Untitled Document

CBK nominee for Defence Committee

Nine weeks and three days after they were appointed, the three member Committee on Defence Reforms forwarded their first report, one on Higher Defence Control, to Minister of Defence Tilak Marapana.

Reasons for changes in Higher Defence Control
The Committee on Defence Reforms set out seven reasons why changes in Higher Defence Control have become necessary. They provide an insight on how the Committee approached the crucial issue. They are:

1. The foundation of National Security common to any nation state is political stability, territorial integrity, social justice and economic strength. Defence Policy is required to determine the manner in which, without impoverishing the country, Forces can be deployed to fulfil the requirement of national security. The Armed Forces are an extension of the political will of the government.

2. Military thinking now tends to be politico-military and foreign affairs today should be military diplomatic, whilst both streams are vitiated to some extent by the interpretation placed upon whatever politico-economic doctrines happen to be current. In consequence, advice on national security, the preservation of which is the prime responsibility of any government, should be co-ordinated at the departmental level and then submitted for political approval at the governmental apex.

3. Inter departmental discussion is vital in order to determine the limits of what is practicable, but each department should strive to present its view, be it military, diplomatic or politico-economic in the form of alternative strands or elements of policy, leaving the political leadership to decide on what combination to effect. These policies have to be reflective of national needs and should be tailor-made accordingly and not taken ready made off the shelf to satisfy some theoretician.

4. The Defence of the State remains the first priority of the government. A National Security Policy sets the framework for how a country responds to the key security threat it faces.

5. The promotion and maintenance of sustainable peace is the goal of all governments and should be clear mission of Armed Forces everywhere. The maintenance of peace may be said to depend upon a continuous process of adjustment by means of which governments identify potential threats to their political stability, territorial integrity or national economy and use negotiations (backed by diplomatic, economic and military power) to counter such threats. It is evident that the maintenance of national security calls for the exercise of statecraft at its highest form.

6. All ethnic and other conflicts including insurgencies such as our own contribute to instability in countries and in various regions of the world. All conflicts endanger peace.

7. Security can no longer be defined in purely political and military terms. The aspirations of the people both individually and collectively, for a good quality of life become increasingly manifest. Security today covers all aspects of life, social, economic, cultural, humanitarian and environmental.

Some two weeks later, the Cabinet approved the recommendations made. Almost every one of them could be enforced only after legislation is introduced in Parliament. Since most of the significant recommendations seek to relieve powers currently enshrined with the President, who is the Commander-in-Chief, the need for a two thirds majority in Parliament, like in the case of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, will become necessary to make it law.

The Sunday Times last week (SITUATION REPORT - September 29) revealed exclusively the recommendations of the three member Committee headed by Austin Fernando, Secretary, Ministry of Defence and comprising Charitha Ratwatte, Secretary to the Treasury and Lt. Gen. (retired) Denis Perera.

Be that as it may, there appears to be re-thinking at the highest levels of the Government about the need to expand the composition of the Defence Review Committee. Moves were afoot early this week to bring in Major General (retd.) Asoka Jayawardena, as a new member. He is currently the Governor of the North-East Province and was appointed to that post by President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, when her People's Alliance was in power.

If he joins, Maj. Gen. (retd.) Jayawardena will become the most experienced military officer to serve in the Defence Review Committee. He has held important positions in battle areas in the North and East during critical phases of the war. In addition, he has also directed major offensive operations.

He will thus bring in a wealth of experience on the Army's transition from a ceremonial parade ground outfit to that of a battle hardened one. The only other military officer serving in the Committee, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Denis Perera, though credited with several achievements during his four year tenure, retired as Commander of the Army in October, 1981 - more than two years before the separatist war commenced.

The UNF Government's acceptance of Maj. Gen. (retd.) Jayawardena to serve in the Committee reflects its acknowledgment of the need to have an officer with operational experience in determining defence reforms. It also signals the acceptance of a retired Army officer who has found approval with the People's Alliance and more particularly with President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.

It was only last Friday, Maj. Gen. (retd.) Jayawardena took part in a top level conference at Janadipathi Mandiraya where security for the President was discussed. Top Army and Navy officials took part in the conference chaired by President Kumaratunga. Also in attendance was Cyril Herath, a former Director General of the Directorate of Internal Intelligence (DII).

In this context, it is relevant to note that contrary to reports in some sections of themedia, President Kumaratunga, has not fully rejected the first report of the Defence Reforms Committee. Last month, Defence Minister Marapana, who handed over a copy to her, held a two-hour discussion on the recommendations made.

"President Kumaratunga has not completely rejected the report. She wants to make a complete and serious study of the recommendations," her Director General (Media), Janadasa Peiris, told The Sunday Times. However, he said, "the President is of the view that it is wrong to deprive her of powers she enjoys as Commander-in-Chief." He asserted "leave alone an Executive President, she (President Kumaratunga) says "even a President who holds ceremonial office serves as Commander-in-Chief with such powers." He added that the President would make a fuller response once the study is completed.

The Sunday Times has learnt that Maj. Gen. (retd.) Jayawardena has agreed to serve in the Committee. It is not immediately clear whether he will ask that the Committee begin its task afresh, that is with the first job of setting out reforms relating to Higher Defence Control. There were indications he may raise issue since the second and third phases of the Committee's tasks are of a technical nature unlike its first one that related to many important matters.

Last week's The Sunday Times exclusive account on defence reforms drew a response from Lt. Gen. (retd.) Denis Perera. Reacting to comments that the Committee appears to have only obtained limited representations in formulating its first report thus leaving out broader public participation, Lt. Gen. Perera said "all those interested are welcome to make representations to the Committee on matters relating to the second and third phases of its study. They will of course have to send us written representations." If that was an admission that such written representations have not been entertained during the first phase of the report on Defence Control, the fact that public views will be sought on the remaining two phases is indeed salutary.

Lt. Gen. (retd.) Perera took exception to the reference made in these columns that "besides bestowing administrative responsibilities, the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence has been placed as the final authority for intelligence. This is through a Director General, National Intelligence, who will co-ordinate all intelligence under the Secretary. He said "a Director General, National Intelligence, will report to the National Security Council and came under the Secretary only for administrative purposes."

However, the first report does not specify this at all. To the contrary, the proposed Head of National Intelligence is expressly designated as one of the "Statutory Advisors" to the National Security Council, that too sixth in line after many others, including Secretary to the Ministry of Interior and Secretary to the Treasury.

Annexure "A" to the report headlined "THE OUTLINE ORGANISATION OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE" lists out the following as coming directly under the Secretary, Ministry of Defence:

1. Additional Secretary (Military Division), One star rank from each Service with requisite staff to handle Service establishment matters and Veterans Affairs.

2. Director General National Intelligence co-ordinating all intelligence.

3. Additional Secretary (Administration). All staff branches presently operating in the Ministry of Defence.

4. Director General Procurement, Executive Staff, Consultants, Research and Development Staff.

Lt. Gen. (retd.) Perera said though the subject of procurements had not been gone into in the first report, it would now be done in the second phase. Hence, he said there should be no concerns as expressed in The Sunday Times editorial over defence reforms. The editorial noted that no attention had been paid, even in retrospect, to corruption in the armed forces through multi million rupee tenders and other deals.

There is no gainsaying that the subject of procurements should have been gone into when the Committee examined its first phase. Procurements were a subject, which came under the final purview of the Ministry of Defence, one of the five subjects which came under Higher Defence Control. The others are National Security Council, Any Joint Command of the Forces or Co-ordinating HQ if necessary, The Headquarters of each of the Armed Forces and The Headquarters of any subordinate commands.

Quite clearly, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Perera's announcement that procurements would be studied during the second phase of the Committee's report, though welcome, is an afterthought.

It can be seen from the convening order Minister of Defence Tilak Marapana, issued on July 5, 2002 titled COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE AND REPORT ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO HIGHER DEFENCE CONTROL, REVISION OF REGULATIONS MADE UNDER RELEVANT SERVICE ACTS AND ON FUTURE ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE ARMED FORCES.

Asserting that the Committee "is appointed to examine and report on the stated matters, by the dates given having considered written and/or verbal submissions from service personnel where applicable and considered necessary," Mr. Marapana set out three specific areas for the Committee to examine. He also set out three separate deadlines.

The first report, dealing with Higher Defence Control, he said, should be completed by August 31, 2002. However, contrary to earlier reports, the first report was slightly delayed. One member of the committee placed his signature on September 2 whilst the other two on September 9.

Part two of the report, which Mr. Marapana says should be completed by December 31, 2002, is titled "Regulations made under the Service Acts." There is no provision made to examine procurements. Here is what the Committee has been called upon to do:

1. The updating and amendments (where necessary) of all regulations made in the Army under Section 155 of the Army Act and relevant regulations of the Navy and Air Force.

2. The following matters require to be examined closely in regard to prevailing circumstances and recommendations made to achieve uniformity and enhance the capability of the Army, Navy and Air Force with emphasis on merit and performance of officers and other ranks especially for appointments to important postings; promotions and extensions of service.

3. The criteria for selection for overseas courses and visits and formulate schemes that would ensure an equitable distribution of such opportunities so as to serve the larger interests of the service.

4. Review the systems of Annual Confidential Reports on Officers.

5. To report and make recommendations on any other relevant aspect to military service.

6. The committee may with the concurrence of the Minister for Defence appoint one or more sub committees in carrying out its mandate.

During Part Three, or the final phase, where Mr. Marapana says the report should be completed by April 30, 2002, he wants the following matters to be gone into:

1. To recommend the future strength, organisation and functions of the Army, the Navy and Air Force in carrying out their responsibilities in operations and in peacetime.

2. The composition and functions of the Volunteer Forces must be spelt out and relevant regulations updated.

3. The Military Doctrine best suited to the present scenario taking into consideration past experiences in operations and peace time responsibilities.

4. To identify and report on existing training programmes and make recommendations to ensure that programmes are suitable to meet current requirements of the Armed Forces including participation in United Nations Peace Keeping operations.

5. To report and make recommendations on the weaponry and other equipment best suited to meet the current demands of the Armed Forces.

6. To report and make recommendations on any other aspect considered by the committee to be relevant in the context.

7. The Committee may with the concurrence of the Minister for Defence appoint one or more sub committees to assist the committee in carrying out its mandate.

Defence Minister Marapana's mandate to the Committee did not specifically require it to seek outside views. It called upon them to report "having considered written and/or verbal submissions from service personnel where applicable." However, the Committee did move away from this to hear limited representations from outside. They came from the Association of Retired Flag Rank Officers (ARFRO) and a handful of retired senior Security Forces officers.

The Sunday Times learns that at least one senior military officer who also served in top bureaucratic positions declined to appear before the Committee only for one reason - he insisted that all three members be present when he testified. It turned out that Defence Secretary Austin Fernando was abroad and Treasury Secretary Charitha Ratwatte was busy with an important official engagement. Hence, on that occasion Lt. Gen. Perera, the remaining member, had wanted to sit alone to hear the representations.

The degree of attention focused in the Committee's first report can be gauged by the seven specific reasons it gives for reforms in Higher Defence Control. See box story on this page.

The requirement for defence reforms emanates from the need to adjust and reshape defence policy and a nation's Armed Forces to meet either changing security perceptions (foreign or domestic) or to remedy existing defects in the Forces. From the experience of near two decades of war, it is manifest that the main defect that has contributed to many military debacles has been the result of bad command and control, military organisation and performance principally due to manpower problems and equipment.

It is no secret that corruption within and outside the military has contributed largely to that state of affairs with procurements of either defective or unsuitable equipment. The ongoing peace process is by no means an assurance that armed conflict will not again result though the whole country hopes it will not. That shooting has ceased is no assurance that peace has been established. The best lesson on this comes from Tiger guerrillas who are re-training their cadres and re-equipping themselves not to mention fresh recruitment drives.

In as much as there is a need to improve Higher Defence Control, the immediate need is to improve the readiness, preparedness in men and material. Equally the readiness of the Armed Forces and the leadership at the field level.

The question therefore arises whether the first report has missed out the priorities.

The naval battle escalates
Even if he was on a course on "Senior Executives in National and International Security" at the Harvard University in Boston last August, the Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy, Vice Admiral Daya Sandagiri, seemed more concerned about his organisation in Colombo.
Though his deputy, Chief of Staff, Rear Admiral Mohan Wijewickrema, was acting C of N (as the Commander of the Navy is referred to), Vice Admiral Sandagiri still rang Colombo every day during the 12 day long seminar. So much so, the bill for the international roaming facility on his cellular phone for the period was over Rs 100,000.

Upon his return to Colombo, he shot off a letter to President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Commander-in-Chief (with copy to Defence Minister Tilak Marapana) that some persons had photographed his residence and he felt his life was threatened. This was all because President Kumaratunga had extended his term of office, due to expire on September 1, this year, by three long years.

Able Seaman Thushara Sampath attached to Navy Headquarters made a complaint to the Veyangoda Police on August 28 that two unknown persons on a motorcycle bearing No WP GF 6943 had photographed Vice Admiral Sandagiri's private residence at Kumbaloluwa. According to the complainant, a neighbour had conveyed the information to him.

Police recorded statements from the complainant, the neighbour and many others after it turned out that the number plate of the motor cycle belonged to the security detail of the number two in the Navy, Vice Admiral Wijewickrema, who was then acting for Navy Commander. The men who use the motorcycle flatly denied they were involved and expressed fears that the complaint was a trap to implicate them and the Chief of Staff.

Lucky Peiris, SSP Gampaha, declared that investigations conducted do not reveal any criminal offence being committed. He rejected a request by Vice Admiral Sandagiri for an identification parade since there was no criminal offence committed.

And now the Attorney General's Department has ruled that upon material submitted by the Police, they are of the opinion "that no criminal offence is disclosed against anyone." Hence the AG's Department has said "there is no basis to move for an identification parade."

But not to be outdone by the move, Vice Admiral Sandagiri set up a Navy Board of Inquiry on his own. Despite the advice of the Minister of Defence Tilak Marapana (a one time Attorney General himself) to Vice Admiral Sandagiri not to go ahead, the Board held an identification parade on October 2.

Two sailors from Rear Admiral Wijewickrema's staff were summoned though they objected in writing about their non- involvement. One of them has been "identified" by the neighbour in question as the man who rode the motorcycle in the parade that came 34 days after the purported incident. The sailor in question, with identification marks in his face following wounds he sustained during the 1993 LTTE attack on Pooneryn, denies his involvement.

And now, the issue has become the focal point of attention for those not only in the Navy but other Services too.

Vice Admiral Sandagiri has told his confidantes that he went ahead with the Board of Inquiry and the parade despite Defence Minister Marapana's advice to "clear his name." How, the issue which he himself raised had a bearing on his own name is not known but they are waiting with baited breath for Vice Admiral Sandagiri's next move. This is whilst those responsible for the defence establishment in the UNF Government watch helplessly.

A three year extension of service appears to have empowered him to totally cast aside the advice of the Defence Minister too.

Back to Columns