Nepal’s National Security Agency: Critical Issues Facing The CA

(Courtesy: Mr. Madhukar SJB Rana - Prof. South Asian Institute of Management, Former Finance Minister)

A battle royal is being fought by the political parties in the Constituent Assembly (CA), and outside, as to who should or should not be members of the current National Defence Council (NDC). At a time when security sector reforms is high on the national agenda, and one is quite unsure as to whether the federal democratic republic of Nepal is going to be endowed with a presidential or parliamentary system of governance by the CA, one can appreciate why all 25-33 political parties should clamour to be on board to protect party interests. Given the above uncertainties, the problem is being made more complex by the fact that, as agreed by the government and seven parties, the Head of State (HOS) will now be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The complexity arises from the fragmentation of the unitary state; the polity of proportional representation into parliament leading to in-built instability, and the non-resolution of the issue over the optimal powers for the presidency (ceremonial vs constitutional).

This basic thrust of this article is that only the government should be the member of the NDC. However, all are welcome to be members of the National Security Council (NSC), including civil society and professional experts and academicians.

The other thrust is to underscore the vital need for the CA to define precisely what ‘national security’ is supposed to mean and demarcate the nature, scope and authority of the NSC as a fundamental constitutional agency. In doing so, we, the citizens, would expect that each political party would consider the matter with due intellectual diligence by being analytically grounded in geo-politics, geo-economics and geo-psychology in consideration of 2 factors and its forces: (a) the current status of Nepal’s national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and (b) the future threats to the integrity of Nepal from the probable centripetal and centrifugal forces within a federal body politic, including threats from outside its national territory—be they states, international business, international non-governmental organizations or the international mafia.

Word has it that, when the army lobbied successfully, and rightly, for the NSC to be a constitutional organ in 1990, the proposed NSC was more akin to the NSC of the USA and India: being more of an open, participative think tank on national security where policy and research inputs would be garnered from all political parties, civil society and experts as members and invitees. A National Security Advisor would lead the NSC. This would allow for sufficient national debate, dissent and dialogue before a national security strategy is actually adopted founded on national consensus, if possible . Such an overall national security policy was expected to guide Nepal’s foreign policy, foreign relations and internal security matters in a holistic manner.

Unfortunately, what was originally sought by the army could not take form as intended owing to (a) the Royal Palace military secretariat’s traditional stranglehold over any innovation by the army, (b) the inability of the army to mobilize public opinion with effective public relations and (c) the utter lack of harmonious interface between the various security agencies. Thus what we landed up with was to settle for the NDC, as is, which now is embroiled in deep controversy over who should be members. It must be mentioned that the NDC Secretariat is purely military. It is precisely because of the overwhelming military nature of the secretariat that one recognizes it more as ‘NDC’ than ‘NSC’.

Its major achievements, perhaps, are the development of greater inter-agency communication, cooperation and coordination in response to grappling with civil disobedience, insurgency, terrorism, civil war and natural disasters. It has been highly successful in being able to preserve Nepal as a viable—albeit weak--- state that is nowhere in sight of becoming a ‘failed state’.

Because the current security agency is more an NDC than NSC so, therefore, it should be led by the Head of Government (HOG). Where, however, the HOS is more than just ‘ceremonial’ it is possible, and probably appropriate, that the HOS chair meetings of the new NSC. Both should have their place in the body politic but only the NSC should be imbibed in the Constitution.

To repeat, it is argued here that the NDC should not include any political party as its function is to communicate, coordinated and control defence policy being implemented by the security, security-related and intelligence agencies as approved by the Council of Ministers. The scope of decision-making in the NDC is purely over issues of war, civil war, insurgency, terrorism, curfew, counter intelligence and national emergencies. In short, it is primarily concerned with issues over the break down of law and order and threats to Nepal’s territorial integrity, national sovereignty and independence. The NDC is accountable to parliament through the Ministry of Defence. This should suffice.

It is appropriate to mention hear, which actually is suggestive of just how narrowly conceived the NDC was, that the Foreign Minister in not a member, even when UN peace keeping and peace enforcing operations are or should be legitimate agenda items for decision by NDC.

Nation states and communities within it, just like individuals, feel insecure when their very existence, their material and financial assets, and their fundamental values are threatened by other nations, societies and individuals respectively.

Nations, communities and individuals' families feel internally secure when there exists, within its territory, communal harmony and tolerance so that there is safe from social turmoil and violence. They also feel secure when there is the absence of political disruptions with law and order prevailing with clear prospects of easy recourse to, and dispensation of justice, by a highly trusted judiciary. Freedom of the press and ‘press security’ is equally vital for individual, communal and national security.

Feeling secure in this new age of inter-dependence and instant exposure of daily events throughout the far corners of the globe has got to be a challenging business. Because never before in mankind's history have there been so many nations with so many peoples making daily contacts at the state-to-state and people-to-people levels with attendant vulnerabilities and risks at the global, regional, national and community levels. To respond quickly is the task of intelligence and counter intelligence.

Past experience tells us that a Nepal Central Intelligence Agency (NCIA) is a dire need for the country; and will be even more needed when it moves towards federalism. The lesson from our own insurgency and civil war is that there are limits to military strategy to maintain law and order. With globalization the sanctity of international borders is questionable. Rise of non-state actors in such forms as religious fundamentalists, international anarchists, international mafia, international civil society, and 'sovereign individuals' (individuals with wealth that exceeds those of states in the realm of e-commerce) are cause for great intelligence concern.

If traditionally diplomacy is the alternative to war, in the new era of globalization it may just as well be said that intelligence is the alternative to diplomacy. As a matter of fact, given the huge need for public expenditure to meet the social welfare cost of the world’s graying population intelligence spending is working out to be the first line of cost-effective national defence for most nations. Nepal should not be an exception.

Further, the inter-state struggle for natural resources, like water and minerals, for example, to maintain high economic growth rates will be lost or won on effective intelligence strategy formulation and implementation rather than relying simply on traditional diplomacy and trade and commerce deals. Perhaps the greatest argument for an autonomous central intelligence agency is the dominant mood of the 21st century where global anarchy and wars between civilizations will be a commonplace scenario across continents from the dynamics of global warming, mass migrations coupled with food, energy, water, financial and economic crises.

The other lesson from our political sphere is that, as a weak state, our national administration is near-totally infiltrated by foreign intelligence agencies and their allies, which calls forth a powerful counter-intelligence strategy implemented in earnest to expunge external infiltration and working towards supporting a national anti-corruption drive that seeks legal action combined with social sanctions against traitors and offenders.

In attempting to define ‘national security’ we must learn from Japan, who in the mid-1950’s developed the visionary concept of ‘comprehensive security’ to grapple with the trauma, humiliation and horror of the loss of national sovereignty to the Americans and the psychological sufferings from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stranded without any natural resources—other than human resources. So they defined ‘national security’ in the broader, more comprehensive concept of ‘human security’.

Fundamentally, the Japanese doctrine of human security rests on the premise that for national security there must not only be ‘military security’ to defend the nation from outside threats but also ‘human security’ to 'defend' nations from inside threats as national stability depends on each individual having sufficient food security, employment security, social security (education, health and old age pension), energy security, information security (access to transport and communications). We might now add ‘water security’, ‘environmental security’ and ‘pandemic health security’ ( HIV AIDS, TB, bird flu ) to the Japanese definition to bring it up to date in its comprehensiveness.

Nepal is now in quest of a new national identity after the removal of monarchy and becoming a secular state. Alienation and confusion is a natural state of in our current social psyche. Political ideologies of the various parties are not going to fill this deep void. Only common values can.

As almost all Nepalese are religious so a new Nepal moral order must be at the core of the national security value system: truth; peace and compassion as preached by Lord Buddha; non-violence and reconciliation as preached by Mahatma Gandhi and, furthermore, duty, devotion; discipline and discrimination to connect the nation’s and each individual’s body, mind and soul, as preached by one of the greatest modern Saints of South Asia-- the Shivapuri Baba of Nepal.

A most valuable organ of state for inter-communal harmony is to have the Council of Relgious Elders (CRE) meet regularly, chaired by the HOS, with rotating co-chairpersonship amongst the various faiths represented, to have constant inter-faith national and local dialogue for communal harmony so as to negate the use of religion, by political parties, to create electoral vote banks, which actually weakens democracy and the rule of law while nurturing communal hatred.

Last, but not least, each ministry and department should review and recommend comprehensive security needs from their sector’s perspective annually henceforth.

Related Posts:

Security Sector Reform: Taking a Regional Approach and Promoting Cooperative Security Arrangement
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/05/security-sector-reform-taking-regional.html

The Utility of a Professional Nepalese Army
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/utility-of-professional-nepalese-army.html