was practically unlimited (mis)use of the state structures (customs, banks and the privatisation process). The IMRO leadership turned a blind eye to trafficking in the western part of the state with the police not patrolling in designated areas for protracted periods. A scandal resulted when the reporter of an independent TV channel was captured by masked Albanian para-police in the village of Tanusevci in late February 2001. Some rumours indicated that the TV crew had been close to the then opposition party (USDM) and that the excursion to Tanusevci was coincidencental. To the great surprise of many, the public disclosure of one of the main mafia routes and the threat to cut off the business overnight resulted in an armed clash that escalated into something that looked like a civil war. What occurred in Macedonia in 2001 certainly has great significance for civil– military relations, among other things. More concretely, a corruption scandal that emerged in the early stages of the crisis nevertheless clearly indicated the seriousness of the ongoing erosion of the security sector. The central character of the affair was the then Defence Minister Paunovski. During the ongoing military crisis, the Ministry allegedly transferred a significant amount of money to the accounts of two firms run by the minister’s in-laws. The firms were selected as the main suppliers of food and clothing for the army and construction works for army officer apartments, without the requested public tender. What first appeared to be an ‘ordinary’ financial scandal subsequently revealed a deep schism within the ranks of the ruling IMRO over political and security issues (Dimevski, 2001). With the outbreak of armed conflict, Prime Minister (and IMRO leader) Georgievski took a firm stand against ‘war-profiteering’ and corruption, seeking to regain some of his lost public support. The IMRO made some exaggerated claims regarding the financial scope of the affair. While media investigations spoke about DM5–6 million, IMRO claimed as much as DM11 million. The minister’s self-defence focused on denial of any involvement in the financial affair – but also included a counter-attack on his fellow party members. He publicly warned that, if necessary, he would reveal details about other instances of corruption involving his comrades.

52 Biljana Vankovska He also referred to an alleged quarrel between himself and the then Minister of Interior regarding the security situation and the solution of the crisis. The allegations insinuated that corruption was widespread within the government ranks, but also that a direct link existed between the mafia/guerrilla business and the security situation. The prime minister had been directly involved and allegedly had a very high personal interest in selling one of the biggest Macedonian firms (OKTA) to a Greek partner. The Minister of Interior had been well informed about the existence of the armed Albanian groups but turned a blind eye because of the deal with the coalition partner (DPA). Soon, and especially after a private meeting between the defence minister and the prime minister, speculations arose that the scandal might be sorted out quietly. The minister publicly apologised for his ‘over-reaction’ and resigned. The ‘reward’ was a legal charge of only DM3 million. One of the most bizarre details of the scandal concerned the state institutional response. Instead of leaving the state’s legal mechanisms to deal with the affair, IMRO established an internal party commission to decide on the minister’s responsibility and his ‘punishment’. It seemed that IMRO did not even trust its own creation, i.e. party state structures, and instead preferred dealing with state affairs as if they were a party matter. To speak about lack of political and legal culture within the ruling party would be too simple an explanation. It is more likely that IMRO preferred to maintain control over its own criminal activities and to retain the means – if things went too far and got too dangerous for the party’s interests – of sweeping the dirt under the carpet. More than two years after the outbreak of the scandal there was no judicial outcome. The court process dragged on because of the notorious slow pace of the judicial system. What is even more worrisome is the apparent social indifference of the public. At the outbreak of the scandal, the public and media reactions were intense. The minister ‘war-profiteer’ was perceived to have gained illegally and largely in the midst of war, at a time when 50,000 people were in exile, 21,000 classified as living under the poverty line, with 75,000 families barely managing on welfare. The crisis, however, brought to the fore bigger and far worse financial and corruption scandals, so the minister was soon forgotten. Actually, the scandal can hardly be termed war-profiteering because it had taken root long before the crisis erupted. It indicated that many deficiencies in the state and security sector had existed for a long time. It was only the tip of a ‘corruption iceberg’ in Macedonia and did not even have a huge financial impact in comparison with the others. The war atmosphere contributed to making it public but very quickly the public attention was turned towards other developments. Far bigger corruption scandals occurred at the peak of the crisis, overshadowing Paunovski’s ‘war-profiteering’. Long before this scandal, the country had become hostage to the black-market and the extensive smuggling of goods in the northern part of Macedonia. Bank loans, export quotas, petrol, cigarettes and pharmaceutical drugs, import permits and licences, catering contracts with the Defence and Interior Ministries, all had been on sale (Nanevska, 2001). The war appeared to be even more beneficial for the corrupt elites. Some estimates show that the economic damage and loss from

Macedonia’s civil–military relations

53

the war activities were less harmful than the war profit gained with procurement deals. The arms and military equipment bought in the last couple of years cost 300 per cent more than the real market price. Customers and mediators in these deals have been the high IMRO party members and the profit is believed to have gone to the Party and some individuals. The quality and type of purchased military equipment indicate that additional expenses will be necessary for their maintenance, use and modification. The biggest procurement affair was related to the purchase of several Ukrainian military helicopters and Russian ‘Sukhoi’ jets during the military campaign. In addition to the absurd military tactics of confronting guerrilla fighters positioned in villages and among civilians from the air, the financial aspects of the deal revealed another disturbing detail. With the blessing of the prime minister, the Macedonian ambassador in Ukraine mediated a deal in which the state paid US$1.8 million for the purchase of US$300,000. The Albanian coalition partner, under-represented in the state administration and the security structures, could gain only in non-military deals. The most infamous figure in the 2001 corruption scandals was the Minister of Economics (DPA). During the most critical phase of the crisis he helped some DPA members gain huge profits from the illegal import of sugar. Furthermore, the biggest share of the money is believed to have been distributed to direct support of the paramilitary NLA (National Liberation Army) (Cadikovski and Fakic, 2001). According to one report, corruption in Macedonia threatens the viability of the state (International Crisis Group (ICG) Balkans Report, 2002). A poll conducted by Transparency International found that 88.6 per cent of respondents believe the government to be at the centre of fraud. Furthermore, an IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm, Sweden) public opinion survey identified corruption as the country’s third most pressing problem, with respondents rating it as even more destructive than the inter-ethnic tensions – only unemployment and poverty rated higher. Interestingly, fraud appears to be one of the few areas of life in Macedonia which is truly multicultural (Jovanovski, 2002). Paradoxically, the former defence minister had been the only senior political figure accused in the corruption affair until the new government (formed after the September 2002 elections) launched a wide anti-corruption action. With the old government unwilling to tackle the problem, being the main protagonist itself, the judicial system inept and heavily politicised, and the public impotent and frustrated, Macedonia constituted a bastion of corruption in the region (although the competition remained high). The corruption scandal in the security sector emerged not because of the mature political culture, efficient institutions or workable principle of democratic control. Rather, it was merely a result of political, criminal and quasi-patriotic intrigue. The outcome is likely to be of the same sort – a mixture of political gains and losses, criminal bargaining and new figures of martyrs and victors. Luckily or unluckily, the army remains isolated from the affair, while the taxpayers pay the bill. By 2003, Macedonia was far from being an oasis of peace. One may speculate about the vicious circle of conflict and criminality – which comes first, the chicken

54 Biljana Vankovska or the egg? Criminalisation of politics pushed the country over the abyss of violent conflict, and the violent conflict generously assisted the rise of criminality. The actors of this drama (state security structures, conscripts and reservists, guerrilla fighters and even citizens) were locked in the circle, tightened by their bigger or smaller material gains, fears and passions. Criminality and conflict matched each other well, often feeding and fuelling each other. Many still remain deaf and blind to the Western notions of democratic control and security sector reform. A question remains – how to break the vicious circle of misfortune that drives Macedonia?

Politicisation of criminality in the post-conflict period For years Macedonia has been troubled by the simultaneous ethnification and criminalisation of politics. Both processes were given momentum with the coming to power of the Coalition for Changes (i.e. IMRO and DPA) in the autumn of 1998. Two extreme-nationalist parties created a coalition of two unlikely partners, but the international community rushed to praise a softening of their politics and shift towards a moderate stance. Soon afterwards, however, it appeared that the coalition was a ‘marriage of (criminal) interest’. As long as the material gains were secured there was no need for violent means. The local and presidential elections that followed faced gross irregularities, including the use of violence and intimidation at voting stations. Interestingly, they were directed against opponents of the same ethnic group. Obviously, the ruling parties had not observed one of the basic rules of the game in democracy – i.e. non-use of violence. Violence (in the form of threats, intimidation, bargaining and blackmailing) has always been a chip in the political game. Greediness and harsh methods, especially within the Albanian community, had a price – heavily undermining DPA legitimacy. The sudden outburst of armed conflict around an almost unknown village on the Macedonian-Kosovo border was soon seen as an opportunity for political gain. The basically criminal groups and their motives quickly became a useful currency in the political game. The DPA leadership condemned the use of force by the Albanian groups, but also used the opportunity to improve its undermined legitimacy. The public march in Skopje and some other cities organised by DPA took the slogan of ‘Peace and Justice’, which was obvious ethno-nationalist manipulation demanding ‘peace’ (for all) under a condition that there was also ‘justice’ (for us). Another protest in Tetovo turned into a public cry for the final battle of Albanians against the ‘Slav oppression’. The shootings from the Sara Mountain outskirts were greeted loudly and the president of Tetovo University euphorically stated: ‘Those are our sons, who are more courageous than us’. Once the violence occurred, each of the coalition partners found its own interest in the conflict. Albanian DPA tried to capitalise on the clash, claiming that it stood more resolutely for, and had a greater stake in the issue of, human rights. On the other hand, ‘the most Macedonian political party’, as IMRO declares itself, seized the opportunity to manifest its patriotism by establishing functional security structures. The army of the ‘oasis of peace’ experienced a baptism of fire without a state of war or state of emergency being declared. For the first time in its ten

Macedonia’s civil–military relations

55

year existence the army achieved visibility and a heroic image, at least at the beginning of the crisis. However, later on the glory shone on the special police forces of the infamous Minister of Interior. On the other hand, with the outburst of violence the legitimate political institutions were completely paralysed and marginalised. Not a single decision could be made in the parliament, which according to the Constitution was supposed to be the supreme body to decide on crucial security-related issues. At one point, the government pushed for a declaration of a state of war, but the ethnic constellation of interests in the parliament would have not allowed adoption of such a decision. Some suggested that the parliament be bypassed and the decision be made by the president of the republic (who was supposed to announce that the parliament could not meet, which would have been an obvious lie). Politics faced total defeat in the moment when a parliamentarian (DPA member) turned into a ‘freedom fighter’.3 He appeared in public in military uniform and carrying a rifle, sending an appeal to his fellow parliamentarians to follow his example.4 Having proved to be a very efficient way of gaining political credit, radicalism and ‘patriotism’ re-entered the rhetoric and the practice of the political parties. In fact, it became the only way of communication between the leaders and the led – in both ethnic groups. War heroism is about peacetime (or better, post-conflict) ‘rewards’. The Ohrid Framework Agreement provided an effectual ceasefire and endless source of political (de)legitimisation of the signatories (i.e. the four political parties). From the Albanian perspective, the Agreement was a victory, although views differ regarding the assessment of the achieved results, ranging between complete satisfaction to unsatisfactory responses. The Macedonian parties, although not claiming complete defeat, are trying to blame one another (and the ‘international community’) for the undesired peace deal. In short, the document translated into the constitutional changes of November 2001, although this is still a matter of different interpretations, and a chip in political and security games. The postOhrid Agreement phase, however, brought one major change on the political scene. The rebels’ leader Ahmeti has grown into a political leader and formed a political party (DUI, Democratic Union for Integration). The immediate post-conflict period developed in an unusual way. Some politicians decided to become militant leaders, while the former fighters showed obvious political ambitions. In particular, the competition over former UCK (Ushtria Clirimtare Kombetare, National Liberation Army) commanders appeared to be very strong among the Albanian political parties. However, in essence things have not radically changed. An attentive analyst rightly emphasises that the Albanian criminality and Macedonian state-corruption are twin sisters (Hislope, 2001). The war provoked by them cannot be a case for the classical DDR (disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration) programmes. In a conflict like the Macedonian one, it is likely that DDR programmes would appear too schematic and would be misused by the actors. Demobilisation and re-integration of former combatants in pre-electoral Macedonia emerged in a bizarre fashion: the combatants had always intended to be disarmed and to become ‘politicians’. Politics in a case like this is not about policy-making but about profit-making under the disguise of

56 Biljana Vankovska legality. The swift redressing of the former UCK commanders, who had no other credentials but their ‘glorious’ war records, anticipated the forthcoming appearance of these people in the parliament if not in the new government. The classical notion of parliamentarian supervision of the security sector is ‘ideally’ implemented: experienced combatants have become civilian politicians in the parliament. The other side of the coin is the influence of civilians with ‘military minds’, i.e. the bottom-up ‘democratic’ control exercised by a belligerent public that approves use of violence as a ‘last resort’. In an ethnically divided society, the analysis inevitably becomes divided. The Macedonian side of the story shows ethnic domination in the state security structures. Logically, they are perceived as an expression of Macedonianess – by both sides. The army and the police went through the baptism of fire so typical for the other Yugoslav-successor states, but ten years later. Similarity, however, can be found in the fact that again it is believed that the politicians manipulated the security forces. They were bargaining at the expense of the security forces which were given contradictory orders and sent back and forth without any visible purpose. Thus, according to many indicators, the ‘brilliant’ military offensives were part of a previously agreed deal, while in some situations of almost achieved victories, they were prevented at the last second. The conclusion was that nothing was as it appeared to be, which caused great frustrations among the members of the security forces. The agreed ‘victories’ appeared to be Pyrrhic – they definitively deepened the already existing distrust between the ethnic communities. On the other hand, aborted actions resulted in great frustrations for the security forces. All these created illusions and misperceptions among the security forces, who are still unable to figure out what really happened and what was their real military mission. In such a conflict, classical military outcomes (and victories) are unlikely, but the source of future frustrations and traumas remains deeply embedded when the security forces are not aware of this fact. Moreover, there are still speculations that the war was faked to a certain degree, i.e. the violence of criminal groups was intentionally transformed into a politically motivated violent conflict. The post-conflict elections were seen as an ultimate test of the state’s maturity and democracy, particularly by the representatives of the international community. Despite EU Commissioner Solana’s conviction that in the post-Ohrid Agreement period, Macedonia had finally turned back to the path of a genuine democracy, on the ground the internationals were assuming a worst-case scenario. The 2002 parliamentary elections in Macedonia saw the biggest OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) monitoring mission in the organisation’s history (around 800 monitors). NATO’s Amber Fox mission obtained a not quite legal extension of the mandate in order to provide emergency assistance to OSCE monitors. Originally it was planned to deploy NATO soldiers in the crisis region but finally they were stationed all over the country. Once again, Macedonian citizens were supposed to read international double speak, while at the same time praising the progress of the democracy, which, obviously, feared for the safety of its observers. The electoral campaign was overshadowed by, and provided a favourable atmosphere for disguising, disastrous measures in the economic and social sphere.

Macedonia’s civil–military relations

57

The process of privatisation of the state enterprises had culminated in overt robbery, whose proponents were members of the ruling elite. It seems that the international community (i.e. Brussels) learns slowly and is caught in the trap of its mental Western democracy pattern. According to Western diplomats, Macedonia passed the most difficult test of exercising democracy. Perhaps a Danish journalist was wrong when stating that ‘USA won the elections in Macedonia’, but it is difficult to deny that it was a victory of formal democracy. However, for the majority of the population it is small consolation. The euphoria faded quickly under the pressure of the old problems. After the elections many things remain the same. The country still leads on the list of countries with the highest rate of unemployment (around 40 per cent). The recent UNDP report on Macedonia indicated that as much as one-third of the population lives on the verge of poverty (i.e. does not get regular meals). For those people the elections had nothing to do with ‘the victory of democracy’, but were rather a last resort. The elections cost an enormous amount of money, and provided ‘games instead of bread’ for the citizens. In sum, the elections were not only risky but also a very expensive circus. The Macedonian people still want to believe that they won and will be rewarded by inclusion in the family of the democratic European nations. The one decade of democracy in Macedonia did not change a lot during the latest parliamentary elections. Once again voters were free to change the government – but it is highly disputable if they are free and able to change policies.

Instead of conclusions: final scene – or maybe not? Theoretically and in practice, a conflict is a cyclical process. The central but obviously wrong question is, where do pre- and post-conflict phases begin and where do they end? Such an understanding of the conflict dynamic makes it difficult to choose the right interventionist and assistance policy. Remedies prescribed by international organisations depend on how much the findings from the field fit in with their prepared schemes and checklists. For that purpose, they badly need to differentiate the conflict phases in order to know which medicine to use. Numerous examples of ‘unfinished conflicts’ in the Balkans, however, indicate that the schematic and quick fixes lead towards ‘unfinished peace’. Short-sighted and impatient Western conflict managers rush to claim a success out of hesitation to commit to deeper and long-term involvement in conflict zones, as there are constantly new conflict zones to reconstruct (such as Afghanistan, Iraq etc.). The political and security developments in Macedonia, especially during the last one-year period, imposed a real dilemma to the society, its citizens and responsible political actors. What is more important – democracy-building or peacebuilding? It may look illogical, but it perfectly fits the situation of building democracy in a semi-protectorate and building peace in a post-conflict period. The classical notion of the democratic control of armed forces centres on securing unquestionable supremacy of civilian democratically elected politicians over the coercive apparatus. At the same time, it is important to make the security sector transparent enough but also accountable to the institutions of the political

58 Biljana Vankovska state and the civil society. Conflict-driven and criminalised societies may have formal electoral democracies, which may have nothing to do with substantive democracy. The very fact that somebody has been elected in free and fair elections does not necessarily mean s/he is a democratically oriented politician. The crucial aspect of democratic control of the armed forces in conflict-driven societies is control of violence and legitimate use of force. In other words, control should be imposed over all (state and non-state) actors who tend to illegally employ violence. This control obviously cannot be attributed as democratic – a society driven by a violent conflict, by definition, is not a democracy even in its elementary form. Positive peace and democracy call for elimination of all forms of violence, i.e. direct, structural and cultural violence. The first form of violence is most evident, while the other two are not only less visible but also more difficult to deal with. The most bizarre facet of the Macedonian crisis was the fact that violence was partly fabricated by some elites (constituting a mixture of political and criminal interests). Undoubtedly, such a risky gamble is associated with a great potential for dragging the society into an overt bloody civil conflict. During the acute phase of the conflict, the Macedonian military (as well as the police) was manipulated by the politicians in a way that left it uncertain about its primary mission. The apparent dilemma of Macedonia’s status as a post-conflict or pre-conflict society is a false one. Very few are convinced that the Ohrid Agreement was a peace accord. The ceasefire ended the hostilities, but the roots of the conflict (and the weapons) are still out there. A rather grim prognosis would be that the postconflict phase may turn into a pre-conflict phase. In early 2003, the Macedonian government still had no full control over the state territory; nobody really knows how many pieces of weapons are in free circulation. The classical ‘civil–military relations’ paradigm should be extended in order to include society – non-state military groups. The picture should also be broadened to include the international missions in Macedonia, allowing them to have a say in security matters and reforms. Domestic and international actors in Macedonia rush to claim a success story. However, the problems in the security sector are Himalayan in comparison to the situation of just two years ago. Violence makes any reform more difficult. Macedonia had been far from complete in its security sector build-up in accordance with democratic standards, when it had to put it aside and focus on more urgent matters. Apparently security sector reform (SSR) in post-conflict situations imposes quite different challenges from those in other transitional societies. The policy community (and the international community) has been constantly mixed in its conflict management, losing sight of the need to understand the conflict itself. The same mistaken approach has been favoured by the so-called democracypromotion community, which would usually prescribe ‘democratic medicine’ for societies in which the main actors derive their legitimacy from ‘patriotic’ or ‘human rights justified’ violence. In their plea for democratic control of the security sector (most usually in the context of getting the ‘carrot’, i.e. NATO admission) they disregard a crucial fact. Security structures are not only (our) state institutions but also a concrete and symbolic manifestation of structural and cultural violence.

Macedonia’s civil–military relations

59

Hence the basic contradiction reads: how to help the building up of armed forces that would be well equipped and trained to meet NATO interoperability standards without at the same time boosting the ethno-nationalistic image of the institution in the post-conflict environment? The other dilemma is: how better to equip the state armed forces at the same time that disarmament of society is a central issue, especially if the state structures and guerrilla units are ethnically defined? Or how to support the corporate spirit of the military in a situation when one-third of the state territory is out of state control (and an international military mission guarantees the cease-fire)? As the Macedonian case study indicates, democratic control of armed forces indeed is undergoing a renaissance, although a rather strange one. Its importance grows with the increase of cases of post-conflict recovery and peace-building. The bizarre detail is, however, that this renaissance does not necessarily mean evolution and progress of the very concept. Rather, it calls for a step backwards – from democratic to civilian control. Advocacy of ‘democratic control’ may be misleading in a post-conflict society. Democratic control (or better, supervision) presupposes workable democratic institutions and total abolishment of the use of violence. Conflict-driven societies have the capacity only for imitation of democratic principles and may misuse them as well. Traumatised and belligerent societies do not have a critical mass for democratic supervision of the political decision-making process. As Kemp (2002, p. 11) correctly points out: there may be peace, but it will be one that lacks accountability, transparency, democracy and sustainability. Unfortunately, in such cases one way to combat cynicism, divert attention from economic woes, and salvage some legitimacy is to play the national card. Economic hardships are blamed on minorities or external forces. And so the risk of conflict is raised. The only ‘progress’ in the concept of civil–military relations is in the scope of the actors who should be included and subjected to democratic control. This broadening goes beyond the new paradigm of a shift from civil–military relations towards security sector reform. The security sector in post-conflict and still fragile societies comprises a range of states and para-states but also influential international actors. Nevertheless, the priority task seems to be to strengthen the capacity and viability of the state and the society. One must address the symptoms and causes at a high (political) level and on the ground, which calls for a long-term approach. Corrupt elites may be more ‘unhealthy’ than the society – that is, they may often create a link between crime and conflict either to command the situation or to profit out of it (i.e. to be parasites to benefit from the latent or overt conflict). The standard crisis management or post-conflict tools and techniques are not adequate to deal with the crime-conflict nexus as they usually focus on what is easily labelled ‘inter-ethnic’ conflict. The trick is in the fact that sometimes (as the Macedonian case proves) the conflict has little to do with ethnicity as such but with the political economy of the conflict (i.e. narrow economic interests). The conventional thinking about civil–military relations, and particularly the democratic control of armed

60 Biljana Vankovska forces, is based on legitimate state actors without bothering much with what constitutes legitimacy in a certain case. Today’s Macedonia is a puzzle in the grim Balkan region. Despite some positive moves towards stabilisation, if not complete normalisation, there is still enough reason for deep security concerns. A more realistic overview of the region shows that despite a number of ceasefires and semi-protectorates, not a single case of conflict transformation can be identified. The former Yugoslavia’s territory remains a challenge for the implementation of Western models of democracy promotion. If, a decade ago, it was the main flashpoint of bloody conflicts and ethnic cleansing, today the region is a challenge for post-conflict reconstruction, rehabilitation and reconciliation. However, the very popular programmes for demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of the former combatants have no chance for a visible success without handling the cancer-like process of criminalisation of the region. As Hislope (2001) rightly stresses, every state usually has its own mafia, but in the Balkans mafias have their own states. The semi-protectorates themselves continue to aspire to be viable states and even democracies, trying also to please the Western factors and sponsors while fooling their own citizens. By insisting on minimal requirements for democracy (i.e. formal democracy), Western actors are sometimes guilty of wishful thinking while creating conditions for freezing the status quo in the form of ceasefire. Without tackling the problem in its entirety – and bearing in mind the interdependence between the potential for societal conflict, ethnic policy, the alliance between corrupt officials and organised crime, and the hardships of the democratisation process – the schematic Western approaches may cause harmful and undesired effects.

Notes 1 ‘In the meantime, however, the effects of the war between NATO and Serbia are in the centre of attention. Above all, there is reason to worry about the effects of the war on the restructuring of the Balkan mafias. The unavoidable reconstruction of the areas destroyed by the NATO bombs will lead to a strengthening of the local mafias that will be able to specialise themselves in the building sector, as the Italian mafias have done in the past, in order then to pour the gains of the reconstruction in the drugs trafficking business. Today, this is only a hypothesis, but whatever will happen in the southern Balkans in the future, will be automatically related to the existence of this underground economy that draws a great part of its profits from drugs trafficking’ (Silvestri, 1999). 2 The division along ethnic territorial lines reawakened the memories from the Second World War, when the western part of the country was attached to the puppet state of Greater Albania and the eastern to Bulgarians, who traditionally consider Macedonia part of their ethnic home. 3 MP Shaqiri, who said that a political battle through the institutions of the system had been futile and it was time to switch to armed battle for human rights, kept all privileges as a parliamentarian during his guerrilla adventure, including his salary, mobile phone etc. The Macedonian Parliament could not make up its mind even about its own ‘renegade’ during the whole crisis period and he was deprived of his parliamentarian status only in the post-crisis period (i.e. November 2001). Interestingly, he was revoked under the pretext of not attending parliamentary sessions for more than six months, while his participation in the armed rebellion was never mentioned.

Macedonia’s civil–military relations

61

4 In his public statement of 28 March 2001, published in Kosovapress newspaper, Shaqiri explained the motives of his decision in the following way: ‘Aware of the current situation that the Albanian people are undergoing in Macedonia, and now, when the liberation battle between the National Liberation Army and the Macedonian military–police forces has already begun, I have decided to freeze all party and parliamentary functions and to join the troops of the National Liberation Army. I appeal to the electorate of the zone that has voted for me, to pass over to the side of the fighters for freedom. At the same time, I appeal to the high officials of DPA and the other Albanian members of the Macedonian Parliament, to join the fighters for freedom! Whoever wishes to contact me, can find me on the first front line.’

62 Anatoliy Grytsenko

5

Political irresponsibility and lack of transparency in Ukrainian defence reform Anatoliy Grytsenko

Introduction This chapter studies the impact of Ukrainian political culture on the prospects for defence reform by examining two case studies in civil–military relations: the tragic accident that occurred when a civilian airliner was accidentally targeted by a missile launched by the Ukrainian armed forces, and the ensuing behaviour of civil and military authorities; and the reform process planned until 2005 for the Ukrainian armed forces. The first case describes the technical and political developments that led up to the disaster and analyses the relevant political deliberations and actions taken after the downing of the passenger aircraft. The case study addresses the accident not only as a tragic military accident, but as an event that reflected the personal conduct of political figures, their levels of honesty and degrees of political accountability. While no one has accused the Ukrainian military of deliberately downing the passenger aircraft, the incident has raised significant questions about the behaviour of the Ukrainian military and political leadership following the crash, the personal responsibility of Ukraine’s top military and political leadership for organising potentially dangerous military exercises, and the accountability of these elites for the tragic consequences. This case has been chosen because it offers interesting insights into how various actors react in times of crisis. The second case overviews the state of the defence reform process in Ukraine in the context of the military, political and strategic environment in the country.1 This contextual environment indicates that the armed forces remain too expensive for the Ukrainian economy. The situation requires an adequate response on the part of the highest state leadership. After 12 years of attempts to modernise its military, Ukraine has determined what is possible and what is required to protect national interests from military threats. However, so far there has been sufficient political will only for identifying tasks; civilian authorities appear not to be prepared to accept direct and full responsibility for the country’s defence and security. Therefore, the second case study concerns the vision of the future state of the Ukrainian armed forces and responsibility for the managerial task of achieving this desired goal. The case is selected because it shows how political and military authorities dealt with readjusting the military to the new security environment.

Ukrainian defence reform

63

It is concluded that the country’s top political leadership, while concerned with the loyalty of military authorities, experienced significant problems initiating systemic reform of Ukraine’s armed forces. Reform has been essentially limited to a reduction in numbers without meaningful improvement in quality. In both cases under consideration, the dynamics of the current political system was the primary impediment to improving effectiveness and creating positive change in the military. As Ukraine has embarked on the path towards Euro-Atlantic integration, the issue of reform of the armed forces becomes more important as a topic for regional security. Due to the recent improvements in the country’s economic situation, as well as its improved capacity to develop realistic programmes of reform, the prospects for successful defence reform in Ukraine today are somewhat better than in the past. However, neither economic improvement nor sound security concepts can substitute for a mature political culture and effective democratic supervision, which lie at the heart of success of reforms in all spheres, including defence.

The accidental shooting-down of a civilian passenger plane by the military Developments On 4 October 2001 at 9.58 a.m. (local time) a Russian Tupolev Tu-154 passenger jet belonging to Siberia Airline departed Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport for Novosibirsk with 76 people aboard (51 Israeli and 13 Russian passengers, and 12 Russian crew members). Less than two hours later, at 12.45 p.m. (local time), the plane exploded over the Black Sea at an altitude of 11,000 metres, some 190 km south of the Russian city of Sochi and about the same distance off the Georgian coast. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, ordered rescue ships to search for the flight data recorder. About three hours after the explosion, while Russian ships were already sailing to the site of the crash, the American news channel CNN stated that the airliner may have been mistaken for an unmanned target and hit by a S-200 surface-to-air missile,2 launched during a Ukrainian military training exercise. According to the Washington Post ‘The missile launch was picked up by satellites equipped with infrared sensors at the Defence Department’s early warning centre at Fort Meade’ (LaFraniere and Hockstader, 2001). Indeed, the same day at Cape Opuk (the test site belonging to the Russian Black Sea Fleet on the Crimean peninsula), the Ukrainian military had been conducting exercises involving naval, air, air defence and artillery forces about 250 kilometres away from the crash site. The exercises included firing antiaircraft missiles at unmanned aircraft of different types, including the S-200, which had been capable of reaching the ill-fated commercial airliner. Moreover, according to one unnamed US defence official, a satellite detected ‘the launch

64 Anatoliy Grytsenko of a missile at almost precisely the same time the airliner went down’. The launch in question occurred at 12.41 p.m., four minutes prior to the explosion. However, according to General of the Army, Olexander Kuzmuk, Ukraine’s Defence Minister, ‘All the missiles used in the exercises … are equipped with self-destruct mechanisms’ that would have prevented such an accident. He added that the Siberia Airline passenger jet was out of range of the missiles when the explosion sent it crashing into the sea (AFP, 5 October 2001). Kuzmuk insisted that it was neither technically, nor even theoretically, possible that the airliner was accidentally shot down by a Ukrainian missile. He made several other statements on the timing of the exercises and other particular issues, however, which raised suspicions that something was amiss. The Ukrainian Defence Ministry press service claimed that the missiles were not fired in the plane’s direction. ‘All the hits by the missiles used during the exercise were recorded by corresponding devices and reached their targets’, said press service head Lieutenant-Colonel Kostiantyn Khivrenko. In Russian President Putin’s opinion, broadcast on the night of 4 October, the plane was too far away from the launching site to have been hit by the missile. Putin admitted that Russian observers were present at the exercise. ‘There is no reason why we should not trust them or Ukrainian defence officials’, he said. Putin suggested that the Russian passenger aeroplane might have been targeted by terrorists. However, on 5 October, the day after the accident, US White House spokesman Ari Fleischer continued to cast doubt on the suspicion that the disaster was the result of a terrorist attack. ‘At this time, we haven’t seen anything that would indicate that a terrorist attack had occurred’ (LaFraniere and Hockstader, 2001). During the first few days after the accident, many observers felt a sense of déjà vu. In April 2000, 18 months prior to the incident with Tu-154, three people were killed and five wounded when, during firing exercises, a stray surface-to-surface missile ‘Tochka U’ hit an apartment building in the Ukrainian town of Brovary, a mere ten kilometres west of the country’s capital, Kyiv. At that time, the Defence Ministry also denied any responsibility for several days until missile parts were found in the rubble. Following the accident of 2001 the Defence Ministry reacted in a similar way, and again its arguments sounded hasty and unsubstantiated. Ukrainian officials at almost all levels, including the president and foreign minister, continued denying any relation of the Ukrainian missile to the accident during the first few days after the accident. On 8 October, commander of Ukrainian air defence forces Colonel General Volodymyr Tkachov held a press conference where he declined to comment on the US allegations, saying they were not ‘official’. He insisted that ‘all the data indicates the Ukrainian anti-aircraft air defence forces had nothing to do with this accident’. Only Prime Minister Anatoliy Kinakh admitted on 6 October that he could not rule out the possibility that a Ukrainian missile shot down a Russian passenger jet over the Black Sea, stating that the theory ‘had the right to exist’. While the Ukrainian military provoked more questions than answers by dismissing even the possibility of a misfired missile, the position of politicians

Ukrainian defence reform

65

appeared decreasingly certain in the immediate wake of the Siberia Airline crash. On 8 October, President Kuchma declined to rule out the possibility that a Ukrainian missile could have shot down the Russian airliner. He said, ‘it is technically impossible’, but ‘everything is possible theoretically’. The denials of the official Ukrainian side were further weakened after investigators at the crash site found fragments of an anti-aircraft missile in the wreckage. Independent experts in Ukraine found it very suspicious that the time difference between the missile’s launch and the plane’s explosion was about the same amount of time needed for a S-200 missile to cover the distance between the Crimean shore and the site of the plane crash. With growing evidence linking the Ukrainian military to the crash, President Kuchma evidently decided to distance himself from the Defence Ministry’s line. On 10 October he said that he would accept any conclusion reached by the RussianUkrainian Investigation Commission: ‘Whatever the joint working group [Investigation Commission] decides, I will agree with it.’ On 12 October, for the first time, a top Ukrainian official, the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine (NSDC), Yevghen Marchuck admitted that ‘the catastrophe of Tu-154 could have been caused by the S-200 missile during the exercises of Ukraine’s air defence forces’. On 13 October, with mounting evidence from the USA, Russia, and from inside Ukraine, the Defence Minister General Kuzmuk and air defence forces commander General Tkachov admitted at a press conference that Ukrainian forces were responsible for the crash of a Russian passenger aircraft, and apologised to the victims and their relatives, submitting their resignation reports. On 22 October, both Russian and Ukrainian heads of the joint Russian-Ukrainian Investigation Commission, Vladimir Rushaylo and Yevghen Marchuck, confirmed the fact that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian missile. The cause of the crash, according to a later official statement of the Russian-Ukrainian Investigation Commission, appeared to be a tragic sequence of events. On 24 October, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, after almost two weeks of deliberations, fired General Kuzmuk, General Tkachov and a number of other military officials. Later, on 12 November, after another round of deliberations, the president appointed a new Defence Minister, Volodymyr Shkidchenko, General of the Army of Ukraine, who was former Chief of the General Staff of Ukraine’s armed forces. Civil–military deliberations The immediate reaction of experts in civil–military relations was that the lesson of Brovary had not taught the country’s political and military leadership a lasting lesson. A similar mistake occurred again, although on a much greater scale. After the tragedy in Brovary and the behaviour of Minister Kuzmuk, who argued that he had no desire to resign because he considered the act of resigning a means of avoiding responsibility, President Kuchma made no public comments. No one in the country was able at that time to insist that the president (who is also supreme

66 Anatoliy Grytsenko commander-in-chief of the armed forces) should come out publicly with his assessment of what happened and why. This evidently paved the way for the next tragedy, which occurred 18 months later over the Black Sea. In view of the previous behaviour, one wonders whether the second tragedy would have received as much attention by the country’s top officials, including the president, and whether the public would have learned as much about it as it did, if foreign countries like Israel, Russia and the USA had not been involved. However, this second tragedy was on a much larger scale and, according to Kuchma’s statement, Minister Kuzmuk immediately filed the resignation report but the president did not accept it. In Kuchma’s words, this was because he ‘could not take hasty decisions’. Moreover, Kuchma said, ‘Olexander Kuzmuk is a man of high moral standards. I don’t waste such people, such cadre’. Therefore, in the wake of the crash it became evident that Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma unequivocally took sides with the military leadership. Only after the direct responsibility of Ukraine’s military for the tragedy was established was Kuchma forced to make a difficult decision. There were numerous calls to dismiss Kuzmuk, as well as specific questions about the personal responsibility of military officials to adhere to safety procedures and the responsibility of the state to ensure democratic and civilian supervision of Ukraine’s military. Inside Ukraine, calls to dismiss Kuzmuk were coming mainly from uninfluential independent media, which represented both anti-Kuchma opposition from radical national-democratic parties, and, quite understandably for this particular case, from pro-Russia circles. The remaining larger part of the political spectrum was not at all vociferous. Pro-Kuchma political forces remained loyal, and moderate national-democratic leaders were cautious of a possible pro-Russian substitution for Kuzmuk. Part of the answer to the question of why Kuchma was so protective of the defence minister resides in the weakness of the democratic foundations of Ukraine’s political system, in which the president has the sole power to appoint or dismiss any minister, but the parliament and political opposition have no authority to influence this exclusive power. According to Ukrainian legislation, the minister of defence can be either military or civilian (Ukraine had a civilian minister, Valeriy Shmarov, in 1994–6.) However, the problem lies not in the ‘suits versus uniforms’ tension, but in the nature of civilian control over the military in Ukraine, where the defence minister reports directly to the president and does not represent and is not supported by any political party or bloc. The dismissal of defence minister Kuzmuk might have seemed to be unavoidable according to Western democratic standards. Many observers wondered about the reasons for President Kuchma’s delay in taking a concrete decision, even when faced with the opportunity to show himself in a good light after his own unfortunate behaviour and controversial remarks. The general mood was that General Kuzmuk’s fate in the affair was favoured by his low level of political ambitions coupled with his low political potential, as well as his declared personal loyalty to the president. These factors probably meant much to Kuchma when considering whether to replace Kuzmuk as defence minister.

Ukrainian defence reform

67

But after all, President Kuchma evidently became convinced that it would be best for him to admit the blunder while the world’s eyes were preoccupied elsewhere after the events of 11 September. On 24 October, he made a statement in which he announced his decision to accept the resignation of the defence minister and requested the government, the National Security and Defence Council and the new Defence Ministry’s leadership to ‘provide urgently for qualitative shifts in defence reform and introduce effective civilian control over the armed forces’ (Interfax-Ukraine, 24 October 2001). Was it the sense of danger built up by the nearly universal indignation at the Ukrainian military leadership’s behaviour and officials’ comments at home and especially abroad that lay behind the decision to dismiss Kuzmuk? Since local media and opposition criticism did not appear sufficient reason to dismiss such a personally loyal figure as Kuzmuk, this was probably the case. Since the appointment of the new defence minister was not made at the same time as the dismissal of the previous one, and since the president made clear his preference in favour of strengthening civilian control over the military, the defence expert community and society at large started speculating about the appropriate candidates for the post of defence minister. Different variants were discussed depending on the particular affiliation of the commentators. The majority of politologists, parliamentarians and defence experts were in favour of appointing a civilian defence minister and argued for the benefits of effective civilian control over the military. It is probably fair to summarise these speculations by concluding that the general mood was in favour of appointing a responsible politician as a minister, while leaving respected General Volodymyr Shkidchenko as chief of the general staff of the armed forces and ex officio as commander of the armed forces. It is quite possible that for some time Kuchma seriously considered the option of appointing a civilian minister. The lack of an alternative to strengthening democratic civilian control over the military as a prerequisite to successful defence reform was acknowledged. The decision was announced to appoint a civilian state secretary to the Defence Ministry and to adopt several key normative documents in the sphere of civilian control (Defence-Express, 2 November 2001). Finally, however, General Shkidchenko was appointed the new minister of defence. According to rumours, no one from amongst the worthwhile civilians had agreed to become minister, so a disappointed President Kuchma announced they were not yet ready for a civilian minister. In his speech to the Defence Ministry Collegium during the introduction of the new minister, President Kuchma referred to the public expectations about a civilian minister: ‘I don’t object in principle to this variant and more so, I don’t see any alternative to it in the future … But today we should not jump into the cold water, into the perturbations of such depth and magnitude’.3 In his speech, President Kuchma also vaguely hinted of being misinformed in the wake of the airplane crash, yet continued to praise highly General Kuzmuk’s moral qualities. After the new defence minister was finally appointed, there was some delay in the appointment of the chief of the general staff, prompting suspicions about the difficulties experienced by the new minister in building his own team. This is not

68 Anatoliy Grytsenko surprising, given that during Kuzmuk’s tenure at the head of the Defence Ministry there was little room for decent talents to grow. Observing such developments and deliberations caused the majority of experts to conclude that, due to the positive traits of General Shkidchenko, some improvements in the Ministry in comparison to the period under Kuzmuk were possible, but not radical changes, since it would be impossible to achieve completely new results from the same political structure in which the defence minister responds only to the president and in practice is not accountable to anyone else. After action reflections In view of the American allegations, and assuming a logical procedure in which no possible explanations would be dismissed without proper consideration, it was becoming more and more suspicious to independent observers that Ukrainian officials categorically denied that their forces could have accidentally brought down the civilian plane during a military exercise. President Kravchuk later gave his assessment of the Ukrainian leadership’s behaviour: The reason behind the fact that the guilt was not admitted immediately lies in the problem with representatives of official structures, which have not grown up to the level of proper political behaviour … Ukrainian politicians should have expressed condolences but given the estimates only after receiving the investigation results. Outright declarations about the innocence of our military equal the absence of political culture. Desire to fence themselves off from the event comes from old Bolshevik traditions. I think the major reason here lies in the education, in traditions of the past, which unfortunately had not been removed yet. (see Kravchuk, 12 October 2001) The most vivid and relevant observations of the reasons behind the tragedy and its lessons as perceived by independent experts are presented below. According to Oleg Varfolomeev: As supreme commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Ukraine, Kuchma is personally liable not only for the actions of the country’s air defence forces, but for the atmosphere of fear and lies presiding over the military. The military leadership of Ukraine inherited the worst traditions of the Soviet Army (Anatoliy Grytsenko, Personal Communication with Varfolomeyev, 18 October 2001). Valentyn Badrak: The supreme commander [L. Kuchma] didn’t use the chance to appoint a civilian to the post of defence minister and thus demonstrate Ukraine’s European nature. Possibly the Ministry is not yet ready objectively to be headed

Ukrainian defence reform

69

by a civilian. Most probably the president was cautious about a civilian minister’s potential independence at any given moment (Anatoliy Grytsenko, Personal Communication with Badrak, 17 November 2001). Yulia Mostova: They can’t be lying so crudely, I was thinking to myself. Perhaps, there are certain reasons behind the denial from the Ukrainian side … Every step made by the defence minister and the president in the case of the downed Russian plane was a mistake. And every mistake added to the previous one … What is going on? A chronic fear of responsibility? A result of the lack of civilian control over the army and public control over power? … if Olexander Kuzmuk is dismissed, it will be interesting to know what exactly people think of him. Now it is not important. Now, for him and for everybody else, it is important what the president will say. This importance leaves no room for motives as regards honour, honesty with the country and moral restrictions. They are afraid of the president but they are not ashamed of the people … this system has no room for respect of the state interests and selfdignity (Anatoliy Grytsenko, Personal Communication with Mostova, 20 October 2001). In the view of the author of this chapter, the terrible accident in which an airliner was hit by a missile of the Ukrainian armed forces seriously undermined the international image of the Ukraine. The main reason behind that was not just the tragedy itself, but the behaviour afterwards of civil and military authorities. When personal loyalty is considered to be a more important personal characteristic for a minister than professionalism and moral qualities, the result is obvious and logical – the political master becomes hostage to the low proficiency of the mediocre but loyal official. Unfortunately, in the world of security, the price of such questionable personal preferences and evident political mistakes is often very high. It is also valid to state that the tragedy inflicted a serious blow to the prestige of Ukraine’s armed forces, their ability to motivate personnel and promote their agendas to the parliament and broader public, whose support is indispensable for the success of current defence reform.

Reform process of the Ukrainian armed forces until 2005 General framework The reform process of the Ukrainian armed forces for the period until 2005 is defined, first of all, by the State Programme for Reform and Development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine until 2005 (Reform Programme), adopted by presidential decree in the summer of 2000. The Reform Programme represents a revised and improved version of the first substantive Ukrainian programme on military reform – the State Programme of Armed Forces Construction and Development by 2005,

70 Anatoliy Grytsenko which was similarly adopted in 1997 but failed to address Ukraine’s defence reform needs in a comprehensive and effective manner. Over the course of 2001–2, there were also a number of other important reform documents adopted. Chief among them was the State Programme of Transition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to Manning with Contract Servicemen (Professionalisation Programme). This Professionalisation Programme envisages the transition to an all-volunteer force by 2015 (its planned first stage also ends in 2005) and serves as a framework for long-term reform planning. While on the one hand, both basic programmes represented evident conceptual improvements with regard to future composition and manning of the armed forces, on the other hand they inherited the deficiencies of the first State Programme – the lack of a clear financial basis and lack of co-ordination with other related legislative acts etc. But most importantly, the reform programmes were developed by the military itself and approved by the president without co-ordination and consent of the legislative body, the Verkhovna Rada, which is supposed to approve the budget for reforms. These financial and political deficiencies precipitated one of the main problems of Ukraine’s defence reform process – the constant and painful necessity to modify the reform plans. Reform programme Drafting state programmes for the long-term development of power structures presents possibilities for walking away from the permanent solution of everyday ‘survival’ problems, setting long-term strategic targets, balancing national needs and resources in the long run and laying down fundamentals for steady progress. So far, no radical positive changes are seen here, since even the overarching Reform Programme has a major deficiency that brings the titanic efforts of its developers to naught: the set targets are not backed with resources so the programme is simply impracticable and actually repeats the fate of its predecessor of 1997.4 The role, functions and missions of Ukraine’s armed forces are, in general terms, legislatively defined. However, the relevant provisions of Ukraine’s Constitution and the law are too general. The Acts of the President, Cabinet of Ministers, and Ministerial Public Acts also contain few concrete provisions and background data. Proceeding from these vague functions, the military can ‘reasonably’ maintain the necessity of keeping its strength at 400,000 with a budget worth US$2 billion. Civilians can equally ‘reasonably’ approve its manpower at a level of 20,000 men and allocate US$20 million for their maintenance. If this results in the curtailment of combat training, then in the absence of clear criteria it will be difficult to prove that the level of combat training meets the requirements. It is worth noting that the Reform Programme specified the functions and missions of the Ukrainian armed forces; however, this specification is still far from being acceptable. For example, the State Programme stipulates that ‘the armed forces must be constantly ready for participation in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations under the auspices of international organisations with up to one brigade

Ukrainian defence reform

71

(numbering 2,000–3,000 men)’. However, there is a big difference between training 2,000 and 3,000 men. It is known that the maintenance of the Ukrainian 240th peacekeeping battalion in Bosnia (with only 400 men) cost close to US$10 million per year during its deployment there in 1996–9. The question is whether it is worth providing for such measures. How can the troops’ readiness to accomplish their missions, or the intended use of budget funds be determined without defining how many soldiers are to be trained – 2,000 or 3,000? Another example of vague wording in the Reform Programme is the definition of the missions of Ukraine’s navy: ‘destroying enemy targets; assistance to the ground forces at combat operations in seaboard directions’. Unfortunately, such indistinct formulations of the missions make it difficult to determine how many warships of different classes Ukraine needs, how many aircraft of the naval air arm (and what types) are required or whether it needs any at all. Indeed, ‘destroying enemy targets’ can involve air force aviation, missile forces, ground force artillery and air defence forces. Furthermore, ‘assistance to the ground forces at combat operations in seaboard directions’ can be provided by the naval forces of the border troops, or even by mercantile fleet (if ‘assistance’ includes sealift). Some other questions also remain unanswered: which country can attack Ukraine from the sea? Russia or Turkey are the only possible answers since no other country in the region has sufficient forces for this. If Russia is theorised as posing a potential threat, would it be tempted to attack from the sea, and should Ukraine build its navy proceeding from the possible scenario of war with Russia, a war whose consequences would be disastrous for the whole of Europe? And if (again theoretically) Ukraine is attacked from the sea by Turkey, are there any doubts as to the possible reaction to this by Russia (whose Black Sea Fleet will be stationed in the Crimea until 2017)? If more questions are asked (by civilians and the military, who ought to ask those questions), then a more general problem arises: does Ukraine need its navy, proceeding from the necessity of accomplishing the missions formulated in the Reform Programme? Or perhaps the navy is needed, but the Reform Programme does not identify other, more important missions assigned to it. Ukrainian legislation does not provide for such ‘classic’ parliamentary powers as approving long-term national programmes in the military domain, approving key nominations, laying down fundamentals and controlling human resources policy in power structures, supervision of combat readiness and broad functions of control entrusted to specialised parliamentary committees. The president, by his decree, has approved the Reform Programme. This programme was approved without being preceded by a broad discussion in parliament, which is not required by Ukraine’s Constitution. It is noteworthy that this document defines the parameters of the total numerical strength of the armed forces, although the Constitution identifies it as the exclusive prerogative of the Verkhovna Rada (parliament). Furthermore, parliament does not review the development programmes of other power structures, which reduces the possibility of their proper funding at the implementation stage. The National Security and

72 Anatoliy Grytsenko Defence Council has no powers to make decisions, but can only advise the president and co-ordinate the activities of executive structures. In addition to the limited influence of parliament on the definition of priorities in the development of the military, the crisis in its funding was to a large extent conditioned by the failings of the budget process itself. The practice of its limitation by a year-long term has proved ineffective; the procedure of defence budget formation (substantiation) requires serious changes and a move away from traditional but obsolete procedures and towards more effective multi-year and goal-oriented programming and budgeting. Time limitations are not the only problem of the budget process. No less important are the frequent changes in tax legislation, a significant ‘shadow’ sector of the economy, and the non-functional character of the budget. These factors complicate both the collection of budget revenues and the effective use of allocated funds. Without resolving these issues one can hardly hope for a stable funding of power structures, the transition from ‘fight for survival’ to development, or for drawing closer to the standards of the developed democratic countries. Here, the role of parliamentary control (in the broad sense) over the military sector could be stronger. Meanwhile, Ukrainians found themselves in a rather absurd situation. The Verkhovna Rada seemingly supports the fundamental reform of the armed forces, and strengthening of the national defence capability. However, at the same time, parliament approves a defence budget that is insufficient even for maintaining personnel at a decent level. Combat training, let alone deep reform, does not receive any mention; and parliament approves the numerical strength of the armed forces (over 300,000) at a level that would be unaffordable for the national economy even given 15–20 years of steady economic growth at a rate of 5–7 per cent of GDP per year. In 2001, Ukraine allocated close to US$2,900 for maintaining one serviceman, while Russia spent for this purpose US$7,500, the Czech Republic – US$20,100, Poland – US$18,000. And if we look at the developed Western countries, in France this figure exceeds US$90,000, in Great Britain – US$160,000, and in the USA – US$200,000. According to expert estimates, maintenance of Ukraine’s armed forces at their present strength (as well as at the strength approved for 2005) and to NATO standards will cost between US$5.5 and US$7.5 billion per year, which is comparable with the total state budget of Ukraine. In such a situation, it is difficult to speak about realistic assessments, the preparedness to make important political decisions and, generally, the responsibility of the authorities for the combat readiness of the troops. For instance, according to the estimates produced by the military, the funding requirement of the Ministry of Defence in recent years was close to US$6.5 billion. Meanwhile, the national budget earmarked only around US$700 million for national defence – many times less than the estimated requirement. The consequences of such a huge imbalance are obvious – an overmanned and underpaid military which has no resources to modernise hardware and conduct realistic combat training.

Ukrainian defence reform

73

Neither the National Security and Defence Committee, nor the Budget Committee have published their own estimates of the budget requirement as differing from the military’s estimate. If the imbalance between the normative requirements of the military and the capabilities of the state amounts not to 10–15 per cent but much more, it means that the situation cannot be improved through ‘cosmetic’ changes and responsible political decisions must be taken. But the fact remains that by the spring of 2003, there was still a lack of political will to unlock the stalemate between two conflicting visions – the official one supported by the military, which called for gradual reduction in the hope of better financing in the future, and that of their opponents primarily represented by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and a few active and retired officials, which called for more radical reductions in concert with more radical increases in financing at the expense of aggressive market oriented economic reforms (see Muntiyan, 2003, pp. 9–15). Professionalisation programme After the tragic accident of the downing of the commercial airliner by a Ukrainian missile, it was ever more evident that Ukraine’s military required radical and urgent reform. In November 2001, in a speech to the Defence Ministry Collegium during the introduction of the new defence minister, President Kuchma once again spoke about the necessity of corrective measures: ‘It is quite evident today and it is becoming more urgent a necessity to make significant corrections in the strategy and tactics of the armed forces reforms … The main direction and goal of this work is in transition to the small, but mobile and robust army, equipped with the modern weapon systems’. This vision was soon embedded into the State Programme of Transition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to Manning with Contract Servicemen, approved by presidential decree on 17 April 2001. Approval of the Professionalisation Programme found substantial political and public support (see Figure 5.1). Meanwhile, the uncertainty of powers, functions and political responsibility of the bodies of power for the solution of defence issues, the absence in the Professionalisation Programme of a detailed financialeconomic substantiation and cost-estimate of events provided for therein gave rise to a number of factors hindering its implementation (see Muntiyan, 2003, pp. 9–15). The analysis of those factors allows for an assumption that the programme may become hostage to the same problems that make implementation of the reform impossible and remain unresolved even now. Implementation of the Professionalisation Programme requires co-ordinated action of the legislative and executive branches, clear definition of politically responsible actors and the mechanism of continuity in the event of changes in the political leadership of the state. However, the problem of political responsibility for defence and, therefore, for the fulfilment of long-term programmes of reform of the military sector remains unresolved, when the president holds the bulk of authority to control the military and in fact approves all the programmes, while the power of financial support rests with the parliament, which is never in a hurry

74 Anatoliy Grytsenko No 14.5%

Yes 69.0%

Hard to say 16.5%

Figure 5.1 Should there be a fully professional army in Ukraine? (Source: Opinion poll was conducted by Sociological Service of the Razumkov Centre on 18–24 April 2002, among 2000 respondents over 18 in all 27 regions of Ukraine. For more details on the prospects of professionalisation of the armed forces in Ukraine see National Security & Defence, 2002, pp. 7–28.)

to support the programmes approved by the president without parliamentary support. It might look uncertain and illogical to the Western outside observer, but it is an unfortunate reality of Ukraine’s political life. Uncertainty persists regarding the division of powers and functions among the bodies of state power concerning defence issues; as a result, none of these bodies bears all responsibility for the execution (or non-execution) and consequences of decisions taken (or not taken) in the defence sector. Therefore, as with the adoption of the Reform Programme, a decision was evidently made to avoid risk, possible criticism, or even opposition of parliamentarian’s deputies, and the State Programme of Professionalisation was approved by presidential decree. Such insistent neglect of parliament is surprising, to say the least, since the previous experience has shown that without legislative support and proper budget funding, no state programme can be implemented. Implementation of the Professionalisation Programme primarily depends on provision of sufficient funding. Yet the programme does not define mechanisms of financial support adequate to achieve the declared goals. Analysis of the Professionalisation Programme, the tasks of the Reform Programme and the actual and predicted budget expenditures for Ukraine’s national defence requirements suggests the following insights. First, it may be assumed that the signing of the Professionalisation Programme was preceded by certain financial calculations. However, if such calculations were made they would never have been made public. The Programme also lacks quantitative benchmarks and goals that would allow assessment of the results of reforms and accurate planning of expenditures. Furthermore, the published data are fragmentary and contradictory. Given the imperfections of the budget process and controversies of the effective legislation, the prospects of funding the professionalisation of the armed forces of Ukraine do not look very encouraging. Secondly, it is difficult in practice to define accurately the sum necessary for the reform of Ukraine’s armed forces. One reason lies in the ambiguous interpretation of the content of defence expenditures by Ukraine’s Defence Ministry

Ukrainian defence reform

75

and Ministry of Finance. The Defence Ministry proceeds from the constitutional norm whereby ‘the defence of Ukraine, protection of its sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability is vested in the armed forces of Ukraine’, which requires priority funding (no less than 3 per cent of GDP) of military expenditures. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Finance argues that the 3 per cent of GDP spent on defence should include expenditures on all activities attributed to defence by the legislation as well as military pensions. Such a situation leads to a parliamentary debate every year during the budget approval, and in the end, makes the amount of defence expenditures unpredictable. Thirdly, financial resources for fully fledged reform of the armed forces are seriously limited due to the setting of fixed amounts of budget expenditure by law. Legislation sets fixed amounts of budget expenditures for support of the following sectors and social needs: national defence – no less than 3 per cent of GDP; education – no less than 10 per cent of GDP; culture – no less than 8 per cent of GDP; public health – no less than 10 per cent of GDP; science – no less than 1.7 per cent of GDP; various privileges and subsidies – approximately 8 per cent of GDP. As a result, various legislative acts together establish a minimum allocation of nearly 40 per cent of GDP to separate sectors, despite the fact that, for instance, in 2001, only 26.7 per cent of GDP was redistributed through the national budget. Fourthly, the structure of expenditures on national defence is deeply flawed. The lion’s share of total expenses, 80–90 per cent of annual defence expenditures, is simply ‘eaten up’ by personnel costs. Such a ratio raises the serious risk of degradation of the army since little is left over for training, equipment and maintenance. This disproportion in defence expenditure in the wider context of low funding is not likely to be removed within the short term, if at all. Fifthly, total costs of transition of Ukraine’s armed forces to a professional basis should include, apart from the cost of current maintenance of the army, the cost of reducing their personnel strength, decreasing material and technical reserves, recycling of ammunition, developing smart weapon systems and implementing a single automated force and weapons control system, plus advertising for contractual service etc. These expenses are important for essential support and maintaining combat efficiency of a professional army. During the transition to voluntary service, the needs of the military will be increasing. Meanwhile, the prospects of meeting these expenses remain unlikely. Even assuming a favourable scenario concerning the development of Ukraine’s economy, the level of funding needed to maintain a professional army of 240,000 men by 2015 is unlikely to be provided. This target was set out in the Concept of Transition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to Manning with Contract Servicemen through 2015 of 7 April 2001. Even funding for a professional army of 180,000, as envisioned in the Professionalisation Programme, is unlikely. Actual defence expenditures are presently ten times below the level that would be necessary to sustain an army that is ten times smaller, i.e. some 30,000 men. It would be a huge success if Ukraine were able to provide 40,000 men for the Forward Defence Force before 2005. The Ukrainian population appears to understand fully the scope of the problem (see Figure 5.2).

76 Anatoliy Grytsenko Very low

23.5%

Sufficient

7.7%

High

1.5%

Very high

0.8%

Hard to assess

23.1%

Figure 5.2 Assessing the present level of budget expenditures on national defence

The conclusions of the military have often sounded quite optimistic: the Chief of the General Staff of the armed forces of Ukraine noted: There will be no extra expenses, because there is parallel reduction of the armed forces of Ukraine, reduction of the draft, and at the expense of these and other measures we can financially maintain contracted servicemen on the condition of appropriate funding of the armed forces of Ukraine. (Interfax-Ukraine, 15 May 2002) The reality provided little grounds for optimism – a week later the same person said: If the State Programme of Reform and Development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not properly funded, there will be no reform whatsoever … (Den, 22 May 2002, p. 1) Comparison of the provisions of the Reform Programme and the Professionalisation Programme with the economic capabilities of the state points to poor timing and co-ordination of financial limits on providing the would-be professional army with ‘modern weapon systems’. If the cost of modernisation is assumed to be equal to 20 per cent of the cost of a new weapons system, one can calculate that before 2015 the amount needed for modernisation of the stock of arms and military hardware will amount to nearly US$5 billion. Therefore, in order to ensure observance of the planned targets and terms of the defence reform, Ukraine must spend over US$420 million per year on upgrading of arms and military hardware alone (which amounts to 67 per cent of the 2002 defence budget). Meanwhile, the 2002 defence budget earmarks only US$43 million for the procurement and upgrading of arms and military hardware. The experience of modern combat operations proves that expensive modern equipment does not guarantee victory unless a high level of training of its operators is provided. Hence, without a solution to the problem of funding of procurement of arms and military hardware and fully fledged combat training, one should not speak about attaining an adequate professional level by 2005, nor even by 2015.

Ukrainian defence reform

77

By and large, the present financial capabilities of the state prove that the financial resources necessary to achieve fully fledged reform of the Ukrainian armed forces will not be sufficiently satisfied in the foreseeable future. And if the plans of professionalisation are consistently upheld, the need for efficient spending must sooner or later lead to a political decision on a more radical reduction of the armed forces. Since in the future one cannot rule out the emergence of a military threat, the intention to join NATO and ensure military security with the support of allies may be justified.

Conclusion The two cases under consideration have many similarities which, when taken together, reveal the substantial problems faced by Ukraine’s military: it is fighting for survival in the absence of proper political guidance, meaningful political support and minimum necessary funding, all in the absence of effective democratic supervision. As far as the first case is concerned, in terms of prerequisites of democratic civil–military relations there were two major issues in the aftermath of the terrible accident with the civilian airliner that was hit by a missile of the Ukrainian armed forces. The first was the dismissal of the defence minister, General Kuzmuk, and the second was the nature of his replacement by a civilian or military. On the first issue civilian preferences prevailed and the notorious General Kuzmuk was dismissed, while on the second issue military preferences prevailed – the new minister of defence was again a military person, General Shkidchenko – and Kuzmuk himself after his dismissal retained significant influence in defencerelated matters. Such developments have proved that for Ukraine’s current top political leadership, the personal loyalty of the minister of defence is more highly valued than professionalism, honesty and honour. This attitude in the recent past resulted in human tragedies and loss of prestige for the armed forces. However, while preoccupied with the loyalty of military leadership, the country’s top political leadership has not managed to initiate systematic reforms of Ukraine’s armed forces. As far as the second case – the reform process until 2005 of the Ukrainian armed forces – is concerned, several attempts to initiate urgently required radical military reform have so far failed. Unless the processes of budgeting for defence and defence policy-making are radically improved, constant and unavoidable corrections will remain the major characteristic features of the defence reform process. After more than ten years of attempts to reform the military, the general vision of the future armed forces required for the state is more or less accepted, and civil society is becoming more capable of putting forward its own agenda (such as Kuzmuk’s dismissal). However, the specific issues of political responsibility and sound planning are indispensable for the success of reforms that are still far from being satisfactory. In both cases under consideration, an overarching factor was

78 Anatoliy Grytsenko the existing political system, which appears to be a major barrier to improving effectiveness and implementing positive change in the military.

Notes 1 The defence reform process is based on two basic documents: the ‘State Programme for Reform and Development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine by 2005’ and the ‘State Programme of Transition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to Manning with Contract Servicemen’. 2 The S-200 (SA-5 Gammon by the NATO classification) has an effective range of 240 kilometres, travels three times faster than the speed of sound, and can hit targets at an altitude of up to 40,000 metres. 3 See Text of the President of Ukraine’s Speech for the Collegium of the Ministry of Defence on 14 November 2001. 4 For more details on the general state of defence reform in Ukraine see National Security and Defence, 2001, pp. 292–329 and 344–87.

Parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

6

79

Striving for effective parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia David Darchiashvili

Introduction Democratic control of armed forces in Georgia is still far from perfect, in spite of the laws that have been adopted in recent years. Indeed, after the 1991 break away from the Soviet Union (by referendum), Georgia adopted various laws which aimed at establishing democratic accountability of the military and other security forces. However, the two selected case studies show that these new laws did not entirely reflect the reality of Georgian political–military relations. The first case study refers to a long-term process by which the Georgian parliament has tried to install proper control over defence budgets. Notwithstanding American foreign aid aimed at facilitating implementation of a sophisticated defence planning, programming and budgeting system (PPBS), the parliament was unable to exert meaningful control over the way taxpayers’ money was spent on defence. The second case study analyses the lack of parliamentary involvement in overseeing various covert operations (e.g. in the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict zone). These covert operations led to a profound dissatisfaction in parliament and society at large, forcing President Shevardnadze to sack the entire government in 2001. Both case studies exemplify the fact that Georgia is a so-called ‘weak’ state, in which the transition to democracy is hampered by conflicts between executive and legislative power, corruption and whose territorial sovereignty is contested by both paramilitary forces of semi-autonomous regions and Russian ‘peacekeepers’. It gave hope for a brighter future, yet at the same time the 2003 ‘velvet revolution’ underlined the precarious and unstable political situation in Georgia. As Georgia occupies a strategically important geographical location in the Caucasus and because various opposition politicians in Georgia’s neighbouring countries see Georgia’s revolution as a possible model of political change,1 the significance of the Georgian case cannot be underestimated. This chapter is written prior to the velvet revolution, since which further dramatic changes have occurred to civil– military relations in Georgia. Constitutional design has been altered and there have been three different defence ministers. The interior troops have merged with the army, while the border guards have been placed under the ministry of interior. The two selected case studies of Georgian civil–military relations tell the story relevant to the defence policy and system of pre-revolutionary Georgia. These cases are still interesting for two reasons. First, they indicate some reasons why

80 David Darchiashvili the Georgian polity eventually underwent revolutionary changes. Second, these cases occurred rather recently. The new government, as well as civil society in Georgia has to be aware of the systemic shortcomings of the recent past in order not to get caught in the same trap.

Basic constitutional and legal framework The Georgian Constitution provides numerous tools to establish civil democratic control over power agencies. The parliament is entitled to approve the state budget and specify basic directions for the country’s foreign and domestic policy. The parliament decides the size of the armed forces. Parliamentary ratification is mandatory for every defence-related international agreement. According to the Constitution, the president, even as the supreme commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has no right to order troops into action in the event of emergency or for implementation of international obligations without parliamentary approval. The parliament passes laws to regulate the organisation and functions of the armed forces, the laws on defence, interior troops, and state security. Some clauses of these laws stipulate the loyalty of power structures to the Constitution, to the elective government, and to international legal norms. Principles of democratic accountability are based on such fundamental acts of the political system as the law on the budgetary system and budgetary responsibilities, the General Administrative Code etc. The legislation adopted by the Georgian parliament provides for the protection of fundamental civil rights of the personnel of power agencies. Article 12 of the Law on the State Security Service stipulates that officials of the Security Ministry must take measures to enforce the legislation if they receive illegal orders or instructions from their superiors. Transparency and the importance of human rights are reflected in the General Administrative Code. Article 3 of the Code stipulates that information on military issues cannot be classified where citizens’ constitutional rights and freedoms are concerned. The Administrative Code lays down legal boundaries of state secrecy that are generally compatible with the principle of transparency. In accordance with Article 28 of the General Administrative Code, information should be classified only if it can damage national security and only if ‘there are convincing arguments that its disclosure can jeopardise planned or ongoing military, intelligence, or diplomatic actions and physical safety of their participants’. However, the law on state secrets and the list of classified information created on the basis of the law undermines the transparency provisions of the Code. The law on state secrets has been interpreted as a ban on preparing a detailed defence budget. The list of classified information includes data on the location of military sites, military installations, military airfields, army ranges, ordnance depots, etc.; armed formations of civil ministries and departments; the development, disbanding, reorganisation, and renaming of military units, warships, and other institutions; the organisation of troops, the number of personnel, ammunition, military hardware, transport, and logistical maintenance equipment; and staff regulations, staff and

Parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

81

maintaining of units. The list provides little room for transparency of the defence policy if all these requirements are observed. The laws on parliamentary committees, parliamentary ad hoc investigation commissions, and the parliamentary Group of Confidence also deal with parliamentary control over the power agencies. The Group of Confidence is made up of several members of parliament (MPs) and is supposed to provide oversight of special programmes and secret activities in the field of defence and security. The Group’s work is also part of the parliament’s budgetary control over the armed forces. According to the Constitution, the president should secure parliamentary approval to appoint ministers in office, including security, defence and interior ministers. The parliament has the right to impeach ministers and the president. According to the Constitution, the Georgian president has no right to dismiss the parliament. Conversely, the procedure to impeach the president is so complicated that it can be compared to a revolution (which is indeed what occurred in 2003): the president can be charged with violating the Constitution, high treason, or committing a crime and the impeachment must be approved by the Constitutional or Supreme Court and an overwhelming majority (two-thirds of the total votes) of the MPs. Implementation of the impeachment procedure is unlikely in the current Georgian political and legal system, in which the search for consensus has become the accepted way to solve disagreements between the president and the parliament. Another possibility is that one of the branches of power may exert its political influence to subdue all the others. Under such circumstances, subjectivism begins to play a certain role in state management and, particularly, civil control – a rather risky development for civil–military relations (Huntington, 1995). At the same time, the Georgian model of subjectivism is inclined to favour executive power. The president has enough normative leverage to gain advantage over the legislature and judiciary, and in reality power structures in Georgia are under presidential control. As the supreme commander-in-chief and chairman of the National Security Council, the president is entitled to supervise power agencies and plays a decisive role in appointing their leadership. The president is able to dismiss ministers at will, while the parliament can do so only through a complicated impeachment procedure. It is interesting that institutions with the status of presidential consultative bodies – various state commissions, National Security Council, Justice Board – include the Procurator General, MPs, and even the chairman of the Supreme Court as members. This practice brings the various branches of power suspiciously close to each other. In addition, top officers of the military and special services, as well as the defence and interior ministers, who until very recently held the rank of general, are also members of the National Security Council. That is, MPs responsible for overseeing defence and security institutions hold positions as presidential consultative bodies in tandem with political, military and law enforcement officials. It is also noteworthy that the parliament has few opportunities to control some power agencies which do not have the state of ministry yet are independent executive bodies. Parliament has no right to approve appointments of the heads of those executive bodies. The list of such bodies includes the state border defence

82 David Darchiashvili department, the special state guard service and the intelligence department. The apparatus of the National Security Council is also beyond parliamentary control, although it plays an important role in the development and implementation of the security and law-enforcement policies. In addition, numerous laws stipulate that procedural details, which are often very important, should be defined in bylaws and executive orders, while only the president and the government have the prerogative to issue such acts, without parliamentary approval.

A heritage from the past: corruption as a ‘way of life’ Under current Georgian legislation, personnel of the power agencies are prohibited from engaging in any commercial activity. Additionally, the law on the conflict of interests and corruption in the public service aims to counter clan alliances between state officials and businessmen, creating legal barriers against uncontrolled commercialisation of power structures. Public servants have no right to represent their respective agencies in commercial dealings with relatives. The law on the status of military servicemen/servicewomen adopted in 1998 bans the military from certain forms of political activity, reflecting the liberal-democratic principle of a separation between the political and military spheres. However, in practice the conduct of the Georgian power structures does not fully conform to the law. Corruption is the single most serious threat to the viability of several countries of the former Soviet Union (Donnelly, 2001, p. 33), and Georgia is one of the most effected. According to the 2002 review of Transparency International, the level of corruption in Georgia’s state sector is higher than in Russia or in most Latin American and African countries (Transparency International, 2002). A special group to work out basic directions of the anti-corruption programme, which was created by the president’s order in July 2000, warned that ‘corruption has become a way of life in certain areas’ (President of Georgia, 2000, p. 9). Together with ordinary corruption, Georgia possesses a so-called ‘war economy’. In weak states with numerous internal tensions this phenomenon is associated with illegal financial-economic operations and with situations in which the roles of military commander, politician, criminal leader and monopolist supplier merge with each other (Davis et al., 2001, p. 26). Ethnic conflicts and civil wars engulfed Georgia in the early 1990s. All vital areas of state life were controlled by uniformed or non-uniformed paramilitaries, who either ignored the country’s legislation and the state management hierarchy or represented or provided their own interpretation which had little in common with the legislation. Georgia continues to deal with the legacies of that time. Zones of frozen conflicts or other poorly controlled territories have turned into criminal enclaves, and the crime situation has again deteriorated in Tbilisi. According to reports in the media, Georgian law enforcement and security officials are involved in corruption, trade in contraband, tax evasion and serious crime involving kidnapping, drugs and weapons trafficking (Transparency International, 2001). Misappropriation of state funds is another characteristic of

Parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

83

power structures. Such a situation indicates that until the revolutionary events of 2003, the country’s political and legislative leadership was unable to control power agencies efficiently. At the same time, there were enough grounds to suspect some top executive officials or legislators of engaging in clandestine alliances with the criminal world or with those officials of power agencies who had little, if any, respect for the rule of law.

The 2002 defence budget Defence financing is a sphere of civil democratic control in which the role of parliament is especially significant. One of the serious shortcomings of the Georgian budgetary process is the parliament’s inability to amend a budget bill introduced by the president. The parliament cannot approve or reject large purchases by the power agencies, though foreign advisors have repeatedly recommended doing so since 1998 (Personal Communication, 5 February 2001). The parliament has no right to make any amendments to a budget bill brought in by the government – if no compromise is reached, legislators either have to approve the entire bill or reject the whole document. The second option requires serious mobilisation and political courage from MPs. In addition, as admitted by Levan Alapishvili, one of the authors of the legislation on the Group of Confidence, the legislation does not define clearly what measures the Parliamentary Group of Confidence, which is supposed to control special programmes of power agencies, should undertake if its complaints to the president about expediency of a particular special programme of power agencies prove ineffective (Personal Communication, 5 February 2001). Large military procurement deals also do not require parliamentary approval. The parliament can only request or recommend that the government change the budget or vote down the entire bill. In the latter case, the government still has some room for manoeuvre – as it would continue using the budgetary parameters for the previous year. According to one of the senior experts of the parliamentary apparatus during parliamentary debates over the 2002 budget bill, ‘There has never been much point in discussing budgetary bills’ (Personal Communication, 31 October 2001). Furthermore, according to Article 98 of the Constitution, the president is entitled to determine the structure of the armed forces, while the size of the forces is approved by a majority vote in the parliament. As a result, it is unclear how the president and the parliament can legally resolve any disagreement over organisational issues of the armed forces. The 1997 law on defence contradicts this constitutional provision – it states that the structure of the armed forces should be defined by law. Some other clauses of the Law on Defence also contradict the Constitution: Article 78 of the Constitution bans any kind of merger between forces of the Defence Ministry, State Security Ministry and Interior Ministry. However, Georgian law also stipulates that interior troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs are part of the country’s military forces. Yet the parliament retains certain levers to influence the budgeting process. The fiscal and calendar year coincide in Georgia. According to the law, parliament

84 David Darchiashvili receives the final draft from the president in October; thus the parliament has three months to come up with its own position at the level of parliamentary factions and committees, and pass the country’s main financial law through three readings. The Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee and the Group of Confidence functioning under its auspices are to present conclusions on the draft defence budget. It seems logical to assume that the government will try to avoid completely ignoring the legislators’ opinions at all. It is more politic for the government to engage in a long dialogue with MPs in order to reach a compromise, especially if the parliament is more or less unanimous. However, various subjective factors prevent the parliament from implementing even its limited role efficiently. Parliamentary debates over draft defence budgets for example are characterised by lack of transparency and apparent violations or only formal compliance with respective deadlines and stages. In previous years, draft defence budgets submitted to MPs did not exceed one to two pages. The document usually specified the total number of military personnel and some other, quite general, categories such as ‘salaries and trips’ or ‘other products and services’. Explanatory notes were included to justify the proposed general figures. As a result, it was hard to achieve an acceptable transparency. The Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee sometimes received additional clarifications from military commanders. However, as early as March 2000, the chairmen of the Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee and the Parliamentary Group of Confidence complained that they did not feel familiar with financial defence issues (Personal Communication, 21 March 2000). Real steps to promote transparency and eliminate the old Soviet practices in developing and debating defence budgets were made in the late 1990s when the USA assisted Georgia in establishing a Defence Resources Management Office in the Defence Ministry. By summer 2001 the office had prepared a one-year socalled programme defence budget for 2002.2 It was a step forward not only in the field of defence planning but also in parliamentary control. For the first time the parliament and interested NGOs had an opportunity to view a comprehensive document which:

• • •

grouped expenses in accordance with standard Western categories, such as personnel, maintenance of combat efficiency, investments; grouped expenses into eight programmes representing large structural and functional components of the armed forces and specified the number of personnel for each of them; specified parameters to calculate operational efficiency of military units and equipment, and limits on trips, fuel and repairs.

However, the development of a programme budget failed and, respectively, democratic control did not improve substantially. The reason for this failure is that the above described draft defence budget produced by the Defence Ministry in the summer of 2001 raised several unanswered questions in itself:

Parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

• • • • • • • • • •

85

The document stated that the armed forces needed restructuring but it did not specify what kind of process was required. Although the Defence Ministry had declared its plan to cut military personnel, the timetable of the reduction and its financial effects were not specified in the budget. The document did not clarify the rationales governing the division of the various components of the budget into the eight programmes. The draft budget amounted to 71 million GEL (Georgian Lari, about US$33 million) but did not indicate which programme would be curtailed and how, should the figures not be finally approved. Programmes represented general and unequal entities – the Defence Ministry, ground troops, logistical services etc. – and programme elements (for instance, battalions or, at least, brigades) were not detailed. The draft did not specify and justify the number of generals, officers, NCOs and privates in the army. The draft left out procurement prices for food, although the Ministry had been accused of inadequately spending large funds on food for years. The draft did not clarify why 5.3 million GEL were allocated to the general staff, while the entire ground troops were to get only 12.4 million GEL. There was also no explanation why the Ministry itself had 1,300 employees with many more serving the general staff, while the entire ground troops comprised only 8,897 people. Logistical programmes included the expenditure of 6 million GEL on a special programme for which no details were provided.

On the whole, the draft did not display any connection between the expenditure and combat missions, the main objective of a programme budget, which should be based on preliminary planning and programming. The document also mentioned nothing about non-budgetary incomes of the Defence Ministry and received or pending foreign grants. Representatives of the Ministry avoided some of these questions and provided only partial answers to the others. Still, the draft budget was welcomed in the parliament. The Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee launched preliminary hearings on the so-called programme budget of the Defence Ministry in September 2001. Some MPs emphasised that the Ministry’s ‘programmes’ were in fact its renamed departments and the budget did not reveal their connection with any missions. Representatives of the Finance Ministry made similar remarks. Nonbudgetary incomes and the fact that the planned reduction of military personnel was not reflected in the draft were also highlighted during the hearings. The defence minister provided only general explanations to MPs and specified that the Ministry was going to cut the armed forces by 1,000 servicemen in 2002, though he did not discuss expected financial effects of the reduction and why it was not reflected in the draft. The minister promised to provide information about non-budgetary incomes later, after special examination. By and large, the committee and its

86 David Darchiashvili chairman described the draft as reasonably transparent and programmed, and supported it. The committee also supported the total defence expenditure of 71 million GEL specified in the draft. In the meantime, committee hearings revealed that the Finance Ministry was not going to allocate 71 million GEL to defence. MPs should have been aware that the president’s decree of 20 July ordered the Finance Ministry to set a 44 million GEL ceiling for the 2002 defence budget, while the Finance Ministry notified the Defence Ministry as early as 7 August that even this ceiling was not realistic. The defence minister said at the committee hearings that the army could survive with a 44 million defence budget but would be unable to function with less money. On 30 October, the Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee launched hearings on the defence section of the State Budget Bill. According to the Constitution, at this stage all parameters of the Bill should have been co-ordinated with the president and ministers beforehand. However, the defence minister complained to the MPs that the Finance Ministry had slashed the defence budget to 42 million GEL without consulting the Defence Ministry. In his words, the Finance Ministry unilaterally revised financial parameters of the Defence Ministry’s eight so-called programmes. In response, the finance minister highlighted the fact that the total expenditure had been examined at a governmental session and should not have been a surprise for the Defence Ministry. He blamed the military for not having recalculated the programmes properly, saying that the Defence Ministry should have complied with limits imposed by the Finance Ministry, when planning its programmes. ‘There is no 71 million defence budget for me. I have never examined such and will never do’, the finance minister said (Personal Communication, 30 October 2001). It also came into the open during the committee hearings that the total state budget had yet to be co-ordinated with the International Monetary Fund, with the result that there was not much point in discussing allocation of even 42 million GEL. MPs gradually left the hearings, while ministers continued to debate basic principles – who must decide the defence expenditure and what criteria should be applied in the process. The debate showed that even elementary issues had not been resolved in the government. Although it was already late October 2001, MPs had little idea about the nature and feasibility of particular defence programmes, the size of the armed forces, the timetable of military personnel cuts and, on the whole, the financial framework of the defence policy. Moreover, the total procedure of the parliamentary committee hearing remained unclear. There was apparently no quorum at the end of the hearings. The committee chairman made an emotional statement that the president and the government should either allocate 71 million GEL to the Defence Ministry or overrule its arguments; otherwise the committee would reject the entire draft state budget. The finance minister promised MPs that final budget parameters would be presented in November but in reality he did it only on 1 December 2001. Therefore, the parliament had less than a month to analyse the parameters until the end of the fiscal year. Some time later the government revised the budget bill once again and brought in its renewed version on 26 December. The new bill assigned only 36 million GEL to defence.

Parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

87

The situation appeared extraordinary even for the parliamentary majority traditionally obedient to the president. At a session of the parliamentary bureau, almost all political groups condemned such blatant violation of the constitutional timetable of parliamentary debate. ‘This evil practice undermines every possibility for serious debates in the parliament’, the vice-speaker of the parliament (according Personal Communication, 27 December 2001). However, the legislators’ ‘rebellion’ led only to a one-month delay and the budget bill was eventually passed in January 2002. No further committee hearings were held on the issue. The government and the parliament set up a ‘reconciliatory commission’ to resolve the problem but this goodwill gesture of the government had few practical effects. The parliament was unable to make amendments, and any attempt to pass a vote of no confidence with the president and government would have been revolutionary. The parliament did not possess political will to achieve such an outcome. Some MPs, including the chairman of the Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee who had joined the opposition at that time, continued to demand 71 million GEL for defence. However, the government managed to push the budget through, allocating only 36 million GEL to the Defence Ministry. The finance minister promised that if the country’s revenues had exceeded planned figures during the year, the defence budget could have been revised. It might have been a face-saving compromise for some MPs but the parliamentary approval of the 2002 state budget did little to improve parliamentary and, respectively, civil democratic control in the country. After the budget was approved, one of the officers of the defence resources management office of the Defence Ministry said that the plan to introduce programme financing had failed. The initial document proposed by the Defence Ministry was futile, while further calculations and financial parameters of the programmes were prepared outside of this newly created special department of the Ministry. The officer suggested that meagre funds of the approved defence budget should be reallocated between various programmes. Besides, the Defence Ministry could save money by reducing military personnel and directing the saved funds to combat training and maintenance. The Defence Ministry also expected some assistance from foreign countries (Personal Communication, 30 January 2002). All this might have happened. Naturally, the Ministry could have found a solution to the problem, even if it was on the boundary between the law and lawlessness. It is obvious, however, that the parliamentary leverage of civil democratic control, which must be most effective during parliamentary debates over budget bills, proved inefficient. The blame should be laid on the executive branch – the Defence Ministry developed its so-called programme budget without any co-ordination with the Finance Ministry and made little effort to correct the draft afterwards. The president and the Finance Ministry brought to the parliament the final version of the State Budget Bill at the last moment so that legislators had almost no time for debates. MPs also did not prove strong enough – at first they readily agreed with the Defence Ministry’s request for a 71 million GEL defence budget, while later approving a 36 million GEL limit with equal lack of deliberation. MPs did not demand an

88 David Darchiashvili explanation for the nature of the defence programmes nor for detailed calculations of the size of the armed forces and reductions of military personnel. However, there were some exceptions, for instance, the chairman of the Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee. Yet his emotional attitude to the issue and his poorly grounded support of the Defence Ministry’s initial request for a 71 million GEL budget yielded few results. The chairman’s categorical demand that the Defence Ministry should submit a timetable of the planned personnel cuts was lost in a polemic between the Defence and Finance Ministries. Elements of civil control may be found in the fact that the Finance Ministry managed, with presidential approval, to impose its will on the Defence Ministry, the personnel of which, including the defence minister, are overwhelmingly military servicemen. However, the parliament’s role in this story indicated that control was lacking. While MPs are being listened to and their questions usually answered, it looks more like a formal ritual than substantive oversight. Respect for the legislature and MPs’ access to information ends wherever and whenever deemed by the government.

Georgia’s shady ‘covert operations’ The Georgian state’s weakness in building up an army was in some respect compensated for by the assistance which US and NATO experts provided to the Georgian military. The Office of Defence Resources Management in the Georgian MoD was set up with American advice and assistance. Apart from that, the US Army’s European Command Mission worked out a piecemeal plan for Georgian armed forces reforms. However, foreign experts cannot replace the legislative and representative body of the state altogether. It is an axiom of democratic civil– military relations theory that the programming and financing of the defence system needs not only co-ordinated work with other executive bodies (e.g. with the Ministry of Finance), but also transparency and legitimacy on the parliament’s part. Even less permissible is ignoring the parliament in the field of military and security policy, including the planning and implemention of special operations. On the one hand, this topic is very sensitive, and even in democratic countries it is the executive’s prerogative. On the other hand, there should be clear procedural guidelines and mechanisms to convince MPs that such activities are within the limits of the Constitution and declared state policy, and that there are no illegal or subversive activities behind certain special operations. If special operations are unconstitutional, the country’s legislative body is entitled to know all of the details of the military operations and to demand answers for wrongdoings. Georgian legislation exists on the matter, but at least until the November 2003 revolution, the reality was totally different. As early as May 1998, armed clashes occurred in the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict zone, where peacekeeping operations had been in progress since 1994.3 Georgian guerrillas had been supported by official military personnel who moved into the Gali district, which was controlled by the Abkhazian side. As a result of the clash between Georgian and Abkhazian armed formations, some 10,000

Parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

89

civilians were forced to flee their native villages and Georgian forces were withdrawn. The financial cost resulting from this operation amounted to millions. However, the parliament had not been given any explanation about the government’s expectations or figures of the Georgian army when it was getting involved, nor was it given an explanation for why the end was so calamitous. Neither the Parliamentary Investigative Commission nor the Parliamentary Group of Confidence raised any debate about the events. In October 1998, an anti-governmental uprising took place in one of the brigades of the Defence Ministry. It was suppressed by force, leaving behind a number of dead and wounded soldiers. The Georgian Constitution forbids any use of force during a state of emergency without prior parliamentary authorisation. However, a state of emergency was not declared during either the May or October 1998 events and ordinary civilians unexpectedly found themselves amidst military actions. The Georgian parliament failed to demand an answer from the executive for what had happened. Another uprising came on 25 May 2001 in a unit of the National Guard. Fortunately, it was soon calmed down. An example of democratic control was illustrated in this event when rebels came to the Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee meeting. However, the committee hearing was only confined to talks about the army’s poor financial conditions. Some MPs even praised the insurgent officers. One of those officers retired without any problems, while another went abroad for study. Another mysterious military operation took place in the autumn of 2001, which was followed by much more parliamentary attention. Chechen guerrillas, who were assisted by Georgian military officials, travelled across the country and launched military actions in the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict zone against Abkhazians. At first glance it was a kind of illustration for the total ignorance of democratic control. Only afterwards, when the mood became tenser and the mass media reported and complained about it, did the parliament get involved in the process. The whole affair took on the tint of shady adventure and lawlessness on the part of the Georgian law enforcement establishment. The events contradicted Georgia’s official statements.4 This time Georgian MPs displayed more austerity and representatives of law enforcement bodies found themselves in a difficult situation. On 1 November 2001, the president dismissed the entire government. Negative attitudes of the majority of MPs as well as society on the whole towards some high-ranking officials and particularly towards the ministers of interior and defence was said to have been behind the president’s action. General displeasure was caused by the doubts about their involvement with suspicious Chechen groups. However, the formally declared reason of the conflict between the parliament and two law enforcement ministers, which ended up with not only dismissed ministers but also with the parliamentary speaker’s resignation, was absolutely different. The minister of interior intimidated the independent media and the security minister sent his people to the Rustavi 2 TV company for vague official reasons. This barging in was followed by students’ mass rallies and the parliament too did not stay aside. Even the Prosecutor General lost his office.5

90 David Darchiashvili Thus, it was this general crisis which inspired the parliament to act heroically and the president reluctantly parted with his ministers. With increasing aggressiveness the Russian political leadership accused Georgia of covering Chechen terrorists. In turn, the US Defence Department required certain conditions in order to intensify its assistance to Georgia, namely eliminating Chechen fighters’ presence and their uncontrolled relocation throughout Georgia, and dismissal of high-ranking law enforcement officers with doubtful reputations. Western and international diplomatic missions expressed their concern not only about the Chechen fighters’ presence in Georgia but also about an escalation of violence in the GeorgianAbkhazian conflict zone, for which the Georgian side was blamed. According to one high-ranking Western diplomat, the Western diplomatic community felt embarrassed and uneasy given that they had always protected Georgia from the former Soviet metropolis (Personal Communication, November 2001). Foreign reaction also contributed heavily to the belated but adequate measures taken by then President Shevardnadze. In respect to civil–military relations, the November 2001 events can be considered a successful instance of democratic control. The ministers, who held generals’ ranks and represented militarised services of the state, intimidated the free and independent media, the cornerstones of a democracy. The media had openly accused them of corruption, dealings with criminal groups and even likely secret deals with Russian security services. Public indignation led to their removal, but would the parliament have demanded and ultimately achieved their dismissal had it not been for mass demonstrations and strong Western criticism? The answer to this question is not simple. It is linked with the issue of sustainability of civil democratic control. Before the scandal broke out and gained international resonance, Georgian officials had been keeping relevant information secret for quite a long time from the public and MPs. More than that, a number of MPs were aware of the presence of suspicious Chechen groups in the Pankisi valley through various channels. They knew that the valley had become a criminal enclave and that law enforcement bodies were clearly not engaged in improving the situation. Presumably, the presence of Chechens in Georgia was backed by the president’s involuntary or intentional permission. Georgian officials were politically irrational in allowing Chechen armed units to remain in Georgia while fighting against Russia, again violating the Constitution of Georgia. The Constitution clearly states that the redeployment of foreign armed forces on Georgian territory requires parliamentary sanction. It cannot be justified by the fact that Chechnya is not a state in terms of international law. Unfortunately, for various reasons, all of those who knew the case, among them informed MPs, chose to remain silent.6 Later, when Chechen fighters were revealed by the media and were exposed at the epicentre of military actions in the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict zone, both the parliamentary majority and minority were competing with each other to blame the military leadership for aiding this shady undertaking. Even in September and October 2001, emotional speeches of MPs regularly ended up with broad and vague explanations and promises from law enforcement

Parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

91

officials who argued that the situation had developed on its own and they would do their best to relieve the tension (Rustavi 2 TV Channel, 27 September 2001). The chairman of the Defence and Security Committee, who at the same time was head of the parliamentary Group of Confidence, from the beginning insisted that everything happened behind his back and that participants of the shady adventure should have been punished. However, after he had met with the ministers, his passion and criticism faded away. He still insisted on investigating the whole affair and holding responsible those who contributed to this operation from the Georgian side. But he started adding here and there that this was a move to be done in the future, that currently everything was a state secret, not justified for public information. He himself would be willing to fight Abkhazian separatists (Rustavi 2 TV Channel, 25 September, 13 October 2001). The reason for the softening of the rhetoric in the Georgian parliament could have been the Georgian-Chechen groups’ military successes against Abkhazians, reported by the Georgian media in October. This might have raised patriotic sentiments among MPs, who calmed down about military officials voluntarism. It cannot go unnoticed, though, that many Georgian MPs lacked the political will, courage and competence. In several cases they were scared – for instance, one of the MPs disclosed to a journalist that she had information about cooperation between military officials and Georgian-Chechen criminal groups, but she was afraid to name them (Rustavi 2 TV Channel, 23 October 2001). Such fear was partly overcome when officials attacked the independent media and the parliament, and the public expressed their negative attitude towards executives and the inadmissibility of their policy. Political scientist Gia Nodia believed that the removal of high officials, namely the Ministers of Interior and Security and the Prosecutor General, was the year’s most positive event and that the government realised it was impossible to remain indifferent to the people’s will (Nodia, 7–13 January 2002). However, on the whole, this affair and its end indicates the weakness of civil democratic control, and especially the fragility of the parliamentary control. The shady Georgian-Chechen operation carried out in September–October, as well as the unlawful situation in the Pankisi Valley long before, clearly pointed to the criminal and anti-constitutional nature of the establishment in which law enforcement official bodies played an important role. According to the Georgian media, independent experts, and to the broader public, the drug and arms sales in the Pankisi valley, as well as the confinement of kidnapped people, had been under way for years. Georgian security and law enforcement bodies were aware of it and even of criminals’ identities, but there was no counteraction on their part. Moreover, there existed well-grounded doubts about co-operation between criminals and high-ranking security officials. According to unconfirmed information, a group of about 200 of Ruslan Glaev’s fighters, who were the head of Chechen guerrilla groups, camped in the Pankisi valley and crossed all of Georgia, arriving at Abkhazia by the end of summer or the beginning of autumn in unlicensed trucks of the Interior Ministry. By the end of September and beginning of October the group had raided Abkhaz-controlled

92 David Darchiashvili territory, all of this happening without parliament’s attention. The executive denied everything to the end. Intimidation of the media and actions against them followed the disclosure of these events by journalists. Parliament officially ‘punished’ militaries not because of the Georgian-Chechen adventure, but for attacking the independent mass media. Afterwards, none of the removed officials or their subordinates were held responsible. So far, no parliamentary investigation of the affair has been carried out – nor has it even started. The chairmanship of the Defence and Security Committee, however, has been changed. It is not intended here to provide a detailed explanation of the Georgian-Chechen military ‘co-operation’. It cannot be ruled out that Georgian militaries assisted Chechens’ covert operations only for the sake of bribes. Other explanations suggest that Ruslan Gilaev acted under the orders of the Russian security services and aimed to force Georgia into a dangerous game. It is also possible the Georgians wanted to get rid of Chechens without any complications and at the same time score a victory over Abkhazians. Later, as winners, they could have gained political payoffs. If anyone displayed skills of democratic control under these circumstances, it was the students, the media and representatives of the non-governmental sector (as happened during the 2003 ‘velvet revolution’). The parliament only followed the events. However, the fact that it did not investigate the affair and its vagueness in holding officials responsible fed the assumption that many more personnel or structural changes are urgently needed in the higher layers of the government in order to avoid similar situations, when military or security operations do not fall under consolidated civilian democratic control.

Conclusion: the need for political will Consolidated democracies are characterised by social, political and economic parameters. The economic parameter does not necessarily mean prosperity but rather a development tendency and a certain level of social justice. Even poor countries can achieve democracy, provided they develop respective civil and political institutions, efficient state bureaucracy, and constitutionalism with a clear hierarchy of laws, and accountability mechanisms for an elective government (Przeworski et al., 1996). Such a legal liberal-democratic order has not yet been completely achieved in Georgia, due to poor implementation of laws and large-scale corruption in state institutions. Flaws in the legislation and the Constitution contribute to the weakness of parliamentary control. Some laws are vague or appear to be purely declarations. Some simply contradict each other. Additionally, some articles of various laws do not comply with the goals of democratisation. All these aspects negatively affect the quality of civil democratic control. In the case of a major confrontation between the president and the parliament, solutions will be hard to find. The subjectivism rooted in the normative base of defence/security sector is supplemented with elements of a presidential authorit-

Parliamentary control over the armed forces in Georgia

93

arianism. Neither subjectivism nor authoritarianism comply with the principles of civil democratic control by any means. They curb parliamentary control and are detrimental to Georgian democratic statehood. The respective literature emphasises that one of the most serious problems of the security sector in post-Soviet countries is the inadequate legal division of power and of responsibilities between agencies of government, between the offices of the key political leaders, and of ministries and parliament (Donnelly, 2001, p. 34). A lack of experts in the field, especially within the parliament, worsens the problem. These shortages cannot be eliminated without generating broad public support and political will, something that Georgia still needed to achieve up to the very last events. Georgians have a new leadership which came into power after the revolution. The 4 January 2004 presidential elections confirmed that an overwhelming majority of the population is supportive for the prominent oppositional leader, Michael Saakashvili. This individual has a legitimacy that was lacking in Shevardnadze. He is believed to be a genuine reformer, advocating for the democratic development of Georgia. The actual results of the leadership change and the implementation of reforms still remain to be seen, and Georgia faces many challenges in rectifying the weaknesses of its system of democratic control of the armed forces. This includes the two set out in this chapter – formalistic parliamentary scrutiny of the defence budget and its failure to hold the government responsible in the case of illegitimate special operations.

Notes 1 Spokesmen of opposition parties in Belarus and Ukraine regard the Georgian 2003 velvet revolution as possible for their own countries. See Khokhotva, 2003. 2 Based on a planning, programming and budgeting system (PPBS), which relates inputs (funds) to desired outputs (objectives, missions or programmes). 3 Including Russian forces and the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG). 4 For years Georgia has officially denied the presence of Chechen fighters on its territory. Georgia has also emphasised its adherence to peaceful settlement of the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict. 5 At that time, relations between the Speaker of the Parliament Zurab Zhvania and President Shevardnadze became very tense. A few months earlier Zhvania published his letter to the president, where he pointed out the totally corrupt nature of the Georgian state. Following this, Zhvania was regarded as an oppositional figure with ambitions to substitute Shevardnadze. The latter himself hinted about this. To disclaim such accusations, Zhvania declared his resignation on condition that the two above-mentioned ministers should be fired and that the general prosecutor should also resign. 6 A few months later in a TV interview, the then Speaker of the Parliament Zurab Zhvania admitted that he had been aware about problems in Pankisi valley prior to the most dramatic events, when Chechen fighters moved from there to Abkhazia and the fighting started. According to Zhvania it was a mistake to hide the truth from the society and international community until the very last moment (Rustavi 2 TV Channel, 2002).

94 David Darchiashvili

Civilian democratic control in Poland

Part III

Consolidating democracies

95

96 Agnieszka Gogolewska

Civilian democratic control in Poland

7

97

Problems confronting civilian democratic control in Poland Agnieszka Gogolewska

Introduction This chapter argues that after the initial period of difficulties in introducing democratic standards of civil–military relations in Poland, during the years 1996–99 Polish authorities successfully implemented legal and institutional reforms that allowed the civilian politicians to take control of the defence sector away from the military. However, the progress in building democratic civilian control of the military has not been sustained. The model adopted in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) largely restricted civilian control to the civilian minister of defence and a few political appointees, while the role of providing defence expertise and advice remained in the hands of military. In the long term, neglecting the development of civilian defence experts made qualitative change in the management and control procedures impossible and impeded effective execution of democratic civilian control of the military. The inadequate organisation and procedures for civilian personnel management as well as the generally low priority attached to fostering civilian expertise in the field resulted in shrinking cadres of civil servants in the MoD and undermined democratic control over the army. The provisions of the amended law on civil service, introduced in 1999, did not strengthen the civilian component in the MoD; rather, the legislation arrested its development, heavily bureaucratised the personnel policy and contributed to worsening civil–military relations inside the ministry. The corruption scandal of 2001 in the military procurement sector of the MoD made the deficiencies and weakness of such control evident. The affair provoked a personnel shuffle in the military procurement sector, yet the entire corruption-prone institutional design has not yet been rectified. Poland appears to be a particularly interesting case for studying democratic civilian control of the armed forces due to severe civil–military conflicts that the country experienced in the early post-communist period, but also due to subsequent reforms that allowed Poland to overcome problems and meet the basic democratic requirements for accession to NATO. The introduction of profound structural and organisational reforms of the military led to the reduction of the initial 460,000 strong army to 150,000,1 accompanied by downsizing of the military infrastructure and reorganisation of the military districts system as well as a reorientation of the military posture towards defence (Latawski, 1999). Those changes prepared the Polish armed forces both for membership in NATO and for the new system of

98 Agnieszka Gogolewska command and control in the MoD, which was being introduced simultaneously in order to ensure proper division of competencies between the civilians and military and civilian supremacy in the defence sector. It is possible to discern two phases during which civilian democratic control of the military was introduced in Poland. In the first stage, democratic legal and institutional mechanisms were devised and implemented in order to ‘make place’ for civilians in the military realm. These steps were followed by the second, ‘qualitative’ phase of reform in which the civilianisation of the MoD was to take place. It would be difficult to say precisely when the first stage ended and the second began, yet the two phases differed on many dimensions, including such issues as actors involved in the process, aims of the reform and their end results. In this chapter it is argued that while the first, legal-institutional phase of the reform was successful, the progress in building democratic civilian control of the military in Poland was not sustained in the second phase. The degree of civilianisation of the MoD is far from satisfactory, and the overall influence of civilians on the defence and security policy in Poland remains limited. Paradoxically, instead of improving the situation of the civilian cadres, the introduction of the civil service into the MoD had an adverse effect and in some instances contributed to the reversal of civil–military reforms in Poland. The first case study describes the problems related to the civilianisation of the MoD. In the second case study, the deficiencies of the civilian control of defence policy are illustrated through the description of a corruption scandal in the procurement sector in 2001. However, a caveat is due here in relation to the issue of MoD civilianisation. This is not intended to imply any kind of inherent superiority of civilians in the MoD, or that there is an intrinsic difference between civilian and military personnel. They have equal rights as members of the electorate and important tasks in the defence and security sector. Instead, the thesis on the need for progressive civilianisation of the MoD is based on the premises of shared responsibility being the key condition for the effective civilian control of the military, here understood as practical and constitutional ways for national political and military leaders to provide for national defence while maintaining civilian control of the armed forces without allowing partisan interference within the armed forces (Bland, 1995, p. 110). The practical implementation of the principle of shared responsibility is possible on condition that a sufficient number of civilian experts become engaged in the defence planning and management processes. Civilian and military specialists bring different skills and capabilities into defence management, and good management is an indispensable part of proper democratic control of the military. The military offer their professional knowledge and skills, often supplemented by technical awareness of modern security needs while civilians tend to bring greater political and financial awareness and flexibility into the field, qualities that are essential for credible defence planning, programming and management. Additionally, civilian expertise and knowledge of the military environment can be a valuable source of alternative opinions and views for political leaders, thus providing additional tools of control over the armed forces. Therefore, the absence of a civilian

Civilian democratic control in Poland

99

component in the defence sector effectively precludes an emergence of mature and effective democratic control of the military in Poland and elsewhere.

Remaking of the MoD: civilians unwelcome For most of the 1990s Poland was a country notorious for its civil–military conflicts. The problems originated in the institutional reforms of 1991 prepared by the socalled Inter-Ministerial ¦abinsky Commission. It divided the MoD into two separate parts: a mixed civilian–military Ministry of Defence and a purely military general staff. As a result, the powers were distributed in such a way that ministerial access to military resources and information was possible only through the general staff. Thus, the general staff became a semi-independent institution able to regulate the amount of information available to the minister as well as being able to decide on the implementation of ministerial decisions (Parandowska, 1995, p. 12). Moreover, the division of the MoD along civil/military lines led to a widespread perception of the general staff as the exclusive preserve of the military as opposed to the ‘civilian’ ministry, a perception that remained deeply rooted in the senior ranks despite successive MoD reorganisations and limited hiring of civilians to the general staff. The poorly devised institutional reform resulted in over-empowerment of the general staff and encouraged the military to pursue maximum professional autonomy with minimum political control. With the full support of the then President Lech Wa$¥sa, the Chief of General Staff, General Tadeusz Wilecki restricted the powers of civilian ministers, duplicated ministerial departments in the general staff, and gradually took over control of financial, personnel and defence planning (Michta, 1997, pp. 87–90). Before long, the position achieved by the general staff led to the political involvement of the senior military. In a series of political scandals, officers openly contested the principles of civilian democratic control, engaged in electoral campaigns, publicly voiced harsh criticism of the political leadership (Rozbicki, 1996, p. 20) and condemned the government’s military reform plans. The scandals culminated in the infamous ‘Drawsko affair’ in 1994, when the senior military commanders gathered at a dinner in the presence of the president and took an informal vote of no confidence against the civilian minister of defence. Finally, in August 1995 during the anniversary of the Battle of Warsaw of 1920, General Wilecki made a speech in which he viciously attacked the politicians and bitterly criticised military reforms, shocking many observers (Michta, 1997, p. 93). The dramatic situation called for urgent action. The reform carried out in several stages in the years 1996–9 remodelled civil–military relations in Poland and changed the division of executive competencies. The new constitution adopted in 1997 enshrined the principles of political neutrality of the armed forces and civilian democratic control of the military.2 The basic law redistributed powers between the president and the prime minister in the security and defence field. The president remained the supreme commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but in peacetime he would discharge his duties through the minister of defence, and in case of war

100 Agnieszka Gogolewska he would appoint the highest commander of the armed forces on the motion of the prime minister (Mitek, 1997, p. 10). The legislators left certain prerogatives with the president, among them the right to nominate the chief of defence staff and senior military commanders, to invest military ranks on the motion of the minister of defence and to select the members of the National Security Council. However, in general, the responsibility for peacetime management of the military was removed from the president in favour of respective members of the Council of Ministers. Redivision of competencies between the minister of defence and the chief of general staff was the next logical step in the first phase of civil–military reform. It was achieved primarily through the adoption of the Bill on the Minister of National Defence on 14 December 19953 after a long and bitter debate in the parliament. The new law made the general staff a part of the ministry and subordinated the chief of general staff to the prime minister and to the minister of defence. The minister’s decisions in matters concerning structures, organisation and activities of the Polish armed forces became final, and the role of the chief of general staff was supposed to be mainly advisory (Gazeta Wyborcza, 1995, p. 3). Taking the Bill as a point of departure, the so-called ‘Karkoszka Commission’4 worked out further details of the MoD structural reform that consolidated the ministry and were instrumental for the introduction of functioning democratic civilian supervision of the army. The changes were supplemented by the creation of Ground Troops Command, which became operational in 1999 (Grochowski, 1997, pp. 20–1), and by the 31 July 1997 amendment to the Bill on the Professional Military Service that introduced a limited term of office (2–5 years) for selected military positions, including the chief of general staff.5 Thus, in the years 1996–9 a new institutional shape of the MoD emerged. That new order created favourable conditions to suppress military supremacy in defence policy and established fundamentals for effective civilian control of the armed forces, and also enabled Polish accession to NATO. Although undeniably successful, the institutional reform of the MoD was never properly completed. Certain legislative problems were left unresolved, among them the extent of presidential prerogatives in the president’s capacity as supreme commander-in-chief of the armed forces or the issue of the constitutional role of the president in wartime (Grochowski, 1998, p. 11). Secondly, the Bill on the minister of defence was only one of the many regulations needed in defence and security sector and the legislative effort in that field was not sustained. Last but not least, the legislative and structural changes of 1996–9 fell short of introducing mechanisms that would guarantee a progressive civilianisation of the MoD and a long-term balance in civil–military relations. In fact, development of a body of civilian defence experts was never high on the reform agenda. Polish reforms focused exclusively on the empowerment of a civilian minister of defence and a few other political appointees in relation to the chief of general staff and the army. It should not be surprising given that NATO and other Western representatives repeatedly stressed the importance of a civilian minister while only paying lip service to the importance of a civilian specialists cadre (Dandeker, 1994, p. 353).

Civilian democratic control in Poland 101 Even such democratising programmes as Partnership for Peace failed to take civilians into account. Reka Szemerkenyi (1996, p. 68) rightly observed: Western initiatives [...] have all tended to involve a large majority of military personnel. […] From its inception, [PfP] had an excessive military-to-military focus. The virtual absence of civilian defence specialists was one of the communist legacies in Poland and elsewhere in the region, and an additional impediment to the civilianisation of MoD. Most ‘civilian’ experts initially employed in the MoD were retired military personnel who perceived such a posting as a comfortable extension of their military career. As a result of all those factors, the civil–military transformation in Poland failed to build a foundation for the steady development of civilian cadres in the MoD. Instead of a carefully planned civilianisation of the MoD there took place an unsystematic development of the non-military component of ministerial personnel. Recruitment did not follow any carefully devised plan with target figures of civilian employment; rather, it was a random pattern of openings (and sometimes closings) of civilian posts in various departments and offices of the MoD. In that process of tentative civilianisation, apart from the general lack of political will, two other factors had an additional negative influence over the development of democratic civilian control of the military. These were the adoption of the ‘Minister Administers It All’ model of the management and control of the MoD, and the introduction of universal civil service regulations for the ministry. The model adopted in the MoD provided that daily responsibilities for most defence planning, management and administration were vested in the minister of defence or his deputies. In an effort to give the minister sufficient instruments of control over the military, a system was designed in which civilian ministers were expected to exert civilian control largely unaided. Most MoD departments report directly either to the minister or his deputy, or under-secretary of state, and to the general director after the creation of such post. The system resulted in an excessive amount of senior administrative management where government representatives are routinely involved in all details of running defence affairs. Practically all areas of the defence sector, major and minor, became preserves of the minister. Rather than creating incentives to develop a sensible division of labour and delegation of authority within the ministry, the system favoured a military-like, rigid hierarchical structure and caused regular decision-making delays. Moreover, the excessive amount of administrative work did not leave the minister or his deputies adequate time to devote themselves to elaboration of strategic political directions. Instead, their work has become mostly reactive and responsive in character. That excessive focusing of the control system on the civilian minister and a few other political appointees has caused a weakening rather than strengthening of civilian control over the military (DMCS, 2000, pp. 9–10), and contributed to the marginalisation of non-political experts at the lower levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy. The second factor that impeded the development of a cadre of civilian experts

102 Agnieszka Gogolewska in the MoD was, paradoxically, the introduction of the revised and more stringent Law on Civil Service.6 The regulations were expected to help develop a staff of non-political civilian professionals that would form the strong backbone of the MoD. In reality, however, the introduction of the civil service regulations to the MoD was disadvantageous to the emergence of a cadre of career government officials and did more harm than good to those already employed in the ministry. One of the problems was that the Law introduced identical regulations for the civil service throughout the government administration, taking no notice of the specific civil–military environment in the MoD. The new regulations set unified conditions of entry to the service for all ministerial positions, introduced a similar hierarchy of office and personnel policy standards throughout the government administration and provided a degree of legal protection from unjust discharge from service. Although these developments would normally be perceived as advantageous, in the MoD they did not work well because of unique conditions. The legislators failed to take into account the inevitable confrontation between the civil service and the military service following the implementation of the Law, as well as different requirements for administering each service. In the post-communist environment, army officers still regarded many defence and security-related fields as their sole preserve and jealously guarded their positions and influence. Therefore the inflexible implementation of the Law combined with a lack of political support for civilian employment produced many tensions. The problems related to the introduction of civil service regulations could be briefly summarised as the following three items:

• • •

creation of a separate administration for civilians and military with unclear lines of responsibility and, as a result, the complete detachment of civilian personnel policy from the structures where the civilians actually work; elevation of entry conditions significantly above those required for military counterparts with the simultaneous maintenance of much lower remuneration levels; absence of personnel policy, further hampering the development of a civilian expert cadre.

In the period preceding Polish accession to NATO there was a significant increase in the number of civilians working in the MoD. Admittedly, the employment of civilian specialists was not based on central schemes; rather, it was erratic and driven by the immediate needs of departments and the general policy to boost civilian cadres in the MoD. Under the old system, however, the immediate principal had a significant influence over hiring or firing a person and so qualifications, loyalty and good work could earn a promotion or an award. The Law on Civil Service provided for the creation of the function of general director in all the ministries,7 responsible for the recruitment process and the entire personnel, financial and administrative management of government agencies. The general director reports to a respective minister but the security of his or her tenure is legally guaranteed. The general director should be selected in a competitive

Civilian democratic control in Poland 103 recruitment process by the supreme chief of civil service and be politically neutral throughout the term of office. The reality, however, is different in the MoD. The choice of the first general director in the MoD, Tadeusz Diem, was strongly supported by the then prime minister. Similarly Diem’s successor in the position had been formerly deputy general director in the MoD and the departing director carefully arranged his subsequent nomination. Political neutrality is also a fiction. Staying neutral is difficult due to the considerable powers vested in the function of general director, which gives many decisions a political outlook in any case. Moreover, directors themselves are not free from temptations to engage politically. The best example is again the first general director in the MoD, Tadeusz Diem, who left his apolitical office half way through the term to become Under-Secretary of State for Defence Policy. The creation of the post of general director radically changed the structural outlook of the MoD. The Law on Civil Service described in detail the scope of responsibilities for personnel policy of the general director, but the remaining management duties and responsibilities, particularly regarding relations with the minister, were vaguely defined. It created grounds for a potential conflict between the minister of defence and his general director, especially given that the minister’s authority over his own chief manager in the MoD was more limited than his powers over the chief of general staff. Implementation of the provisions of the Law on Civil Service contributed to further bureaucratisation of the Ministry of National Defence. An administrative cell existing in the MoD since 1994 evolved into a large and powerful Department of Administration and Co-ordination (DAK),8 which exchanged its auxiliary administrative support functions into the supreme management role in the entire ministry, additionally responsible for civilian personnel. The heavy, bureaucratic structure and its unclear relation to the military administration caused regular decision-making delays and complicated the organisation and workings of the MoD.9 Among the civilian employees outside the Administrative Department it became a synonym of bureaucratic inefficiency and ignorance. Moreover, administrative structures under the general director’s authority remained in constant conflict over competencies with their military counterparts, which slowed and complicated the exchange of information. Language courses provide a prime example of such problems when information concerning the availability of courses frequently reached civilian cadres (for whom language education is a statutory requirement) after the recruitment process had already finished. The provisions of the revised Law on Civil Service had by far the most serious consequences for personnel policy. The Law radically changed civilian personnel management procedures since the military service had been regulated by separate legislation. Following the implementation of the Law on Civil Service, a strict separation of military and civilian personnel management took place in the MoD. The Department of Cadres continued to manage military personnel, while the civil service corps was taken over by the general director and a small cell in the Administrative Department was created. In practical terms, it meant a complete separation of the civilian cadres from their immediate principals in matters of

104 Agnieszka Gogolewska personnel policy. The influence of principals on the recruitment process and promotion was drastically limited, and in some instances they had no influence at all. Moreover, there was no way they could get rid of an unwanted employee. Such a system provides a degree of protection against biased or prejudiced principals, but it does not tend to promote initiative, good work or loyalty because personnel decisions are taken elsewhere, independently of the opinion of the departmental director or head of section. Moreover, the general director does not participate in meetings other than those of senior ministerial leadership; therefore, under normal circumstances there is no connection between the director and ‘his’ or ‘her’ employees in the ministry. Most problems in civilian personnel policy have their source in the lack of a general career scheme for civil servants. In violation of the provisions of the Law on Civil Service, none of the successive general directors prepared a central programme of appraisal and development of manpower. The only change introduced following the adoption of the Law on Civil Service was in the recruitment procedure. According to its provisions, civilian vacancies must be announced in the special Civil Service Bulletin and filled in through a competitive process. As a result, the civilians coming to the MoD have to meet high levels of criteria, only to find out that their military counterparts did not have to fulfil any such requirements (DMCS, 2000, p. 13). Moreover, only junior level vacancies are filled in a truly competitive way; more senior positions are frequently staffed by people who have already served in the post as a military or in an ‘acting’ capacity. There is no personnel appraisal system either that would justify promotion or its lack. With the sole exception of recruitment, all such personnel decisions are taken arbitrarily by the general director. There were instances when the head of division (a departmental cell) would learn the name of his future senior level employee without being consulted prior to the nomination and without even seeing the person beforehand. Personnel policy attaches the greatest importance to formal qualifications, while work experience or completion of specialised courses count for little. In addition, the rules of the civil service exclude secretarial and support staff from the system and deprive them of chances for further career development. Under the Law on Civil Service, support staff do not qualify for either of the servants’ grades in the two-tier system and their management cell is in another MoD structure. This is most unfortunate because young support staff are prospectively the best potential pool of candidates to become civilian specialists, and excluding them from the ranks of civil servants further weakens the position of civilian personnel vis-à-vis the military. Generally speaking, the system of manpower management is too rigid and should be made more flexible and prepared for quality selection through a fast career path for the best civilian specialists. Such a window of opportunity for the particularly suitable or gifted is necessary in order to build a cadre of highly qualified civilian defence specialists. Last but not least, payment is a problem. Here, the rules again severely discriminate against civilian personnel in the MoD. Their pay is very poor by comparison with their military counterparts and there are no additional allowances to compensate for high living expenses in Warsaw. Little training or further

Civilian democratic control in Poland 105 education is available, and particularly attractive courses are seldom open to competition among the most suitable candidates. Individual education is not encouraged; for example, it is impossible to have an extra day off for examinations or training if the MoD is not the delegating authority. But while the specialised training or language education offers are scarce, the general director regularly offers participation in civil service training that has no connection to the function and work in the MoD, but in which participation may be obligatory under law. These courses typically cover administrative issues, such as public tender procedures, legal regulations, Administrative Code, European integration etc. The problem is that such training is of little use to defence specialists, causes delays at work and upsets military principals. Furthermore, in contrast to their military counterparts, civilians are not financially or otherwise rewarded for obtaining additional qualifications related to their field of specialisation. Finally, the system of employment of civil servants discourages from horizontal transfers between the MoD departments, despite the fact that a system of routine horizontal movement would naturally promote development of much needed defence expertise and experience among the civilians. In the Polish MoD the intention to move from one department to another is typically treated as a vote of noconfidence in one’s own principal and is strongly opposed. Consequently, a narrow career path is the rule at the lower levels of civil service and cannot produce the breadth of knowledge necessary at the more senior levels or in the more military focused areas. While the Law on Civil Service created objective conditions having adverse effects on civilianisation of the MoD, there are also more subjective obstacles to the development of cadres of civilian experts. Despite 12 years of post-communist civil–military transformation, the role of civilians in defence is still understood narrowly as political controllers and not as substantial contributors to defence policy. Unfortunately, such an attitude is shared both by military (especially senior ranks) and politicians inside and outside the defence sector. In one official MoD document there was a paragraph explaining that the importance of civilian employees in the MoD stemmed purely from the constitutional principle of the civilian and democratic control of armed forces. This narrow view of civilians as ‘controllers’ is widespread at all levels of the ministry. While senior military figures acknowledge the necessity of civilian political presence in the MoD leadership in order to assure democratic civilian control, they find it much more difficult to accept civilian employees as fellow defence experts. For example, when the official British advisor to the Minister of Defence, William Jesset, was delegated to the general staff to make an initial appraisal of the ‘Programme for the Reconstruction and Technical Modernisation of the Polish Armed Forces in the years 2001–2006’, some of the officers were so hostile to the idea of a civilian evaluating their plan that they would not even answer his greeting of ‘good morning’. The few senior civilian employees in the MoD also meet sometimes with patronising attitudes from the military, although it would be difficult to call this a rule. Some of that, however, is likely to be a generational problem, since junior ranks appear to cooperate with fellow civilians much more easily.

106 Agnieszka Gogolewska What is more troubling is the same lack of confidence in civilian experts on the part of top MoD leadership and politicians outside the ministry. As a result, the defence policy sector remains militarised in Poland. ‘Defence experts’ invited to appear before parliamentarians or to government meetings are predominantly service officers. The secretariats of senior political appointees are run by the military and officers staff most senior positions. When in 2000 the then general director recommended 14 senior level posts in the MoD to be open for civilians, including director and deputy director in the minister’s secretariat, director of departments for NATO, personnel, science and military education, armaments policy, social affairs and armed forces supply, director of department of foreign military affairs, the incoming Minister of Defence Komorowski personally withdrew those posts from open competition. In the defence policy branch, which is the most civilianised part of the MoD,10 only two out of nine heads of department are civilians, despite the greater overall number of civilian employees in the department.11 Since 2001, even the civilian personnel branch within the administrative and co-ordinating department has been headed by a retired officer, a fact which provoked particular irritation among the civilian cadres. The above facts demonstrate that development of a strong cadre of civilian experts, in reality, was not on the political agenda of successive defence ministers. They have failed to designate key areas for civilian expertise and as a result the engagement of civilians in the MoD proceeded slowly and erratically over the years and was most successful in administrative structures, i.e. those areas not directly related to defence policy making. In 2001, the total number of civilian employees, both specialists and support personnel in the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces was about 55,000 (about 25,000 of whom were women). Of that number, roughly 560 posts out of a total of some 1,900 posts were civilian positions in the MoD and from the point of view of democratic civilian control of the military those were really the key positions. However, a great majority of civilian posts were secretarial, junior and clerical posts: about 200 inspectors (junior entry posts) and another 200 specialists (junior post-entry level). The more senior the level, the fewer civilians there were. Prior to the restructuring in 2002, there were only five posts at the Director or Deputy Director level occupied by civilians in the entire MoD. Out of those five, three directors were retired military and the remaining two were employed in an ‘acting’ capacity for a prolonged period. In April 2002, the MoD underwent a restructuring process after which the defence policy sector, the most ‘civilianised’ sector in the MoD, shrank further. Three formerly separate departments were combined into one structure under a civilian director and deputy director. Not surprisingly, nominations were temporary and in an acting capacity.12 As of April 2003, an open competition for the post of civilian director had yet to be organised. In order to nominate a civil servant to a post, the job must be advertised and theoretically open for competition from the outside the department. Unless this formal process is followed, the acting director cannot receive a permanent nomination. By April 2003 such an announcement had not yet been published, thus the acting director had to wait and in the meantime carry out his duties under temporary nomination. Such provisional status did not

Civilian democratic control in Poland 107 reinforce his position. When the competition was finally organised in the summer of 2003, the acting director won the post. The complete lack of ‘audition schemes’ (systems for monitoring the work performance of civil servants), poor pay, training and career prospects combined with the absence of civilian manpower retention programmes had a predictable effect on the specialist cadre. The corps of civilian specialists in the MoD has been shrinking in recent years. Since 1997, some 440 civilians have left the MoD, some of them as a result of personnel reductions and structural downsizing processes, but many were lost to more promising job offers. The general recession of the job market in Poland slowed this process, but did not stop it. Most unfortunately, in recent months only the best-qualified specialists could find positions in the difficult job market, and they are the ones who quit. There were also some spectacular senior level resignations and sackings. The most spectacular protest against the personnel policy took place in autumn 2000, when nearly 50 specialists left the MoD. The majority of them were qualified and experienced civilians who had participated in Polish negotiations on NATO membership. No effort was made to retain them, and instead of being dismissed, the general director responsible for personnel management was subsequently nominated as UnderSecretary of State for Defence Policy. As a result of the military-dominated structure, the successive ministers of defence and senior management did not have an alternative politically and financially aware civilian advice at their disposal. Nor was such opinion regarded as crucial to defence policy making in Poland. Civilian expertise has not been established as a crucial element of a balanced defence policy. As a result, the present quality of work in the ministry, in the opinion of many insiders as well as external observers, is deteriorating. Since Polish accession to NATO, there has been further regression rather than progress in building civilian defence expertise in Poland and if current policy does not change, progressive albeit selective militarisation of defence policy is likely to take place in Poland.

Procurement and corruption: who controls the controllers? The procurement-related scandals of 2001 highlighted the inadequate MoD organisation, poor management and superficial civilian control. In July 2001, Rzeczpospolita, one of the biggest Polish newspapers, published an article on allegations of corruption in the MoD in connection with the tender for the purchase of howitzer artillery for the Polish armed forces (Kittel and Marsza$ek, 2001, pp. 2–3). According to an unidentified witness, Zbigniew Farmus, the then assistant to the Secretary of State and First Deputy Minister of National Defence Romuald Szeremietiew, was alleged to have demanded in the name of his principal US$100,000 from a foreign representative of the armaments producer in exchange for the promise of winning the howitzers tender. Allegedly, it was not the first such corruption incident connected to military procurement. Moreover, Secretary of State, Romuald Szeremietiew, was presumably involved in many of these illegal activities. At that time, Szeremietiew was responsible for the entire infrastructure

108 Agnieszka Gogolewska and procurement sector, including the organisation of tenders. His procurement policy was often controversial and so was the 1997 tender for howitzers. Howitzers were not on the list of urgent military acquisitions; moreover, the Parliamentary National Defence Committee investigated the tender and negatively assessed the bidding procedures and the final choice of the manufacturer. Similarly, the tender received a disapproving opinion from the Supreme Control Chamber – NIK (Rzeczpospolita, 2001, p. 6). Those alarm signals were, however, disregarded and no action was taken to improve tender procedures or strengthen control of the field. Following the press reports on the alleged corruption in military procurement it became known that the then Minister of Defence Komorowski had ordered investigation of the case by the Military Information Services and that publication of the article had only speeded up the developments. The investigation purportedly revealed a number of potentially corrupting mechanisms in the procurement policy; however, direct evidence of criminal behaviour was not found. Soon afterwards, Farmus was arrested during an attempted escape to Sweden and Minister Szeremietiew was promptly dismissed (Polska Zbrojna, 2001, p. 11). Next, a number of senior level officials connected with the tender were removed from office and replaced by new people. The minister of defence also announced his intention to take further radical steps, primarily to carry out restructuring of the MoD procurement sector to achieve better organisation and transparency. The main impact of reform was to be directed primarily towards far-reaching changes in the organisation of the tender for multipurpose planes. This was in order to ensure transparency of the bidding procedures and to avert accusations of corruption or political motivation in the final choice of the producer. The relatively radical reaction of the minister of defence to allegations of a corruption scandal, although directly linked to the tender for howitzers, had deeper reasons. Deputy Minister Szeremietiew was personally involved in the organisation of the tender for supersonic aircraft and possible corruption in connection with the already ill-famed aircraft tender could have a fatal effect on Poland’s reputation and credibility abroad, particularly with NATO partners, and complicate procurement policy in the future. Additionally, corruption in military procurement was proof of the impotence of civilian democratic control of the military and of inadequate qualification of employees. Radical reforms were needed to wipe away the negative image of toothless civilian control in the infrastructure and procurement sector. Lack of transparency was a typical feature of military procurement and the tender for multipurpose planes provided a striking example. The tender had a ten-year old history when Minister Szeremietiew took charge of it. Those ten years featured a series of scandals, each of them testifying to the lack of strategic vision concerning army development, weakness of procurement planning and poor co-ordination and control of the process. Polish authorities first considered equipping the Polish Air Force with multipurpose planes in January 1992 and it was planned that F-16A planes would be leased. Eventually the government withdrew from the lease and a special inter-governmental commission was

Civilian democratic control in Poland 109 established and tasked with elaboration of technical specifications and other conditions of transaction. For the next several years the organisation of the tender repeatedly fell below standards commonly accepted in democratic countries. The political decision to acquire the multipurpose plane had originally been taken in a ‘security vacuum’ when Poland formally was not a member of any security alliance. Why the decision was sustained after accession to NATO and even became one of the priorities of army modernisation was never explained to the public in a satisfactory way (Karkoszka, 2002, pp. 27–8). Several times between 1992 and 2002, the tender’s closing date was officially announced and then delayed or cancelled, or simply disregarded. Public opinion was never properly informed and little was known publicly about the tender criteria, the offers being considered, or even the composition of the qualifying commission. In 2001, the Polish government was prepared to disregard all earlier decisions and make a ‘gratitude purchase’ of F-16 aircraft in the USA without a tender. The idea was finally dropped, mainly because the American administration preferred a more competitive procedure, but it left a general impression of ambiguous intentions on the part of the Polish authorities (Czwartosz, 2002, p. 5). That negative impression was only deepened when the Secretary of State and First Deputy Minister of Defence Szeremietiew, suddenly announced a plan to close the tender in 76 days. Such a plan, in the opinion of independent specialists, was both undeliverable and compromising to its author. Another defining feature of that and many other tenders was lack of clarity regarding the competencies and responsibilities of the agencies involved. The works of the special commission were complicated by the multiplicity of laws and agendas governing its organisation and procedure. The purchase of new planes was included in the governmental ‘Programme of Restructuring and Modernisation of the Polish Armed Forces 2001–2006’ and regulated by at least two parliamentary acts and several regulations of lower order. The amount of funds necessary for the purchase of multipurpose aircraft by far exceeded the budget of the defence sector, therefore a separate parliamentary law on 25 May 2001 approved prospective transactions. The Bill guaranteed financing the transaction for 15 years from the state budget on the condition that the expenses would not exceed 0.5 per cent of GDP. However, the issues regarding obligatory offset investment in the Polish economy that would compensate the procurement costs were regulated by yet another law, the so-called ‘Offset Bill’ of September 1999, revised and amended specifically to facilitate the aircraft transaction (Choroszy, 2001a, pp. 8–10). Thanks to offset regulations, the military industry sector could have become a beneficiary of the transaction. However, a long-term investment plan that would supplement the Offset Bill was never elaborated. As a result, the Polish side does not have a viable policy to guide its choices among offset offers. Control of procurement was additionally complicated by the simultaneous involvement of three different ministries in the process: the Ministry of the Economy, the Ministry of State Treasury and the Ministry of National Defence. Each minister was responsible for a different aspect of the tender. The minister of economy represented an owner of the military industry property and was charged

110 Agnieszka Gogolewska with realisation of the Offset Bill. The minister of state treasury was responsible for the privatisation of the military industry sector so therefore was also a party to offset negotiations. The technical and defence related side of the acquisition was obviously a responsibility of the minister of defence. The involvement of three different ministries caused great difficulties in negotiations and blurred the division of responsibilities, especially considering that intra-governmental communication and co-operation was poor and caused frequent decision-making delays (Choroszy, 2001b, p. 3). The internal organisation of procurement within the MoD was no better. Generally speaking, there were three separate departments involved in the procurement process: the Department of Armaments Policy, Department of Procurement and Infrastructure and Department of Military Standardisation. All three departments were subordinated to the secretary of state and the first deputy minister of defence and were responsible for different aspects of centrally planned and tri-service purchases and supplies.13 The organisation suffered from typical post-communist diseases: unclear division of functions between the departments, overlapping responsibilities, poor co-ordination of works between various cells in that area, and as a result, disjointed decision-making processes. There were working contacts between the departments and the general staff, but no formal obligation to co-ordinate their works. Consequently, procurement planning and execution was taking place in relative isolation from activities in other defence planning structures in the MoD, which caused problems and contention in the ministry. Additionally, as the British survey revealed, procurement budgets were in the wrong place. The departments in the procurement sector had limited influence on the preparation of the budget as chairs of two out of three budget sub-committees in the MoD could authorise spending on behalf of others, but they lacked functional responsibility for the expenditures. They could not reallocate funds or effectively supervise the mechanics of spending. The lack of functional responsibility further stiffened the procurement procedures and limited decision-making flexibility and control instruments. Finally, in the MoD there was not a single authority that would have the unique task of monitoring the area of procurement in the Polish armed forces. Thus, the secretary of state was the main executor and at the same time chief controller of the procurement policy in the MoD. The concentration of executive and supervisory functions in the hands of one political nominee, combined with low civilian involvement in the procurement policy and an absence of external control mechanisms created conditions conducive to corruption (Kami>ski, 2001, p. 6). The 2001 scandal involving the Secretary of State and First Deputy Minister of Defence, Romuald Szeremietiew, made those problems apparent and alarmed the politicians, especially in light of the fact that relatively few military acquisitions were decided on through a fully competitive process. Most tenders employed the so-called ‘free hand’ procedure whereby the bidding process is not fully competitive and technical specifications could be prepared with a specific producer/supplier in mind. Controllers found it difficult to verify the real reasons for limited competitiveness because decisions were frequently justified by the need for utmost secrecy

Civilian democratic control in Poland 111 of the proceedings. This was yet another sign of the impotence of control mechanisms inside the Polish MoD (Nowak, 2002, pp. 5–6). Soon after the scandal broke it seemed likely to trigger a genuine reform of military procurement. Parliamentary elections that took place a few months later and the subsequent change of government created political conditions favourable to a radical structural rearrangement. In reality, the pompously proclaimed changes in the sector involved affected actual persons rather than reform of the mechanisms. The most important institutional change was moving procurement planning to the General Directorate of Strategic Planning (P-5) in the general staff. It amounted to a regression in the civilianisation of the MoD, invalidating earlier reform in which procurement planning had been moved from the general staff to the Infrastructure Department and earmarked as a civilian function. The corruptionprone amalgamation of the executive and controlling functions vested in one political figure has been sustained, meaning that the reform of the military procurement sector did not bring about a qualitative change.

Conclusion Poland is often perceived as a country that over the past ten years achieved substantial progress in instituting democratic civilian control of the armed forces. This is rightly so. The legal and structural reforms prior to Polish accession to NATO clarified and streamlined control functions in the executive and introduced a modicum of civilian expertise into defence planning. Equally important, the successful civil–military reforms managed to instil a general conviction in the military as well as in the political elite that functioning democratic civilian control was an indispensable feature of modern democracies. However, the principle of civilian democratic control over the military was narrowly understood as a control exercised by politicians over the armed forces and not as a system of shared civil– military responsibility for the defence and security policy of the state. Such a course of transformation should not be too surprising. In fact, NATO and other Western observers promoted a model of civilian control that focused on a civilian minister of defence and promoting military socialisation to democracy. Legal and institutional reforms were emphasised in this model, while little attention was devoted to the long-term development of civilian experts in the field. Polish reforms precisely followed in that direction. Progress in building effective mechanisms of civilian control over the military was not sustained. Rather than fostering the development of a professional cadre of civilian defence specialists as the backbone of democratic control of the military, successive ministers promoted a system in which management and control prerogatives became concentrated in the hands of a few senior political leadership figures. The result of that policy is not only inefficient control, but also poor management of resources in the defence sector and gradual weakening of the civilian component in the MoD. The principle of shared responsibility does not exist in practice. The organisation of the ministry does not promote contacts and co-operation between

112 Agnieszka Gogolewska the various structures and personnel; on the contrary, civilians wanting to move between departments are regarded with suspicion. There are no standards or popularly approved ethics that would guide the civil–military coexistence inside the MoD. Moreover, the introduction of legal provisions for civil service, originally designed to promote and protect civilians in the government service, in the militarised environment of the Ministry of National Defence turned out to be detrimental to the development of a specialised cadre of civilian defence experts. It contributed to greater bureaucratisation of personnel and resource management in the MoD as well as afflicting relations between the two services within the ministry. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the political leadership in the MoD and outside ministerial structures does not recognise or appreciate the importance of civilian expertise in the defence sector. Consequently, in daily routine the general staff becomes an increasingly independent structure and usurps the right to represent the Ministry of Defence in external contacts. The corollary of that situation is that political leaders formally exercise their control powers, yet their knowledge of the defence and security sector is based on military advice and their management of the MoD is dominated by the military as well. Defence policy lacks a strategic vision of long-term development, and the existing procedures for strategic planning increasingly exclude civilians from participating in the process. The corruption scandal of 2001 revealed a dramatic inadequacy of control mechanisms within the defence sector. The weakness of civilian influence on defence planning became manifest also in the case of the plan for the development and modernisation of the armed forces, dubbed ‘Army 2006’, which was prepared by the general staff and turned out to be undeliverable due to financial and political constraints. Unless action is taken in the near future to rectify these problems, a further shrinking of the civilian component and underdevelopment of civilian control is likely to be observed in the MoD. In extreme conditions, democratic civilian control of the military in Poland may be reduced to the symbolic figure of the civilian minister of defence and a token presence of civil servants in the defence sector.

Notes 1 Target figure set out in the ‘Programme for Restructuring and Technical Modernisation of the Polish Armed Forces in the Years 2001–2006’. 2 Article 26 of the Constitution. 3 Dziennik Ustaw, No. 10/1996, Title 56. 4 Andrzej Karkoszka was then the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Policy. 5 Dziennik Ustaw, No. 107 of 15 Sept. 1997, Title 688. 6 ‘Ustawa o s$u (accessed 23 May 2005). 11 That an approval rate of no more than the usual one-fifth was being expected was a notion expressed by parts of the media even on the very day before the vote. See Zimmermann, 1989. 12 The initiative was officially referred to as ‘a chance’. The defence minister stated that it ‘forces us to explain to our youth the purpose of the army’. He also called for a clear rejection of the initiative as a symbol of Swiss self-assertion. Tages-Anzeiger, 24 April 1989. 13 During the campaign, the then defence minister stated that an approval rate of 18 per cent would be disastrous for Switzerland, as well as for the political and military establishment (according to Gilardi, 1998, p. 58). 14 Group Schoch, appointed by the army’s chief of training, Corps Commander Rolf Binder, see Heller, 1994. 15 This interpretation results from an expertise by Professor of National Law Dietrich Schindler concerning the army reform XXI and especially the intended extension of the permanent core of military personnel (professional and contract soldiers). See Schindler, 1999; Haltiner, 2002.

202 Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy

14 International prestige and domestic democratic values in civil–military conflicts Two Irish case studies Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy1 Introduction This chapter examines Irish civil–military relations through two prisms. The first shows how active duty military officers and warrant officers, non-commissioned officers (NCOs), and soldiers, although officially not permitted to engage in political activity, were able to pressure the Irish government into allowing them to form elected representative organisations, which have become quite influential in decision making concerning the Republic of Ireland’s Permanent Defence Forces (PDF).2 The chapter explores why those serving in the military felt the need to agitate for a representative association, despite the risks of disapproval and even punishment, as well as the efforts of the Department of Defence and senior military officers to defend their position prohibiting the formation of such representative associations. The case study concludes by elaborating some of the changes brought about in the Irish military because of the work of these new elected representative organisations. The second case discusses how the changed security environment and evolving nature of peacekeeping stimulated the Irish government, with the support of the military, despite its tradition of military neutrality and non-alignment, to take part in NATO Alliance’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. This occurred even in the face of politicians’ promises to have a referendum on PfP membership before joining, and broad public support of the country’s military neutrality. This case study explains Irish military and diplomatic concerns that the country could be left behind in the changing activities of the international security community unless it too adapted to events. The case raises legal and constitutional issues related to Irish troops serving under foreign (NATO) command, and whether the government has adequately explored the legality of this practice. Finally, the lasting repercussions of this decision on Irish political discourse and attitudes are discussed.

Struggle for representation in the defence forces Those serving in the Irish military share the same democratic rights that other Irish citizens enjoy. However, these rights are circumscribed by the Defence Acts, the Official Secrets Act, Irish military tradition, and the ‘oaths of fealty’ taken by those entering the military, which prohibit, inter alia, membership in political

Civil–military conflicts: two Irish case studies 203 parties or engagement in political activities. Because Irish military regulations expressly prohibit the vast majority of those serving in the armed forces from ‘seeking publicity’ (i.e. contacting the press to discuss issues related to military service), many in the military felt that they had no voice in governmental decisions, which affected many aspects of their lives and careers, including pay, benefits, working conditions and safety issues. Except for these limitations in expressing their opinions and articulating their concerns to the press, however, Ireland’s PDF have long been characterised by a high degree of discipline combined with a democratic professional structure. At least until the recent vocal debates on Irish participation in PfP (covered later in this chapter) and on two relatively recent initiatives – the controversial 1994 Price-Waterhouse study that strongly criticised the Irish military’s efficiency and the February 2000 White Paper, which threatened the military with deep cuts – the defence forces have avoided any involvement in politics. Up until this time (as a matter of fact, since the last days of the Irish Civil War and the establishment of the modern Irish state in late 1922–early 1923 respectively), no suggestion of partiality has been made on the part of the defence forces. The organisational ethos has been so apolitical that, up until the late 1980s, the Irish military still fostered a culture that held the view that ‘airing the military’s dirty laundry in public’ was just ‘not done’. This attitude flourished for decades, even though the Irish army is well integrated into Irish society, living not on isolated military bases or in military enclaves, but rather in homes and apartments alongside their civilian counterparts. Irish service-members are drawn from all segments of society, and remain integrated members of the society, thus ensuring that their ties with the rest of Ireland are strong and well-rooted (Murphy, 1998, pp. 33–4). A brief overview of the history of the republic’s military forces is in order to put this issue into context. Although the Irish military is best known for its contribution to United Nations peacekeeping operations, the de jure primary role of the PDF is to defend the state against aggression. However, its capacity to fulfil this mission has almost always been hampered by a lack of adequate resources. In such a situation, it may well be asked: why does the Irish state maintain a standing army at all? The answer probably lies in the historical background to the foundation of the Irish state. The perceived threat to the democratically elected government and the institutions of the state has always been greater from within the state than from any potential foreign aggressor, except for a period during the Second World War. This may account in part for the disproportionate strength of the army within the Defence Force establishment. Since the founding of the Republic, the independent state of Ireland has never been invaded and its soldiers have not participated in any foreign wars. Security and defence matters are seldom topics of public debate; when they do arise, they are usually in the context of European integration and military neutrality. Furthermore, since the establishment of the modern Irish state, the army has avoided (and is actually prohibited from) any involvement in politics. Unlike most other European countries, the ministerial portfolio of defence is regarded as a minor cabinet post. Successive ministers of defence from different political backgrounds

204 Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy have not been known for their political dynamism or significant contribution to public debate on security or defence (Murphy, 1998, pp. 33–4). For many years, the lack of policy and debate on defence issues reflected a general lack of ideas and interest at all levels. 3 After the Second World War, the Irish army suffered from a lack of purpose and a certain ambiguity regarding its role. Ireland’s initial refusal to join NATO, largely on account of partition (i.e. the retention by the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland) and the adoption of a policy of military neutrality, meant that the army was denied any international role. This decision had serious implications for national defence. A policy of military neutrality requires that the state maintain a credible military deterrent. However, until recently, a country of Ireland’s size and resources could not afford the required investment in armed forces organised along conventional military lines. As a result, the defence forces became rundown in the 1950s and early 1960s. One of the immediate impacts of large-scale participation in UN peacekeeping operations in the 1960s was to lift professional morale out of the routine rut of state ceremonials, guard duty, civilian emergencies and horse shows (Keatinge, 1978, p. 93). It is also generally accepted that participation in UN peacekeeping operations has improved considerably both training and morale in the defence forces. Unfortunately, despite an improvement in the sort of missions and general public support for the military, many enlisted men as well as their families began to face serious difficulties in the late 1980s. In 1987–8, service-members faced deteriorating working conditions and low salaries. Pay for the military was at an all-time low in comparison with other civil servants in similar jobs, such as prison guards and the Garda (police); working conditions were often unacceptable and allowances were falling further and further behind. Due to a variety of reasons, from other legislative priorities to the lack of a united political voice for soldiers as well as military regulations prohibiting those in the forces from speaking to the press, pay and allowances in the military had by the late 1980s reached such a low level that many families began to face serious financial difficulties. Working conditions, as well, had dramatically declined to a point where action was needed. Other armed governmental security forces in Ireland, such as the Garda and prison guards, were much better paid than the soldiers were, even though (as military activists were quick to point out) the military took the same and even more serious risks and – again unlike the other security forces – often had to deploy on overseas peacekeeping missions to foreign countries; despite these facts, the pay differences between the civilian and military sectors were disproportionate, with those in the defence forces getting the short side of the stick. Soldiers’ wives and chaplains were among the first to publicly sound the alarm that conditions in the armed forces were deteriorating. Military families were increasingly challenged to make ends meet financially, with many under the rank of sergeant forced to apply for social welfare benefits. High operational tempo because of peacekeeping commitments and aid to the civil power obligations meant that fathers were often away from home, which caused great difficulties for military families. Military chaplains, aware of these problems, attempted to use the chain

Civil–military conflicts: two Irish case studies 205 of command to help address the most dire cases, but it was clear that piecemeal fixes would not improve this situation; some kind of systematic changes were necessary. Military wives turned out to be a far more effective lobbying group. They began to mobilise to bring attention to the plight of their husbands, first in Dundalk, and then later across the entire country. The National Army Spouses’ Association (NASA) was formed, and began an ambitious programme of marches, letter writing campaigns, television appearances and other forms of lobbying on behalf of their husbands. For example, in 1988, one soldier’s wife was shown on television news declaring that her husband had to work 80 hours a week and for these long hours earned only IR£112 per week (PDFORRA, 1999). The women were very effective in getting their message across; they not only persistently pointed out the differences in pay and conditions between the military and other public service sectors, but also told the press about the problems their husbands faced when their military superiors discovered that their wives were active in NASA. The wives reported that their husbands were being called in by superior officers and received threats of extra duty and blocks to promotion; many soldiers’ wives publicly claimed that these coercion and intimidation tactics were commonplace once a soldier’s wife was known to be active in the NASA movement. Because discussing problems in the forces and arguing in public about military issues is not ‘done’, according to traditional Irish military culture, the military, particularly senior officers and the senior civilians at the Department of Defence, saw the wives’ efforts to bring the problems facing the soldiers into public view as offensive, distasteful and inappropriate. The Irish military (like most military organisations) did not want these issues discussed or debated in public. In an apparent effort to show the public that he was concerned, the Minister of Defence declared that although there were problems, they were not widespread, and were soon to be remedied. This declaration was not seen to be credible, especially as it came on the heels of the Brady Commission (Irish Department of Defence, 1988), which was widely seen as a whitewash; in fact, this Ministry of Defence response only made protests louder. The wives, determined not to be ignored, continued their battle, for instance, marching on the Irish Parliament; they even found candidates to stand for office in the general election, influencing the outcome of at least one race. As this NASA offensive was being pushed forward, some of those serving in the military took action as well. Frustrated with their continuing plight, and cognisant of the fact that other groups in Ireland had successfully improved their working conditions and pay because of the work of well-organised lobbying groups, a small number of activist NCOs unofficially drew up a proposal for a defence forces representative association, which they circulated by hand throughout all of the Irish army barracks. They did this in spite of defence forces regulations prohibiting political activity because they believed, based upon Article 40 of the Irish Constitution, that even those serving in the military were allowed the right of association. By 11 November 1989, one group, ad hoc PDFORRA (Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association) had already established itself

206 Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy and met in County Cork, where it decided, as the ad hoc national executive body, that it would announce its existence as an association from that day on under the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution. One of the first orders of business was to meet in Dublin with the approximately 40 activists elected to represent the different barracks and to seek legal advice on how to form a representative association. At the same time, feelers were put out to EUROMIL (European Association of Military Associations), which offered the Irish soldiers aid, advice and moral support. The Irish representatives of the defence forces who met with EUROMIL supported the fundamental principles of the organisation and saw that they would be applicable to a potential Irish representative association: … all member associations from EUROMIL consider themselves committed to the principle of the Citizen in Uniform. This means that the serviceman has, in principle, the same rights and obligations as any other citizen. A serviceman, who must defend the rights and freedoms of his fellow citizens outside his own national territory, must be entitled to enjoy and make use of these same rights and freedoms in service. This principle requires action by states: the removal of all restrictions on civil and social rights, which do not inevitably result from the military assignment and the constitution of the state in question. Associations made up of servicemen and therefore of responsible citizens in uniform form the basis for fair and active participation in the political life of their countries. One of the central concerns of EUROMIL is to put through the right of association for all active servicemen in Europe. This fundamental human right, which servicemen of all rank- and status groups should enjoy, is still not granted in some countries in Europe and member states of the North Atlantic Alliance. Article 23, (4), of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations says: ‘Everyone has the right to form and to join trade associations for the protections of his interests’. EUROMIL asserts the right to found associations or unions in order to represent social interests (the right of association) and advocates that this practice of association activity has to be anchored in the appropriate national and international laws, agreements and conventions for all servicemen. The right of association includes the right to found an association, the freedom to belong to it, and the possibility of this association and of its members, to act in and on behalf of the association. The right to represent social interests in an association includes not only the right and freedom of founding associations with the aim of safeguarding and furthering the economic and labour conditions, but also of joining this association and acting in and on behalf of the association. It includes also the freedom of setting up the statutes and articles of the association. The right of association can be restricted by a prohibition to strike for political reasons. The member associations from EUROMIL resign from the right to strike. (EUROMIL, 2003).

Civil–military conflicts: two Irish case studies 207 The struggle for representation reached a crisis point soon after delegates of the Irish military attended a EUROMIL conference in Denmark, where Warrant Officer Michael Martin held a press conference about the situation in Ireland. This press conference was covered by the news media in Ireland, where the authorities saw it to be in direct contravention of the defence forces regulation prohibiting seeking publicity. Upon his return to Ireland, Martin learned that the threat of court martial or discharge was hanging in the air, and therefore sought support for his position through the court system. By this time, however, the government was starting to realise that the majority of the public supported the soldiers and their fight.4 Despite the grumbles and whispered threats against Martin, the government then played an unexpected card, surprising Martin and the other activist NCOs who were seeking to establish a representative association by abruptly sending two members of parliament to meet with ad hoc PDFORRA. In 1990, an amendment to the Defence Act was passed, which allowed for the establishment of representative associations for those serving in the defence forces. Representation was now legally allowed for all ranks. Soon thereafter, the Representative Association for Commissioned Officers (RACO) was established. Representative associations would be allowed to submit proposals on welfare, pay and conditions for independent adjudication but were not allowed to make submissions on matters of discipline, operations and command; they were also prohibited from association with organisations outside of the defence forces, and would not have the right to strike (Irish Department of Defence, 1991). The successful establishment of (now statutory) PDFORRA was a major achievement for those serving in the defence forces. Despite opposition from the military leadership and from the civilians in the Department of Defence, a group of soldiers and their wives were able to assert their rights and create a new avenue made up of democratically elected officials to address complaints and problems related to service in the defence forces. Since the founding of PDFORRA, the organisation has reached more than 80 agreements related to pay and conditions with the Irish government and military leadership. Written, formal agreements have been drawn up between PDFORRA and the military on the national level; there are many additional side agreements on the local level. It is not unusual to see a reasonably well-functioning committee address from 20 to 40 issues per year on a local level. RACO has had similar successes. Approximately 90 per cent of all enlisted people are members of PDFORRA and almost 100 per cent of officers are members of RACO. PDFORRA has established a co-operative and synergistic relationship with the Department of Defence, which has given enlisted personnel their first chance in 60 years to influence conditions, pay and terms of service positively. Instead of the old practice of the chaplain going to commanding officers on his own initiative to ‘tell tales out of school’, those serving in the Irish military now have an elected representative with statutory rights to go to their commanding officer to resolve issues. In recent years, pensions were increased by almost 14 per cent due to PDFORRA interventions. Finally, PDFORRA is also active internationally. For

208 Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy instance, the Irish representative association has led EUROMIL in advancing the Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel by lobbying governments in Europe and across the world to ratify the Convention, which gives international legal protection to UN peacekeepers and NGO workers in the field.

Ireland and membership in the partnership for peace (PfP) The decision to join PfP must be seen in the context of changes in Irish defence policy and a reorientation in Irish foreign policy. A bit of background history is essential to understand this conflict and the interests of the different parties involved. Since 1955, membership of the UN has been a cornerstone and determiner of Irish foreign policy (Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, 1996, pp. 149–67 and Irish Department of Defence, 2000, pp. 59–70). For many years, prior to accession to the European Community, the UN was the only forum where Ireland could express its concerns across a wide range of international issues. The building and maintenance of a strong and effective UN, especially in the area of conflict prevention, still forms a key objective of Irish foreign policy, within which Ireland’s traditionally robust contribution to UN peacekeeping operations have come to play a central role. Ireland’s successes in UN peacekeeping operations have built up tremendous good will in the international community and have made the country disproportionately influential in the UN. These successes allow the country to ‘punch above its weight’ in international discussions and decision making; these achievements in peacekeeping operations also give the Irish defence forces legitimacy both at home and abroad. Despite their accomplishments over more than 40 years in the UN arena, however, the primary focus of Ireland’s foreign policy has been increasingly shifting towards Europe since the early 1970s. One of the consequences of the White Paper on Defence (mentioned earlier in this chapter) was that it has allowed the Department of Foreign Affairs to significantly influence matters essentially military in nature; interestingly, this Department has often been supportive of involvement in UN operations even when civil servants in the Departments of Defence and Finance opposed participation. Although both the 1996 Foreign Policy and the 2000 Defence Forces White Papers were vague in many respects, the chapters dealing with overseas peace support operations set out the background to Irish involvement; the factors that must be used to inform the government’s consideration of requests for troops were enunciated in clear terms. What is surprising about the criteria and guidelines outline is how little reference was actually made to them in the debates concerning joining PfP and in discussions seeking approval for participation in specific operations. The key issue relating to peacekeeping and Irish foreign policy arising from the White Paper on Foreign Policy was the focus on maintaining military neutrality while fostering a security role within Europe. This role within Europe was expanded upon in the White Paper on Defence with a commitment to pledge troops to the European Union’s planned Rapid Reaction Force. Participation in UN-led and

Civil–military conflicts: two Irish case studies 209 sponsored operations is not a contentious issue, but the growing trend of recent years to ‘contract out’ peace support operations to regional organisations such as NATO was seen as potentially problematic for a country that has traditionally shied away from difficult or controversial decisions on security and defence issues. The debate stimulated by the publication of the White Paper on Foreign Policy was a welcome attempt to engage the Irish public in the formulation of foreign policy and it has assisted in identifying and clarifying some key issues. The importance of maintaining a clear distinction between traditional peacekeeping and operations involving some degree of enforcement action is not just important for the UN, but also for contributing states like Ireland. Today’s intra-state conflicts present complex and dangerous circumstances not only for peacekeepers, but also for the politicians involved in taking decisions about deploying soldiers to peace operations; while there is general support from the Irish public for participation in such operations, the Irish people are not prepared to accept any significant casualties or unnecessary exposure to risk. Politicians and senior government officials in Ireland are not unlike their counterparts elsewhere; over the last few years, they have repeatedly responded to public opinion (and, some may claim, even succumb to a media-driven agenda) by adapting Irish military and defence policy to the demands of the voters. One of the areas in Irish foreign policy that definitely attracts significant public attention and strong support is the question of Irish military neutrality and nonalignment. The original proposal that Ireland join the UN was controversial in its own time, but it must be remembered that this was a decision taken in full knowledge of the fact that the UN Charter, unlike that of the League of Nations, contained coercive military provisions binding on all member states by the decision of the Security Council. It is noteworthy that Eamon de Valera, a former Irish Prime Minister and the person most associated with Ireland’s policy of neutrality during the Second World War, did not consider that UN membership would present any significant problem for Irish foreign policy. He did, however, share the concern of other deputies regarding the potential military obligations imposed by admission. Despite de Valera’s reservations, it was probably a fear of Ireland being isolated and denied a role on the world stage that finally prompted him to opt for membership. In this way, as has often over the following years been the case with questions of Irish military neutrality, the decision was based on pragmatic considerations, rather than any idealistic or similar commitment to the UN itself. There are interesting parallels with the debate regarding membership of the NATO-sponsored PfP and Irish participation in the UN-mandated but NATOcommanded Stabilisation Force (SFOR) and Kosovo Force (KFOR) missions in the former Yugoslavia. There was a very real fear among officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the military that if Ireland did not join the PfP programme, it would become isolated and out of touch with international developments in peacekeeping. Those fears echoed similar concerns expressed by de Valera some 50 years earlier in relation to membership of the UN.5 Despite its conventional structure, the real role of the defence forces up until recently has been closer in nature to that of a garrison-based gendarmerie than a

210 Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy modern army. In this way, defence from an external threat was not taken seriously (except, as noted above, for a period during the Second World War); most in Ireland believed that the country required little more that a small paramilitary force to quell civil disorder. Therefore, for much of the Republic’s history, and especially since the outbreak of para-military violence in Northern Ireland (known as ‘The Troubles’), aid to the civil power – essentially a policing function – has been a crucial, high-priority task of the Irish military. Competence and familiarity with this mission, together with the defence forces’ emphasis on adaptability and ability to operate independently of large-scale supporting forces, combined to make the Irish forces highly suitable for traditional peacekeeping missions. However, they also contributed to an ambiguity surrounding the role of the defence forces in modern Ireland. Although the Irish commitment to the UN forces in Somalia (UNOSOM II) in the early 1990s was quite small, numbering only around 180 personnel, the decision to participate had significant political and military implications. It was the first time that Irish soldiers participated in a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation of this kind and it set a precedent that helped pave the way for Ireland’s participation in the Stabilisation Force in the former Yugoslavia as well as for formal participation in the PfP. UNOSOM II also marked a watershed in Irish involvement in peacekeeping activities as well as a growing realisation that Ireland could be left behind in the changing nature of the international security environment unless it too adapted to recent events and new trends in peace operations. Though the UN operation in the Congo (ONUC) in the 1960s did involve a degree of enforcement actions to which the Irish contingent was a party, recent decisions to participate in SFOR, KFOR, UNAMET (East Timor) and UNOSOM II were conscious decisions taken in response to the changed international environment and the changed nature of peacekeeping operations. In the case of SFOR, KFOR and UNAMET, the government also agreed to pay all the expenses associated with Irish participation. Although peace support operations are generally associated with the UN, in reality Ireland has contributed to operations under the auspices of NATO, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the European Union for some years. More significantly for the purposes of this chapter, however, it is important to note that Irish participation in the NATO-led, albeit UN-mandated, operations placed Irish troops under the de facto command of NATO for the first time. There are significant legal and constitutional difficulties involved in command and/or control of Irish forces by non-defence force personnel, but successive governments to date have quietly ignored these concerns (Murphy, 1994; Murphy, 1999). Despite the fact that this command and control issue could become a major civil–military conflict at some point in the future, to date it has not. Irish military and other personnel have adapted successfully to such missions, because thus far there has been recognition of the fact that there is an ongoing need to keep up to date in training and to ensure that equipment levels and standards are appropriate to these tasks. In 1994, a leaked confidential report written by Price Waterhouse consultants, who had conducted a study of the Irish military, described the defence forces as,

Civil–military conflicts: two Irish case studies 211 inter alia, ‘badly structured, too old, poorly trained, and inappropriately equipped’. Though this was controversial at the time, the Defence Forces Review Implementation Plan later accepted and adopted the conclusions (Irish Department of Defence, 1996). After neglect over many years by successive governments, most of the deficiencies in structures, training and equipment identified were also self-evident to members of the defence forces.6 However, other perceived shortcomings were not; the Price Waterhouse analysis offered a serious indictment of the levels of collective training and management structures, which they rightly identified as the key to operational capability in the defence forces. This had important implications for participation in UN operations, as deficiencies in training would also undermine operational capability on the ground. As a result, the government committed itself to reorganise the defence forces as an ‘all arms conventional force’. While the Irish military undertook efforts to ensure that its force structure, training and equipment were brought to the standard that they considered necessary to retain their role as respected key members of the international peacekeeping community, the nature of peacekeeping (as outlined above) began to change. To its credit, the Irish government began to recognise that, without making efforts to keep up with the times, the very complexity and evolving nature of peacekeeping might diminish the role of the defence forces. There was a realisation that if Ireland wants to stay in what has been described as the ‘premier league’ of peacekeepers, then it must ensure that it remains capable of meeting the challenges of the new sorts of peace operations that have emerged since the 1990s. The government and the military were aware that although there will always be a need for traditional peacekeeping, there may not always be a need for Irish personnel to form part of such operations. The support from Ireland for the inclusion of the so-called Petersburg Tasks of peacekeeping and similar humanitarian activities into the Amsterdam Treaty on Europe indicated a growing awareness of the need to respond to the changing international security environment. The White Paper on Defence also recognised the changing trends in international peace support operations. At the same time, most likely anticipating public outcry on some possible future deployment, the government has consistently stressed that participation in UN-approved European peace support initiatives does not change Ireland’s traditional policy on military neutrality. This may well be official government policy, but it is hard to reconcile with participation with other European states in military operations of whatever nature, and the increasing co-operation envisaged for European Union states. When the matter of contributing troops to the NATO-led SFOR and KFOR was first being considered, there was general support for the proposal from the main political parties, based upon the consideration of guidelines developed to evaluate whether Irish forces should be used in international operations. The defence forces and the Department of Foreign Affairs considered these guidelines and were satisfied that this mission passed the test; both the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs became strong advocates of the proposal7 (Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, 1999). In July 1999, Ireland agreed to send a

212 Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy transport company to Kosovo as part of KFOR. There was nothing radical or new in this decision, as their role was very similar to that performed by the Irish contingent with UNOSOM II. Nonetheless, Irish involvement in SFOR and KFOR set the scene for a longer-term re-orientation of Irish participation in international peace support operations, particularly with regard to the more robust operations that began in the mid-1990s. Over the course of many discussions about the evolution of peace operations in the 1990s, Irish policy and military experts have often made the case that if the defence forces were to retain the skills and reputation acquired to date in the new context of European security, it would be necessary for them to participate in organisations and programmes such as the PfP, where best contemporary practice is developed. This is all the more true with the UN’s move from traditional peacekeeping to more complex peace support operations conducted by regional organisations with UN approval. But through its participation in these ‘subcontracted operations’, Ireland was seen by some as contributing to the demise of the UN at the behest of the USA and other permanent members of the Security Council. Ireland may also have come under some pressure from its European partners to participate more actively in such initiatives. While non-membership in NATO and the small size of the defence forces were attributes of traditional Irish peacekeeping, they could also be barriers to participation in future UN-mandated but NATO or EU-led regional operations. The government’s assessment of the necessity of Ireland to expand its participation in multilateral operations to include participation in PfP programmes, however accurate, is not necessarily supported among the Irish electorate. Although Irish policy states that there is no conflict between Ireland’s military neutrality and full and active support by Ireland for collective security, based on international law (Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, 1999, p. 8), the Irish people are very proud of and protective towards the country’s tradition of military neutrality and non-alignment. Most Irish governments, on the other hand, including the current one, speak of a ‘pragmatic neutrality’ and dismiss the general electorate’s understanding of the issue as crude and uninformed. Aware of the voters’ sympathies toward and support of neutrality, and perhaps realising that the voters in Ireland might not share the elites’ interest in participation in PfP, politicians made the question of whether or not to join PfP an election issue. While in opposition, the political party Fianna Fáil,8 campaigning for the support of – among others – the pro-neutrality camp, promised a referendum on whether or not Ireland would participate in PfP before any such move would be made. Once in office, however, the Fianna Fáil Taoiseach (head of government) Mr Bertie Ahern, claimed that – after having obtained the advice of the Attorney General on the issue – there was no legal requirement for such a referendum. He then announced that Ireland would participate in PfP programmes (Cusack, 1999, p. 6). Despite having committed to holding a referendum on the issue as part of its election manifesto, the cabinet and later the Dáil (Irish Parliament) approved membership of PfP without holding any referendum in December 1999. This failure to adhere to the earlier commitment to hold a referendum was a further source of

Civil–military conflicts: two Irish case studies 213 controversy in the debate over membership and led – as is illustrated in the conclusion – to other significant credibility problems for the government in the realm of security and defence policy, as well.9

Conclusions When considering these two case studies and what these changes in policy mean for the country in terms of civil–military relations, one sees two quite different outcomes. In the first case, we witness a triumph of the exercise of democratic rights. We see soldiers, despite strong pressure to the contrary, refer their commanders and countrymen to the Constitution and to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and then insist that these rights be applied in their democracy. The German concept of citizen in uniform is successfully invoked. The military and government, despite initial resistance based upon tradition and regulation, decide – once it is clear this initiative has popular support – to allow the requested changes in legislation and regulation. These changes now enshrine in law Irish soldiers’ (somewhat limited but greater than before) rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. In addition, over the more than ten years since this legislation has been enacted, the now legal representative associations have instigated many positive changes in the lives, working conditions and pay of those serving in the Irish defence forces. The decision of the government to take part in PfP, on the other hand, illustrates a victory of the elites’ goals for the country over the people’s self-perception as a neutral, non-aligned nation. There are good arguments to be made for this decision, as well; these range from the need for Ireland to stay relevant in UN ‘subcontracted’ EU- and NATO-led operations to the requirement that Ireland be experienced and ready for future international peacekeeping and – more importantly perhaps – peace enforcement operations and thus continue to enjoy the benefits of its disproportionate (for its size) influence in the UN and in international bodies. The elite understanding of a narrow, ‘pragmatic neutrality’ won the day, while the popular understanding of the concept, as well as Ahern’s promised referendum before joining PfP, fell by the wayside. Later, this decision had a significant impact on the Irish electorate’s attitude towards government assurances regarding the security and defence implications of the Nice Treaty, which was rejected on the occasion of the first referendum on the Treaty in 2001. The government’s decision to participate in PfP without the promised referendum has cast a long shadow for some political groups in Ireland, undermining the people’s trust in its promises and raising questions about the gap between elites’ and the people’s perceptions about Irish neutrality and non-alignment. For example, the ‘Peace and Neutrality Alliance’ (PANA), an umbrella group of organisations in favour of retaining Irish military neutrality and using the UN rather than the EU or NATO for Irish peacekeeping missions (De Bréadún, 2001), has been quite open about its concerns, which include the possibility of the creation of a ‘European army’ linked with NATO and the potential for EU military deployments without what it views as proper democratic accountability. As PANA

214 Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy chairman Roger Cole explained, ‘There is nothing in the Treaty of Nice, which would require a UN mandate before it is used. All we have is the words of politicians, and as we have seen in their decision to join NATO’s PfP, they have no meaning’ (Callaghan, 2001). Distrust of the current government’s motives, tracing back at least in part to the government’s handling of this PfP decision, can also be seen in the strong reaction of those in Ireland’s anti-war movement, who have protested Ireland’s policy of allowing the USA to use Shannon airport in support of the US-led war on Iraq. Many in Ireland have disputed the claims of Bertie Ahern (the Prime Minister), Brian Cowen (the Minister of Foreign Affairs), and Michael Smith (the Minister of Defence), that the use of Shannon by US military aircraft in support of the US war and subsequent operations in Iraq is merely the continuation of a long-standing arrangement for overflights and landings of US military aircraft. They have further disputed the government’s contention that this practice is no more a threat to Irish military neutrality or non-alignment than providing support to US military aircraft en route to participation in UN-mandated peacekeeping operations (Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, 2003; Ahern, 2003). The arguments10 of the Taoiseach, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of defence in support of continuing these overflights and landings have for many in Ireland touched the ‘PfP referendum nerve’ and have elicited great scepticism among those who believe that the current government is not committed to the people’s traditional understanding of military neutrality and non-alignment and is instead buckling under and conforming to the will of the USA. The Irish government’s decision to join PfP, therefore, illustrates that the political and military leadership in this case were convinced that it was worth the risk of alienating a substantial part of the population in order to achieve the desired ends in the international arena. This contributed significantly to suspicions in the Irish electorate about government assurances regarding the military implications of the Nice Treaty. Consequently, during the second Nice Treaty referendum campaign, the government made a solemn Declaration as part of the Nice Treaty, which is known as the Seville Declaration (Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, 2002).11 In this Declaration, Ireland reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish defence forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the auspices of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish government, and (c) the approval of the parliament, in accordance with Irish law.12 One of the first outcomes of this Declaration was an embarrassing reversal in Irish government policy. After the European Union announced that it would be leading a preventive deployment mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ireland vigorously lobbied to obtain a place on the mission; after the government had succeeded in obtaining a number of positions in the force for PDF personnel (Murphy, 2003), Ireland was forced to step back from its offer to contribute personnel because of the commitments made in the Seville Declaration. This was a source of significant embarrassment to Irish diplomats at the Department

Civil–military conflicts: two Irish case studies 215 of Foreign Affairs and to the defence forces.13 The Irish attorney-general advised the government that Ireland could not contribute troops to this mission, as it did not satisfy commitments made by Ireland as part of the Seville Declaration prior to the second Nice Treaty referendum. Critics have argued that this sort of reversal is characteristic of Ireland’s inept posturing on issues of European foreign policy and security co-operation, and it has serious consequences for Irish foreign policy, both within the EU, and with regard to participation in future peacekeeping operations. In the end, it could be said that, despite the clear interest in participation on the part of the national security elites in the country and the obvious benefits to the state on both the international stage and in the military realm that participation in this pioneering EU mission could bring, this deployment of Irish forces was ended because of a paradox generated by a civil–military conflict: Irish participation in this first EU-led peacekeeping operation was not allowed because it did not meet the requirements of the Seville Declaration, which only came into existence as a way to address the Irish electorate’s lingering concerns about the possible compromise of Ireland’s military neutrality and non-alignment in the aftermath of Ahern’s broken campaign promise about joining PfP.

Notes 1 The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Irish, US, or any other government or governmental institution. 2 When the term Defence Forces is used, it refers to the Permanent Defence Forces established under Section 18 (a) of the Defence Act 1954, and includes army, navy, and air corps. 3 More recently, the formation of representative associations and the publication of Strategy Statements, Annual Reports and the White Paper have improved this situation, but the overall level of public debate and knowledge about the armed forces and conditions in them remains abysmally low. 4 The women in NASA who stood for election had cleverly targeted constituencies with heavy concentrations of military personnel and their spouses, such as Counties Kildare, Longford/ Westmeath and Cavan/Monaghan, where traditionally a large part of the army’s vote has gone to Fianna Fáil. The women’s decision to stand for election was crucial for both the public and government to come to realise that the situation in the Defence Forces was a serious problem. Following a successful run in County Kildare – one Member of Parliament lost a seat, it was believed, because of the presence of a NASA candidate on the ballot (though she did not gain it) – the government began to take the issue seriously. 5 Ireland’s willingness to participate in SFOR, despite reservations, was also based upon pragmatic considerations and a desire to play as full a role as possible in world affairs for a country of its size and resources. For example, see Dáil Debates, 14 May 1997, pp. 514–39. 6 In addition, the Report of the Commission on Remuneration and Conditions of Service in the Defence Forces was a damning indictment of not just pay and conditions, but also bureaucratic and ineffective structures, and a remarkably militarily ineffective organisation. 7 It had been hoped to send a company strength contingent to SFOR, but some 50 personnel in a military police capacity were ultimately deployed. 8 This is the country’s largest political party, which was founded by Éamon de Valera in 1926. A centrist political party with strong republican leanings, Fianna Fáil currently holds 80 seats in a coalition government with the Progressive Democrats, which hold eight. Irish members of Parliament are referred to as TDs (Member of Dáil Éireann or Irish Parliament). Mr Bertie Ahern, the party leader, is currently Taoiseach or prime minister.

216 Jean Callaghan and Ray Murphy 9 Despite having broken campaign promises, however, it should be noted that – from a strictly legal point of view – it is generally accepted that there was no requirement to do so, as the agreement concluded still left the discretion with the Irish government regarding Irish participation in individual activities and operations under PfP. 10 Mr Smith said, in an article in the Irish Times on 20 January 2000, ‘we have a lot of contact with America, a lot of business with America, we have a lot of people in this country who depend on America for their jobs’. He also argued that there is ‘no such thing … as complete military neutrality’. There are more than 200 articles and editorials on this issue available from the Irish Times between 1 January 2003 and 1 April 2003, an indicator of how controversial the issue has become in Ireland. 11 At the June 2002 EU summit in Seville, the Irish government declared, ‘Ireland confirms that its participation in the European Union’s common foreign and security policy does not prejudice its traditional policy of military neutrality’. The government apparently believed that one of the main reasons the Irish people rejected the Treaty of Nice in the first referendum in 2001 was because the electorate feared that their country’s policy of military neutrality would be adversely affected. 12 This is referred to as the ‘triple lock mechanism’ agreed as part of the Seville Declaration prior to the Nice Treaty referendum, in which Ireland can only participate in a peacekeeping mission if it is UN authorised, and approved by both the Dáil and Government. 13 Personal communication, Department of Foreign Affairs official, Dublin, March 2003.

Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform 217

15 His master’s voice? Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose

Introduction From a speech of defence minister Manfred Wörner, given to the Army Cadet Academy in Hanover, 10 June 1983: One can easily build a connection to what is called internal freedom and the courage to defend one’s convictions … attitudes growing out of independent thinking, life experience and own values which … [are] … even then expressed when they are not shared by others. … [They] … are essential traits of an officer. … We don’t want ‘apparatchiks’ who permanently adapt to circumstances in order to further their careers. … You have every moral right, even an obligation, to articulate deviating views wherever it appears necessary to serve the basic idea or a higher value system. … There’s hardly anything worse than the ‘pre-emptive obedience’ of one who doesn’t tell the superior what knowledge and conscience demand, but instead what one assumes that the superior wants to hear. … The horrible dictum ‘this is a political issue’ suffocates all independent thinking. We don’t want to have ‘yes men.’ That would be the worst thing that could happen to an army. (cited in Rieger, 1995, p. 109) This credo reflects a basic characteristic of Innere Führung in the Bundeswehr. Whether the defence minister himself and his successors really carried out what is promised here is demonstrated with the help of two cases in which active soldiers publicly contradicted governmental politics. The first one started in 1983 and ended, at least formally, in 1992. The second one began in 1997 and is still going on. The analysis feeds the suspicion that a support of Innere Führung by both political authorities and service personnel is fading. To understand this long-term crisis fully, core elements of Innere Führung are explained beforehand. Background Rearmament was Germany’s price for political integration into the West, as such, it had to be marketed to what at that time was a widely reluctant population. The

218 Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose concept of ‘Innere Führung’1 and the philosophy of the ‘Citizen in Uniform’2 were designed to guarantee democratic control over the new German military. This concept was often expressed by General Wolf von Baudissin, carried forward by a generation of political reformers and their parliamentary allies, and observed and discussed by civil–military leaders everywhere. A new member of the Bundeswehr was to be primarily a citizen, though at the same time a soldier. He was to retain and respect the civil rights assured for every member of the Federal Republic’s political system. He was to possess obligations to exercise those rights and a guarantee within the Bundeswehr structure that those rights would be respected by others. The concept itself, whether in terms of discipline, organisation, or even in the extension of obligations to society as a whole, reflected a number of accusations and criticisms raised against the past era (Kelleher, 1990, p. 27). Innere Führung obliges every action in the armed forces to be in accordance with the ‘vision of good citizenship’ as laid down in the Constitution, i.e. every soldier and officer should act as a free individual, responsible to himself, tied to and sharing solidarity with the community. Some civil rights of German soldiers may be legally limited when it is inevitably necessary to uphold functional requirements of the soldierly job (Rose, 1998a and 1999). The Constitution expressly authorises the legislature to restrict the rights of active duty soldiers with regard to the freedom of assembly, the right to petition in joint actions, the freedom of movement, the inviolability of residence and the basic right ‘to freely express and spread one’s own opinion in word, writing and image’. The ‘Legal Status of Military Personnel Act’ consequently puts limits on soldiers’ freedom of speech. Soldiers are obliged to speak out in favour of the democratic basic order, they have to act with restraint and tactfulness when in a supervisory position, and they have to demonstrate comradeship to their fellow soldiers. When on duty, soldiers may not disturb the office routine and are not allowed to favour any political movement or party. They have to protect government secrets and should not publicly talk about official matters. In their capacity as citizens, however – that is, when off duty – soldiers’ expressions of opinion should not give the impression of an official statement; instead, they must be clearly described as their individual private views. This limited freedom of speech is the basis of German military law and elucidates the guiding principle of the ‘Citizen in Uniform’. In their double role as citizens in German society and citizens in uniform, soldiers are expected to participate in political discussions about security and peace by bringing in their expertise, thus indispensably contributing to the furthering development of the democratic community (Ebeling et al., 2002, p. 25). Innere Führung aims at removing the oppression of human individuality, which easily can occur in a hierarchically organised military system dominated by the principle of order and obedience (Rose, 1998b). More importantly, the guiding idea of the ‘Citizen in Uniform’ is intended to do away with miserable treatment

Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform 219 of subordinates once and for all. Citizens in uniform are expected to critically form their own opinions and to stand up for their convictions. In times past the German military used to be marked by an elitist solidarity mentality, which considerably contributed to the fateful acceptance of a ‘state within the state’. The really revolutionary aspect of this military reform lies in General von Baudissin’s belief that the German military had to be freed from its mentality by democratising the armed forces as much as possible. The new German military pre-World War II should instead perceive itself to be an integral part of society, fulfilling the duties and enjoying the rights which an open and pluralistic community provides. Innere Führung and the concept of the ‘Citizen in Uniform’, in essence, do not conflict at all with the Bundeswehr’s operational effectiveness, as some traditionalist critics had argued when these leadership philosophies were initially implemented. The basic idea is to let soldiers experience their constitutionally guaranteed democratic rights when serving. From this point of view, Innere Führung may be seen as a political and psychological force multiplier, which leads to a citizensoldier who serves out of conviction, thus enhancing instead of destroying or adversely affecting operational effectiveness.

Soldiers interfering in security policy: the Darmstadt Signal3 In December 1979, NATO’s ministers of foreign affairs and of defence decided to modernise NATO’s land-based medium-range ballistic nuclear missile systems. The weapon systems were only to be deployed if future armament control negotiations with the Warsaw Pact were to fail. Such negotiations were not in sight at that time. From the beginning, this move was vehemently criticised by society. Actors in the public discourse were individual peace researchers and peace movements, on the one side, and the ruling political elites, especially the German Ministry of Defence, on the other. The Ministry of Defence underlined that the Bundeswehr at large would unanimously endorse nuclear rearmament as an inevitable military action. In September 1983, a group, calling itself ‘Das Darmstädter Signal’ (The Darmstadt Signal),4 entered the dispute by publishing a flyer entitled ‘Active soldiers and employees of the Bundeswehr say NO to stationing new nuclear missiles in our country’. The arms race in the East and West, they said, endangers mankind. The possibility of nuclear wars, even accidental ones, required a reversal of this policy. ‘We can and must start with it’. The flyer was signed by three active officers, who gave their contact addresses, followed by a listing of all 20, who were the first signers of a previous founding document, including full addresses and military ranks. The surprise was not in the contents of the appeal – which more or less repeated what had been openly discussed by others in the years before – but in the fact that active members of the Bundeswehr contradicted the official position of their own government and of the military establishment.

220 Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose The soldiers of the Darmstadt Signal explicitly emphasised their self-perception as citizens and military experts (Rieger, 1995, p. 82), who in accordance with Innere Führung – as citizens in uniform – had the right and the duty to participate in political processes. ‘We perceive ourselves, of course, as truly serving soldiers in our official military functions but [also] as critically acting soldiers in our political activities’ (Presseerklärung, 1983). Indeed, the concept of ‘Citizen in Uniform’ ‘derives the motivation [of the soldiers] for defence from the possibility of identification with the political system … and prevents soldiers on military duty from being degraded to objects and from encroachment on their human dignity’ (von Schubert, 1977, p. 275). An ‘apolitical citizen and soldier, standing beyond political responsibility, forms a sharp contrast to the ideal of the citizen in uniform’ (Rössler, 1977, p. 129). The Darmstadt Signal’s concern The Darmstadt Signal members, throughout their campaign, consistently maintained that the strategy of nuclear deterrence would cause them a moral dilemma because, should nuclear deterrence fail, it would mean indiscriminate mass killing. According to their experience, numerous other soldiers shared their reservations. As information about differing positions was the basis of political education in the Bundeswehr, prevailing NATO doctrine should have been openly discussed in the rank and file. The Darmstadt Signal intended to carry peacemovement ideas to the troops in order to familiarise them with arguments exchanged in society, but not inside the Bundeswehr, to that date. Consequently, the Darmstadt Signal addressed several military periodicals and other relevant journals, asking them to publish the Darmstadt Signal position statements in order to present them before soldiers and officers for discussion. Not unexpectedly, there were friendly but firmly negative reactions from the military side. One chief editor admitted that he had read the statement with great interest, but his interpretation of military legal provisions prevented him from publishing on this issue. The Defence Ministry argued that it had already published numerous articles in the field of security and defence policy. Therefore, they asked for understanding in their decision not to continue publishing any further pieces on this topic. In reality, however, the political leaders of the Bundeswehr must have believed themselves to be under substantial pressure. The news of active soldiers publicly contradicting the official defence doctrine spread quickly in the media. A labour union official commented that the touchiness on this issue in the Ministry of Defence was alarming. The times of Baudissin seemed to have gone long ago. One was left with the strong impression that the military was not willing to be questioned anymore. Symptomatically, a minister of state played down the activities of the Darmstadt Signal and called demonstrators, who had announced plans to protest and a blocking of military installations, ‘radical criminals’ (Friedensbewegung, 1986).

Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform 221 The Darmstadt Signal then asked the Minister of Defence, Wörner, to support their concerns. Wörner, correctly, let the petitioners know that soldiers could inform themselves in publicly available media, which they were officially provided by the Bundeswehr. Military periodicals only supplement non-military media. Of course, any soldier could comment personally on military periodicals by letters to the editor, but it would be up to the editor to decide whether such letters would be published or not. Muzzling dissidents – a top-down scenario Such official reactions by the establishment sound correct and logical but do not disclose the full truth. The further development in the Darmstadt Signal affair shows that political actors in the Ministry of Defence, strongly backed by military leaders, tried to utilise all non-illegal means to isolate the Darmstadt Signal supporters and to deny any platform for discussion within the ministry’s sphere of influence. One may show some understanding for the actions of these officials when consideration is made of the political conditions in those times of the Cold War. Those in power may have feared that an extensive internal Bundeswehr debate would harm the effectiveness of deterrence. Officials must have known, however, that this meant a violation of the spirit of Innere Führung yet they still deliberately may have done just that. Understandably, such behaviour is facilitated by the numerous instruments and measures available to military authorities to uphold discipline and to reach a desired end state. Ignoring and slandering the Darmstadt Signal The reproach that the members of the Darmstadt Signal were insufficiently informed about defence and security matters was a constant Ministry of Defence refrain in response to the allegations of the Darmstadt Signal. The Ministry of Defence claimed that the Darmstadt Signal called for a one-sided political avowal, which therefore was not sufficient for creating an informed opinion. The four-star General Inspector of the Bundeswehr5 warned that any officer criticising and ‘distorting’ the government’s policy, thereby giving the impression of a wellinformed member of the executive, had to be reined in. Admiral Wellershoff, who later became general inspector, questioned the expert knowledge of the Darmstadt Signal and therefore saw no basis for discourse. One should recall, however, that the positions promoted by the Darmstadt Signal originated in part from discussions among those in the peace movement in Germany at large, involving numerous distinguished academics, writers and political scientists. The ministry also asserted that the position of the Darmstadt Signal was an inadmissible distortion of reality and that the supporters of the Darmstadt Signal formed only a negligible minority of the troops. The ministry could and should have known better. In 1983, the German Armed Forces Institute for Social Research

222 Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose (SOWI) had submitted an empirical study to the ministry concerning ‘education in the Bundeswehr’. It revealed that a majority of conscripts and career soldiers and officers objected to the nuclear option of the then prevailing military doctrine and were strictly against deploying nuclear weapons in Germany. The study was originally planned to be published but was (erroneously) declared an ‘expert finding’ to the ministry, which meant the study consequently had to be treated confidentially and remain unpublished. However, by the end of 1984, through peace movement channels, a grey copy of the study came onto the open press, thus substantially compromising the Ministry of Defence position. In the autumn/winter of 1983–4, German writers declared their solidarity with the Darmstadt Signal – among them famous writers and poets like Heinrich Böll, Günter Grass and Luise Rinser. Günter Grass appreciated the contacts because, to his knowledge, this was the first time in German history that writers and active officers had talks about peace. Heinrich Böll welcomed the fact that German officers had broken Defence Minister Wörner’s ‘untouchability directive’, as he called it, by talking with the authors. Even as late as 1986, however, an article in the semi-official periodical for reservists in Germany questioned whether one could have serious talks with these persons about ethicalmoral questions. With special regard to the officers, the article complacently remarked, ‘If I know who your friends are, I know who you are’. How right it was! But that goes both ways: the use of this cliché also demonstrates who the friends of the author of the article were. A similar impudent gaffe came out in an army periodical in 1987. A Lt. Col. interviewed the commander of military intelligence in the Bundeswehr, asking what his opinion was of the Darmstadt Signal’s actions against the Bundeswehr. Would forces, he asked, who were not grounded in democracy [sic!] through such demonstrations for peace, undermine the fighting power of the Bundeswehr? Prudently, the commander responded that his task was to fight unconstitutional offences by soldiers. In connection with the Darmstadt Signal, no unconstitutional background had been seen so far (at that time). The Lt. Col.’s insinuation of anticonstitutional behaviour on the part of the Darmstadt Signal resulted in a formal complaint against the officer, after he had refused a heart-to-heart talk with a member of Darmstadt Signal. The complainant’s charges were upheld. A later parliamentary inquiry then urged the minister of defence to declare that he would not support the Lt. Col.’s insinuation. Imposing a ban on communications with the Darmstadt Signal The entrenched positions of the conflicting parties called mediators into action. The parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, in his 1983 annual report to the parliament, admonished the Defence Ministry to treat soldiers equally. This report said that it was inappropriate to judge comments for and against rearmament differently. Further appeals by superiors for subordinates to leave political parties because the positions of these parties was contrary to the majority in parliament, had to be stopped (Rieger, 1995, p. 157).

Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform 223 The Protestant Church tried to bring together the above mentioned writers, the Darmstadt Signal, and the Defence Ministry, by inviting them all to a seminar on ‘The Future of Security and Peace’ in January 1984. The writers had sharply criticised the NATO Double Track decision before, arguing that the new weapons were instruments of genocide and therefore unconstitutional (Rieger, 1995, p. 164). The military establishment, naturally, reacted with shock to this statement. Numerous soldiers accepted the invitation to the seminar, amongst them full colonels from the Ministry of Defence. However, the defence minister officially ordered the soldiers not to attend the seminar. Soldiers should not participate in events which deliberately ‘slander’ the Bundeswehr by raising the reproach of breaching the Constitution. For a long time this ministerial directive was referred to as a ‘muzzle order’. The paralysis of communication6 slowly spread to the ‘youth information officers’. In the framework of public relations, these lieutenants and captains maintain contact preferably with the younger strata of society by informing them about and discussing with them the armed forces’ view on defence and security policy. They are frequent speakers in panel discussions in schools, universities, seminars etc. Following the ‘muzzle order’, youth information officers increasingly rejected invitations to speak at such events when a member of the Darmstadt Signal was on the speakers’ list. As late as 1990, a high-ranking command staff still could not appoint a representative because the directive of Defence Minister Wörner prohibited a simultaneous appearance of an official representative of the Bundeswehr and of the Darmstadt Signal (Rieger, 1995, p. 228). To the end, supporters of the Darmstadt Signal saw themselves as relatively isolated, at least where debates about security and defence policy with official military representatives were concerned. There is evidence that organisers of such events apologised to Darmstadt Signal members for not having invited them as this would have meant not having representatives of the military on the agenda. In the peace movement and in the media outside the Bundeswehr, however, the Darmstadt Signal continued to play a remarkable role. Sanctioning the hardened nay-sayers The Darmstadt Signal affair, as one may have expected, initiated numerous legal clashes on both sides. Like any other military, the Bundeswehr provides a substantial toolbox of positive and negative formal sanctions to superiors who are entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Subordinates, in return, may protect their rights by appealing against superiors’ decisions in several ways, for instance, by bringing their cases before an ordinary court of law, or by addressing a petition to the parliamentary commissioner for the Bundeswehr. Under the Bundeswehr’s disciplinary code, no higher line superior is allowed to correct a decision on disciplinary matters ordered by a lower line superior, no matter what the outcome was.7 This rule ensures that disciplinary actions cannot be ordered against the will of the responsible superior. There is a grey zone, however, which was utilised in the case of the Darmstadt Signal. Top ranking

224 Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose generals gave interviews to non-military newspapers about their views of the affair and had ample access to military publications, too – something that the Darmstadt Signal had been denied earlier and which constituted an obvious inequality of weapons. The top military officers did not directly encourage the disciplinary superiors to initiate an inquiry; instead they broadly discussed the ostensible ‘violations’ by military people in the Darmstadt Signal, who were accused of not being loyal to the state. A military officer, it was claimed, who openly criticised the government’s security and defence policy, was said to have violated his military duties. It was also said to be illegal to contradict a military superior in his interpretation of the government’s policy. Finally, the Ministry of Defence charged that military officers, who claimed conscientious and moral reservations towards nuclear rearmament and to the prevailing defence doctrine, were criticising their fellow officers who were not doing so, and were thus violating their duty of comradeship. Whether or not these accusations were the true convictions of the top officers in charge, in the end they influenced public opinion in the armed forces, channelling possible disciplinary actions in a desired direction. Superiors with disciplinary power chose, however, different strategies. Most of them saw no reason to react at all. Some, assisted by their legal advisers, explicitly opposed any disciplinary rebuke. It is known that, in some cases, superiors with disciplinary power sanctioned incriminated Darmstadt Signal members with the weakest possible measure, thus protecting them from any further prosecution as no offence may be prosecuted twice. In the military setting, the overall availability of military manpower is, without question, a useful instrument for personnel management. The standing argument that ‘you have to do your duty wherever we post you’ seems to be one of the real characteristics of a soldier’s job. Even today, this argument remains one of the atavistic means of eliminating unpopular critics by posting critics to positions where they can no longer attract notice. In order to camouflage these de facto forced reassignments, officials generally justify them with duty related contingencies such as personal development requirements. During the Darmstadt Signal affair, several officers were transferred to positions where they no longer had subordinates. Criminalising Darmstadt Signal members In late 1984, during a public panel discussion, a German medical doctor and member of the ‘International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War’ (IPPNW) argued that, considering the inevitable collateral damage of nuclear warfare, one may call every soldier a potential murderer. Addressing a youth information officer who participated in the panel, he emphasised that this would also apply to the youth officer. The youth officer took the case to a criminal court. The Ministry of Defence joined him as co-plaintiff. In 1987, the physician was initially declared guilty of slander and inciting the masses.

Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform 225 The physician filed an appeal against the decision and was exonerated. Next, a public prosecutor and the Ministry of Defence lodged an appeal. The case then had to be reopened. In October 1989, the physician was acquitted again. The court argued that subjectively and objectively the physician had insulted the youth officer, but that the physician had acted to safeguard his legitimate interests. In competition with the legal protection against slander, the right to publicly express and defend one’s own convictions is the more valuable public good. A personal storm of public indignation grew out of the acquittal. Active soldiers and reservists were angered and felt insulted. The General Inspector of the Bundeswehr threatened to step down from his office. High-ranking military officers publicly criticised the judgement but, in so doing, ignored the fact that in a constitutional state, they, as members of the executive, are not entitled to criticise the judiciary’s rulings. The public debate in general stayed rather superficial with regard to the underlying question of conflict between two fundamental democratic rights (legal protection against slander and freedom of speech) was concerned. The Bundeswehr establishment was no exception in this regard as it rejected the ‘murderer reproach’ without referring to the in-depth legal justification of the judgement.8 Some critics even suspected that Bundeswehr officials were interested in livening things up a bit. In this heated situation, the Darmstadt Signal issued a press release stating that it welcomed the judgement. On the one hand, the struggle of opinions is an essential element of a democratic society; on the other hand, the statement ‘all soldiers are potential murderers’ was correct. Citizens in uniform did not need a specific protection of honour. In contrast to the Ministry of Defence, the Darmstadt Signal saw the necessity of discussing the judgment and its justification in detail, within and outside of the Bundeswehr. The Bundeswehr obviously must have seen the unique chance then to deliver a deathblow to the Darmstadt Signal once and for all. A directive from the ministry demanded a disciplinary inquiry of those who had signed the press release; during the investigations, any personnel development measures of those involved had to be suspended. The results, however, turned out to be rather meagre: one ‘delinquent’ was transferred to another unit – a forced reassignment – while two others received disciplinary punishment. A majority of superiors refrained from disciplinary punishment but decided that a warning would be enough. These officers and their legal advisers may have had a decision in mind, which the Federal Administrational Court had released in 1986.9 It had ruled: Soldiers and superiors are entitled to deal critically, in words and in writing, with political issues, including questions of defence policy, and may even be in disagreement with the opinions of their superiors and fellow soldiers. In this context, they may in general mention their military affiliation by giving their military rank. (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 1986)

226 Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose It is likely that, because the Ministry of Defence was dissatisfied with the outcome of the previous disciplinary campaign, it itself in 1990 instituted legal proceedings before the Disciplinary Court against six of the officers who had signed the Darmstadt Signal press release and had not previously been subject to disciplinary punishment for this alleged offence. As a result, in 1991, a major was downgraded to the rank of a captain, and another major and a captain were demoted to the rank of second lieutenant.10 A cadet was denied promotion for a three-year period. The Court was of the opinion that those accused had slandered the soldiers of the Bundeswehr and that their behaviour was an example of demagoguery and hypocritical agitation. Soldiers also enjoy freedom of speech The convicted appealed these rulings, so the case was brought to all legal venues and was finally tried before the Supreme Federal Constitutional Court. The Court, in July 1992, argued that punishments administered to the officers were excessive. It tersely decided that Article 5 of the German Constitutional Basic Law was violated. This article states (in paragraph 1, sentence 1): ‘Everyone has the right to freely express and spread one’s own opinion in word, writing, and image and to inform oneself in an unhindered manner from openly available sources’. Consequently, all officers were rehabilitated. One major was fined a sum of 500 German Marks11 because of a minor disciplinary offence. The Darmstadt Signal is still active. Twenty of its approximately 200 sympathisers serve in the Bundeswehr. The perception of the Darmstadt Signal by Bundeswehr officials, however, has not substantially changed over the years. An open discussion in military publications still does not occur. Serving members of the Darmstadt Signal are ignored and distrustfully observed and still, sometimes, face hard times.12

Bringing a critical scholar-soldier under the whip One should expect that Bundeswehr officials would have learned from the Darmstadt Signal experience. Far from it!13 This is clearly evidenced in the case of Lt. Col. Jürgen Rose.14 The incriminated ‘offences’ In 1997, Rose attended a conference on security policy issues in Berlin. Attendees of the event were high-ranking officers, academics, political analysts, politicians and journalists – members of the so-called ‘strategic community’. Speakers and lecturers were top-level politicians, e.g. ministers of defence and foreign affairs, as well as top military officers. The minister of defence at the time, Volker Rühe, spoke about current issues in German security policy. During the question and answer period, Rose – in full uniform – posed a question concerning the legitimacy of preserving the conscription system in Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall

Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform 227 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which, at that time, had reduced German security threats to a minimal level. The minister obviously had difficulties in sufficiently explaining his own position in this respect and did not seem to be happy with the question. Upon his return to his office at the Marshall Center,15 Rose was immediately summoned to his German military line superiors, a full colonel and a retired three star general. They informed him about a directive by Rühe to the deputy General Inspector of the Bundeswehr, a vice admiral, to launch investigations against him. Both superiors criticised Rose’s performance fiercely, and ordered him never again to act this way. Rose rejected this request. He pointed out that the principles of Innere Führung gave him the opportunity to exercise his right of free speech, as guaranteed by the German Constitution. However, instead of protecting Rose and refraining from any action against him – which normally would have been their obligation under the concept of Innere Führung – both superiors insisted upon supporting the minister’s directive. After intensive consultations with the Director of Research at the Marshall Center16 and other academic colleagues, Rose reached a conclusion, which most scholars would likely have made in such a situation: he started to thoroughly analyse the prospects and problems of maintaining the conscription system in Germany. In October 1997, one of the leading German newspapers published a slightly changed version of his paper under the title ‘Conscription Can’t Be Preserved: Commenting on an Unwelcome Debate’ (Rose, 1997). Without having informed him in advance, the newspaper added Rose’s military rank, and did not clarify that he was expressing his individual findings. These two issues formed the basis of the ministry’s subsequent reactions. Sanctions: the establishment strikes back Whereas the Dean of the Marshall Center’s College, a full US army colonel, congratulated Rose on his article, the German military hierarchy instantly started its investigation routine. Rose had to appear before his direct military superior again and had to justify why his military superiors had not been informed about the newspaper publication prior to its appearance, how the newspaper had obtained knowledge of his military rank and affiliation and whether he realised that the disclosure of these details conflicted with his military obligation as an air force officer. All available stops were pulled. The ministry investigated whether Rose had betrayed any sensitive or secret information in his article. He was then ordered to appear before the next higher military command level, where two full colonels had been tasked to investigate whether a disciplinary action could be launched against him. Rose and the Director of Research at the Marshall Center had to report to the ministry in Bonn for an official inquiry by the Attorney-General of the Bundeswehr. Additionally, Rose was required to report for an hour-long serious talk with the deputy General Inspector of the Bundeswehr, the highest ranking military superior with disciplinary power. The vice admiral strongly urged him not to disclose his

228 Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose rank and military affiliation in private publications anymore, to which Rose, again, objected by referring to the concept of citizen in uniform under Innere Führung. In spite of all these ministry efforts, no disciplinary measures could be taken. Astonishingly enough, the freedom and independence of research as protected by the German Constitutional Basic Law, formed no major point of discussion – the issue seemed to be unfamiliar to military leaders. A subsequent temporary calm before the storm fed the suspicion that military officials were looking for alternative measures to use instead of the blunt disciplinary sword. And the storm came soon. The inspector of the air force, a three star general, let Rose know that the defence minister and the ministry were very annoyed about Rose’s question during the Berlin conference and about the published article on conscription. The minister therefore advised that the air force ‘should take necessary actions’. On short notice, Rose was required to attend a staff course in Hamburg. In the long run, Rose was then removed from his research position at the Marshall Center and transferred to Cologne. Although the Director of Research and the College Dean at the Marshall Center protested against the planned reassignment of Rose,17 his German military line superiors did not interfere: Rose had to leave the research department. Mediating and enforcing interventions It goes without saying that Rose strongly objected to the new assignments and the circumstances under which they had occurred. His appeal was supported by the parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces and the Bundeswehrverband.18 He went through all levels of appeal up to the Military Disciplinary Senate (attached to the Federal Administrational Court), but his efforts did not change any of the issued directives. The military side persistently stone-walled all intermediating interventions, one of the actors commented. How sensitively even top-level officers were evaluating the case became visible through a remark of the General Inspector of the Bundeswehr, a four star general, during a press conference: ‘It would be better for a lieutenant colonel who is calling for an all-volunteer force to consider serving in another army’ (Reinhardt, 1997a). ‘Altogether we must prevent conscription from being put at risk and compromised from inside the Bundeswehr’ (Schwennicke, 1997). The Military Disciplinary Court, finally, made short work of Rose’s appeal. It ruled that the Ministry of Defence was free to transfer any member of the military to whatever posting it deemed functional and necessary. The specific circumstances of the ministry’s decision as well as its motives and rationales were completely left aside by the judges. The military’s campaign was broadly covered by the press throughout 1999 (Reinhardt, 1997b; Szandar 1997). Rose’s counterparts did not even refrain from personally contacting journalists and trying to win them over to their side. Minister Rühe’s speaker phoned a journalist who had written an article in the Neue Ruhr Zeitung (Möhle, 1997, p. 6) and disseminated allegations and rumours about Rose. On a second occasion, the author of a piece about Rose and his case in the newspaper

Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform 229 Die Tageszeitung (Andresen, 1999) received a phone call from the deputy General Inspector of the Bundeswehr. The vice admiral told her that she had taken a mistaken viewpoint and invited her to visit the Center for Innere Führung, where she could gain real insight into how well things were running within the Bundeswehr. Finally, an editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also unveiled during a phone call with Rose that he was fed personal information about him by people in the Ministry of Defence. Rose started several initiatives to get a more appropriate assignment in the field of research on security policy issues and international relations inside and outside the Bundeswehr. These efforts were regularly undermined by the Ministry of Defence and by the personnel management office of the Bundeswehr. After the change of government in autumn 1998, Rose contacted some new people in charge who had already supported him during his struggle with Minister Rühe and his followers. The head of office of the new minister of defence, a full colonel, promised help. In July 2000, the opportunity of reassigning Rose to the Munich Bundeswehr University became feasible. The Department of ‘International Relations and International Law’ had meanwhile requested that Rose be allowed to return to this department, where he had already worked years before. Two civil Ssmilitary administration in the ministry, however, put a stop to the measure by arguing that it made no sense, as the head of that department would retire soon. When, some time later, the new head of the Department showed interest in Rose, he received strong signals from the military portion of the university to drop this idea quickly. He then sent Rose a friendly letter explaining why it would be dysfunctional for the department to have Rose serving there. In conclusion, the manoeuvre represents a perfect example of how political masters’ directives are overcome by the military apparatus. The record to date The head-over-heels actions initiated by Defence Minister Rühe brought turmoil for the military administration. For Rose to attend the staff course in Hamburg, another officer had first to be prevented from attending, as otherwise no slot would have been available. Rose’s assignment in Cologne at the Air Force Office had to be ended after about five weeks, as Rose’s slot was endangered by a reorganisation of the Air Force Office, which had been planned long before. In order not to allow Rose’s return to the Marshall Center, the department where Rose was exiled to was ordered to temporarily maintain the old structure – a real military provincial burlesque. Finally, due to vigorous interventions of a one star general at the Air Force Office, the nonsense was stopped and Rose was moved back to his old position at the Marshall Center. Nine months later, another regular position was found in the Air Force Office. Rose was reassigned there and had to stay for about three more years. The scholar officer had to deal with issues for which he had never been trained and with which

230 Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose he had no experience. He remonstrated and asked for an assignment which would match his competencies – only very few assignments of this quality were found. The whole affair became a disaster for both parties. Rose’s motivation and satisfaction declined to near zero. The personnel management office of the Bundeswehr had to delegate a major to the Air Force Office in order to assist in Rose’s duties. Military bureaucracy and legal advisers were kept constantly busy responding to all the appeals that Rose filed. Finally, the Air Force Office requested to move Rose to another position. Since October 2001, Rose has been ‘attached for special duty’ to other military units in Munich, with no responsibility that would require his academic qualifications and competencies. Although under constant financial constraints, the Bundeswehr can obviously afford a ‘dog’s body’, on a Lt. Col.’s full salary – about €75,000 per annum. Revenge is sweet, but has its price.

Freedom is always the dissenters’ freedom: Innere Führung in today’s muscular Bundeswehr One may pose the question, why, again and again, Bundeswehr authorities let themselves be carried away and illegally suppressed pluralistic disputes inside the armed forces. Considering that such actions occur only when deviationist statements which are not in line with official doctrines are released, it becomes clear that the Bundeswehr establishment regularly fears losing opinion leadership in politically sensitive issues. A policy of imposing conformity apparently meets fertile conditions within military settings. Where order and obedience together with a clear line of command determine the daily routine, it apparently is more convenient to individually adapt to perceived trends than to deal with diverging opinions. The primacy of politics over military matters then is often misinterpreted. Unfortunately, many in the Bundeswehr seem to believe that this means one must assiduously quote and support what the military and political establishment had alleged before. That a soldier has to carry out legal orders, however, does not automatically include the idea that it is also his duty to individually approve every given directive, especially when he is off duty. Exactly at this point, Innere Führung mandates that the responsible ‘Citizen in Uniform’ raises his/her voice and stands up for his/her convictions. A prerequisite for such a functioning of free speech within the framework of Innere Führung is a spirit of openness and an internal climate of mutual trust and tolerance. Such a climate will definitely not emerge when military members of the Bundeswehr feel in danger of being prosecuted through disciplinary actions and by forced assignments when claiming their right of free speech. It must be viewed as a scandal when citizen-soldiers are sacrificed because they truly believe in Innere Führung and behave in accordance with its principles. In this sense, one may argue that there is nothing so dangerous as a man who comes to truly believe in the values about which he was educated.

Freedom of speech and the German Citizen in Uniform 231 Insiders – correctly – deplore the fact that the climate within the forces has cooled down since the beginning of the 1990s, when the East- and the West-German armed forces had to be merged to one entity and the new Bundeswehr had to be confronted with ‘new missions’, including ‘muscular’ deployments. Both big challenges were organised through a top-down approach, with no major public debate within the troops. Defence ministers – of every government – surround themselves with yes-men, who do not accept any contradictions, and are resistant even to constructive proposals.19 One has every reason to feel worried about today’s Innere Führung. As in the 1960s, there is a quiet change under way, nearly unnoticed by the public. The Bundeswehr has given up much of its inner liberalism. Criticism is not welcomed and harms one’s career; at best, there are no consequences. The concept of Innere Führung has been reduced to a purely social technique which is aimed solely at the best possible functioning of relations between the ranks. Today, Innere Führung is reduced to what traditionalists have always said: ‘Treat your subordinate in a decent way’, and that, according to their conclusion, had been the case since the old German Wehrmacht of the Second World War. (Fleckenstein, 1999, p. 15) One has to recall here that the freedom of speech of ‘Citizens in Uniform’ may be evaluated as an instrument of internal control of the Bundeswehr by the effected service members themselves. This internal control was seen to be a necessary supplement to external control measures, collectively called the primacy of politics over military matters. Political masters and their military followers, who continue to suppress an open exchange of arguments, not only do harm to an outstanding principle of Innere Führung but also to the concept itself. They obviously abuse the power given to them for other purposes – namely to strengthen and support, not to jeopardise and damage the fundamental military reform philosophy. In sum, they simply violate a basic civic right, as often enough attested by German High Courts. On the whole, the slogan not to address touchy matters publicly, if one does not want to harm one’s career, seems to have become a prevalent attitude of todays Bundeswehr. In August 2002, the periodical of the Bundeswehrverband published statements of active soldiers for and against the forced resignation of Defence Minister Scharping and concluded: Most soldiers don’t like to give their names: from the very top, there was an urgent admonition not to comment on the matter. Over and over again soldiers called this a ‘muzzle’. ‘We are not allowed to say anything. An iron curtain has come down’, a navy commander explained. Even a former inspector does not like to speak openly, but talks, nevertheless, about a widespread relief.

232 Jürgen Kuhlmann and Jürgen Rose

Notes 1 For a thorough discussion of the concept of ‘Leadership and Civic Education’ cf. Abenheim, 1990; cf also Fleckenstein, 1999, p. 32 and German Bundestag. According to Abenheim the concept of Innere Führung defies easy translation. ‘Perhaps the phrase “leadership and participation” best conveys what the Bundeswehr means by Innere Führung’ (Abenheim, 1990, p. 32). 2 ‘The concept and principles of Innere Führung formed a precondition for labour unions, churches, youth organisations, and the German Social-Democratic Party (SPD) to accept German rearmament. Without this concept there would not have been any Bundeswehr’ (Bald et al., 1994, p. 14). 3 This chapter is broadly based on the dissertation by Rieger, 1995. Another dissertation which systematically deals with the Darmstadt Signal affair was published in 2003 by Lt. Col. (ret.) Lothar Liebsch. 4 Named after the city Darmstadt, where the group had one of its first sessions. 5 The position of the ‘General Inspector of the Bundeswehr’ roughly equals the position of Chief of Staff. This applies to the inspectors of army, air force and navy as well. 6 The information boycott came up with some grotesque actions by superiors. A battalion commander, for example, cut two ‘letters to the editor’ in a national journal, which were written by a Darmstadt Signal major in his battalion, before the journal was laid out in the officers’ mess. 7 Higher line superiors have to overrule such decisions, however, for formal reasons or when the disciplined service members had appealed to them to review the decision. 8 The responsible judge complained about serious abuses, including about four dozen death threats, much insulting mail, police protection for the family, and misleading information in general, deliberately channelled from the very top of the political chain. 9 In connection with another trial against a member of the Darmstadt Signal. 10 Downgrading a major to the rank of a second lieutenant causes, during an average military career, a total loss of income of about €200,000. 11 About €250. 12 Phone interview with the Managing Committee of the Darmstadt Signal on 5 August 2002. 13 One would not believe it, but in 1997, Bundeswehr Colonel Pickert was again formally disciplined for having written a private letter disclosing his military rank and military affiliation, which was then revealed by the addressee. The officer was admonished not to mention rank and affiliation in private statements any more. Furthermore, he had to confirm expressly that, in the future, his private deliberations would really remain private [sic!]. The Colonel had to go all the way up to the Federal Administrational Court before the formal disapproval was rescinded. 14 Lt. Col. Rose is co-author of this chapter. To avoid a suspicion of prejudice, the authors strictly report facts and figures. However, some evaluation is added. 15 George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. 16 At that time Jürgen Kuhlmann, co-author of this chapter. 17 ‘LTC Rose’s assignment … will interrupt … ongoing projects, jeopardise their success, and send the wrong signal to the participating nations, casting doubt about the Marshall Center’s commitment to these and future engagement projects.’ 18 The Deutsche Bundeswehr-Verband forms one of the most effective soldiers’ pressure groups worldwide. It numbers nearly a quarter of a million members: conscripts, enlisted soldiers with limited contracts and career soldiers of all branches and ranks (including reservists, veterans and surviving family members). 19 Prayon, 1998. Horst Prayon is a retired full army colonel, who during his career had served, among other functions, as Speaker of Defence Minister Wörner and as commander of the military ‘Academy for Information and Communication’.

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 233

Part V

Conclusions

234 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 235

16 Patterns of democratic governance of civil–military relations Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann As discussed in detail in the first chapter, democracy in any country is unlikely to develop or to endure unless the military and other security forces are under the full control of democratic institutions and all the necessary safeguards, checks and balances to affect this are in place. If defence would be exempted from democratic decision making and left alone to an unaccountable small circle of civilian or military decision makers it is not possible to speak of a democratic state but only of a ‘guardian’ state. In a democratic society, civil–military relations should be governed according to principles of political supremacy, accountability and the rule of law. This idea is embodied in the constitutions of democratic states across Europe, for example in France and Hungary, two of the countries which are studied in this volume: The President of the Republic shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He shall preside over the Higher National Defence councils and committees. (Article 15 of the French Constitution) […] [T]he Parliament shall, […] with the exceptions laid down in the Constitution, rule on the use of the armed forces both abroad and within the country, the deployment of foreign armed forces in Hungary or in other countries from the territory of Hungary, the participation of the armed forces in peacekeeping missions, humanitarian operations in foreign theatres, and the stationing of the armed forces abroad or of foreign armed forces in Hungary. (Article 19, 3, Constitution of Hungary) In spite of these and other declaratory statements about democratic control of armed forces, we are faced with the situation that currently no explicit, comprehensive and consistent system of democratic governance of the armed forces exists. The literature and official statements on this theme give a series of guiding principles that are partly convincing and generally accepted but, at the same time, are partially inconsistent and which are not yet universally accepted by the international community. Though there is an international consensus about the relevance of democratic oversight of the armed forces for a democratic society,1 democratic states have adopted different constitutional and institutional frameworks

236 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann due to differences in their political, historical and cultural backgrounds. These differences concern, for example, the division of powers between the executive, parliament, judiciary and independent review institutions; the role of the military domestically; as well as the limitations of political and civil rights of servicemen (e.g. military unions). Also, at an academic level, serious differences about understanding civil–military relations are apparent. One of the most famous debates occurred in the 1960s between Huntington and Janowitz over whether control of the armed forces should be based on professionalism of the armed forces or on the integration of the armed forces within society (Born, Caparini and Haltiner, 2002, pp. 160–2).2 More recently, authors have tried to define ‘political norms and widely recognised principles and practices’ (Hänggi, 2003, pp. 12, 17)3 of a democratic governance of the armed forces. They see this concept as ‘rather complex and multi-faceted’ (Born, Haltiner and Maleši=, 2004, p. 18) and underline that democratic governance of the security sector is a ‘container’ concept consisting of incomplete approaches and ideal-types ‘which, at present, no country anywhere in the world is able to match in their entirety’ (Hänggi, 2003, p. 17).4 With regards to civil–military relations in Europe, the current state of the academic debate on the issue suffers from at least three major shortcomings. First, most of the attention is still on the US situation. This may seem logical as the USA today is the only superpower, but precisely for that reason it is difficult to generalise from the USA to other countries. Second, many publications are normative and prescribe how democratic civil–military relations should function (e.g. Rudolf Joó), but do not analyse the behaviour of political and military actors in reality practice. Third, many studies are insulated country case studies, and mostly no or little attention is spent on theorising or drawing lessons from other countries (there are at least two notable exceptions, Kuhlmann and Callaghan, 2000 and Cottey, Edmunds and Forster, 2001). There is a need for empirical comparative studies which contribute to the entire spectrum of democratic governance of civil–military relations, including the behaviour and practices of the main actors in their institutional context. This study contributes to the debate by comparing experiences concerning the functioning of democratic control of the armed forces in reality and drawing insights from a large sample of European countries across the spectrum of transitional, consolidating and mature democracies.

The case studies The 28 cases described in the 14 country studies vary greatly with respect to civil– military relations as well as to the democratic control of the armed forces (see Table 1.1 in Chapter 1). They cover mainly a period from the end of the Cold War to the year 2000 and include events such as uncontrolled covert military operations (Georgia) and the indirect disobedience towards civil superiors by members of the military elite (France and Israel). The studies also detail events that are related to the democratic governance of the armed forces, such as: a competence struggle

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 237 over the control of the military between the president and the minister of defence (Slovenia); disputes over the reorganisation and demilitarisation of ministries of defence (Hungary, Poland); politically embarrassing military incompetence involving ammunition storage (Czech Republic) and the accidental targeting of a civil airliner by a military anti-aircraft missile unit (Ukraine). The spectrum also stretches from unauthorised strikes by members of the military (France, Ireland), to problems concerning the creation of transparent defence budgets, attempts by civilian authorities to instrumentalise the military for their own purposes (Georgia, Macedonia, Israel), constantly postponed security sector reform (the former Republic of Yugoslavia), the long-term changes of the military’s acceptability within society (Switzerland), barely concealed corruption (Macedonia), the attitude of the military towards critical officers within their own organisation (Germany) and to questions of the armed forces’ influence over a country’s foreign policy (Ireland, Israel). In sum, these case studies describe and analyse the crises, problems and deficits of the democratic control of armed forces, as perceived by the authors of those case studies, therefore giving room for subjective interpretation. The case studies focus on the interactive and mutual influencing relationships between political, civilian and military actors. The actors include democratically legitimised political bodies such as the head of state, cabinet members and the parliament; and partly include civilian bodies such as NGOs, media organisations, political parties, think tanks, military associations and peace movements as well as lobby and pressure groups. Finally, they include actors within the armed forces, varying from generals, officers and soldiers, to inspector-generals and retired armed forces personnel and their spouses.5 The interaction between these actors forms the empirical material on which the conclusions of each case study and the general conclusions of this chapter are based. These conclusions address the main question of this study: ‘how do civil–military relations function in practice?’ and to try to do this by identifying patterns of democratic governance of civil–military relations. In doing so, the studies can be considered as aq ‘check’ as to whether constitutions, laws and declaratory statements of national governments and international organisations on the democratic control of armed forces reflects reality of everyday life. The case studies presented move beyond the more traditional focus of civil–military relations studies on state institutional actors by also encompassing non-state actors and therefore broadening the focus on accountability and oversight mechanisms compared to that found in earlier studies.

Analysing the case studies Two simple questions inform the following analysis: what is the scientific value of these ‘crisis’ cases? How can comprehensive conclusions be drawn considering the heterogeneity of the cases? Methodologically, there are at least three ways to achieve this which can be expected to lead to different findings. First, the classical procedure consists of formulating an hypothesis and testing it against empirical data. This is Karl Popper’s deductive approach, starting with

238 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann theoretical or normative assumptions which are then put to the test. As we are interested in the functioning of civil–military relations in practice, we think that a deductive approach (reasoning from the general to the particular) is less suitable than an inductive approach. As there is no unifying coherent theory about democratic civil–military relations which would allow us to formulate consistent hypothesis, an inductive approach would probably be more conducive to theorybuilding. A second approach which is currently popular within the field of civil–military relations is based on the principal-agent model or the ‘new-institutionalist’ perspective (for an introduction, see March and Olsen, 1984). Here the attitudes of elected political authorities and senior civilian officials as principals and the top commanders of the armed forces as agents are analysed (Avant, 1994; Feaver, 1997). This approach implies that both principals and agents operate under the conditions of institutional frameworks (norms, laws, rules of engagement) and different levels of information (asymmetry of knowledge) and tend to maximise their own interests according to the ‘rational choice’ principle. This method was not an option in our analysis because this approach was not required of the authors of the country cases in the first instance and therefore the necessary level of detail is insufficient. In addition, we have some theoretical doubts about this method: in our view, the principal-agent model tends to narrow down the perspective too much to specific actors on the civil–military axis and to limit complex relations to solely a kind of order-obedience relation. Other relations, such as between the government and parliament and comparable others tend to remain out of the picture. Therefore, the complex reality of civil–military relations is unduly reduced. Notably, the variety of cases cited in this book demonstrates impressively that democratic civil–military relations can only be adequately understood as an interdependent network of a wide variety of actors. A third approach is to look for underlying common patterns in the many cases and crises presented and to categorise them accordingly. The procedure is inductive, distilling common aspects out of many observations. The question is: do the cases have comparable attributes and, if so, how could they be combined into classes of attributes relevant to specific countries? In this concluding chapter, the third approach is applied. It could be termed as a categorisation concept or a typology. Various scholars have used it in their research on civil–military relations.6 In a first round of evaluation, the cases were compared and grouped according to their central attributes. Thereby, categories such as ‘corruption problems’, ‘budget problems’, ‘mass media problems’ and so on were defined. However, the categorisation of the case studies at such a low level of abstraction did not allow for an unambiguous classification in every case, nor did it achieve the reduction of complexity necessary for a profound analysis. In the second round of evaluation, the four editors of this volume and three external social scientists7 finally identified four basic dimensions of behaviour. They are: POWER to direct or redirect the armed forces; EFFECTIVENESS and EFFICIENCY, i.e. under- and non-performance of the military; TRANSPARENCY, manipulation of information by civilian or military leaders; and CULTURE,

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 239 Table 16.1 Cases by key dimensions of civil–military relations POWER: To direct and redirect the armed forces

IN CIVIL–CIVIL RELATIONS • failure of parliamentary budget control (Georgia); • abuse of military in ethnic conflict (Macedonia); • military refused to be used in maintaining domestic law and order in miners’ strike (Romania); • dispute between president and cabinet about keeping chief of staff (the former FRY); • president illegally tasking intelligence service to discipline former military officer (Slovenia); • power struggle between president and minister of defence, contributing to politicising the military (Slovenia). IN CIVIL–MILITARY RELATIONS • military resisting defence reform planned by the civilian leadership (Ukraine); • dispute between minister of defence and the general staff over aircraft procurement (Czech Republic); • power struggle between military and civilian leadership over integration ministry of defence with general staff (Hungary); • resignation of chief of general staff over defence budget cuts (Hungary); • implicit disobedience of chief of general staff (Israel); • attempts of prime minister to weaken military’s position in political decision making (Israel); • failed civilianisation of Ministry of Defence due to military blockade (Poland); • military criticising civilian politicians (Germany).

EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY: Performance

• incompetent military: shooting down civilian aircraft during military exercise (Ukraine); • Ministry of Defence’s efforts to deal with thefts of military ammunition (Czech Republic).

TRANSPARENCY: Information

• misleading public, media and parliament about covert operations (Georgia); • corrupt and criminal activities of civilian authorities in the defence sector (Macedonia); • attempts to increase transparency in defence procurement (Romania); • corruption in military aircraft procurement (Poland); • government misleading public in ‘neutrality case’ (Ireland); • misleading parliament about military aircraft procurement costs (Switzerland).

CULTURE: Military versus civilian values

• authoritarian legacy blocks rapid defence reforms (the former FRY); • striking military police in the streets (France); • retired generals raising voice in public against politicians (France); • judiciary saves moral leadership under threat (Germany); • women as trade unionists for their military spouses (Ireland); • attempt to abolish Swiss military through referendum (Switzerland).

240 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann referring to a possible civil–military cultural gap. According to these four key dimensions the 28 cases are categorised, looking at the behaviour of political and military actors (see Table 16.1). In a small number of ambiguous cases, a decision on their categorisation under one of the four key dimensions had to be made arbitrarily. When in doubt, the dimension was selected which seemed to be the decisive one, the one which could explain most of the variances. To give an example: the categorisation of a case study which deals with a debate on the defence budget was made under the dimension ‘power’ or ‘transparency’ depending on which of the two aspects was pre-eminent. The result of the categorisation in Table 16.1 presents an acceptable optimum between loss of information and generally applicable insights.

Democratic civil–military relations: power, effectiveness and efficiency, transparency, culture Key dimension ‘power’: conflicts between civil–civil authorities and civil–military authorities According to Max Weber, power can be defined as ‘the probability that a person in a social relationship will be able to carry out its own will in pursuing goals of action, regardless of resistance’ (Weber, 1976, p. 28). Thus, power concerns the influence which persons or social groups exert or can exert on others without the latter being able to avoid it. Power is also defined as an actor’s capacity to act independently of specific situations (Bornschier, 1998, p. 39). Since Weber’s analysis, the monopoly of the legitimate use of force (Gewaltmonopol) has been regarded as the very essence of the modern state. In democratic systems, the question of control over power is especially significant. Those exerting power and the military, intelligence and police organisations at their disposal must subordinate themselves unconditionally to the control of the people: to do otherwise would contradict the idea of a democracy. Anything but an unconditional subordination of the armed forces under the elected bearers of power would put in question the people’s rule per se (Luttwak, 1999, p. 99). In addition to peaceful regime change through elections, the separation of power into executive, legislative and judicial functions is fundamental to democratic governance. Modern democracies feature a many-faceted circular web of power checks: parliament supervises the government and its administration; the opposition monitors the parliamentary majority; courts supervise the accordance of political decisions with the given constitution; independent ombudsmen address citizens’ grievances against state bodies; and the media scrutinises the actions of those in power (Caparini, 2004). This network of actors creates multiple, sometimes competing, sites of oversight and control over the exercise of state power. The majority of the 28 case studies demonstrate that the democratic control of armed forces can only rarely be understood as a linear subject–object relationship. Predominantly the relation is an open process within a network of mutual influencing actors which resembles more a ‘tit-for-tat’ negotiating scheme than a

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 241 simple order-obedience scheme. Governance of the security sector in modern democracies therefore must be seen as a progressive, highly interdependent network of formal and informal relationships of power (Born, Fluri and Johnson, 2003). All the case studies in some way centre around a conflict between authorities, involving a formal or informal power struggle with one side seeking to prevail. Regardless of the style of and the issues at stake in a conflict, the prime condition for a case to be subsumed under the key dimension of ‘power’ is that one or more actors whose interests or preferences prevailed over other actors has to be present. Unsurprisingly, of our four dimensions, the power dimension turns out to be by far the most important facet of civil–military relations. Half of the 28 cases of democratic governance of the armed forces are in one way or other related to questions of power (see Table 16.1). Some good examples of civil–military relations problems belonging to the power dimension are:

• •

•

Hungary: resignation of the commander-in-chief because of disagreement with the defence budget cuts proposed by the government; The former Republic of Yugoslavia: after the ousting of Milosevic in 2000, the new politically elected political leaders shied away from reforming the security sector as they feared losing the support of the army generals, aggravated by a lack of consensus among political leaders about the intended reforms; Romania: the military’s opposition against being used in a domestic dispute between the government and miners in the 1999 miners’ strike, leading to a crisis in the relations between the Romanian defence minister and the general staff.

It became evident that the complexity of power issues could not be limited to the civil–military axis because many power conflicts occur on the civil–civil axis between civilian elites. A typical example of this type of conflict are the common disputes between the government and parliament over the defence budgets. It seemed appropriate to separate the civil–civil axis from the civil–military axis when discussing the power dimension. This is one of the most interesting research findings of this volume, i.e. many conflicts take place between civilian political elites (civil–civil relations) in which the military is instrumentalised. These ‘civil– civil’ conflicts can be:

•

•

Conflicts between parliament and executive over the control of the military in terms of operations, personnel appointments, budget and procurement (e.g. Georgia). Central to this conflict is the dividing line between the mandate of the parliament and the executive. Conflicts within the executive, i.e. between president, prime minister and defence minister, over competences concerning the control of the military (e.g. Slovenia and Hungary). Often these types of conflicts occur due to legally unclear constitutional control of the armed forces (e.g. the former FRY).

242 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann

•

Use and abuse of the military in domestic political conflicts by civilian elites (e.g. Slovenia, Romania, Macedonia). In these cases, civilian leaders try to intstrumentalise the military in domestic affairs.

Key dimension ‘effectiveness and efficiency’: under- and non-performance of the military Effectiveness and efficiency are relative terms, not absolute ones. The rationale of effectiveness recommends the taking of those measures (input) only which can be expected to influence the pursued goals (output) in a desired manner. Efficiency as a norm implies that a certain outcome should be produced with a minimum of input, respectively, that given resources (input) should bring a maximum of output. The concept of effectiveness and efficiency are not to be seen independently from the concept of ‘power’. One can also understand the nature of ‘power’ as an ability to perform or act effectively. Effectiveness and efficiency require power. An integral part of the control and management of the security sector are democratic guidelines determining the extent to which the intended goals in the security sector can be achieved without putting the household and the economy under excessive strain. The fundamental prerequisites of democracy – legitimacy and good governance – are achieved if they are coupled with effective management of the economy and the administration (see Lipset, 1960; Bornschier, 1998, p. 30). It goes without saying that this includes the efficient management of the armed forces. In the long term, it is likely that the legitimacy of the political and military authorities will be eroded if they mismanage the armed forces or if the armed forces are not capable of protecting the society against threats. Case studies were subsumed under the key dimension effectiveness and ‘efficiency’ if those case studies reveal the inability or incompetence to act economically or effectively. The main problems related to this dimension of the behaviour of political and military elites are related to the under or non-performance of the military, leading to a crisis in civil–military relations. This can be seen in the case studies of:

• • •

Macedonia: ineffective military performance in the ethnic conflict in 2001; Ukraine: the incidental targeting of a civilian airliner during a military missile exercise in 2001; Czech Republic: incomplete control of military ammunition storage depots, leading to ammunition theft, critical media attention and embarrassment among political and military authorities.

Key dimension ‘transparency’: manipulation of information Transparency, too, is as a concept not wholly independent from ‘power’. The benchmarks of democratically legitimised power are ‘transparency, accountability and performance’ (Inoguchi, Newman and Keane, 1998, p. 1). Transparency implies a clear assignment of responsibility (Bland, 1999) as well as comprehensive political

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 243 decisions and actions. It is an elementary prerequisite for the democratic control of power relations and thus an elementary postulate with respect to every democratic governance in which the media plays a significant role in the creation of transparency (Caparini, 2004). In the realm of national security and defence procurement in particular, the civilian and military authorities often derogate from the principle of the transparency principle, not only to protect national security interests, but also, potentially, to conceal corruption, fraud, waste or mismanagement. It is thus not surprising that most of the case studies deal with the issue of lacking or insufficient transparency, especially in non-Western societies, which are related to covering up corruption and ineffectiveness. Cases under this key dimension obviously show a systematic manipulation of information in favour of political and military bearers of power. The spectrum stretches from inscrutable hierarchical relations to corruption and to the manipulation of the mass media. Problems are related to:

•

•

The lack of transparency as a way of covering up corruption, as was reported by the country experts in the case study of Macedonia (corrupt and criminal activities in the defence sector), Romania (defence procurement) and Poland (corruption in military aircraft procurement). According to the authors of the Irish case study, the government tried to mislead the general public about the issue whether Ireland should join NATO’s Partnership of Peace in spite of Ireland’s tradition of neutrality.

Key dimension ‘culture’: a civil–military cultural gap? Culture refers to shared and common values, norms, symbols and priorities in life, as well as to subconscious convictions, ideas, interpretations (Soeters, Winslow and Weibull, 2003, p. 238). Of particular interest are those values, norms and institutions which determine civil–military relations in the observed countries. Despite several common aspects within Europe’s development – for example, the creation of mass armies based on conscription in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – different political and military cultures have developed. As a rule, the political culture of a society or a nation can be seen as a consequence of a shared historical background as well as a common culture and heritage of attitudes, values and behaviour (Almond and Sidney, 1963). Military culture as such can be understood as a specific organisational culture which can be derived from the armed force’s assignment and the management of macro-violence. This functionality lends isomorphism to all military cultures, a set of features common to all military organisations (Caforio, 2002; Geser, 1996; Haltiner, 2000; Born, Fluri, and Johnson, 2003, p. 53; Morgan, 2003). However, it can be assumed that aside from such functional commonalities, there is a specific connection between the way in which a state organises its political institutions and the way it organises and integrates its armed forces into society. For example, Germany, based on an assessment of its military history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and due to its historical legacy, has developed

244 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann a special concept of ‘Innere Führung’8 which sets constitutional and ethical limits to the scheme of order and obedience. ‘Innere Führung’ is an integral part of the Bundeswehr’s military culture and its identity. It is probably not by accident that a direct democracy and federal state like Switzerland, with its inherent mistrust towards the concentration of political power, only has a militia and not a standing army. Thus, the militia system’s legitimacy is derived from the special tradition of Swiss political culture (Haltiner, 2004). Although there is a wide spectrum of literature on the theoretical connection between democratic and military organisation cultures (Janowitz, 1983; Burk, 2002; Kernic, 1997), there are few empirical studies on the interdependent genesis of political and military cultures (Soeters, Winslow and Weibull, 2003). Case studies are primarily considered as culture-related if their emphasis lies on the acceptance and legitimacy of the armed forces or the perceived role of the soldier. Hence, these case studies focus on the difference and inherent potential for conflict between democratic and military value systems and traditions. As Table 16.1 shows, six of the 28 case studies fall under the key-dimension ‘culture’. Notable among these are three cases showing how:

•

• •

In France, the military became more assertive against their political leaders, as evidenced by public street protests of the gendarmerie against government policy and by general officers expressing their critical view in the newspapers. Both cases were signs of a growing culturally critical attitude of the military. In Germany, the freedom of speech as an element of the ‘Citizen in Uniform’ ‘Innere Führung’ concept was upheld by the court, in spite of attempts by the German Ministry of Defence to punish critical officers. In Ireland, as military personnel were not allowed to demonstrate, the spouses of military personnel staged public protests against the government. As an indirect consequence, the military then was granted the right to form unionlike associations and to participate in duty-related decisions of their superiors.

Democratisation and civil–military relations Is there a connection between the four key dimensions of democratic civil–military relations and the democratic development of a state? Are there typical problems concerning civil–military relations which arise in certain phases of a state’s democratic development? Or are certain phases of development on the contrary marked by the absence of certain constellations and issues related to democratic governance? In order to address these questions, we arrange our case studies according to the four dimensions and to the phase of democratic development, that is, countries in transition-to-democracy, consolidating democracies and established democracies. By doing so, a pattern of correlation emerges between democratisation and the four dimensions of democratic governance of civil–military relations:

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 245 Table 16.2 Democratisation and civil–military relations A. Transitional democracies POWER: To direct and redirect the armed forces

B. Consolidating democracies

In civil– civil

• • • •

In civil– military

• Ukraine

• • • •

EFFECTIVENESS: and EFFICIENCY: Performance

• Ukraine

• Czech Republic

TRANSPARENCY: Information

• Georgia • Macedonia • Romania

• Poland

CULTURE: Military versus civilian values

• Serbia and Former FRY

• • •

• •

C. Established democracies

Georgia • Slovenia (2 cases) Macedondia Romania Former FRY and Montenegro Czech Republic Hungary (2 cases) Israel (2 cases) Poland

• Germany

• Ireland • Switzerland

• France (2 cases) • Germany • Ireland • Switzerland

Conflict and power struggles between civilian elites (civil–civil relations) are to be found nearly exclusively in transitional democracies and was reported with the exception of Slovenia (consolidating democracy). Power problems of the civil–military type appear to be typical of consolidating democracies. In all of these states such problems are observed. Efficiency problems occurred in a transitional democracy (Ukraine) and in a consolidating democracy (Czech Republic). None of the cases concerning established democracies can be regarded as efficiency problems. In established democracies, the majority of cases are related to the category ‘culture’ and refer to a gap between civilian and military values. They are of marginal importance in transitional and consolidated democracies. Transparency problems appear to be endemic to democracies of all phases.

The patterns between civil–military relations problems on the one hand and democratisation on the other, as seen in Table 16.2, are plausible. In the young, post-communist transitional democracies, civilian elites are still competing for power. The constitutional rules are not fully institutionalised and structures of civil power are not – or not yet – sufficiently consolidated. The fight over the

246 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann building and shaping of institutions continues. In the course of such fights, the military often becomes misused by competing agencies of power to serve their own purposes. The case studies from Georgia, Macedonia, Romania and the former FRY illustrate this. Civil–military relations are subject to not yet established norms legitimised by tradition. Democratic governance is often practised according to informal rules defined by given situations and changing group interests. The way in which the military can become the object of such group interests is illustrated by the covert action seen in Georgia. The armed forces themselves lack resources and are susceptible to corruption. The deficient consolidation of the military goes along with a lack of transparency and efficiency. This is indicated by a susceptibility to tremendous errors such as the accidental downing of an airliner in the Ukraine and the failure of the regular armed forces to fight the rebels in Macedonia. The need for substantial reforms of the oversized armed forces is obvious but delayed or does not take place at all primarily because the civilian elites do not dare to touch the armed forces or because of a political power vacuum created by conflicts between civilian elites (such as in Serbia and Montenegro). In consolidating democracies, democratic structures of control are in place and initial difficulties characteristic of transitional democracies have been overcome. Power problems barely affect the horizontal, but rather the vertical civil–military dimension. The issue here is to balance the civil–military relationship axis. This is necessitated either by stress stemming from wartime strain (Israel) or under the pressure of post-communist reforms. Cottey, Edmunds and Forster (2002) coined the term ‘reforms of the second generation’ in view of the Eastern European states. The ‘civilianisation’ of the ministries of defence and power struggles within the military elite over prerogatives in strategic decisions as well as financial and personnel resources seem to be characteristic of such a network of relations.9 Democratic governance often falls short in the military as well as in the civilian sector evidenced in the fact that corruption plays often an important role in armament programmes. Obviously, reforms in post-communist states almost inevitably involve problems with respect to transparency and efficiency, as, for example, the case study from the Czech Republic on difficulties to control ammunition storage shows. Israel is a peculiar case inasmuch as the permanent strain exerted on civil–military relations by the Palestinian–Israeli conflict seems to be of advantage to the military’s position in the balance of power informally rather than formally between military and political leaders. The primary field of problems in established democracies, on the other hand, are of a different kind. One is tempted to say that, as compared to transitional democracies which are dealing with fundamental macro-scale problems, here we are looking at micro-scale problems. They primarily concern the key dimension ‘culture’, meaning they include issues such as the military’s role in society and its social and political legitimacy (Switzerland); the tendency of employees in the armed forces to organise themselves in unions (France, Ireland); or the acquisition (France) and maintenance of freedom of speech (Germany). A high degree of consolidation of civil–military relations is witnessed by the complete absence of

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 247 reports on efficiency issues. The reported power problems are rather a singular than a general phenomenon. To conclude, even if we take into account the slim quantitative basis and the lack of representative character of the case studies submitted, the research findings presented here support the idea that the nature of civil–military issues changes according to the European democracies’ state of development. In the course of the socio-economic and political development power and efficiency problems are gradually disappearing, while problems concerning the adjustment of normative regulations are becoming predominant.

Political systems and civil–military relations How does a given political system affect civil–military relations? For example, are problems as to how government deals with the military of a different kind in a presidential system with a strong hierarchical leadership as compared to a direct democratic system where representatives of the people or the people themselves are given far-reaching competencies? The sample of countries includes both presidential-parliamentary and parliamentary democracies. Five countries have presidential-parliamentary democracies, i.e. France, Poland, Georgia, Romania and Ukraine and nine countries have parliamentary democracies, i.e. Hungary, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Israel and Switzerland.10 Presidential systems modelled on the USA, where a president elected by the people and independent from the parliament’s trust is juxtaposed to the legislature, are prominent in Eastern Europe.11 Normally, the elected president is simultaneously the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and is equipped with considerable prerogatives with respect to the control and supervision of the military and security sector (such as police and intelligence). In parliamentary democracies, the existence of government is dependent on parliament’s confidence in the government: if a government loses the confidence of parliament, it has to resign. In such parliamentary systems of government, the control over the armed forces is generally organised in a decentralised way with respect to the military high command as well as budget and supervision competencies. Based on the research findings, a clear relation between political system and type of problems of civil–military relations cannot be established. However, the research findings show a pattern of civil–military relations if a distinction is made between countries with a president as commander-in-chief versus countries where the government or minister of defence is commander-in-chief. The findings in Table 16.3 show that mostly in countries where the president is the commander-in-chief, civil–civil power struggles over the military are reported. In countries where the minister of defence (or the cabinet as a collective decisionmaking body) has the supremacy over the armed forces, there is a tendency for civil–military power struggles. How can this be explained? Problems between civilian elites might occur especially in countries with a president as commanderin-chief because in those countries two members of the executive have control

248 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann Table 16.3 Key issues of democratic governance of civil–military relations and political leadership and political system in 14 selected European states President is Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces I. Presidentialparliamentary democracy: POWER: To direct and redirect the armed forces

Government/ Minister of Defence is Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces I. Presidentialparliamentary democracy:

In civil– civil relations

• • • • •

Macedonia Georgia Romania Slovenia (2 cases) Former FRY

In civil– military relations

• Hungary (2 cases) • Ukraine • Poland

• Czech Republic • Germany • Israel (2 cases)

EFFECTIVENESS and EFFICIENCY: Performance

• Ukraine

• Czech Republic

TRANSPARENCY: Information

• • • •

• Ireland • Switzerland

CULTURE: Military versus civil values

• Former FRY • France (2 cases)

Macedonia Georgia Poland Romania

• Germany • Ireland • Switzerland

powers over the military, i.e. the president and the minister of defence (or sometimes the entire cabinet). The situation of dual leadership increases the chance of civil– civil competence struggles between the president and the minister, for example over appointments of generals, procurement or the budget. A second reason is that most of the countries with a president as commander-in-chief belong to the category of transition states or consolidating democracies (except for France) which are characterised by struggles between civilian elites because of the fragile nature of democracy in those countries. The civilian–civilian type of problems do not occur if the minister of defence has the supreme authority over the military because the armed forces are under one direct line of control, instead of receiving orders from two different members of the executive body.

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 249 Political masters, citizens and soldiers: shortcomings in normative theory The academic debate on the military’s democratic control often gives the impression of a dichotomised civil–military community: the democratic legitimised civilian leaders on one side of the equation and the military – which has to be kept under control – as servants on the other side of the equation. Such an approach may be analytically beneficial and permissible, but tends to distort the gaze for the exceedingly complex relationship which exists between citizens and members of the military. The fact that members of the military are also citizens sometimes gets buried to the point of oblivion (see Born, Fluri and Johnson, 2003, p. 150). In the ‘citizen-in-uniform’ approach, military personnel are basically entitled to ensure all rights and duties of the constitution are provided within the statutory framework of a community. In general the citizens have the right to choose a profession which suits its affinities and qualifications and even the profession of a soldier.12 In any case, basically one decides to become a soldier and remains – needless to say – a citizen. Eventually, military personnel also take a stake in the democratic control of the military, inasmuch as they participate in the role of a citizen’s formation of opinion and decision making. Division of labour and professional expertise and ethos It is particularly necessary to monitor the military because it is intended to be an instrument for the state monopoly of force which should not be used against the state and the society itself. A military coup is not very likely in developed democracies, though there is a latent danger of political authorities using state power for personal or party goals. Furthermore, not only the military but also other public institutions administrate the state monopoly of legitimate use of force such as the police; law enforcement agencies; security services; tribunals; penitentiaries; customs authorities; border guards; civil management and oversight bodies.13 To associate them with the security sector combined with the military makes sense among other things, because they all have to adhere to the postulate of good governance. The fact that civil and military establishments are bound to the principle of division of labour is a further similarity, not only among each other, but also within their own structures as well as between the political masters and the administrative specialists. The institutional political–military division of labour thus is not a specific problem for civil–military relations, but rather – not only in public facilities – a commonly accepted principle to improve effectiveness and efficiency. The aforementioned agencies in the security sector share the standard with the military, that professional expertise is to be achieved through schooling, training and experience. Similar to the military, laws regulate the instructions to and labour agreements of each particular individual. Furthermore, comprehension of the profession, an occupational ethos and a corporate identity are expected, in line with the regulations and organisation’s goals.

250 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann Members of the military organisation likewise pursue individual goals in their professions which do not have to be in line with official aims. It is often said that obedience forms the heart of the military profession. However, the assertion that it is a special unique attribute for the soldier’s profession to subordinate personal interests to the organisation’s aims or even for the group’s well-being, has to be questioned sceptically. Nearly all (subjected to public law) professions in the security sector (including the civil policy makers) are obliged to support the common welfare of society. Laws and decisions of the government have to be obeyed by all sectors of society, not only by the military. There may indeed be a specific military ethos. The so-called military virtues – as far as they even exist – would then only be a certain specification of qualification profiles, such as other professions also would claim for themselves. One cannot directly identify why and how the job of being a soldier became, for some, a ‘sacred’ profession. Neither why it actually should be a privilege of the soldier’s profession, ‘to sacrifice one’s life for the team, in peace and war’ (Dandeker and Gow, 2004, p. 15).14 Also members of other professions are requested to risk their lives if necessary, for example police officers, fire-fighters, counter-terrorism officials, secret agents, test pilots, racing drivers and bomb disposal experts. However, compared with the military, these dangerous professions can be adopted without a patriotic ideology. An apolitical military? In discussions about the democratic control of the military, no other demand but the demand for political neutrality of the military could have kept itself alive so insistently. Huntington left a wide track.15 He saw his concept of ‘objective control’ of the military becoming effective if the military renders its services to the political authorities without pursuing self-interest. The political masters should assure extensive autonomy as a return service for the military, which would mean among others, abandoning political micromanagement in the military. However, some have argued the contrary, using examples from the same military (that of the USA) which Huntington first analysed: The pulling and hauling among interest groups, the authoritative allocation of scarce resources, the exercise of power in pursuit of interests – all these are readily evident in any historical examination of the military experience. (Feaver, 1996, p. 157) Additionally, American officers actually seem to have broken the formerly common tradition, to neither participate at political elections nor to only vote for independent candidates. The voting strength of officers, augmented by military Independents who favour Republican candidates, has turned the officer corps into one of the most ‘solidly Republican professional groups in American society’. (Betros, 2001, p. 502 referring to Feaver and Kohn, 1999, p. 2)

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 251 Several of the arguments assembled here rather confirm Abrahamsson’s opinion, whereby: the professional military was a politicized and active interest group [and therefore] a system of institutional control mechanisms was necessary, which would allow civilian governments a fair chance in their defence and foreign policy options. (Abrahamsson, 1972, p. 160 cited after Cottey, Edmunds and Forster, 2002, p. 33) In Switzerland and Germany, for example, the idea of apolitical behaviour is not expressly part of the occupational image of a soldier, although the primacy of politics over the military is an officially distinguished principle. The Swiss ‘citizen soldier’ and the German ‘citizen-in-uniform’ have to maintain a low political profile during their military service. When exercising their military profession, their civil rights are partially, but not totally, restricted by law in order to guarantee an undisrupted military service. The same types of restrictions also applied to civil employees in other (public) institutions of the security sector, they are not militaryspecific. All soldiers, not only officers, have the right to function politically as a citizen. For example, in several of the countries analysed in this volume, military personnel can join labour unions and build up their own professional interest groups.16 In other countries military strikes are prohibited, but public demonstrations by members of the military show have, especially when they are held in uniform, a similar impact. The analyses in this book show that military personnel have publicly criticised or disregarded decisions of the government.17 It would be an exaggeration to perceive this criticism as a default reply of the military every time they disagree with their political authorities. Disagreements between the military and political leaders happen frequently and have to be seen as part of the ordinary civil–military discourse. However, most of these disputes are not discussed publicly but behind closed doors. High level commanders who express their disagreements publicly in the media take a real risk that their military career will be ended by their political masters. Military commanders who intervene in the public debate without the permission of their political masters, must be sure that the issues at stake justify their disregard of government policy. The public image of the armed forces and the specific military spokesman often plays a crucial role. If the public opinion is positive towards the military cause and mission (see French and Irish case studies of military demonstrations), it is likely that the civil–military balance will shift in favour of the military. According to some case studies in this volume, democratic governance of the armed forces can only function if the military is provided with clear political guidance and when there is dialogue between the political masters and the military. For example, in the late 1990s, French generals went public with their criticisms because they were not sufficiently consulted on important decisions such as the abolition of conscription. The case studies which mention the protesting French gendarmerie and the spouses of Irish military servicemen, show that their public

252 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann criticisms were caused by a perceived imbalance in civil–military relations in which the political masters profited from the work of the military while not sufficiently compensating the military for their work. The fact that the French and Irish governments accepted the demands of the French gendarmerie and Irish spouses is a de facto proof of the government’s acknowledgement of the military’s grievances. With a view of democratic governance of the armed forces, it is not only important whether the military respects government policy, but also how the civilian government responds to demands of the military. The case studies allow for the conclusion that parliaments and governments in all the democratic countries studied were able to swing civil–military relations back into balance whenever the normative equilibrium faltered (though in the German case, the German Constitutional Federal Court had to function as an arbiter between the civil and military authorities).

Towards an ideal model of civil–military relations? In Europe, how do civil–military relations function in practice? The 28 case studies from 14 European states (including Israel, see note 5, Chapter 1) show that civil– military relations are a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional phenomenon which cannot be understood from a purely legal constitutional point of view. Civil–military relations are not simply a command relationship in which the politicians order and the generals obey. In practice, it is a negotiating relationship in which both sides trade ‘tit-for-tat’ on various issues and have different sources of power with which to convince the other side. The contemporary prevailing (Western) concept of democratic control of the armed forces is not adequate insofar as it suggests a static relationship, while in practice, civil–military relations refer to an open process of mutual influences between various actors within the context of a complex political system. In post-Cold War Europe, because the primacy of politics is an established principle, not only in established but also in transitional and consolidating democracies, the main problem of civil–military relations is no longer to avoid military coups. However, the absence of military coups does not imply the presence of harmony and an absence of tension. Disagreements have occurred but have never resulted in the overthrow of the political order. Tensions in civil–military relations have surfaced when the civilian leadership wanted to limit the autonomy and prerogatives which militaries enjoy, especially in post-authoritarian countries. As any other professional group in society pursuing corporate interests, the military tries to shield off their interests from outside control. At the same time, the civilian leadership tries to avoid that the autonomy of the military is maintained or expanded beyond acceptable limits. Military autonomy as a rule covers issues of operations budget planning, military justice, military education and defence reform. The case study of the Former Federal Public of Yugoslavia (FRY) illustrates how the military leadership managed for years to delay necessary defence reform of their oversized military.

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 253 In addition to keeping the military accountable, the main challenge for civilian leaders in European democracies currently is defence reform, that is, to adapt the military to the new security threats and missions. In particular, the following two questions have to be addressed:

•

•

To what extent should the military be involved in (re-) directing national and trans-national security and foreign policy? Which new missions and what relevance should the military have in the European integration of security policy? How much decision-making power should be delegated from the political level to the military level in the implementation of the new missions mainly outside national territory, be it on monitoring missions, traditional peacekeeping operations to enforcement operations, pre-emptive operations and post-conflict reconstruction? How can a transparent division of competences between the civilian and the military level be realised which is in accordance with the legitimate primacy of politics and the need for the autonomy of the military professional?

As shown in our studies in post-Cold War Europe, the danger is not so much the unjustified intervention of the military in politics, but the danger of unjustified intervention of political leaders in military competences and professional autonomy. Unjustified political intervention can manifest itself in political micro-management of military deployments abroad (e.g. peacekeeping operations) or the political instrumentalisation of the military in domestic political conflicts. Both results are highly undesirable: micro-management might endanger the mission or the safety of military personnel in deployments abroad and the misuse of the military in domestic conflict leads to the politicisation of the military. The case studies have also shown that civil–military relations involve more than civilians and military leaders. It has become clear that civil–military relations consist of various actors. The civilian side includes actors such as the head of state, prime minister, minister of defence, parliament, judiciary, independent ombudsman and the media and even the people as shown in the case of the Swiss referendums. All these institutions and actors play a role in keeping the armed forces accountable. The same holds true for the military side, which includes a variety of actors at different levels of the hierarchy. Additionally, the military side includes various branches of the security sector, such as the military police and intelligence services. Therefore, instead of using the simple picture of civilians versus military, it is better to use the concept ‘governance of civil–military relations’ which includes a wide variety of state and non-state as well as military and nonmilitary actors involved in controlling the armed forces. The analysis also shows that all crises and institutional changes described in the 28 case studies could be characterised in terms of the four key dimensions previously outlined: power, transparency, culture and efficiency. The four key dimensions of civil–military relations can be regarded as a main research result as they provide a framework for an analysis of civil–military relations. Bringing these four categories together, the following definition for the democratic

254 Hans Born, Marina Caparini, Karl W. Haltiner and Jürgen Kuhlmann governance of civil–military relations on the national level can be established: governance of civil–military relations refers to the degree of consensus between elites about the desired security policy, the power of those political elites to direct the military, in a transparent and efficient manner, based on a country’s political culture. This definition is based on the data, conceptualised in an inductive manner. It is a problem-based description as it shows where problems may arise: consensus among elite(s); the power to direct; transparency; efficiency; and culture. Whether the governance of civil–military relations is democratic, depends on whether the (political) elites are democratically legitimised and whether the power is exercised within the rule of law. The concept of governance allows for both state and private actors to be involved in civil–military relations, i.e. ministries, cabinet ministers, media, unions, NGOs, think tanks and pressure groups. In conclusion, this volume deals with problems affecting civil–military relations in 14 European states. It is important to underline that the political control of the armed forces in daily life reality is hampered by conflict and problems in both Western and Eastern European democracies. However, the nature and causes of conflict between civilian and military authorities do differ in various selected states. Transition states are confronted with all types of problems, especially civilian elite power struggles. The case studies of Georgia, Macedonia and the former FRY show that civil–military relations are more about civil–civil conflicts than about civil–military conflicts, pointing to the phenomenon that competing civilian elites instrumentalise the armed forces in domestic conflict. Consolidating democracies are dealing with all type of problems except for very severe conflicts between civilian elites over the control of the armed forces. Established democracies are by and large free from power struggles between civilian and military elites as well as from crises caused by lack of efficiency, but are confronted with problems caused by a lack of transparency and cultural differences between civilian and military leaders. This is not to say that power struggles between civilian and military actors do not exist in established democracies. However, it does indicate that procedures and rules have been institutionalised in established democracies which are accepted by the parties involved and which also moderate civil–military conflicts in such a way that they do not threaten the established order. The presented case-studies in this volume demonstrate that the way crises in civil–military relations are addressed is generally dependent on the political culture and traditions of a given country. Because of the variety of political cultures in Europe (and elsewhere), it is predicted that at best minimal standards of democratic governance of the military institutions can be postulated, which then have to be adjusted to a country’s practice and culture. One single best model for democratic governance of civil–military relations does not and probably can never exist.

Notes 1 See, for example, the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, Budapest, 1994.

Patterns of democratic governance in civil–military relations 255 2 See on this topic Feaver, 1996, p. 149. Feaver states that: ‘neither Huntington nor Janowitz adequately explain the problem of civilian control and so both are uncertain guides for future study and policymaking’ (ibid. p. 150). The post-Cold War dialogue on this matter is summarised by Cohn, 1999. 3 See also: ‘Roles and Responsibilities of Parliament and other State Institutions’, in Born, Fluri and Johnson, 2003, p. 20. 4 Cf., too, the critique ‘of principles of democratic force control’ in Born, Haltiner and Maleši=, 2004, p. 14. 5 The United Nations Development Report (2002) provides a list of actors in the security sector, see p. 87, box 4.1 ‘Who’s who in the security sector’. 6 See, for example, the classical study of Luckham, 1971 or the more recent study of Cottey, Edmunds and Forster, 2002. 7 Marlene Urscheler, formerly at Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF); Jonathan Bennett and Tibor Szvircsev, both Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ). 8 According to Abenheim the concept of Innere Führung defies easy translation. ‘Perhaps the phrase “leadership and participation” best conveys what the Bundeswehr means by Innere Führung’, Abenheim, 1990, p. 32. 9 ‘Civilianisation’ of ministry of defence refers to the process of appointing (especially high level) civilian employees in the ministry of defence, to provide the minister with advice and expertise. For a full understanding of the concept, see Chapter 7 in this volume, which describes the ‘civilianisation’ attempts in the Polish Ministry of Defence. 10 The grouping is based on the Freedom House categorisation for 2003. The group of parliamentary democracies includes countries with a president as the head of state, but who plays a ceremonial role only, for example Germany and Hungary. 11 Why so many former communist Eastern European states have chosen a presidential system is not clear. Perhaps the founding fathers of the new democracies thought that a centralised presidential political system would be the best option for a new and often fragile democracy. However, this question remains outside the scope of this chapter. 12 Only compulsory military service generates an exception, which in fact is not arbitrary, because it is a national enacted compulsory labour – and therefore requires particularly exhaustive legitimisation. 13 Cf. United Nations Development Report, 2002, p. 87, box 4.1 ‘Who’s who in the security sector’. 14 A similar opinion is represented in Mileham, 2004, p. 88. He refers uncritically to an article in the British Journal Army Doctrine Publication in 2000 (prepared under the direction of the Chief of the General Staff). Also the Conseil supérieur de la fonction militaire, which is little surprising, maintains that the readiness to make sacrifices is a ‘sacred principle’ in the profession of a soldier, cf. the French case study in this book. 15 Also authors of the case studies of this book may have kept requirements of an apolitical military as an immutable fact in their mind, when they criticised insufficient political neutrality of the high-ranking military several times. 16 In 2002, the military are entitled to found or to join military representative associations in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Slovenia and Switzerland, see Born, Fluri and Johnson, 2003, p. 150. 17 France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Poland, the former FRY and Switzerland.

256 Bibliography

Bibliography

Abenheim, D. (1990) ‘The Citizen in Uniform: Reform and its Critics in the Bundeswehr’, in S. F. Szabo (ed.) The Bundeswehr and Western Security, Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press. Adevarul (1999) 6 January, Romania. AFP (2001) ‘Ukraine Defence Minister Denies Missile Shot Down Russian’, Kiev, 5 October. Ahern, B. (2003) ‘Statement by Taoiseach to Dáil Éireann Regarding the Situation in Iraq’, 20 March. Almond, G. and Sidney, V. (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Andresen, U. (1999) ‘Ein Bürger in Uniform’, (A Citizen in Uniform) Die Tageszeitung, No. 5897, 28 July, p. 13. Artene, A. (2002) ‘Generalul Spiroiu: Afacerea “Motorola” era necesara pentru Armata’ (General Spiroiu: the Motorola deal was necessary for the Army) Ziua, 22 January. Avant, D. (1994) Political Institutions and Military Change, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. AZI (2000) ‘Chiar si fara Iliescu in coasta, Constantinescu va rata alegerile’ (Even without Iliescu sticking in his ribs, Constantinescu will lose the elections) 15 June. Bald, D., Kutz, M., Messerschmidt, M. and Wette, W. (1994) ‘Bundeswehr, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft – Ein labiler Konsens wird aufgekündigt’ (The Army, Science and Society – an Unstable Consensus is being Revoked) Sicherheit und Frieden, 1(19). Banac, I. (1998) ‘Srbi u Hrvatskoj: povijest i perspektive’ (The Serbs in Croatia: history and prospects) in Croatian Helsinki Human Rights Committee, Srbi u Hrvatskoj – ju=er, danas, sutra (The Serbs in Croatia – yesterday, today, tomorrow) Zagreb. Barany, Z. (1993) ‘Civil–Military Relations: East-Central and Southern Europe’, Political Studies, December, 41(4). Bavcon, L. (1994) ‘Uzurpacija oblast je najhujši napad na pravno dr/avo, demokracijo in =lovekove pravice’ (The usurpation of power is the worst attack on the rule of law, democracy and human rights) Republika, Slovenia, 29 March. Bebler, A. (1992) ‘Der Krieg in Yugoslawien 1991–1992’ (The war in Yugoslavia) Oesterreichische Militaerische Zeitschrift, 5. Bebler, A. (1994a) ‘Civil–Military Relations in the Central-East European States in Transition’, A paper presented at the International Conference: Civil–Military Relations in a Democracy, Ljubljana and Lake Bled, Slovenia. Bebler, A. (1994b) ‘The Evolution of Civil–Military Relations in Central and Eastern Europe’, NATO Review, August, 42(4), pp. 28–32.

Bibliography

257

Bebler, A. (ed.) (1997) Civil–Military Relations in Post Communist States, Central and Eastern Europe in Transition, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Ben-Gurion, D. (1971) Yichud Vi’Yiud, Ma’arachot (Hebrew). Ben-Meir, Y. (1995) Civil–Military Relations in Israel, New York: Columbia University Press. Ben-Meir, Y. (2001) ‘A Crisis in Civil–Military Relations’, Jerusalem Post, 15 October, Israel. Benn, A. (2002a) ‘The Seam Line: Sharon Decided to Show Mofaz Who’s Boss’, Ha’aretz, Israel. Benn, A. (2002b) ‘The Army Dictates, the Political Level Accepts’, Haaretz, 8 August. Betros, L. (2001) ‘Political Partisanship and the Military Ethic in America,’ Armed Forces & Society, summer, 27(4). Betz, D. and Lowenhardt, J. (eds) (2001) Army and State in Post-Communist Europe, London: Frank Cass. Biš=ak, J. (1994) ‘Akcija ni bila izvedena v skladu z na=eli vojaškega poveljevanja’ (Action was not performed in conformity with principles of military command) Delo, 14 July, Slovenia. Bland, D. (1995) ‘Protecting the Military Form Civilian Control: A Neglected Dimension of Civil–Military Relations’, in E. Gilman and D. Herold (eds) Democratic and Civil Control Over Military Forces: Case Studies and Perspectives, Roma, NATO Defence College Monograph Series, 3, p. 110. Bland, D. (1999) ‘A Unified Theory Of Civil–Military Relations’, in Armed Forces and Society, autumn, 26(1). Boëne, B. (1993) Enquête comparative européenne ‘Officiers’, volet français (French findings, ERGOMAS survey of European officers, 1992–1993) Coëtquidan: Centre de Recherche. Boëne, B. (2001) ‘Western-Type Civil–Military Relations Revised’, in D. Mam, E. benAri and Z. Rosenhek (eds) Military, State, and Society in Israel, New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers. Boëne, B. and Martin, M. L. (eds) (1991) Conscription et armée de métier (Conscription and Professional Armies) Paris, Documentation française. Born, H., Caparini, M. and Fluri, P. (eds) (2002) Security Sector Reform and Democracy in Transitional Societies, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Born, H., Caparini, M. and Haltiner, K. (2002) ‘Models of Democratic Control of the Armed Forces: A Multi-Country Study Comparing “Good Practices” of Democratic Control’, in H. Born, M. Caparini and K. Haltiner (eds) Security Sector Reform and Democracy in Transitional Societies. Proceedings of the Democratic Control of Armed Forces Workshops at the 4th International Security Forum, Geneva, November 15–17, 2000, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Born, H., Fluri, P. and Johnson, A. (2003) Handbook on Parliamentary Oversight of the Security Sector: Principles, Mechanisms and Practices, Handbook Nr. 5 for Parliamentarians, Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)/DCAF: Geneva. Born, H., Haltiner K. and Maleši=, M. (2004) ‘Democratic Control of Armed Forces: Renaissance of an Old Issue’, in H. Born, K. Haltiner and M. Maleši= (eds) Renaissance of Democratic Control of Armed Forces in Contemporary Societies, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Bornschier, V. (1998) Westliche Gesellschaft: Aufbau und Wandel (Western Society: Structure and Change) Zürich: Seismo.

258 Bibliography Bossanyi, K. (1999) ‘Economic Processes’, in The Reliable Book of Facts: Hungary ’98, Budapest: Greger-Delacroix. Bryden, A. and Hänggi, H. (eds) (2004) Reform and Reconstruction of the Security Sector, Münster: Lit Verlag. Bujoševi¼, D. and Radovanovi¼, I. (2000) Dvadeset =etiri Sata Prevrata (Podaci o knjizi: October 5: A Twenty Four Hour Coup) Serbia-Montenegro: Krug Centre. Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1986) BVG 1, WB 28/86, Germany. Burk, J. (2002) ‘Theories of Democratic Civil–Military Relations’, in Armed Forces & Society, autumn, 29(1), pp. 7–29. Cadikovski, M. and Fakic S. (2001) ‘2001 Ekonomija: Vlast so leplivi prsti’ (2001 Economics: Government with sticky fingers) Aktuel, 1(41/42), pp. 34–6. Callaghan, C. (2001) ‘Neutrality Group Calls for No to Nice Treaty’, The Irish Times, 22 May. Caforio, G. (ed.) (2002) Handbook of the Sociology of the Military, New York, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Caparini, M. (2003) ‘Security sector reform and NATO and EU enlargements’, SIPRI Yearbook 2003: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caparini, M. (ed.) (2004) Media in Security and Governance: The Role of the News Media in Security Oversight and Accountability, Baden-Baden: Nomos Publishers. Chirac J. (2002) ‘Discours du président de la République lors de l’inauguration de l’année du Bicentenaire de Saint-Cyr’ (Speech of the President of the Republic at the inauguration of the year of the Bicentenary of Saint-Cyr) Paris, Ecole Militaire, 25 January. Choroszy, R. (2001a) ‘Offsetowa $amig$ówka’ (Offset Puzzle) Polska Zbrojna, 30 April/1 May, pp. 8–10, Poland. Choroszy, R. (2001b) ‘Zbrojeniówka przed wyborami’ (Before the election of Zbrojeniówka) Polska Zbrojna, 29 September, p. 3, Poland. Codrescu, C. (ed.) (1998) ‘Armata Romana in Revolutia din Decembrie 1989: Studiu Documentar’ (The Romanian Army in the Revolution of December 1989: Documentary Study) Bucharest: Editura Militara. Cohen, S. (1994) La défaite des généraux (The Defeat of the Generals) Paris: Fayard. Cohn, L. (1999) ‘The evolution of the civil–military “gap” debate,’ Duke University. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 28 May 2005). Constitutional Court (1991) Declaration of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Hungary, 48/1991, (IX.26) Hungary. Cotidianul (1999a) 5 January, Romania. Cotidianul (1999b) 14 January, Romania. Cotidianul (1999c) Citing 1991 interview with Corneliu Coposu, President of the National Peasant Party-Christian Democrat. 21 January, Romania. Cotidianul (1999d) 18 January, Romania. Cottey, A., Edmunds, T. and Forster, A. (eds) (2001) Democratic Control of the Military in Post-Communist Europe: Guarding the Guards, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Cottey, A., Edmunds, T. and Forster, A. (2002) ‘The Second Generation Problematic: Rethinking Democracy and Civil–Military Relations’, in Armed Forces & Society, autumn, 29(1), pp. 31–56. Crène, Y. (Gen.) (2002) ‘Objectif 2002: Point de Situation (Objective 2002: Point of Situation)’, Terre-Magazine, October.

Bibliography

259

Cronica Romana (1999a) 11 January, Romania. Cronica Romana (1999b) 26 January, Romania. Csendes, L. (1998) Hadseregtörténet 1945–1998, Új Honvédségi Szemle Különkiadás (The history of the army between 1945–1998) Budapest, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hungary. Curentul (1999) 8 January, Romania. Curierul National (2000) 17 February, Romania. Cusack, J. (1999) ‘PfP to “Liberate” Defence Forces’, 15 October, p. 6. Cusack, J. (2000b) ‘Army Chief Sets Deadline of 2003’, Irish Times, 15 November, p. 9. Czech Ministry of Defence (2001) ‘Analysis of Required Capabilities, Target Structure and Composition of the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic’, Prague. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 31 March 2005). Czwartosz, G. (2002) ‘Dobrych manier czar’ (Charming Good Manners) Polska Zbrojna, 11 March 2002, p. 5, Poland. Dáil Debates (1997) ‘The National Parliament consists of the President and two Houses: the Dáil Éireann – the House of Representatives – and the Seanad Éireann – the Senate’, Houses of the Oireachtas, 479, pp. 514–39. Dandeker, C. (1994) ‘National Security and Democracy: The United Kingdom Experience’, Armed Forces & Society, 20(3), p. 353. Dandeker, C. and Gow, J. (2004) ‘Military Culture and Strategic Peacekeeping’ in J. Callaghan and M. Schönborn (eds) Warriors in Peacekeeping. Points of Tension in Complex Cultural Encounters, Münster: Lit Verlag. Danopoulos, C. and Zirker, D. (1996) Civil–Military Relations in the Soviet and Yugoslav Successor States, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Davis, I., et al. (2001) Organised Crime, Corruption and Illicit Arms Trafficking in an Enlarged EU, Challenges and Perspectives, Report, Small Arms and Security in EU Assosiate Countries, London, Saferworld, December. De Bréadún, D. (2001) ‘Anti-Nice Campaign Launched’, The Irish Times, 23 May. Defence-Express (2001) ‘There Will Be Civilian State Secretary in Defence Ministry. Documents Regimenting Defence Reform and Democratic Civilian Control over Power Structures are Urgently Being Updated’, Kyiv, Ukraine, 2 November. Den (2002) ‘The General Staff Warns … The Defence Reform is not Funded’, 22 May, p. 1. Desch, M. (1999) Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Diac, M. (2001a) ‘MapN – fortat sa cumpere fara licitatie doua elicoptere de 7 milioane dolari: HG 1240/2000 poarta semnaturile lui Isarescu, Remes si Plangu’ (RMND – forced to buy two helicopters for 7 million dollars without seeking bids: Governmental Decision 1240/2000 bears the signatures of Isarescu, Remes and Plangu) Adevarul, 30 January. Diac, M. (2001b) ‘Ministrul Ioan Mircea Pascu a ordonat o ancheta pe tema schimbul de teren intre MapN si George Becalli’ (Minister Ioan Mircea Pascu has ordered an investigation into the exchange of land between the RMND and George Becalli) Adevarul, 23 May. Diac, M. (2001c) Conducerea MapN interzice orice transfer de bunuri ale Armatei catre persoane private’ (The leadership of the RMND prohibits the transfer of Army goods to private persons) Adevarul, 2 December. Diaconescu, G., Serban, F. and Pavel, N. (1996) Democratic Control over the Army in Romania, Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica.

260 Bibliography Dimevski, S. (2001) ‘Strictly “Controlled” Crime’, AIM Press, 27 April. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 25 May 2005). Dimimeata (1999) ‘Preconizata interventiei a Armatei impotriva minerii naste si proteste’ (The foreseen intervention of the Army against the miners has also given rise to protests) 21 January, Romania. Djurdjevi¼-Luki¼, S. (2002) Jugoslavija i NATO – Ulaz u predvorje (Yugoslavia and NATO – Entering the Hall) NIN, Belgrade, 23 May, Serbia-Montenegro. DMCS (2000) ‘Review of the Management and Administration of the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Poland’, DMCS Study 23, London, Ministry of Defence, pp. 3, 9–10, 13. Donnelly, C. (2001) ‘Rethinking Security’, NATO Review, winter, 48, pp. 32–4. Dragomir, D. (2001) ‘Ioan Mircea Pascu a discutat cu secretarul general al NATO despre coruptia din Romania’ (Ioan Mircea Pascu discussed corruption in Romania with the Secretary General of NATO) Cotidanul, 31 January. Dragomir, D. (2002) ‘Mircea Pascu: Exista o batalie surda pentru programele de modernizare’ (A silent battle exists for modernisation programs) Ziua, 27 March. Dr=ar-Murko, M. (1994) ‘Neusmiljena te)a svobode’ (Relentless weight of freedom) Delo, Sobotna priloga, 26 March, Slovenia. Ebeling, K., Seiffert, A. and Senger, R. (2002) ‘Ethische Fundamente der Inneren Führung’ (The Ethical Foundations of Innere Führung) Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr, Arbeitspapier 132, Strausberg. E.C.G. (1999) ‘Militarii pot deschide focul in stare de urgenta’ (Military personnel can open fire in states of emergency) Jurnalul National, 23 January. EUROMIL (2003) ‘What is Euromil?’, Brussels. Online. Available: (accessed 30 March 2005). Feaver, P. D. (1996) ‘The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control,’ winter, 23(2). Feaver, P. D. (1997) ‘Crisis as Shirking: An Agency Theory Explanation of the Souring of American Civil–Military Relations’, Armed Forces and Society, 24(2) winter. Feaver, P. D. and Kohn, R. H. (1999) ‘Digest of Findings and Studies: Project on the Gap Between the Military and Civilian Society’, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, 28–29 October. Feaver, P. D. and Kohn, R. H. (eds) (2001) Soldiers and Civilians. The Civil–Military Gap and American National Security, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fitch, J. S. (1998) The Armed Forces and Democracy in Latin America, Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fleckenstein, B. (1999) ‘Innere Führung in the Process of Change’, in G. H. Jenkins (ed.) Leadership for Change, Final Technical Report to the European Research Office of the US Army, University of Hull. Forster, A., Cottey, A. and Edmunds, T. (eds) (2002) Democratic Control of the Military in Post-Communist Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Fotache, V. (2001) ‘Ministerul Public confirma efectuarea de cercetari fata de directorul general al SC Aerostar SA Bacau’ (The Public Minister confirms the investigation of the director general of SC Aerostar SA Bacau) Adevarul, 21 February. Freedom House (2003) ‘List of Electoral Democracies’ Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 23 May 2005). ‘Friedensbewegung für die Bundeswehr kein Problem’ (Peace Movement Poses no Threat to the German Army) (1986) Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung, 20 October.

Bibliography

261

Gabal, I. (2002) ‘Stíha=ky: bylo nebylo, bude nebude’ (The supersonics: how it was and how it will be) 22 February, Czech Republic. Online, internet independent magazine ‘Neviditeln# pes’ (The Invisible Dog). Available HTTP: (accessed 23 May 2005). Gartner, H., Hyde-Price, A. and Reiter, E. (eds) (2001) Europe’s New Security Challenges, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Gautschi, W. (1989) General Henri Guisan, Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Gazdík, J. (2001) L-159, ‘Blamá) nebo nad¾jné dítko?’ (L-159: A Disgrace, or a promising kid?) Mladá fronta DNES, 13 November, p. 10, Czech Republic. Gazeta Wyborcza (1995) ‘Próba deMONtaski, A. (2001) ‘Korupcja w mundurze i w garniturze’ (Corruption in Uniform and in a Suit) Polska Zbrojna, 6 July, p. 6, Poland. Karkoszka, A. (2002) ‘Polata¼ czy pomy[le¼?’ (What does Polata¼ think?) Polityka, 10 August, pp. 27–28, Poland. Keatinge, P.A. (1978) A Place Among the Nations: Issues of Irish Foreign Policy, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. Kedro±, R. (2003) ‘Sháníte samopal ? Zkuste burzu u Kladna’ (Looking for a machine gun? Try a flea market near Kladno) Mladá fronta DNES, 2 April, p. 5. Kelemen, L. (1999) ‘A honvédelem központi igazgatásának problemai a NATO-csatlakozás összefüggésében’ in Tanulmánygy¬jtemény – Vállogatás a HonvédelmiMinisztérium 1998. évi kutatási eredményeit összegz÷ tanulmányokból’ (‘Problems of the Central Administration of Defence in the Light of Joining NATO’ in Selected Essays from MoD Researchers 1998) Budapest: HM OTF. Kelleher, C. M. (1990) ‘Fundamentals of German Security: The Creation of the Bundeswehr – Continuity and Change’, in S. F. Szabo (ed.) The Bundeswehr and Western Security, London and Basingstoke: Macmillan. Kemp, W. (2002) ‘Profiting from Instability: Crime, Corruption and Inter-Ethnic Conflict’, 5th International Security Forum, Zurich, 14–16 October 2002. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 12 May 2005). Kernic, F. (1997) Demokratie und Wehrsystem (Democracy and Military Systems) Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. Khokhotva, I. (2003) ‘Georgia Revolution Inspires Neighbours’, BBC News, 27 November. Kimche, J. (1961) Spying for Peace: General Guisan and Swiss Neutrality, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Kittel, B. and Marsza$ek, A. (2001) ‘Kasjer z Ministerstwa Obrony’ (Cashier from the Ministry of Defence) Rzeczpospolita, 7 July, pp. 2–3. Kohn, R. H. (1994) ‘Out of Control’, National Interest, spring, p. 35. Komárek, M. (2001) ‘Tvrdíkovo tvrzení’ (What Tvrdík Claims) Mladá fronta DNES, Czech Republic, 7 November, p. 6. Kravchuk, Leonid (2001) ‘Image of Ukraine has Suffered from Heavy Blow’, 12 October. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 15 May 2005). Kubát, M. (2003) Postkomunismus a demokracie: Politika ve st&edov#chodní Evrop¾ (Postcommunism and Democracy: Policy in Central and Eastern Europe) Praha, Doko&án, Czech Republic. Kuhlmann, J. and Callaghan, J. (eds) (2000) Military and Society in 21st Century Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Münster: Lit Verlag. LaFraniere, S. and Hockstader, L. (2001) ‘Russian Plane Explodes Over Black Sea’, The Washington Post, 5 October.

Bibliography

265

Lanxade, J. (2001) Quand le monde a basculé, Paris: Nil. Larson, A. D. (1974) ‘Military Professionalism and Civil Control: A Comparative Analysis of Two Interpretations’, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 2(1), pp. 57–72. Latawski, P. (1999) The Transformation of the Polish Armed Forces: Preparing for NATO, London: The Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. Lendi, M. (2001) Rechtsordnung: eine Einführung in das schweizerische Recht mit Tafeln und Beispielen (Legal order: an Introduction to Swiss Rights with Boards and Examples) überarb. und aktualisierte Aufl. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zürich. Lendi, M. (2002) Appraisal to Country-sheet Switzerland’ for the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, unpublished paper, Geneva. Libertatea (1999) 8 January, Romania. Limor Y. (2001) ‘Beginning his Extended Tenure’, Ma’ariv, 2 April, Israel. Lipset, S. M. (1960) Political Man. The Social Basis of Politics, Garden City, KS: Doubleday & Company. Longchamp, C. (1989) Vox-Analyse: Nachbefragung zur Initiative Schweiz ohne Armee (Vox-Analysis: Exit Poll on the Initiative of Switzerland Without and Army) Zürich. Luckham, R. A. (1971) ‘A Typology of Civil–Military Relations’, in Government and Opposition, 6(1) pp. 5–35. Luttwak, E. N. (1999) ‘From Vietnam to Desert Fox: Civil–Military Relations in Modern Democracies’, in Survival, spring, 41(1), p. 99. Magyar Hírlap (1991) ‘General Lorincz’s resignation letter’, 4 April. Magyar Hírlap (1997) ‘Interview with General Végh’, Magyar Hírlap, 19 July. Maleši=, M. (2000) ‘Slovenian Security – A Transition Process’, in L. Jeluši= and J. Selby (eds) Defence Restructuring and Conversion: Sociocultural Aspects, Brussels: European Commission. Maleši=, M. (2001) ‘Civilno-vojni odnosi u Sloveniji – problemi i perspektive’ (Civil– military relations in Slovenia – problems and perspectives) in M. Had)i¼, Demokratska kontrola vojske i policije (Democratic Control of the Military and Police) Belgrade: Futura Trend. March, J. and Olsen, J. (1984) ‘The New Institutionalism: Organisational Factors in Political Life’, American Political Science Review, 78 September. Matache, G. (2002) ‘The New Procurement Concept’, in L. L. Watts (ed.) Romanian Military Reform and NATO Integration, Iasi-Oxford-Portland: Center for Romanian Studies, pp. 135–50. Matei, S. and Dianconu, F. (2001) ‘Experti americani acuza Romania de export illegal de armament in Irak’ (American experts acuse Romania of illegal arms exports to Iraq) Jurnalul National, 19 June. Mediafax (1999) 19 January, Romania. Mercier, P. (Gen., Army Chief of Staff) (1997) ‘Le chef d’État-major de l’armée de terre interpelle Lionel Jospin sur la baisse des crédits militaires’ (The Chief of the Army General Staff Questions Lionel Jospin on the Decrease of Military Allowances) Le Monde, 17 November, p. 1. Mercier, P. (Gen., ret.) (2002) ‘Armée: le déclin annoncé’ (The Army: a Foreshadowed Decline) Libération, 12 February. Michta, A. (1997) The Soldier-Citizen: The Politics of the Polish Army After Communism, New York: St Martin’s Press. Miheljak, V. (1994) ‘Prvi pu= v samostojni Sloveniji’ (The first military coup in independent Slovenia) Republika, 23 March.

266 Bibliography Mile, S. and Zoran, J. (eds) (2001) Democratic Control of the Military, Collected Papers, April, Belgrade: Federal Ministry of Defence. Mileham, P. (2004)‚ ‘Civilized Warriors? Professional Disciplines, Ethos, and European Armed Forces’, in Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes, Connections, The Quarterly Journal, III(1) March. Mitek, T. (1997) ‘Obronno[¼ bez kontrowersji’ (Defence without Arguing) Polska Zbrojna, 7 February, p. 10, Poland. Mladá fronta DNES, Czech Republic, 4 July 2002, p. 6; 11 March 2003; 30 May 2003; 2 June 2003; 10 July 2003, p. 7. Online. Available HTTP: , , (accessed 17 May 2005). Möhle, H. (1997) ‘Paragraph 1: Der Minister schießt immer zurück’ (Paragraph 1: The Minister always shoots back) Neue Ruhr Zeitung (NRZ) No. 282, 29 November. Monitorul Oficial al Romaniei (1999) XI (22), 21 January, Romania. Morgan, M. J. (2003) ‘The Reconstruction of Culture, Citizenship, and Military Service’, in Armed Forces and Society, spring, 29(3), pp. 373–91. Muntiyan, V. (2003) ‘Systemic Approach to Scientific Study of Security and Defence’, Nauka i Oborona, No. 1. Murphy, R. (1994) ‘Ireland: Legal Issues Arising from Participation in United Nations Operations’, International Peacekeeping (Kluwer) 1(2), pp. 61–4. Murphy, R. (1998) ‘Ireland, the United Nations, and Peacekeeping Operations’, International Peacekeeping, spring, 5(1), pp. 33–4. Murphy, R. (1999) ‘Legal Framework of UN Forces and Issues of Command and Control of Canadian and Irish Forces’, Journal of Armed Conflict Law, 4, pp. 41–73. Murphy, R. (2003) ‘EU Bewildered by Ireland’s Attitude to Peacekeeping Force in Macedonia’, The Irish Times, 25 March. Nanevska, B. (2001) ‘Macedonia: In the Quicksand of Corruption’, AIM Press. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 23 May 2005). National (1999a) 8 January, Romania. National (1999b) ‘Armata a vizat izolarea zonei de conflict si intarirea pozitiei premierului Radu Vasile la negocieri’ (The Army sought to isolate the conflict area and strengthen the negotiating position of Prime Minister Radu Vasile) 25 January, Romania. National Security and Defence (2001) ‘Democratic Civilian Control over the Military Sector in Ukraine: on the Path from Form to Substance’, Analytical Reports of Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies, Kiev: Razumkov Centre. Ne=as, P. (2002) ‘Stíha=ky nejsou prioritou’ (The supersonics are not a priority) Mladá fronta DNES, 9 March, p. 12, Czech Republic. Nelson, D. N., ‘Definition, Diagnosis, Therapy – A Civil-Military Critique’, unpublished paper. ‘Negovanje i vrednovanje tradicija u VJ’ (1993) (Fostering and Treasure Traditions in the Yugoslav Army) Belgrade, Serbia-Montenegro: VINC. Népszabadság (2002) ‘Az ígéretet illik betartani’ (Nice to keep up a resolution) 7 August, Hungary. Népszava (1996) ‘Interview with General Végh’, 11 March. Nodia, G. (2002) in Akhali Versia Newspaper, 7–13 January. Noviny.cz (2003) on-line magazine of the daily PRÁVO and portal Seznam from 28 January. Online. Available (accessed 31 March 2005).

Bibliography

267

Nowak, P. F. (2002) ‘Bez emocji o zamównieniach’ (Without Emotion about Zamównieniach) Polska Zbrojna, 16 April, pp. 5–6, Poland. Oren, A. (2002a) ‘Skylight or Pinhole’, Haaretz, 8 February, Israel. Oren, A. (2002b) ‘Gaza Dilemmas’, Haaretz, 15 May, Israel. Oren, A. (2003) ‘The Attorney General’s Passivity’, Ha’aretz, 20 May, Israel. O’Sullivan, A. (2001) ‘Mofaz Apologizes Publicly for Criticism’, Jerusalem Post, 16 October, Israel. Parandowska, J. (1995) ‘Interview with Jerzy Milewski’, Polityka, 24 June, p. 12, Poland. Pascu, I. M. (2002) ‘Managing the “Big” Issues in Civil–Military Relations’, in L. L. Watts (ed.) Romanian Military Reform and NATO Integration, Iasi-Oxford-Portland, Center for Romanian Studies, pp. 25–36. PDFORRA: Ten Years On (1999) Video, Researched and produced by Michael O’Brien, Dublin, Ireland, Young Communications. Plangu, I. M. (1999) ‘Defence Planning for 2010’, in K. W. Treptow and M. E. Ionescu (eds) Romania and Euro-Atlantic Integration, Iasi-Oxford-Portland: Center for Romanian Studies, pp.139–40. Polska Zbrojna (2001) ‘Burza w MON’ (A Storm in the Ministry of Defence) 29 July, p. 11, Poland. Prayon, H. (1998) ‘In der Bundeswehr fehlt der Geist der Offenheit’ (In the German Federal Armed Forces the Spirit of Openness is Missing) Süddeutsche Zeitung, 23 January. Prentice, E. (1999) ‘Kosovo is Mafia’s heroin gateway to West’, The Sunday Times, 24 July. President of Georgia (2000) ‘The Main Directions of National Anti-Corruption Program of Georgia Project’, 31 October, Tbilisi. Presseerklärung des Darmstädter Signals (Press Statement by the Darmstädter Signals) (1983) 14 November, Germany. Przeworski, A. , Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J. A. and Limongi, F. (1996) ‘What Makes Democracies Endure’, Journal of Democracy, January, 7(1). Republika (1994) Open letter to the prime-minister signed by an influential civil society group, 23 March. Reinhardt, C. (1997a) ‘Alle kuschen vor dem IbuK’, (All Respect for IbuK) Frankfurter Rundschau, 27 November, p. 3. Reinhardt, C. (1997b) ‘Abkommandiert zum Sockenzählen’ (Reassigned to Count Socks) Frankfurter Rundschau, 23 Dezember, p. 3. Rieger, M. (1995) Konflikt und Konfliktvermeidung. Die Bearbeitung politischer Konflikte in der Bundeswehr (Conflict and Conflict Prevention. The Handling of Political Conflicts within the German Army) Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Rioufol, I. (2001) ‘Attention, Etat sourd!’ (Attention. State Deaf!) Le Figaro, 18 December. RMND (1999) Official Policy Position on Events in Jiu Valley, 18 January. RMND (2001) DMO No. M.32/20.03.2001, Romania. RMND (2002a) DMO No. M.6/18.01.2001, Romania. RMND (2002b) DMO No. M.21/2002, Romania. Romanian Government (1999a) Governmental Communique, 19 January, 1900 hours. Romanian Government (1999b) Governmental Communique, 22 January. Romanian Government (1999c) Governmental Communique, 22 January, 2029 hours. Romanian Government (2000) Cartea Alba: Armata Romaniei 2010, Bucharest. Romanian Ministry of Public Information (2002) Government Communique No. 1, 14 February.

268 Bibliography Romanian Presidency (1999a) Presidential Communique, 20 January, 1553 hours. Romanian Presidency (1999b) Presidential Communique, 22 January. Romanian Presidency (2001) Supreme Defense Council of the Country Decision No. 0101, 13 July. Rose, J. (1997) Die prekär gewordene Legitimität der Wehrpflicht – Anmerkungen zu einer unerwünschten Debatte (The Legitimacy of the Military Service becomes Precarious – Notes to an Unwanted Debate) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2 October, p. 11. Rose, J. (1998a) ‘Soldat und Meinungsfreiheit. Die Bedeutung von Meinungs – und Pressefreiheit im Rahmen der Inneren Führung (Soldier and Freedom of Opinion. The Significance of Freedom of Opinion and Press Freedom in the Context of ‘Innere Führung’) Sicherheit und Frieden, 3, p. 178. Rose, J. (1998b) ‘Wider den (Un-)Geist des Traditionalismus im deutschen Militär’ (Against the (malicious) Spirit of Traditionalism within the German Army) Frankfurter Rundschau, 25 May, p. 8. Rose, J. (1999) ‘Innere Führung und Meinungsfreiheit’ (Innere Führung and Press Freedom) in A. Prüfert (ed.) Ausbildung und Bildung im Militär. Zur Debatte um das Führungskräftetraining der Bundeswehr, Baden-Baden, Nomos, p. 73. Rössler, T. (1977) ‘Innere Führung’, in R. Zoll, et al. (eds) Bundeswehr und Gesellschaft, Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag, p. 123. Rozbicki W. (1996) ‘Po<egnanie z broni^’ (Bowing out the Weapons) Gazeta Wyborcza, 12 July, p. 20, Poland. Rustavi 2 TV Channel (2001) 25 September, 27 September, 13 October, 23 October. Rustavi 2 TV Channel (2002) 28 January. Rzeczpospolita (2001) ‘Przetarg na haubice’, 7 July, p. 6, Poland. Sashar, R. (2002) ‘Politicisation of Criminals’, PUCL Bulletin. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 25 May 2005). Schärer, S. (1997) Die Landesverteidigungskommission (LVK) 1945–1960: Organismus eigenen Rechts oder unter demokratischer Kontrolle? (The National Defence Commission (LVK) 1945–1960: Organism of its own Right or under Democratic Control?) unpublished paper, Bern. Schindler, D. (1999) Verfasssungsrechtliche Schranken für das Projekt Armee XXI’, Gutachten (Constitutional Lawful Barriers for the Project, Army XXI) zuhanden des Eidg. Departements für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport, Zollikon, Mimeo. Schwennicke, C. (1997) ‘Kohl von Demokratie in der Truppe überzeugt’ (Kohl Convinced of the Democracy of the Troop) in Süddeutsche Zeitung, No. 253, November 4, p. 5. Senn, H. (1995) Der Schweizerische Generalstab. Vol. VII, Anfänge einer Dissuasionsstrategie während des Zweiten Weltkriegs (The Swiss General Staff. Vol. VII, The Beginnings of a Dissuasion Strategy during the Second World War) Basel: Helbling & Lichthahn. Silvestri, F. (1999) ‘The Role of Drugs in the War of Kosovo’, Drugs and Development No. 16 (The monthly Newspapers of ENCOD) June. Simon, J. (1995) ‘Central European Civil–Military Relations and NATO Expansion’, McNair Papers, No. 39. Simon, J. (2000) ‘The New NATO Members: Will They Contribute?’ Strategic Forum, No. 160. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 12 April 2005). Slavik, M. (2001) ‘Industria de aparare sub senilele reformei’, Curierul National, 3 October, Romania.

Bibliography

269

Slavik, M. (2002) ‘Ioan Mircea Pascu: Modernizarea avioanelor – o decizie dictata de bani si considerente politico-militare’ (Ioan Mircea Pascu: The aircraft modernization – a decision dictated by money and political–military considerations) Curierul National, 28 March, Romania. Slovenian Ministry of Defence (1994) ‘Report’ from the press conference held by the Minister of Interior, Delo and Dnevnik, 24 March. Slovenska Kronika XX (1997) Stoletja: 1941–1995 (Slovenian Chronicle of 20th Century: 1941–1995) Ljubljana, Nova revija, Slovenia. Snider, D. and Carlton-Carew, M. A. (eds) (1995) U.S. Civil–Military Relations: In Crisis or Transition?, Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Soeters, J. L., Winslow, D. J. and Weibull, A. (2003) ‘Military Culture’, in Caforio, Giuseppe, Handbook of the Sociology of the Military, New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers. Szabo, J. (2001) Hader÷ átalakítás (Transforming the Military) Budapest, Zrínyi, Hungary. Szandar, A. (1997) ‘Druck von oben’ (Pressure from above) Der Spiegel, No. 49, p. 18. Szayna, T. S. and Larrabee, F. S. (1995) ‘East European Military Reform After the Cold War: Implications for the United States’, Santa Monica, CA: National Defence Research Institute, RAND. Szemerkenyi, R. (1996) ‘Central European Civil–Military Reforms At Risk’, Adelphi Paper, 306, p. 68. Szemle (1999) ‘Interview with Tamas Wachsler on Hungarian television’, 20 July, Budapest, Ministry of Defence, Hungary. Szemle (2000) Napi valogatas a magyar sajtobol (Daily Selection from Hungarian Newspapers) [CD-ROM], Budapest, Ministry of Defence, Hungary. Taylor, B. D. (2001) ‘Russia’s Passive Army: Rethinking Military Coups’, Comparative Political Studies October, 34(8), p. 925. The Weekly Reporter (2002) ‘Prislušni centar u vladinoj zgradi’, Surveillance Centre in the Government Building, 2 July, pp. 10–14, Serbia-Montenegro. Transparency International (2001) ‘Protests Highlight the Urgent Need for Clean Government in Georgia’, 12 November, Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 30 March 2005). Transparency International (2002) Transparency International Bribe Payers Index, Berlin, 14 May. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 30 March 2005). United Nations Development Report (2002) Human Development Report: Deeping Democracy in a Fragmented World, UNDP, New York: Oxford University Press. United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (1996) Review of Parliamentary Oversight of the Hungarian Ministry of Defence and Democratic Control of the Hungarian Armed Forces, London. US White House (1999) Declaration, Bureau of the Press Secretary, 23 January, in Adevarul, 26 January. Ústav strategick#ch studií (2002a) ‘Nadzvuková letadla pro Vzdušné síly Armády (R’ (Supersonics for the Air Force of the Czech Military, Institute for Strategic Studies of the Masaryk University in Brno). Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 13 May 2005). Ústav strategick#ch studií (2002b) ‘Gripeny v =esku’ (Gripens in the Czech Republic, The Institute for strategic studies. Online. Available HTTP: (accessed 13 May 2005).

270 Bibliography Vasle, V. (1994) ‘Vojna dveh ministrstev’ (The war between ministries) Delo, 25 March, Slovenia. Villiger, K. (1989) ‘Ein Militärputsch ist undenkbar’ (A Military Revolt is Unthinkable) Schweizer Illustrierte, 30 October, pp. 10–14. Vladescu, F. (1999) ‘Confuzie in MApN!’ (Confusion in the RMND!) Jurnalul National, 20 January, Romania. von Schubert, K. (1977) ‘Sicherheitspolitik’ (Security Politics) in R. Zoll et al. (eds) Bundeswehr und Gesellschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Watts, L. L. (2001) ‘The Crisis in Romanian Civil–Military Relations’, Problems of PostCommunism, 48(4), pp. 14–226. Weber, M. (1976) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie (Economics and society. Sketch for understanding sociology) Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Wollenmann, R. (2004) Zwischen Atomwaffe und Atomsperrvertrag (Between Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation) Zürich: Zürcher Beiträge für Sicherheitspolitik und Konfliktforschung, ETH, Forschungsstelle für Sicherheitspolitik. Xhudo, G. (1996) ‘Men of Purpose: The Growth of Albanian Criminal Activity’, Transnational Organised Crime, 2(1), pp. 1–20. Zimmermann, K. (1989) ‘Wie heilig ist die Kuh?’ (How Holy is the Cow?) Politik und Wirtschaft, 11, pp. 25–6. Zadok, H. (2002) ‘The Censured CGS Returns to his Bad Ways’, Yediot Acharonot, 7 April, Israel.

Index 271

Index

Abkhazia 88–9, 91–2, 93n3 Accountability: democratic 8, 79, 80, 142, 213; mechanism 11, 92, 237 Ahern, B. 214 Albania 50–1 Algeria 180, 182, 188–9n3 Almond, G. and Sidney, V. 243 Amber Fox mission 56 Andresen, U. 229 Armed Forces Institute for Social Research (SOWI) (Germany) 221–2 Artene, A. 24 Avant, D. 238 Babiuc, Defence Minister 30 Badrak, V. 68, 68–9 Bald, D. et al 232 Barak, E. 169, 170 Barany, Z. 131, 146 Bavcon, L. 144 Bebler, A. 10, 127, 130, 131 Ben-Gurion, D. 163–5 Ben-Meir, Y. 172 Benn, A. 171 Berceanu, R. 29 Betros, L. 250 Betz, D. and Lowenhardt, J. 10, 11 Bišèak, J. 140 Bland, D. 98, 242 Boëne, B. 159, 181; and Martin, M.L. 181 Böll, H. 222 Born, H. et al 5, 236, 241, 243, 249, 255 Bornschier, V. 242 Bossanyi, K. 124 Bryden, A. and Hänggi, H. 5 Bühlmann, et al. 192, 198 Bujoševi=, D. 41; and Radovanovi=, I. 46 Burk, J. 244 Cadikovski, M. and Fakic, S. 53

Caforio, G. 243 Cailleteau, F. 181 Callaghan, C. 214 Caparini, M. 9, 240, 243 Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) 8, 10 Chechnya, Chechens 89–92, 93n4, n6 Chirac, J. 181, 187 Choroszy, R. 109, 110 civil–military relations, actors in 59–60; analysis of case studies 237–40; analysis of 4; and apolitical military 250–2; case studies 236–7; categorisation of case studies 238–40; comparative approach to 10–11; concept of democratic control 4–7; and conflict with civil–civil authorities 240–2; control through professionalism/integration 236; culture dimension 239, 243–4, 248; deductive approach 238; democratisation of 244–7; differences in understanding 236; difficulties in former socialist countris 131–2; and division of labour/professional expertise/ethos 249–50; effectiveness/ efficiency dimension 239, 242, 248; and ethnicity 59; in Europe 236; and influences affecting democratic structures 9; international norms 3, 7; and manipulation of information 242–3; order-obey paradigm 3; overview of case studies 12–13; and passivity of post-Soviet militaries 8–9; and political non-intervention by military 7; and political systems 247–52; and post-Cold War era 8–10; and potential for military coups 8–9; power dimension 239, 240–2, 248; in practice 3–4; principal–agent model 238; problems with schematic Western

272 Index approaches to 60; and responsibility/ responsiveness of civilian authorities 7; shortcomings in normative theory 249; studies on 10; tensions in 9–10; towards an ideal model of 252–4; in transition states 130; transparency dimension 239, 242–3, 248; and under-/non-performance of the military 242; underlying common patterns in 238; USA ’gap’ in 9, see also named countries, e.g. Macedonia civil society 43, 44, 58, 77, 80, 128, 141, 143, 145–6, 155, 159, 199, 267 Codrescu, C. 27 Cohen, S. 182 Cole, R. 214 Congo 210 control: budget 239; civil 39, 81, 88, 118–9, 148, 177–8, 183, 185, 257, 263, 265; civilian control of the military/armed forces xiii, 3, 5–7, 10, 97–8, 101, 106, 111, 112; constitutional 241; democratic civil 80, 83, 87, 90–3 (see also country case studies); parliamentary 41, 72, 79, 81-5, 87, 89, 91–3; presidential 81 corruption scandal 49–53, 97–8, 108, 112 Cottey, A. et al. 10, 236, 246, 251 court: constitutional 38, 47, 118, 134, 244; military 38, 46, 131 Cowen, B. 214 Crène, Y. 183 Crvenkovski, Prime Minister 50 Csendes, L. 125 Czech armed forces, background 147–8; and balance between politicians– military–public 155; and budget cuts 148, 160n2; decision to reform 147; democratic control of 155–8, 159; dependence on Soviet aircraft 149; effect of flood damage on plans 147; and illegal sale of militaria 154, 161n21; and liquidation of ammunition 153, 161n19, n20; media interest in 155, 162n27; and military– civilian gap 156; modernisation of air force 148–53; modernisation of stores 154–5; production of domestic subsonic aircraft in 149–50, 160–1n6–n11; public debates on modernisation of 157, 162n27, n28; purchase of western supersonic fighter aircraft 150–3, 155, 161n13–n17, n24; reputation of fighter pilots 148, 160n3;

specialisation solution 157–8, 162n29; and theft of ammunition 153–4 Dandeker, C. 100; and Gow, J. 250 Danopoulos, C. and Zirker, D. 10 Davis, I. et al. 82 Dayton Accord 180 De Bréadún, D. 213 De Gaulle, C. 180, 189n3 Deak, J. 124 Degeratu, C. 32 democracy, case studies 237; and civil– military relations 244–7; and concept of control 4–7; consolidating 246; and control of armed forces 235–6; development/endurance of 235; dimensions of 240–6; and governance of security sector 241; influences affecting structures of 9; problems in 246–7 Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS), and deficiencies in civil–military sphere 40–1; disputes within 35; and elimination of ideology/politics from the army 44; and formal/organisational changes in army 43–4, 47n22–n26; lack of commitment to reform 40–1; and Pavkovi= Affair 38; political background of 40–1, 46n14; reasons for hesitation of 40–2; and removal of Miloševi= 40; and security 44; and silence on army reforms 41, see also Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) Depala Vas Affair (Slovenia) 136; accountability of armed forces to state 144; conspiracy theory 143; democratic accountability 142–3; international implications 143; as isolated event/pattern 144–5; judicial procedure 140–1; legal aspects 138–9; meritocratic behaviour 144; military action 136–7; Ministry of Interior’s position 138; MoD’s position 137–8; perceptions/implications 142–4; reaction of civil society 141–2; reaction of political state 139–40 Diac, M. 24 Diaconescu, G. et al. 28 Diaconescu, I. 30 Dimineata 32 Djindji=, 39, 41 Djukanovi=, President 36, 41–2 Djurdjevi=-Luki=, S. 44

Index 273 Donnelly, C. 82 Dragomir, D. 24, 25 Drèar-Murko, M. 143 Ebeling, K. et al. 218 European Association of Military Associations (EUROMIL) 206–7, 208 European Economic Community (EEC) 130 European Research Group on Military and Society (ERGOMAS) 11 European Union (EU) 31, 33, 130, 208, 213 Farmus, Z. 107 Feaver, P.D. 238, 250, 255; and Kohn, R.H. 17, 250 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) 237, 252; armed forces in 36; background 35–6, 45n1; and clericalisation of army 41, 46n16; and criminalisation of army 43, 47n20; and disaffection of army 42–3, 47n21; effect of war on reform 42–3; ethnic– religious framework in 40; and Law on Security Services 41, 47n18; limitation of sovereignty of 35–6; and Montenegrin army reform 41–2; and morale/identity of army 43; and Pavkovi= Affair 36–9, 45; political parties in 40; political situation in 35; and postponed security sector reform in 39–44; and principle of separation of powers in 35; and public lack of knowledge concerning the army 41; and reform of army/democratic civilian control 39, 41; and retaining of Miloševi=’s generals 39–40; secret services in 36, Serbia, Republic of 36, 39, 40, 246, 247; see also Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) Fillon, F. 181 Fitch, J.S. 7 Fleckenstein, B. 229 Fleischer, A. 64 Fodor, L. 121, 129n14 Forster, A. et al. 11 Fotache, V. 24 France 237, 244, 246, 247, 251; and Algeria 180, 188–9n3; approval of the military in 177, 188n1; background 177–80; civil–military relations in 177, 183–4; conscription in 181–2, 189n4, n5; and destabilisation of civil–

military relations 178, 188n2; and dismay voiced by generals in 180–4; gendarmes protest in 184–7, 189–90n11–n15; major changes in 177–8; managerialism vs professionalism in 188; military grievances in 177, 179–80, 183, 187; and military place in society 179–80; and peacekeeping in Bosnia 180; political–military interface 180–3; and possibility of military unions 180; principle of civil control in 183; public protests in 177, 178; and public service missions by the military 183, 189n6; radical/pragmatic professionalism in 184, 189n7, n8; and respect for/prestige of the military 183–4, 188, 189n9, n10; selection of cases 179–80; social trends/unrest in 178 Freedom House 11 Friedensbewegung 220 Gabal, I. 157 Gartner, H. et al. 44 Gazdik, J. 149 Georgia 236, 237, 246, 247; and Abkhazian conflict zone 88–9, 91–2, 93n4; anti-government uprising in 89; background 79–80; basic constitutional/legal framework 80–2; and Chechen guerrillas 89–92, 93n4, n6; civil–military relations in 79, 90–2; Constitution of 81; corruption as ‘way of life’ 82–3; defence budget (2002) 83–8; democratic legislation in 80; dismissal of entire government in 89, 93n5; elements of civil control in 88; and elimination of Soviet practices in 84; military/security policy in 88; National Security Councl in 81; need for political will in 92–3; parliamentary power in 81–2; precarious/unstable political situation in 79; shady ‘covert operations’ 88–92; and state secrets/classified information 80–1; structure of armed forces in 83; transparency in 84; US/ NATO involvement in 88; as ‘weak’ state 79 Georgievski, Prime Minister 51 Germany 237, 244, 246, 247, 251; background 217–19; Bundeswehrverband in 228, 232n18;

274 Index and case of Lt. Col. Rose 226–30; and Citizen in Uniform 218–19, 220, 228, 230; and conscription 226–7; Darmstadt Signal 220–26; disciplinary actions in 223, 232n7; forced military reassignments in 224; and freedom of speech 233; and lack of information on defence/security 221, 224; Legal Status of Military Personnel Act 218; limitations on civil rights in 218; and policy of imposing conformity 230; and soldiers interfering in security policy 219–26; support for Innere Führung in 217–19, 227, 230–1, 232n1, n2; and vision of good citizenship 218 Geser, H. 243 Gilardi, P. 201 Gow, J. and Birch, C. 10 Grass, G. 222 Grizold, A. 130 Grochowski, J. 100 Grozdi=, M. 46 Guisan, H. 194, 201n6 Haltiner, K.W. 192, 193, 199, 201, 243, 244; and Bennett, J. 198 Hänggi, H. 236 Harkabi, Y. 164 Harris, L. 189 Hartung, H. 184 Heisbourg, F. 181, 182 Hendrych, J. et al. 162 Hirschman, A. 179 Hislope, R. 55, 60 Hiza, R. and Nechita, B. 31 Hofnung, M. 165 Hradil, S. 200 Hug, P. 201 human right: civil right 80, 218, 236, 241; freedom of speech/expression 213, 21719, 221, 223, 225–7, 229, 231, 244, 246; freedom of assembly 218; freedom of association 205–6, 203, 207, 244, 255; organisation 141, 256; political rights 166; right to information 260 Hungary 237, 247; background 114–15; and case of General Végh 123–7; civil–military struggle in 115–23, 128; defence budgets in 114, 128n2; democratic transition/consolidation in 114; HQ home defence/MoD separation 115, 128n4; integration of

MoD/general staff in 115–23; political–military conflict in 116–17 Huntington, S.P. 81, 189 Iliescu, President 29 icompetence 119, 237, 242 India 150, 161n11 Innere Führung 217–19, 227, 230–1, 232n1, n2 Inoguchi, T. et al. 242 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) 53 International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) 224–5 Ionescu, C.D. 32 Ireland, Republic of 237, 244, 246, 247, 251; and ad hoc PDFORRA initiative 205–8; ambiguity of forces in 210; anti-war movement in 214; Brady Commission (Ireland) 205commitment to participation in UN operations 210; conditions of military in 204, 213; curtailment of democratic rights in 202–3; debates on PfP in 203; Defence Forces Review Implementation Plan 211; distrust of government motives in 214; and Fianna Fáil 212, 215n8; historical background of mlitary in 203–4; lack of policy/debate on defence issues in 204, 215n3; lobbying of military wives/chaplains in 204–5; and membership of UN 208, 209, 215n5; military neutrality of 208–9, 212–13, 214, 216n10; NASA initiative 205, 215n4; and NATO-led SFOR/KFOR operations 211–12, 215n7; NCOs in 202; neglect of armed forces in 211, 215n6; participation in PfP 208–18, 216n9; ‘Peace and Neutrality Alliance’ (PANA) (Ireland) 213–14; peacekeeping operations 202, 208; Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association (PDFORRA) 205–8; Permanent Defence Forces (PDF) (202–8, 215n2; reform of military in 211; struggle for representation in PDF in 202–8; Representative Association for Commissioned Officers (RACO) 207; support for military in 204; and triple lock mechanism 214, 216n12; White Papers on Foreign Policy/Defence Forces 203, 208

Index 275 Irondelle, B. 181 Isnard, J. 182 Israel 237, 246; amassing of roles in prime minister’s office 167; background 163–6; Basic Law in 165, 172; civil supremacy in 164; CoolingOff law 174; direct elections in 166; effect of marginalisation of IDF 168; as independent state 163; lack of democratic supervision in 174; Morfaz’s tenure as chief of staff (1998–2002) 169–72, 173, 174; and National Security Council 169; Netanyahu government (1996–9) 166–9; oppostion to reform 167; and the Palestinian Authority 169, 170, 171; political-military relations 164, 166; power struggles in 163; prime minister-CGS tension 167–72, 173; public criticism in 168; role of CGS in 169–70; role of democratic institutions in 165; security regime in 163; sexual harassment in army 170; Shamir/ Rabin premierships 165, 167; social criticism of army 170; and War of Independence 163–4 Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) 163, 165–6, 167–8, 173 Ivri, D. 167 Janowitz, M. 189, 244 Janša, J. 133, 136, 141 Jenin refugee camp 173 Johnson, M.M. 131 Joó, R. 10, 118, 119, 236 Jovanovski, V. 53 judiciary 81, 225, 236, 239, 253 Kadt, E. de 7 Kamiòski, A. 110 Keatinge, P.A. 204 Kedroò, R. 161 Kelemen, L. 120 Kelleher, C.M. 218 Kemp, W. 59 Kernic, F. 244 Khivrenko, K. 64 Khokhotva, I. 93 Kinakh, A. 64 Kohn, R.H. 17 Komárek, M. 150 Komorowski, Minister of Defence 108 Kostelka, M. 152 Koštunica, President 36, 37–9, 41, 46n12

Kubát, M. 159 Kuèan, M. 132–3, 134–5, 136 Kuchma, L. 65, 66, 67, 73 Kuhlmann, J. and Callaghan, J. 10, 236 Kumanovo Agreement 36 Kuzmuk, O. 64, 65, 66, 67–8, 77 LaFraniere, S. and Hockstader, L. 63, 64 Lanxade, J. 189 Larson, A.D. 189 Latawski, P. 97 Lellouche, P. 181 Lendi, M. 192 Lipset, S.M. 242 Longchamp, C. 199 Lorincz, General 116 Luckham, R.A. 255 Luttwak, E.N. 7, 240 Macedonia 237, 242, 246, 247; analysis of 48; armed conflict in 54–5; background 48–9; black market/ smuggling in 52–3; challenges to 49; civil-military relations in pre-conflict perod 49–54; conflict dynamics in 57; criminalisation of politics in preconflict period 49–54; democratic control of armed forces in 57–9; and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) 55; economic embargoes on 49–50; elections in 56– 7; ethnic problems in 51, 54–5, 56, 60n2; influence of Albania/Kosovo situations on 50–1, 60n1; Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO) 50, 51–4; level of corruption/crime in 50–3; military crisis/scandal in 51–2; as oasis of peace 49, 53, 54; political situation in 54–6, 60–1n3, n4; politicisation of criminality in post-conflict period 54–7; privatisation in 57; security sector in 50, 58; virtual reality image 48 Maior, G.C. 25–7 Maleši=, M. 130, 132 March, J. and Olsen, J. 238 Marchuk, Y. 65 Martin, M. 207 Matache, G. 22 Matei, S. and Diaconu, F. 23 media: mass media 89, 92,137, 141–3, 38, 243; scandal 154–5 Mercier, P. 182, 183

276 Index Messmer, P. 181 Michta, A. 7, 99 Miheljak, V. 140 Mile, S. and Zoran, J. 47 military: associations xvii, 206, 237; coup 4, 8, 199, 249, 252; demonstration 251; lobby 44, 129, 150, 179, 237; lobbying 152-3, 155, 205, 208; neutrality of military 202–4, 208–9, 211–16; opposition 170; political neutriality21, 99, 103, 198, 250, 255; protest 29, 31–2, 173, 220, 228; representation 148; unions 180, 236 Miloševi=, S. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44 Mitek, T. 100 Mitterand, F. 181 Mofaz, Lt. Gen. 166, 169–72 Möhle, H. 228 Montenegro, Republic of 36, 39, 41–2, 246, 247 Mordechai, Y. 167, 169 Morgan, M.J. 243 Mostova, Y. 69 Muntiyan, V. 73 Muresan, M. 32 Murphy, R. 203, 210, 214 Nanevska, B. 52 National Army Spouses’ Association (NASA) (Ireland) 205, 215n4 National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine (NSDC) 65, 71–2, 73 Neèas, P. 161 Negovanje 43 Nelson, D.N. 5 Népszabadság 114 Netanyahu, B. 166–9 Nice Treaty 214, 216n11 non-governmental organisation (NGO) 73, 94, 208, 237, 254 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO )7, 10, 31, 35, 43, 45, 51, 56, 88, 97, 107, 111, 119, 123–7, 136, 149, 152, 158, 162n29, n31, 196, 202, 209, 211–12, 213 Noviny.cz 160 Nowak, P.F. 111 Ohrid Agreement 58 Operation Defensive Shield 173 Oren, A. 173, 174 Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 56, 149, 160n4

O’Sullivan, A. 172 Parandowska, J. 99 Partnership for Peace (PfP) 39, 101, 202, 203, 208–18, 216n9 Pascu, I.M. 25, 25–7 Paunovski, Defence Minister 51 peacekeeping operation 88, 203–4, 208, 210, 214–15, 253 peace support operation 188, 208–12, 253 Peres, S. 167 Periši= Affair 41 Petersburg Tasks 211 Pierre, B. 151–2 Plangu, I.M. 24 Poland 237, 247; abandonment of integration policy 119, 129n8; background 97–9; civil–military conflicts in 97; clarity of duties/ responsibilities 120; competencies/ responsibilities of military agencies in 109; constitutional/institutional changes in 99–100; control/leading of military 118; debates on integration 121–2, 129n13; Defence Act (1993) in 118; Drawsko affair 99; effectiveness of civil-military leadership in 128; impediments to reform 101–6; inefficiencies/poor management in 111–12; introduction of civilian democratic control in 98; and lack of audition schemes in 107; and lack of transparency in military procurement 108–9; and Law on Civil Service 102– 4, 105; legal-institutional reform in 98, 111; legislative/structural changes in 100–1; and membership of NATO 123–7; payment problems 104–5; political scandals in 99; preparation for integration 122–3; procurement/ corruption in 107–11, 112; proposed military transformation in 119, 121, 129n10; remaking/civilianisation of MoD 98, 99–107; and reorientation of military elite 127–8; restrictions on civilian control in 97; shared responsibility in 98; structural/organisational reforms of military in 97–8, 111; subjective obstacles to civilian experts 105–7; tensions in 119–20; type of relationships in 120; weakness of civilian influence in 112; Zabinsky Commission 99

Index 277 Popescu, M. 32 Popper, K. 237–8 Pozsgai, I. 116 Prentice, E. 51 press: freedom of 11; general 27, 30miliary 132, 145 Przeworski, A. et al. 92 Putin, V. 63, 64 Rapid Reaction Force (EU) 208 Reinhardt, C. 228 Rieger, M. 217, 222, 223, 232 Rinser, L. 222 Rioufol, I. 188 Roman, P. 29 Romania 242, 246, 247; acquisitions/ property management (APM) in 21, 22–3, 24–5, 33; and armaments– industry–intelligence triad 23–4; attempts/failures at reform in 23–5; background 21–30; civil–military debate 30–2; civilian as head of armaments department in 26; creation of Acquisitions Integrated Management System (AIMS) IN 25–7, 34n1; and decentralisation of acquisition process 23; Defence Integrated Planning Directorate (DIPD) 26, 34n2; and democratic civil control 23; democratically elected parliament in 28; domestic use of military in 33–4; economic interests/ legacy power-privilege networks in 23–5; greater transparency in 26; legal framework in 28–9; military tradition/ internal security missions in 27–8; Ministry of National Defence (RMND) 23, 26–7, 30–3; mobilisation of army during miners’ protest (1999) 27; oppressive regime in 21; partisan political influence in 24; Pascu-Maior reforms in 25–7; political crisis/ miners’ protests in 29–30; procurement/supply scandals in 24; and protection of defence industry 24; Programming, Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation System (PPBES) 26; Regional Center for Defence Resources Management 26; Romanian armed forces (RAF) 26, 27–8; security sector institutions in 22; semipresidential system in 21; state of emergency in 32;Supreme Defence Council (CSAT) 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32

ROMTECHNICA 27 Rose, J. 218, 227; assignments/ reassignments 229–30; mediating/ enforcing interventions against 228–9; question concerning conscription 226–7; sanctions against 227–8 Rössler, T. 220 Rozbicki, W. 99 Rühe, V. 226, 227 Rushaylo, V. 65 Sashar, R. 49 Schärer, S. 195 Schindler, D. 201 Serbia, Republic of see Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Seville Declaration 214–15, 216n11 Shachak, Lt. Gen. 168 Sharon, A. 169, 171 Shevardnadze, President 90, 93n5 Shkidchenko, V. 65, 67, 68 Silvestri, F. 60 Simon, J. 16, 114, 119 Slavik, M. 23, 24 Slovenia 237, 242, 247; background 130–1; civil society in 130; consequences of dispute 136; Constitutional Acts (1990, 1991) 134; Decree on the Competences and Authorisations of Territorial Defence Offices (1991) 134–5; Defence Act (1991) 134, 141; democratisation process in 131; DEMOS government in 132–3; Depala Vas affair (1994) 136–45; dispute concerning competences (1993–4) 132–5; as independent state 130; institutional, economic, social reform in 130–1; key points of dispute 135; parliamentary elections in 132; political context 132– 3; president/defence minister dispute 133–5; problems of civilian democratic control 131–2 Smith, M. 214 Smolnikar, T. 136–8 Snider, D. and Carlton-Carew, M.A. 17 Soeters, J.L. et al. 243, 244 Solana, EU commissioner 56 Somalia 210 Somalia Affair 9, 17n4 Switzerland 237, 244, 246, 247, 251; and abolishment of army in 196–8, 200; and attempt to abolish armed forces by plebiscitary votes 195–9; background

278 Index 191–4; civil–military relations in 191, 196, 199–200; control of military in 193–4; and fear of political misuse of standing force in 193; features of militia in 193; formal/informal arrangements 193–4; and the ‘General’ 193, 201n6; ideal of direct democracy/ militia military 192–3; LVK in 194–5; militarisation of defence policy in 194–5; mistrust of military power in 193; organisation of state/civilian ruling structure in 192; people’s initiatives/referendums in 192, 196, 201n3, n9, n10, n11; primacy of politics over military in 197, 200; reform of military in 197–9; relative position of power of military in 191, 200n1; role of government/parliament in 192, 200n2; scandal-induced shift of controlling power in 194–5; skepticism towards military in 196–7; undermining democratic control in 193–4; ‘Switzerland Without an Army’ (GSoA) 196–7 Szandar, A. 228 Szayna, T.S. and Larrabee, F.S. 8 Szemerkenyi, R. 10, 101 Szeremietiew, R. 107–8 Taylor, B.D. 9 Tkachov, V. 64, 65 Tvrdik, J. 151, 154, 155, 156–7, 159 Ukraine 237, 246, 247; background 62–3; civil airline disaster 62, 68–9, 77; framework of reform in 69–70; function/mission of armed forces in 70–1; legislation for reform 70; Manning with Contract Servicemen (Professionalisation Programme) 70,

73–7; potential threats to 71; Professionalisation Programme 70, 73–7; programme of reform in 70–3; resources/budgets for reform 70, 72–3, 74–7; shooting-down of civilian passenger plane 63–9, 77; and state division of powers/functions 74; State Programme of Armed Forces Construction and Development (Ukraine) 69–70; State Programme for Reform and Development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine 69–73 State Programme of Transition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine 70 United Nations (UN) 208, 212, 214 UNOSOM II 210 Valera, E. de 209 Varfolomeev, O. 68 Vasile, R. 29, 32 Vasle, V. 143 Végh, F. 115, 121–2, 123–7 Villiger, K. 199 Vladescu, F. 32 von Schubert, K. 220 Wachsler, T. 121, 121–2, 129n12, n16 Walêsa, L. 99 Warsaw Pact 8, 114, 148 Watts, L.L. 24 Weber, M. 240 Western European Union (WEU) 136 Wilecki, T. 99 Wollenmann, R. 195 Xhudo, G. 50 Zadok, H. 172 Zantovský, M. 152 Zeman, M. 151

2Chapter GIS: a sourcebook 1 for schools

eBooks – at www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk

A library at your fingertips!

eBooks are electronic versions of printed books. You can store them on your PC/laptop or browse them online. They have advantages for anyone needing rapid access to a wide variety of published, copyright information. eBooks can help your research by enabling you to bookmark chapters, annotate text and use instant searches to find specific words or phrases. Several eBook files would fit on even a small laptop or PDA. NEW: Save money by eSubscribing: cheap, online access to any eBook for as long as you need it.

Annual subscription packages We now offer special low-cost bulk subscriptions to packages of eBooks in certain subject areas. These are available to libraries or to individuals. For more information please contact [email protected] We’re continually developing the eBook concept, so keep up to date by visiting the website.

www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk