The National Security Council debate: An Epilogue-III

Sadeq Khan

In the course of the public debate on the need for National Security Council, Brigadier General Shafaat Ahmed, ndc, psc (retd.) found the most appropriate example for Bangladesh in the adaptation of the US system of national security council to the Indian parliamentary pattern:
   
   Indian Adaptation
   "In India, until 1999, the Cabinet Secretary was the lynchpin of the national security mechanism. He performed his roles in national security matters with the help of the Committees of the Secretaries and the MC. But the Indian Cabinet Secretary did not have operational control over the intelligence agencies. Operational controls used to be divided among ministries/ divisions. Important decisions on foreign and national security matters used to be taken by the Prime Minister in consultation with a small group of confidantes, with the Cabinet Secretary playing very rule.
   "In 1982, a post of Senior Adviser to the Prime Minster on national security matters was created. Mr. R N. Kao and Mr. G.C. Saxena performed this role after they had retired from service. They did not get involved in foreign policy matters. However, this practice was discontinued from 1990.
   "On assuming office of the Prime Minister of India, Mr. A.B. Vajpayee set up a special Task Force headed by Mr. K.C. Pant and consisting of Mr. Jaswant Singh and Air Commodore (retd) Jasjit Singh, the then Director of the prestigious Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), to study the national security mechanisms prevalent in other countries and submit recommendations to revamp the Indian national security mechanism. Based on the recommendations of the Task Force, a National Security Council was set up. A post of National Security Adviser (NSA) to oversee the functioning of the new mechanism and to advise the P.M. and the NSC on security matters was created.
   NSC is chaired by the PM, it has beside the NSA, and the ministers of Defence, External Affairs, Home, Finance, and the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission as members. Other members may be invited to attend its monthly meeting as and when required. NSC has a three-tiered organisation comprising of the Strategic Policy Group, the National Security Advisory Board and a secretariat represented by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). NSC Secretariat (NSCS) provides services to NSAB, SPG and NSC and carry out assessment of intelligence and coordination of the functioning of intelligence agencies.
   A Strategic Policy Group (SPG) headed by the Cabinet Secretary and consisting of the professional heads of the Ministries concerned with national security, the chiefs of the intelligence agencies and the representatives of the Armed Forces work out policy options and submit them to the NSC for their approval. A National Security Advisory Board (NASB), consisting of non-governmental experts provide policy inputs to the NSC.
   It is interesting to note that the Indian NSC has a much broader task. Unlike US NSC that only concentrates on defence and foreign policy matters, the Indian NSC looks into political, economic, energy and strategic security concerns of India."
   A comparative analysis of different country systems of National Security Council was made by Dr. Mustafizur Rahman in his article posted on 25 March, 2007. For the sake of record, I quote below his reasonings accompanying the country comparisons:
   "The institutional structures (of national security authority) vary depending on whether a country adopts parliamentary or presidential system, or whether a country has a unitary government, or there are state governments and central or federal governments, and whether the parliament is unicameral or bicameral. The desired objective is however almost the same.
   USA: The National Security Council was established by National Security Act 1947. It is now chaired by the President. Its other statutory members are the Vice-President and secretaries of state and Defence. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the statutory military adviser, and the Director of Central Intelligence Agency is the intelligence adviser. The secretary of the Treasury, the U.S. Representative to U.N., the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for economic policy and the chief of staff to the president are invited at all meetings of the council. The attorney general and the director of the office of National Drug Control Policy attend meetings pertaining to their jurisdiction.
   Other officials are also invited. The NSC is responsible for advising the President and for coordinating the multiplicity of national security activities broadly defined to include economic and domestic law enforcement activities as well as the traditional security agenda. Foreign acquisition of strategic technology and enterprises, inward and outward foreign direct investments, export of strategic materials, cooperation with adversaries in strategic or energy areas such as India-Iran pipe-line gas deal, energy reserve findings anywhere in the world do not escape its attention.
   INDIA: India delayed setting up its 6-member National Security Council headed by the Prime Minister until 1998, presumably out of apprehension of military interference in political decision making. The NSC now comprises Strategic Policy Group (SPG), a National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) and a secretariat with the Joint Intelligence Committee at its nucleus. In addition there is the National Security Adviser. The Armed Forces have no direct access to the political leadership at the apex in policy making.
   The NSC is a decision facilitating body to assist and advise the Prime Minister. Its another vital task is to evaluate, coordinate and integrate strategic information, expert advice, and suggestions from the Armed Forces, Govt. agencies and think tanks/institutions.
   The NSC in Indian context is expected to (a) bring in new advisers to argue for unpopular decisions, (b) set up new channels of information so that the PM is not dependent on a single channel for strategic decision making, and (c) arrange for independent evaluation of decision premises and options as may be necessary.
   RUSSIA: Russia established its Security Council in 1992, chaired by the President. Its office is a separate department of the Presidential executive office. In order to provide scholarly expertise for the council's work, there is a scholarly council made up of representatives of the Russian Academy of sciences, specialised academies of science and educational institutions as well as other academics and experts. It holds regular meetings. The Security Council draws up basic conceptual documents aimed at ensuring security in crucial spheres such as the economy, social policy, political life, energy, natural resources, technology, public safety, defence, the military and international affairs.
   CANADA: Based on National Security Policy to secure an open society, Canada has created an Advisory Council on National Security. It will work with the National Advisers to the Prime Minister to provide advice to the Deputy Prime Minister and the cabinet committee on security. The government is benefited from the advice of external experts in evaluating and improving security system.
   The government looks forward to receiving external expert advice to continually improve Canada's integrated security system. Individuals appointed to the Advisory Council were selected for their expertise and experience on such diverse matters as intelligence, law, policy, human rights and civil liberties, emergency planning and management, public health emergencies, public safety, transportation security, border security and international security."
   JAPAN: Japan is now going to establish its own National Security Council broadly in line with that of US. The Prime Minister may be provided with special advisers. The Council should initially serve the function of intermediation and coordination among various government agencies. There is also a proposal for appointing five deputy chief cabinet secretaries in charge of specific fields. The chief cabinet secretary in Japan is usually a very senior cabinet minister. The cabinet secretariat has "supreme and final" coordinating power.
   UKRAINE: Ukraine has a National Security and Defense Council headed by the President, which is a coordinating body in matters pertaining to national security and defense. It includes the Prime Minister, Minister of Defense, Head of the security service, Minister of Interior, and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
   I conclude this epilogue with a conclusion of the debate as drawn by Brigadier General Shafaat Ahmed, ndc, psc (retd.) in his article.
   Need for Bangladesh: "Coming back to Bangladesh, our national security decision-making processes so far have been archaic and anarchic. No Government has ever tried to formulate a coherent national security policy. Each Government has been compelled to operate within a decision making process characterised by increasing complexities, and seemingly discreet factors that must be considered while dealing with policy choices. Moreover, in our country this process confronts a structure of government that confers upon the PM the responsibility of Defence Ministry and the final arbiter on national security affairs. The decision making, in our country, is completely centralised in the PM's Office.
   The existing Committee is almost non-functional. Secondly, it is too big to carry out in-depth assessment, evaluation and then submit recommendations to the Cabinet. What we need is a dedicated organisation with proper manpower to assess, evaluate and recommend to the government measures for action.
   What name or shape is given will be up to the government. (Assuring that the name of the organisation will be NSC, it will have to address both strategic issues as well as day-to-day affairs of the tactical issues of foreign policy, internal and external security and other crisis management."
   ( Concluded

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

A new chapter

Nasrine R. Karim It was months of increasing political anxiety in Lebanon following what appeared to have been a calculated challenge to Hezbollah on the part of the ruling coalition Govt. of Fuad Siniora. This ended in Hezbollah handing control back to the Lebanese army, but only after surrounding Beirut's international airport and taking over much of West Beirut. The main opposition party's show of strength followed an outbreak of sectarian fighting from which the army stood aside, reluctant to get involved.
   Hezbollah, a pro-Iranian Shia movement, was pitched against the pro-US Sunni Muslim-led government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
   Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, accused Hezbollah of monitoring Beirut International Airport with security cameras in preparation for a possible attack or kidnapping. Jumblatt also accused Hezbollah of setting up its own telecommunications network, claiming that it was being used to eavesdrop on calls made in Lebanon.
   This network had proved crucial in Hezbollah's resistance to Israel in the 2006 Israeli attack and would play a similar role should the Bush administration take military action against Iran, Syria or Lebanon. The government decided to close down Hezbollah's telecoms network, declaring it "illegal and unconstitutional" and a threat to state security.
   Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah held a televised news conference. He chillingly warned that the government's decision to illegalise Hezbollah's telecommunications network was in no uncertain terms: "tantamount to a declaration of war... on the resistance and its weapons in the interests of America and Israel." Within minutes of his broadcast, Hezbollah gunmen and Shia fighters appeared on the streets with rocket launchers, grenades and M16s. Hezbollah quickly took control of all roads leading to the airport. The port was also closed down.
   Hezbollah soon had control of Muslim West Beirut, including the Sunni neighbourhoods where both Hariri and Jumblatt live. Prime Minister Siniora and several of his ministers were reportedly holed up in their offices, unable to leave. Siniora had declared that Lebanon could not tolerate Hezbollah having weapons. His government issued a statement saying, "The armed and bloody coup which is being implemented aims to return Syria to Lebanon and extend Iran's reach to the Mediterranean." However, his call to the army to restore law and order and to remove gunmen from the streets went unanswered.
   Said, son of assassinated Prime Minister Rafik Hariri called on Nasrallah to take his fighters off the streets and end the "siege" of Beirut. He then indicated that the government would pull back on its actions against Hezbollah, provided it accepted the election of the army chief, General Michel Suleiman, as President. They agreed to that in principle, anyway.
   Samir Geagea, leader of the right-wing Lebanese Forces, appealed to the Arab regimes to help reverse the coup by putting pressure on Iran and Syria. He also demanded that "world leaders," meaning the US and France, intervene. But Amin Gemayel, leader of Kataeb, a Maronite group also allied with the government, urged Christians to stay away from the fighting. It fell on deaf ears. The entire Middle East was applauding in silence.
   Nasrallah calmly handed over West Beirut to the army. He was in fact avoiding giving a pretext for Washington or Jerusalem to intervene, having already secured an agreement from the government. However, his supporters maintained the blockade of the airport. A spokesperson had said, "All issues are linked. Beirut will remain shut until there is a political solution." Fighting died down as defeated government supporters handed in their weapons to the army.
   Despite the US and the Gulf countries funneling money and weapons to their allies in anticipation of just such a conflict, the Sunni-dominated government forces were defeated within less than two days! Without the Army's backing, no Govt. can survive.
   Michel Aoun, a Christian leader allied with Hezbollah, indicated that Hezbollah does not want the situation to escalate into a broader conflict. He said, "The derailed carriage is now back on track. We hope from this point things will fall back into the normal course."
   For his part, Hariri has said it was all a "misunderstanding" and urged gunmen on all sides to withdraw and save Lebanon from another civil war. Jumblatt, whose provocations had precipitated Hezbollah's show of strength, admitted, "I did not anticipate such a strong response from Hezbollah, but... yes... the group is much stronger than other armed militias."
   The government's humiliation is a major setback for the Bush administration, which had made its backing of the Siniora government a key plank of its ongoing conflict with Iran and Syria.
   Washington and Jerusalem have suffered setbacks in Iraq and now Lebanon. US efforts to set up a series of proxy regimes, the Maliki government in Iraq, Siniora's in Lebanon and that of Mahmoud Abbas in the Palestinian Authority, were meant to secure its control of the region's strategic resources. Instead, they have served to strengthen the opposition of the Arab working class and peasant masses and increase support for the Islamic parties which are seen as resisting the US and Israel.
   The Bush administration accused Iran and Syria of stoking the conflict by inciting Hezbollah to attack Lebanon's shaky coalition. In an ominous statement, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed Washington's backing for the Siniora government, saying, "Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah and its allies are killing and injuring innocent citizens and undermining the legitimate authority of the Lebanese government and the institutions of the Lebanese state. Seeking to protect their state within a state, Hezbollah has exploited its allies and demonstrated its contempt for its fellow Lebanese. We will stand by the Lebanese government and the peaceful citizens of Lebanon through the crisis and provide the support they need to weather this storm." The former Lebanese Government is no more and the storm is over.
   State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the US had evidence that Iran and Syria were beginning to take an active role in encouraging the violence. "It is becoming more apparent now that the linkages that we know exist and are ongoing between Hezbollah and Syria and Iran are starting to manifest themselves in the current crisis," he said. "At the beginning we didn't see it, but we are now," he continued, "Groups that are linked to Syria and that are in Lebanon right now are taking a much more active role in fanning the flames and violence and attacks that are destabilising the political situation".
   Syria has denied all responsibility for the events, saying the crisis in Lebanon was an "internal affair," while Iran blamed "the adventurous interferences" of the US and Israel for the violence.
   Such statements were naturally dismissed by Israel, with President Shimon Peres declaring, "It is a new chapter of the battle led by Iran to control all of the Middle East." IRAN?
   The end result of the Iraq invasion by the US was just a beginning for the wildfire in the Middle East.
   The Sunni Arabs, who make up a fifth of the population, ruled the region known as modern Iraq for centuries, until the American invasion toppled them from power. The majority Shiites seized the unchecked window and turned into a factor that is giving the US heartburns as it is this community that has direct relations with the other agent of Bush's "axis of evil" - Iran. Now, one wonders what the actual intensions were, to "liberate" Iraq or open doors for Iran? One never knows with the games played by corporate America.
   Then there are the Kurds who want their independence to take with them the largest slice of the pie - the oil.... However, there is also their hostile neighbour, Turkey, which will not allow such wanton freedom in their backyard which in turn may incite division with their own Kurdish community.
   "They (corporations) cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicated, for they have no souls": Lord Edward Coke (1553 - 1634) served as - Lord Chief Justice whose writings on the English common law were the definitive legal texts for some 300 years.
   Frankly, the Middle Eastern people are trapped in a nightmare with no apparent end.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE