The reality is with change of
government people in defence administration also change and the only way to
have some permanency and continuity in the system is by having a national
security administration defined by law, so that it will be mandatory for all
elected governments to honour it irrespective of personal preference of the
leaders.
By Gamini Abeywardane
It is no
secret that disunity at the highest levels and insufficient priority for the
subject of national security had largely contributed to the failures on the
part of the government to prevent or mitigate the effects of dastardly
terrorist attack on Easter Sunday.
Blaming and shaming
apart we need to now find some way of avoiding the repetition of such things in
the future. One thing that is now clear is that the National Security Council
(NSC), the highest body responsible for the country’s security failed to act
upon the warnings given by the intelligence services.
There are
also allegations that some of the vital members of the NSC were not invited to
several meetings because of the personality clashes at the top level of the
political leadership.
This is
fundamentally because the current Constitution makes it possible to have the
President and the Prime Minister from two different political parties leading
to friction at the highest level.
A legal basis for national security
Preventing
such a situation of dual governance is not possible without a major
constitutional change which is unlikely to happen in the near future. Rather
than waiting for the impossible it is prudent to resolve this within a
reasonable time.
However, deleterious
effects of such political developments on national security can be prevented,
if the NSC is given a more defined legal status with a wider membership, scope
and mandatory provisions regarding how it should function.
For example,
the United States National Security Council has been established by the
National Security Act of 1947 and has a well-defined structure. Chaired by the
President, the NSC has five statutory attendees, regular attendees and additional
participants.
In addition
to the President, the statutory attendees are Vice President, Secretary of
State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Treasury.
It is also supported by a system of committees which includes Principals
Committee, Deputies Committee and several Policy Coordination Committees.
In addition
to the defence and intelligence officials the system also ensures the
participation of other relevant officials such as the Attorney General, Assistant
to the President for Economic Policy, Ambassador to the United Nations, Director
of Office of Management and Budget whose expertise and views are important for
the country’s national security and there is no room for shutting out anybody
on personal grounds.
Status of
the country’s security does not depend on who is in the presidency or which
political party controls the Senate or the House of representatives because the
system by law enables the sitting President to have total control over the
national security establishment.
Though there
is no such a regular mechanism prescribed by law in our country it is well
known that national security and intelligence matters were quite adroitly
handled by the then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa during the previous
government.It was a rare combination of a committed group of military and non-military personnel which ensured the successful conduct of the war against the LTTE terrorism. And the type of security coordination prevailed at the time has been commended worldwide and even most recently by former US ambassador to Sri Lanka Robert Blake.
However, the reality is that with change of government people in defence administration also change and the only way to have some permanency and continuity in the system is by having a national security administration defined by law, so that it will be mandatory for all elected governments to honour it irrespective of personal preference of the leaders.
Need for revamping
Now with the
current developments the need has also arisen to revamp the entire national
security system and widen its scope taking into consideration both internal and
external threats. New improved ways of intelligence gathering and processing
have become necessary.
With
external threats, there is also a strong need to include non-military aspects
of national security. Although
originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security
is now widely understood to include non-military dimensions, including the
security from terrorism and crime, economic security, energy security,
environmental security, food security, cyber security and so forth.
Such
expansion in the scope of national security will also require the services of a
wide range of experts and technocrats. This will entail a major overhaul in the
national security system and the best way would be for all that to be detailed
in a properly drafted national security law.
Another
important aspect in such a system would be to provide the necessary facilities
and the freedom of operation and even immunity where necessary for the
intelligence agencies and their operatives to accomplish their tasks without
political interference.
Our country
has faced three types of terrorism, each time involving one of the three main communities.
Two insurrections by the JVP, nearly three decades of LTTE terrorism and now
Islamist terrorism which has international routes. Historically each time we
crushed one type of terrorism we had become complaisant assuming that terrorism
would not raise its head again.
With the
latest developments it is clear that terrorism with its global dimensions is
going to be a permanent threat to human life. Thus eternal vigilance should be
a precondition in our country if we are to achieve any progress, be it
economic, social or cultural.
All this
will need a practical approach and simply fighting with each other and dwelling
in theoretical imaginations about future economic progress based only on
regional development will not carry us anywhere. The security of the nation has
to be a paramount consideration in the whole equation and it should be kept
above mundane party politics. (Writer
can be contacted on gamini4@gmail.com)
The writer has hit the nail on the head when he says that disunity at highest levels and insufficient priority for national security led to the failure on the part of the government to prevent the Easter Sunday bombings. He also succinctly points to the moral that should be learnt from this costly experience: The security of the nation … should be kept be kept above mundane politics. Have they learnt it at least now?
ReplyDelete