| Sports |
by TREVOR
MEAURI
Reforming the State’s security apparatus
IN my previous article (“Does
national security really matter”), I essentially argued that PNG
has been complacent in its approach to national security and needs
to be assertive.
This article proposes a reform of the security structure, starting
from the top.
State-building
This is a phenomenon almost forgotten in recent times because of
inefficiencies vis-a-vis the liberal market.
Sept 11 and subsequent terror events have pushed State-building
back into the attention of policy-makers throughout the developed
world, prompting the sudden fame of the “failed-State” notion,
which was attributed to the proliferation of global terrorism and
other forms of transnational crime.
The attention though is not one of building the scope of the State
but rather strengthening State institutions through capacity
building.
In PNG, the law and justice sector reform and strengthening
programme and the public sector reform exhibit this new approach
to State-building.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the reform programmes
which saw the PNG Defence Force (PNGDF) and the National
Intelligence Organisation (NIO) downsized by more than 50% to
reduce government expenditure.
The police, however, have undergone a gradual expansion both in
scope and capacity building primarily because of their role in
ensuring a safe and secure environment for economic growth and
development.
These goals are the underlying driving forces in many of the
reforms undertaken but it is important to note that they do not
necessarily lead to increased security.
Basis for reform
The major problem obviously with the downsizing exercise is both
“contextual” and “agency” rather than intent.
Contextual because it failed to reflect on the changing security
environment domestically and externally, and agency because the
Government, as custodian of people’s interests, have failed to
properly interrogate the merits of the exercise and assess whether
national interests were at stake.
A closer scrutiny of these problem areas may confirm or deny the
real intent of the exercise.
For the PNGDF, surely the threat of external aggression has
dissipated since the end of the Cold War, rendering any need for a
corresponding military posture obsolete.
However, domestic and external security considerations including
law and order, violent conflicts, land disputes, border
infringements, global terrorism and other forms of transnational
crime, and the prospects for participation in international
peacekeeping operations suggest that the challenge before the
present PNGDF is insurmountable.
Similarly, the same security challenges are also overwhelmingly
beyond NIO’s present strength and capacity to deal with.
Yet the security environment continues to broaden in scope and
become more complex.
The proliferation of guns has had a direct bearing on the
escalation of violent crimes while its impact on the way tribal
conflicts are fought, especially in the Highlands, has had
terrible social, economic and political consequences.
Security is no doubt a major concern in this year’s general
election yet no one in the Government has seriously given thought
to implementing the recommendations of the Guns Control Committee.
Border security, especially with respect to the sea and land
border with Indonesia, poses a challenge far beyond the
capabilities of our police, PNGDF and NIO to protect.
There have been increases in illegal crossborder activities from
people smuggling to illegal immigration, guns and drug trafficking
to poaching and trade in prohibited items.
The social and economic impact of these illegal activities is
cause for concern.
But by far the most important basis for reform is the fact that
the National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC) has been reacting
in its approaches to security situations more often then pursuing
preemption strategies.
One can even call it a “crisis management mechanism”.
In addition, it also takes up 10-15% of its chairman’s total
working time.
This is not deliberate but a consequence of the emphasis we have
been giving to development.
The National Security Council (NSC) unfortunately rarely meets.
If I remember correctly, the last meeting was in mid-2004.
What this implies is that there has never been any formidable
strategic direction at the political level to guide the NSAC.
Put simply, there is no sense of political direction in the way
NSC pursues national security.
Proposed reform
We need to review and reform the NSAC, the downsizing exercises
and strengthening of the institutions of accountability.
Under the Prime Minister and NEC Act, the chairman of the NSAC is
also the chairman of the CACC.
This means that he operates on a hectic schedule, which is
apparently dominated by CACC matters because of current focuses on
economic growth and development.
This has unfortunately led to less emphasis being given to the
NSAC over recent years.
I propose that this dual function be amended so that NSAC
functions with a separate chair.
This chair would report directly to the chair of NSC and would be
dealing exclusively with national security matters.
Provisions must also be enacted to make NSC duty-bound to set and
review security priorities over specific periods of time.
Furthermore, a parliamentary committee should be created with
specific role to hold the Government and/or its agents to account
for any security or intelligence failures.
It must demand, for example, that the police defend themselves
against allegations of brutality.
The committee must be allowed full powers to summon the NIO
director-general, the police commissioner, the PNGDF commander or
any other semi-security agency to explain their actions or
inactions. After all, we are a representative democracy.
There should also be a parliamentary intelligence committee that
specifically holds intelligence agencies, including the NIO, to
account for their spending, why there are increases in
transnational crime, white collar crime including corruption, etc.
Perhaps the Ombudsman Commission should also act as an
inspector-general who would ensure security and intelligence
agencies conduct their activities within established guidelines or
simply the rule of law.
The benefit of these reforms is the establishment of a
well-functioning, responsive and accountable national security
system that reflects our democratic system of government.
These proposed reforms may sound ambitious, but it has to be this
way because national security has to be redeemed from the
overwhelming cloud of development and re-positioned as an
important strategic pillar for our progress.
Note: The writer is a former director of
the Office of Security Coordination and Assessment at the National
Security Advisory Committee. He was also a senior political
analyst with the National Intelligence Organisation.
 
|
