|
IMPACT
OF GLOBALIZATION ON ARMED FORCES
Dr.
Kadriye ADAY
(MITAGED)
Specialist
South
Eastern Anatolia Project (GAP)
Regional
Development Administration
Introduction
In this article, the impact of globalization on armed forces
is discussed. An understanding of globalization and armed forces is
established first; then the interactions between the two are
examined. The ends sought here amount to developing a systematic way
of thinking about how armed forces could benefit from the blessings
of globalization while staying away from its risks and threats.
I.
Globalization
“What
matters is not whether we are globalizing, but how we are
globalizing.”
D.
Rodrik
Globalization is the result of knowledge and information
beginning to be used more effectively, through a long-term, non-static
process. Globalization amounts to cross-border movement,
dissemination, and expansion of knowledge, culture, and power,
as well as goods, services, technology, and communication networks.
Under such state of affairs, not made up of singular
components, a larger number of global, local, national, and
individual powers play roles together. This in turn
constitutes a world of Internet cafes, Madonna, MTV, and Internet
pages, shaped by knowledge and information, entertainment, and money.
National Defense University, in United States, defines
globalization as “fast paced and continuous, cross-border flow of
goods, services, money, technology, ideas, information, culture, and
people”. According to a study conducted at this University,
unprecedented integration of national economies is being achieved
thanks to globalization, and an information revolution is being
experienced, while companies, organizations, and governance are all
becoming international.
United Nations Human Rights Commission, on its part, defines
globalization as a process that is not only economic but one that
has social, political, environmental, cultural, and legal dimensions
as well.
The most defining characteristic of globalization is its
orientation towards integration. In Thomas Friedman’s book titled
“Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization”;
globalization is defined as unprecedented and inevitable integration
of markets and nation-states. And finally in the National Security
Strategy document published by the White House in United States in
December 1999; globalization is defined as increase in economic,
technological, cultural, and political integration.
Globalization could be viewed as a process whereby only the
democratic or quasi-democratic countries, that have a rule-based
system of justice and an established security framework, and that
have adopted the market economy models, are benefiting at the
expense of other countries, by relying on certain (international)
norms.
There appear to be differences in the ways in which
globalization is being interpreted. Some of the interpretations
claim that globalization is not a new phenomenon and that it
definitely has historical foundations. High levels of international
connections shaped the global economy in the 19th century. From
those days to our day, technology has developed in dramatic ways and
has caused emergence of more globalized cultures. The most
visible symptom of globalization prior to 1970s is observed in the
post World War II period. Statesmen (during that period) have
made an effort to expand global trade and growth in order to be able
to control the international system of money.
The
system of globalization is built on three interacting equilibriums.
The first is the traditional equilibrium between the nation-states;
whereby the United States maintains its position of world leadership
as the (world’s only) super power. The second equilibrium
is the one between the nation-states and the global markets. While
the “super exchanges” could offer the resources that could take
a country to prosperity, they are also capable of causing the
collapse of a country by causing sharp falls in values of securities.
Here, “electronic communication networks” emerge as the most
important elements.
The third point of equilibrium of the global system is the
interaction between the individual and the nation-state. One of the
surprising products of globalization process is the “super
individual”; super individuals have enough power to have an impact
on markets as well as nation-states. To give an example; John
Williams who managed prohibition of land mines is one of those super
individuals.
Hence there are three actors playing on the scene of globalization:
the super power, the super exchanges, and the super individuals.
The important attitude is to accept that globalization is a fait
accompli. In this process, which makes it important to perform a
“situation assessment” rather than elect to be pro or con,
directing one’s efforts at increasing the advantages and returns
of the new situation and minimizing the negative aspects thereof
would be the realistic and constructive attitude.
II.
Turkish Armed Forces
For purposes of better understanding the importance of
Turkish Armed Forces, Atatürk’s last message for the Armed Forces,
of October 29, 1938, should be helpful:
“To
the heroic Turkish Army, whose victories and whose past began
together with human history, and who has always carried the torch of
civilization to places of victory!
As
you have protected and saved your country from oppression, from
disasters and catastrophes, and from enemy occupation through most
critical and difficult times, now in today’s enlightened times of
the Republic as well, as you are well equipped with weapons and
means as required by modern military methods, I have no doubt that
you shall carry out your duties with equal dedication….
Our
great nation and I both have complete faith and trust that you are
ready and willing at all times to perform your duties, as they
consist of defending the Turkish motherland and reputation and honor
of Turkish society against any and all threats, as they may come
from within or without. Even now as you are strengthened two-fold with the
manufacturing facilities and arms with latest systems that our great
nation has granted to our armed forces, I stand assured that you are
prepared to complete any and all tasks with equally great capacity
for self-denial, and capacity for disregard for one’s own life.
With such conviction I now greet the heroic and seasoned officers
and troops of our Army, Navy, and Air Force and I express my
appreciation of them, in presence of our great nation…”
There are five mutually complementing factors that allow the
Turkish Armed Forces to have a special character, even perhaps a
special identity: These factors are;
1.
M. Kemâl ATATÜRK, the symbol of the military profession and
of the honor of that profession.
2.
Turkish
War of Independence, which is the source of ideas / ideals
pertaining to relationships between war, armed forces, and society.
3.
Turkish
War History, as a force that feeds development of military values at
unit level.
4.
The
Muslim faith, as a force for encouragement of troops in battlefield.
5.
Relations
with the West and relations with particularly United States, as a
vehicle for modernization of Turkish Armed Forces and
systematization of military thinking.
While
these five factors happen to be independent from each other, they
have all been mutually supporting in process of contributing jointly
to the process of shaping the relationships between armed forces and
the (rest of the) state; between armed forces and (greater)
society; and between armed forces and the (rest of the)
world.
Turkish Armed Forces are well known as uncompromising defenders of
the secular state, which is one of the Principles of Atatürk.
Turkish
Armed Forces is one of the most effective military forces in the
region, due to its size, equipment, and experience gained especially
during recent years.
Author
Emre Kongar, on his part, identifies,
among the factors that would be shaping the development of Turkey in
the 21st century, the following role of Turkish Armed
Forces: “… it is the military bureaucracy, having first played a
historically crucial role in Turkey’s transition from a collapsing
empire to a modern nation-state, and recently with the weight of its
role in domestic policy, having become more visible again in the
face of separatist PKK and religious reactionary threats…”
III.
Impact of Globalization on Armed Forces
“As
long as you don’t account for the super exchanges, you won’t
understand today’s first page news.”
Thomas Friedman
Under the two-pole world order, defense of a country was
assured, regardless of cost and whether the country in question had
the money or not, by formation of a (military) force drawing
upon (the resources of) the system to which that country
belonged to, and thus the (global) balance of power was
established. Under the single pole world order, however, which
emerged In the post Cold War period and proved to be one of the
important legs of globalization, a country’s own economic capacity
has come forth and gained importance as regards the formation of a
military force.
Especially in view of the geography where our country happens
to be located, it is extremely important to be able to monitor the
region in terms of security risks and increasing the deterrent
capabilities of Turkish Armed Forces.
The concept of the “nation-state” and the properties of
the State would inevitably be undergoing change in our globalizing
world. One understands that, in the 21st century, the
nation-states would be indeed forced to accept reduction of their
powers through, on one hand, delegation of powers to local
administrations and, on the other hand, through close cooperation
with international organizations and economic and financial
communities, as they would need to do so. In many matters that used
to qualify as “internal affairs” within the bounds of national
sovereignty through the first half of the 21st century,
the states are now bounded by international agreements and they are
obliged to observe certain principles. One of such principles is the
universality of the concept of human rights and democracy.
Even though these concepts have been introduced to agendas through
support of external dynamics and are causing a number of distortions,
with the human rights concept leading to a kind of individualism
that is sort of removed from society, while democracy seems to favor
a liberal economy that pushes the individual to isolation and nearly
crushes the individual; dissemination of these two universal
concepts appears to be viewed as a positive development any way. Yet,
these two universal values, that do not develop through the
society’s internal dynamics, many times end up provoking reaction,
as individualism feeds individual terror thereby leading to
restrictions on human rights, while the concept of democracy
provokes totalitarian ideas aimed at destroying democracy and
encourages terrorist actions in support of such ideas.
Globalization also threatens sovereignty of nation-states,
which are independent by nature. The hegemony of United States in
political domain, on one hand, and the privileges of NGOs,
formations like European Union, the international capital, on the
other hand, threaten the sovereignty of the nation-state from above;
while the demands for autonomy from different groups of culture
inside the nation-states threaten their sovereignty from below, all
having a tendency to force national sovereignty to retreat in time.
As the global powers, in order to be able to expand their
hegemony in our country, are producing certain policies and are
encouraging discussion of those policies as widely as possible; such
activities indicate to realities in many different ways. One always
remembers the way various individuals and NGOs exaggerated in
presenting to international public opinion the Internal Security
Operations of Turkish Armed Forces. Another example of attempts to
demoralize Turkish Armed Forces occurred in recent days in Paris,
where the Organization of Reporters without Borders installed a
large photograph of Chief of General Staff General Kivrikoglu onto
the floor in a large public building, with many people walking
around there. We all also remember well that, again, recently, the
European Union’s Commissioner for Enlargement G. Verheugen pointed
to the place of National Security Council in the country’s
political processes, along with the presence of Armed Forces
representatives in the Council, as evidence indicating that Turkey
did not conform to Copenhagen criteria.
What
is, then, the reason for all these attacks directed at Turkish Armed
Forces? One could respond to that question, of course, by saying
that they are the results of policies aimed at satisfying the
requirements of globalization in our country with as much ease as
possible. It is not possible to achieve success as regards these
policies to the extent desired without undermining the Turkish Armed
Forces, as it is one of the most crucial elements of the nation-state
and it is fully a product and a part of the nation.
What
else could be done (to facilitate implementation of
aforementioned policies in Turkey)? By reducing the economic
means of Turkey, which needs to maintain a strong armed forces
profile due to geostrategic, geopolitical, and geoeconomic
importance of the region where Turkey happens to be, a blow could be
dealt to strike and deterrent capabilities of Turkish Armed Forces.
It is clear for all to see whether the economic crises of 1994,
2000, and 2001 have caused defense weaknesses and impacted future-oriented
investments of the armed forces of our country, which, under the new
single pole world order, must rely on its own resources for defense
requirements.
Conclusion
Our country, with its geostrategic, geopolitical, and
geoeconomic position, could play an important role in worldwide
developments. With its republican, populist, secular, revolutionist,
and statist principles, the “Kemalist Idea (Atatürk’çü Düsünce
Sistemi)” has proven to be an indispensable national asset.
Complete national independence, unconditional sovereignty of the
nation, the nation-state, rationalism and scientific method, and
rule of law are essential elements of the foundation to support the
Kemalist Idea. With processes of governance built on such a
foundation, the country would clearly be able to turn its
disadvantages to advantages and assume its distinguished place among
the nations that determine the future of our world.
It clearly follows form the above discussion that a very
strong and unitarian nation-state model is needed in the geography
of Turkey in order to be able to cope with very formidable problems
and achieve the intended objectives. In view of developments taking
place around us and at global scale, and under the framework of a
strong nation-state model, Turkey needs to adopt approaches in order
to make advances in areas of transparency, pluralist and
participative democracy, ethical conduct at both individual and
institutional levels, reliability, quality, stability and
sustainability, as well as science, culture, arts, economy, and
social life. Thus, Turkey, while further developing its economy and
democracy under the model of secular welfare state based on rule
of law, in the area of international relations our country
should continue to strive being the symbol of peace and advocacy of
peace, in line with Atatürk’s words: “Peace at home, peace in
the world”. At the same time, in view of its objective to become
one of the most important countries in the region and the tendencies
of instability in other countries around, our country should be
producing policies for a more rational management of its resources
as needed for developing and sustaining one of the world’s most
effective, powerful, mobile, and deterrent armed forces.
|
