SUBHAS RAI |
How come the countries that can't feed their populations have lately started testing long-range ballistic missiles? India fired a guided missile last week that can deliver a nuclear payload as far as Beijing, and North Korea's rocket turned out to be as unguided as that country's government. Then Pakistan had to rattle its sabre, too.
Pyongyang's disastrous totalitarianism has made that starving country a case study in how an outdated ideology can allow despotic dynasties to survive in the 21st century and use nuclear blackmail to get the world to feed it. India, on the other hand, may be rising and shining but half its children are still undernourished. Pakistan should have other priorities than firing expensive rockets into the sky.
Having nuclear warheads and the rockets to deliver them, do not a more secure country make. It's not just tyrants who are obsessed with military security, elected democratic leaders supposedly accountable to the welfare of their citizens do so, too. Part of the reason could be that ever since the Pharaohs and the Greeks, the history of empires have been based on the glorious battles they fought to expand territory. The modern history of nation states are annals of military conquests, history books are long lists of leaders who killed large numbers of people to get to power. Histories are rarely about ordinary people, they ignore descriptions of the everyday life and the sarifice made by citizens during the reign of Mr So-and-so the Great.
To this day, security is wholly defined in the framework of national sovereignty and the need to guard sacrosanct frontiers of nation states. Our obsession with expanding and defending territory shows we have evolved little from mammals who have to regularly irrigate the perimeters of their domains. That is why we reserve a special place for militaries in our nation states. When it comes to the army, even the most democratic nations shroud them in inordinate secrecy, they give the brass unquestioned leeway, and a lavish budget.
Numerically, South Asia has most of the world's poor. If governments in our part of the world were really concerned about the welfare of their citizens, they would pay less attention to military security and pay more for social security. Traditionally, security has always been about training people to kill other people, whereas human security is about trying to save people's lives.
One of the early proponents of human security in South Asia was the late Mahbub Ul-haq who used figures and statistics to prove just how absurd the military budgets of India and Pakistan were in relation to the mass deprivation of citizens in both countries. If Pakistani leaders had listened to Ul-haq and done more in the 1990s to ensure education, health and jobs, perhaps the country wouldn't be in the explosive political situation it is in today.
Here in Nepal, the successful conclusion of the peace process offers the opportunity to turn our attention to long-term peace building. An essential part of that must be to harness the peace dividend by cutting back on our bloated military budget, as well as investing in human security.
The induction of ex-Maoist combatants and extra Madhesis into the army are political compromises, and make a mockery of the glaring need for Security Sector Reform. There is no reason to keep the Armed Police Force, the paramilitary army that was set up to fight the insurgency. And if we must have a military, its size must be slashed to focus on disaster relief, infrastructure and UN peacekeeping.
In the constitution debates, our leaders split hairs about presidential and parliamentary systems. But if we look around the region, we see democratic governments so beholden to their militaries that they have no money left for anti-poverty programs, but we also have governments that may not be democratic but have done a much better job in cutting military spending to ensure social welfare. We can have any kind of government we like, but it must put human security at the top of the agenda.
For Nepal's long-term peace, underlying social injustice, discrimination, exclusion and inequities must be addressed. Maintaining an outsized, expensive army drains resources away from human development. The threats to Nepal's survival come not from external invaders, but from domestic instability caused by the state's neglect of its citizens.
Read also:
Mixing things up, ANURAG ACHARYA
In an effort to seek a 'win-win' arrangement, let's not settle for something that will make us all losers
See also:
Mind what you speak, but speak your mind
Nepal's transition is not being driven by issues at hand, but by those that will follow once the constitution is declared
Caucus chaos
A political caucus is not a tool for political blackmailing