Author: Alina Nurtas
Reading -
Nathan W. Toronto, “Why Professionalize? Economic Modernization and Military Professionalism”, 2016.
According
to Kazakhstan’s military doctrine which was signed in 2000, state’s military
should grow and develop according to the character of the real military threats
from the outside or inside of Kazakhstan, with use of the new tendencies or
technologies and, what is more important, with state’s economic capabilities.
Kazakhstan went through major transformations, and the shift to a market
economy is one of them. Market Economy requires the state to redefine its
military politics. Issues are yet to be resolved. The situation was
complexifyed with Armed Forces’ inability to satisfy the demands of a changing
environment, where the geopolitics outside the country changed, and the
internal and external politics of Kazakhstan also went through significant alterations.
Moreover, Kazakhstan’s army dropped behind neighboring states in terms of the
military technologies. Here one would see how Kazakhstani institutions are
lagging behind the economic change; according to Huntington (1968) this hinders
the military professionalism. Kazakhstan, until recent time, had no effective
army financing. The economic questions did not let the state to start military
reforms. Importantly, the needs of the army were satisfied by means of the
‘emergency store’. In spite of that, the state identified long term goals – to
create centers for mobilized preparation, and invent mobilization reserves. Though,
it is hard to modernize the military equipment, professionalize military
officers, and educate them, without a proper financing system and well
developed economy of the state.
How is it related to our class?
What do
we mean by ‘military professionalization”? I believe that a professional
military officer should be familiar with military history and the doctrine of
his state; he should understand military philosophy and know that violence is
the last resort. The later notion was mentioned by numerous authors during the
course of the semester. Huntington (1957) once said that military should do
nothing but manage violence. This will eventually contribute to the state’s
ability to manage military business and violence as well. Enough words were
said about the significance and the meaning behind ‘military professionalism’,
and people do appreciate that. Though, how to achieve it? As W. Toronto (2016)
argued, when the state achieves a higher level of economic stability and
modernization, it is likely to professionalize in military terms. Going back to
the news regarding Kazakhstan, it comes as no surprise that a young market
economy will clash with inability to satisfy its military sector because of
unstable economic environment.
What
about the direct links between economic modernization and military
professionalism? Well, W. Toronto (2016) identifies three main pathways to link
the former and the later one. The ‘accumulation of human capital’ or the third
pathways seems to fit into Kazakhstan’s frame. From the news article, it became
evident that Kazakhstan is about to professionalize its military through
creating mobilization reserves and through introducing educational centers for
officers. This will empower their multifaceted education and ensure the
professionalization.
No comments:
Post a Comment