By Susan Helen Moran
United Press International, Think Tank Desk

Military professionalism is on the rise in Asia, according to a new study released by the East West Center, a think tank headquartered in Honolulu. The study uses two definitions of military professionalism to describe the trend in 10 Asian countries. The old “military professionalism,” a term coined by Samuel Huntington in the 1950s, describes a well-trained, educated, apolitical military that is subject to civilian authority and professionally manages violence from external, international sources. The “new military professionalism,” coined by Alfred Stepan in the 1970s, describes a military that has interrelated political and military skills, is concerned with subversive and internal security, and focuses on national development.

The report, edited by Muthiah Alagappa, covers India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Burma. Contributors to the report included active duty and retired Asian military professionals. Several Washington policy analysts, however, disagree with the report’s views. “It seems an overgeneralization,” says James Lilley, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Lilley says that China and South Korea’s militaries are becoming more professional and outward-oriented, but not, for instance, Indonesia’s or Burma’s militaries. To Lilley, who was the U.S. ambassador to China from 1989 to 1991, a truly professional military is one focused on external threats: “The military should stay the hell out of internal security,” he says. The military in Myanmar, formerly Burma, is probably the furthest away from the “old” military professionalism, says Derek Mitchell, a senior fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Although Myanmar has had much encouragement from outside nations to democratize, the military regime has held on tightly to political and economic power, says Mitchell. After a democratic election in 1990 in which a civilian woman won the popular vote, she was kept under house arrest by what Mitchell calls the “scared, small cabal at the top.” “Burma’s (military) is extremely corrupt with drug runners, mafia, and forced labor,” says Mitchell. The military is propelled by fear that the country will disintegrate into another Yugoslavia, he says. In Indonesia, some signs of civilian control are evident on the national level, but on the local level the military continues to exercise political authority, creating their own fiefdoms in many areas, says Mitchell.

“These guys have weapons, authority, allies, and tradition,” he explains. Any transition away from the military’s participation in local politics and business affairs will be a long time coming, according to Mitchell. “The army is really the only fully functional institution in Indonesia,” he says. Yet Alagappa, who concedes that the military in Indonesia is still heavily involved in commercial enterprises and internal security matters, points to signs of progress. “Since 1998, active duty officers have been barred from holding political and administrative positions in government. The military’s allotted seats in parliament were reduced from 75 to 38 and this allotment is scheduled to end in the next election in 2004,” he says. Algappa is not alone.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly said that he is optimistic about the Indonesian army’s role under the new president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, according to a recent article on the Near Eastern Economic Review web site. For many analysts, the questions become even tougher when it comes to China. They agree that China’s military is increasingly professional. “The important question is, ‘What does this mean?'” says Lilley. China’s increasingly professional military is cause for concern, he says, since China lays claim to Taiwan and the South China Seas and has reserved the right to use military force there. “China is one of the most important countries militarily to watch,” agrees Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon. Yet he disagrees that China would successfully attack Taiwan. “China produces no top-notch fighter jets, for example, and is also weak in areas such as submarine and ship production. China’s large armed forces, roughly twice the size of the U.S. military, drain resources away from modernization and training,” he says. “China’s military has a long way to go to become (truly) professional,” says O’Hanlon. “They still (operate) internally to suppress populations in the Western part of the country.”

Controversy over whether China’s increasing military professionalization poses a threat came to a head this week with the resignation of the U.S. military’s top policymaker for China. Col. John F. Corbett Jr., will resign over “what his colleagues described as ‘dismay’ at the tough attitude toward Beijing adopted by President George W. Bush,” according to the Near Eastern Economic Review web site. “Corbett, the senior country director for China in the Pentagon, believed the Chinese military’s modernization efforts were part of a normal professionalization process, not, as the Bush administration has portrayed them, a threat to Asia’s security,” according to the article.

Two less controversial examples of the rise of the “old military professionalism” are South Korea and Taiwan, according to the EWC study. “Under presidents Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung, the ROK armed forces have embarked on an ambitious restructuring program with the goal of transforming itself into a small, modern high-tech military institution equipped with advanced weapon systems,” writes Alagappa. “In Taiwan, active duty military officers can no longer hold political office, and political parties have been barred from operating within the military,” he writes. Internal security is now the responsibility of the police force. Although commercial enterprises, including media, are still owned by the military, a gradual process is underway to divest them, Alagappa says. Growing democratic political systems and strengthening economies are causing shifts in political power and economic development enterprises away from the military in parts of Asia, resulting in militaries gaining more skill and education in the management of violence, according to the study.

Alagappa concludes the study with recommendations “to mobilize domestic and international pro-democracy forces to permanently alter the balance of power in favor of democratic institutions to isolate the military from politics, to terminate non-security roles, and bring the military under civilian direction.” For these goals to be achieved, Alagappa says states must “strengthen the legitimacy, capacity, and roles of civilian institutions, sustain economic development, and reduce coercion in governance.” Exactly what U.S. foreign policy could achieve these ideals, however, remains to be seen. “Indonesia is a good example to show the difficulty,” says O’Hanlon. Does the United States want to start training the Indonesian military in the hopes that it will improve in professionalism, or should the United States stay away from it, because of the Indonesian military’s “bad behavior?” “It’s a tough question,” he says.

August 13, 2001

Also re-published in Burma News, 2001.