Dec 20, 2004
How can dysfunctional defense sectors in developing nations be made clean, efficient, and accountable to international standards? Observing that past efforts to transform underdeveloped militaries have fallen short, the authors propose a fresh approach: making defense a part of the overall development agenda and drawing on concepts, methods, and tools used by the international development community to devise a coherent strategy for tackling the problem.
Underdeveloped military establishments contribute directly to conflict, oppression, and poverty within developing countries and to insecurity in other parts of the world. A strategic approach to defense-sector reform that links it with development and views it as part of an overall development agenda can transform these establishments, with results that go far beyond the military sector. This is the contention put forward in Clean, Lean, and Able: A Strategy for Defense Development, a RAND Corporation occasional paper by David C. Gompert, Olga Oliker, and Anga Timilsina. The authors explain why previous attempts to bring about such transformation have fallen short and make a case for developing a new approach to defense-sector reform. Taking three countries—Rwanda, Ukraine, and Indonesia—as case studies, they look at the conditions that need to be overcome, draw out a set of global principles for what they call "defense development," and propose a multipronged strategy for effecting permanent change. Implementing this strategy can help transform corrupt militaries into clean and efficient ones open to public scrutiny, politically accountable, and able to meet real defense needs.
The authors contend that unhealthy militaries have contributed substantially to the failure of underdeveloped countries to make the progress expected after the Cold War. Transforming these establishments has been difficult for several reasons:
Some efforts have been made to overhaul dysfunctional defense institutions—particularly in the former Soviet bloc. But they have yielded insufficient results. Consequently, there is a pressing need to rethink the conceptual basis for defense-sector reform and establish clear and practical policies for effecting permanent, sustainable change. A promising new approach is to link defense with development, viewing it like other public sectors in need of transformation and making it part of the overall development agenda. In this context, the standards, methods, and tools of international development agencies can serve as a paradigm for building a multifold strategy for reform.
To establish an empirical basis for such a strategy, the authors compared the defense sectors of three developing nations—Rwanda, Indonesia, and Ukraine. They analyzed a range of issues, from the threats each country faces, to the challenges each presents, to the importance of making progress in each. These case studies revealed a set of global principles for defense development:
In sum, defense development should aim to shape durable military establishments that can meet legitimate national defense needs in a transparent, lawful, and efficient manner.
Political and economic development is directly linked to defense. As good governance is increasingly viewed as the foundation of both political and economic development, the four "commandments" of good governance—accountability, transparency, the rule of law, and participation—should apply equally to defense development.
A strategy for defense development consists of tools and principles commonly employed in the development world to uphold these "commandments":
The success of defense development depends on the willingness of donors, be they development or security-assistance institutions, to assume significant responsibilities—setting norms and goals, recognizing performance, and coordinating defense development with the broader development agenda. Why should they take on this challenge? First, the methods and skills used to tackle underdevelopment in other sectors hold real potential to solve the problems of defense underdevelopment. Second, because defense development goes hand in glove with economic and political development, successful reform will more broadly facilitate economic growth, good governance, and international security.
Yet the task will not be easy. Developed nations will not readily prioritize defense development over more immediate security needs. Officers and politicians connected to the military will not easily accept change. Even with the best of intentions, development agencies lack expertise and credibility in the defense sector. Individual countries may be reluctant to forgo their own foreign policy and security goals to uphold international standards. But that is what it will take for defense development to work. Not just the recipients, but the donors of assistance need to be held accountable. The authors contend that the gains are worth the tradeoffs. Defense underdevelopment is potentially more harmful to international interests than any other aspect of underdevelopment. With the stakes this high, the rewards will be sizeable.