Untitled Document

Defence Reforms Committee caught in politics
What began with a loud bang - the UNF Government's campaign to secure extensions of service for a group of Majors General in the Army after their statutory periods of retirement - has now ended in a dull whimper.

Kandula, the latest regimental mascot of the Sri Lanka Army's Sinha Regiment, at last Tuesday's joint services parade to mark President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga's eighth year as Executive President. It was held at the premises of the Presidential Secretariat

Not because the much publicised campaign was over a non-existent issue - the charge that President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga refused to extend or stalled extended terms for them.

In fact during a meeting between Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Kumaratunga at President's House on October 28, it became clear the Ministry of Defence had made no recommendations for such extended terms.

Until yesterday the Presidential Secretariat has received no recommendation from the Ministry of Defence over extended terms for any Majors General. This includes the case of Maj. Gen. Lohan Gunawardena, Chief of Staff of the Army, whose extended term is due to expire on December 4.

Three days after the meeting, in a press release, the Presidential Secretariat, among other matters, asserted "The extension of service of senior military officers other than the Army Commander is the responsibility of the Minister of Defence in concurrence with the President. Although the President is willing to extend the service of officers in the Army on the basis of their honesty and efficiency, the Prime Minister and Defence Minister are of a different view…." (Situation Report - November 3)

At the same meeting, President Kumaratunga requested the Committee on Defence Reforms, now made up of four members; all of them present, to make their own recommendations on the subject of extension of services in the Army. The Committee that is busy on the second phase of their report - Regulations made under the Service Acts - took time off to act on the Presidential request.

During their deliberations, they also consulted the opinion of the Attorney General and have now acknowledged that the question of granting extended terms of service is a matter of discretion of the President. They have hence recommended that "the existing system of giving extension of service on the recommendations and views of the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army be continued unless, a disciplinary issue has been proved against any such officer."

Therefore, the Government's own Committee on Defence Reforms, has consequently endorsed and acknowledged the legal position that it is the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief, who has the sole discretion of granting extensions.

This is notwithstanding President Kumaratunga's own assertion, in the press release, that "the extension of service of senior military officers other than the Army Commander is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence in concurrence with the President," is not a legal requirement.

However, it is more clear now that it is a protocol she had followed since the Government in power was not from her own People's Alliance but from the United National Front. In a letter to President Kumaratunga dated October 31, bearing the signatures of the four members - Defence Secretary Austin Fernando (Chairman), Charitha Ratwatte Treasury Secretary, Lt. Gen. (retired) Denis Perera and Maj. Gen. (retired) Asoka Jayawardena - state:

"Your Excellency

EXTENSION OF SERVICE OF SENIOR OFFICERS
OF THE SRI LANKA ARMY
"On your instructions, the Defence Review Committee has studied the Regulations pertaining to the extensions of service of Major Generals (sic).

"According to the existing Regulations and the practice adopted by the Sri Lanka Army, all Major Generals have been given extensions of service until they reach the age of 55 years, except Major General A.K. Sooriyabandara.

"Attention of the Defence Review Committee was drawn to the opinion given by Hon. Attorney General regarding extension of service of officers of the Sri Lanka Army. This opinion has been forwarded to you by Secretary/Defence. The Defence Review Committee confirms the point of view of the Hon. Attorney General quoted below:

'The regulations referred to above confer a discretion on the President. However, in the exercise of such discretion it is imperative that due consideration be given to the recommendations and views of the Commander of the Army who would be possessed of all relevant material relating to an officer whose extension is sought in the interest of the Army.'

"Therefore, the Defence Review Committee recommends that the existing system of giving extension of service on the recommendations and views of the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army be continued unless, a disciplinary issue has been proved against any such officer.

"The Defence Review Committee is in the process of studying the Acts and Regulations of the three Forces and will in the near future propose changes to be made to the Acts and the Regulations including proposals with regard to the extension of service."

The recommendations of the Defence Review Committee, endorsing the President's discretion over granting of extensions of service to senior officers, is indeed a marked departure from its first report on Higher Defence Control.

The recommendations in them sought to strip the President of powers now enshrined under the Constitution and vest them in the Minister of Defence. The move has not only generated a serious controversy but also cast doubts on whether the proposed defence reforms were in fact a facade to politically manipulate the military.

Firstly, if the defence reforms were necessitated by the expansion and greater militarisation due to 19 years of war with Tiger guerrillas, not a single military officer, either serving or retired after stints during the war, has served in the Committee. Besides the two civilian members who are not conversant with matters military, the only service representative who formulated the first report is former Army Commander Lt. Gen. Denis Perera.

He retired from service two years before the separatist insurrection began and was in Australia serving as Sri Lanka's High Commissioner. He has largely presided over a ceremonial Army, which did not play any combat role.

The fact that the Committee sought views of only selected serving and retired military officers, sometimes with only retired Lt. Gen. Perera, conducting sittings, drew very strong criticism. In fact, Defence Minister Tilak Marapana, who appointed the Committee had called upon them to examine and report by the dates given only after having "considered written and/or verbal submissions from service personnel where applicable and considered necessary." This in itself underscores the absolute lack of transparency in the exercise of defence reforms. The decree to the Committee (referred to by the Minister as a Charter) simply requested it to seek only the views of service personnel, that too, where applicable and considered necessary.

Among those who raised objections was an experienced soldier and later a senior defence official, Maj. Gen. (retd.) Hamilton Wanasinghe. He was a former Army Commander, a General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the Joint Operations Command (JOC) and one time Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. Another, whose views was not sought was former Army Commander and GOC of the Joint Operations Command, General (retd.) Tissa Indika Weeratunga. Hence, the Committee has by its own admission, interviewed only one of three retired GOC of Joint Operations Command, Gen. Cyril Ranatunga. The latter, however, did not serve a stint as Army Commander.

The Government has already armed itself with a draft Joint Chiefs of Staff Bill based on the recommendations on Higher Defence Control (Situation Report - October 27). This came even before the Service Chiefs, who were called upon by the Chairman of the Committee and Defence Secretary Austin Fernando, to make their observations on Higher Defence Control before October 31.

Both the recommendations on Higher Defence Control and the draft bill became public only after they were disclosed by The Sunday Times. Since then, many senior officers from all three services, the Army, Navy and Air Force have sought to ascertain from The Sunday Times on how to make representations on matters relating to Higher Defence Control or on how to hear the views of members of the Committee. However, there has been no official response or comments from either the Committee or the Government on any matter relating to their recommendations or sittings.

Lt. Gen. Denis Perera admitted that public representations had not been sought on Higher Defence Control when he told The Sunday Times (Situation Report - October 6) he would receive written public representations for the second report. That came in the wake of criticism that broader public views had not been sought for the first.

If the entire process of defence reforms has been a severe indictment on those responsible for the defence establishment in the UNF Government, the comedy of errors continue. Next Thursday (November 21), Lt. Gen. Denis Perera will go "public" on matters relating to Higher Defence Control. However, his voice will not be heard in the mess halls or conference rooms of Army, Navy, Air Force Headquarters or any other State establishment.

The first "official" contribution by Lt. Gen. (retd.) Perera will be to speak at a roundtable discussion on Higher Defence Control and Civil Society Participation organised by the Berghoff Foundation for Conflict Studies, a German NGO (Non Governmental Organisation) at the Supper Club of the Hotel Lanka Oberoi.

At 9.40 a.m. he is billed to talk on "Defence Review -Recommendations on Higher Defence Control." Also due to speak on the same subject will be Maj. Gen. (retd.) Asoka Jayawardena, who has been made a member after recommendations on Higher Defence Control were concluded.

In a separate four page "confidential report" to Committee Chairman and Defence Secretary Austin Fernando, Maj. Gen. (retd.) Jayawardena has declared he is in "total agreement" that review of Higher Defence Control Institutions and Systems is vital to National Security. However, he has said, he believed any recommendation that would, or appear, to affect any constitutional position would create what he calls "political controversy, which in turn would lead to enormous difficulty and further delays in actions towards implementation of essential and non-controversial changes." (See box story on this page for his own observations)

It is now abundantly clear that the Committee on Defence Reforms has glossed over the military aspects of re-organisation or reforms preferring, for reasons better known to themselves, to focus on political and constitutional answerability of higher defence organisation. The futility of this exercise, both time consuming and at considerable expense, will no doubt be exposed sooner than later.

Maj. Gen. (retd.) Jayawardena's views on Higher Defence Control
Retired Major General Asoka Jayawardena, now Governor of the North-East Province has been co-opted as a member of the Government's Committee on Defence Reforms.

His appointment by Minister of Defence Tilak Marapana, came after the Committee submitted its first report on Higher Defence Control. Their recommendations in this regard, leave alone seeking to effect defence reforms, focus mainly on political and constitutional matters pertaining to the defence establishment.

Maj. Gen. (retd.) Jayawardena has submitted his own views on Higher Defence Control in a four-page report to the Committee. Here are extracts:

CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION: I believe that any recommendation which would, or appear to, affect any constitutional position would create political controversy, which in turn would lead to enormous difficulty and further delays in actions towards implementation of essential and non-controversial changes.

However, the recommendations such as the appointment of a Professional head of the Armed Forces, his role and responsibilities would indeed imply an amendment to the Constitution. This would only confirm the existing position not creating controversy and therefore could be acceptable and justified.

Similarly essential systems, provided they would receive all approval.

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: The National Security Council as proposed, appears to create inherent political difficulties considering the situation in the country. Therefore it becomes necessary to envisage the National Security Council from a National point of view rather than that of a political party or parties. However if for instance, the President and Cabinet are from the same party it could be likely that the Council as proposed could meet with only the President, Secretary Defence and the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff. Where the President and the Cabinet are from different parties this position will not arise. Similarly with such a number of decision-makers in the National Security Council, the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff could be under tremendous pressure being the only permanent professional advisor, which would not be an improvement to the system.

Experience in the last so many years in Sri Lanka (as well as abroad), has shown that in periods of crises, the National Security Council would require to meet almost on a daily basis to constantly monitor the situation, make informed decisions, as well as to authorise various activities. When such crises develop it is difficult to believe or accept that the Defence Council alone will be given sole authority to execute all necessary counter measures. The National Political leadership could not and would not remain passive nor uncommitted in such times.

Since many of the procedures involve implementation of decision by authority of the President, it may be prudent to ensure that the Secretary to the President and the President's Security Advisor are included as Permanent Advisors to the National Security Council.

However, the Cabinet Secretary nor Additional Secretary need be in the National Security Council nor should servicing of the National Security Council be by the Cabinet Secretaries. Reason being that as past experience has shown, matters of a very sensitive nature and grave consequence are discussed at the National Security. Therefore in principle, the servicing should rest with the Secretary Defence, thereby reducing officials required to maintain secrecy to the absolute minimum on need to know.

Further, since much of National Security in Sri Lanka will be dependent on the co-ordination between Armed Forces and Police, and their co-operation, it would be of value to have the Secretary, International Affairs as a Permanent Advisor.

I am of view that the Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Naval Staff, Chief of Air Staff and the IGP should be permanent Advisors to the National Security Council. The Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff should not be isolated nor should he be sole Principal Advisor, since his knowledge in depth and technicality could be limited, which would be detrimental to decision making by the Council.

In order to ensure well-informed decision making, it may be necessary to nominate the commanders of Joint Command of Land Operations and the Joint Command for Maritime Operations as advisors in attendance. This will ensure better understanding of ground operations and amplify the current capability to the highest level. It is essential that the National Security Council be aware of such, so as not to resort to adventurous activity beyond capability. This factor is most essential considering the systems functioning in Sri Lanka and the failures experienced in the past. A link to the ground will only be of benefit and further enhance professional and informed opinion, as well as deflate any tendency to sycophancy.

Certain matters of procedures relating to the National Security Council and the Defence Council may also require to be incorporated in legislation. At least a period of security must be stated, in respect of minutes, papers, plans etc.

HEAD OF THE ARMED FORCES: I would suggest that the designation be Chief of Defence Staff (as in so many other nations) or in the alternative Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), as opposed to Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC). The designation of CDS need not imply details as contained in the note in the Report. The responsibility and functioning of CDS could easily be very clearly indicated as in the UK, for example. Chief of Defence Staff would be logical following Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Naval Staff and Chief of Air Staff.

The appointment of the CDS/Chairman, JCS should be in the same manner as the appointments of the Heads of Services, the latter being by the President as per legislation.

There is a need to consider the responsibilities of the professional Head of Armed Forces. There appears to be some ambiguity.

The tenure of office specified and retirement age should be considered. In most countries Heads of Armed forces certainly retire much later. Recent military history records the appointments and achievements of several individuals in many different countries, who have fortunately responded to the call of their Nations well beyond normal ages of retirement, and have successfully executed their functions in times of war. It is the National interest and requirement which should be supreme not any other regulatory factor.

ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS: Similarly, the limitation / restrictions imposed on the age/service of the Head of Services. There is no comparison anywhere in the world. These should be reviewed and due consideration should be given to the needs and requirements of the Nation, specially during times of war or conflict.

SUBORDINATE JOINT HEADQUARTERS: It is necessary to clarify in some detail the functioning of the Joint Command of Land Operations (JCLO) in view of the present Command and Control structure and deployment. Would this be in line with UK Home Defence structures, for example, or purely restricted to designated operational areas?

Similarly the Joint Command for Maritime Operations.

I should think that if the present system is to continue it would be necessary that the Commander should be a Lieutenant General.

INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND SYSTEMS: National Security is dependent on Intelligence activity to an immense degree. A review of National Security should also look onto the systems, which would enable employment and deployment of the Armed Forces. This aspect is not reflected in the Report and probably was not considered as being an essential part of this Review."

Back to Columns