Showing posts with label professionalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label professionalization. Show all posts

Monday, April 24, 2017

What should we know from Chinese Military Reforms

Bektas Baktybayev

China has the third strongest military and the largest military in terms of military manpower in the world. That is why it would be interesting to analyze the current reforms aimed to structurally reorganize Chinese military and their effects to civil-military relations. Starting in late 2015, China began to implement plans for structural military reorganization because of needs to increase Chinese military power. Those plans had been announced at the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in November 2013, with the goal of fully implementing the reforms in military sector. One of these reforms were related to Civil-military relations. The topic of these reforms was in the following way: Enhance management of civilian-military integration.
Since the early 2000s, Chinese reformers have sought to achieve synergies by integrating the defense and commercial industrial bases more tightly. This would benefit the PLA, which would have greater access to civilian S&T advances, as well as the civilian economy, which would be able to incorporate dual-use technology initially developed for military purposes. However, it was difficult to achieve synergy due to the poor coordination between the military and civilian research communities.
The topic of the poorly developed civil-military integration (CMI) had became central theme of the Xi Jinping–era reforms which resulted in aforementioned structural military reorganization. The Third Plenum decision called for promoting joint military and civilian development, perfecting defense innovation systems, and promoting entrance of private civilian firms into the defense sector. In March 2016, Xi again called for “coordinated, balanced, and compatible” development of civilian and military resources, noting that this had previously been hindered by a lack of high-level coordination.

Professional Military Education (PME) is another important topic related to civil-military relations in Chinese military reforms. There was a need to introduce changes to PME in China due to the weaknesses in officer education and training. According to the Bruneau and Tollefson (2008) the ideal purpose of PME is to empower the military to implement policy and at the same time discourage military leaders from seeking to make policy. In democracies such as USA education is particularly vital as a conduit of a professional military ethos. The example of USA is important because Chinese military reforms in PLA (People’s Liberation Army) is moving toward a command structure more closely resembling the U.S. military.

The US military is known as a fully professional army. China is also going to professionalize its army. According to President Xi the plan will involve China transforming its Soviet-era military structures into a more professional US-style force, with integrated commands and a centralized headquarters, which can be seen from cutting of 300,000 personnel from its 2.3m-strong military force from the PLA. It means that China wants to establish objective civilian control. Huntington argues that objective civilian control is obtained through maximum professionalization of the officer corps.


To conclude, China is going to professionalize its military and to improve civil-military relations. China is following the US example of PME and professional army in order to achieve such aim.

___________
References:
Bruneau, Thomas C., and Scott D. Tollefson. 2008. Who Guards the Guardians and How: Democratic Civil-Military Relations. University of Texas Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State the Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Links:
http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/president-xis-military-reforms-in-china-increase-professionalism-in-the-forces-or-his-own-power/


Sunday, February 19, 2017

Steps towards the professional military in Kazakhstan and Russia

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49598.htm
https://books.google.kz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VPtzf6i6U6sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=desch+civilian+control+of+the+military&ots=xVhy6HenzD&sig=iojnCSc8kE83rM4FuSa__3ohcPs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=desch%20civilian%20control%20of%20the%20military&f=false
Kazakhstan and Russia are fraternal and friendly states in the Post-Soviet region. Both states are close partners in the spheres of economy, politics and military-technical cooperation. At the beginning of the twenty first century both states have aimed to professionalize their militaries.  It would be interesting to compare what Kazakhstan and Russia have achieved so far in the process of professionalization.
The contract system of manning the Armed Forces was imposed in 2002 in Kazakhstan. It was because of necessity of having a small, highly mobile and professional army. Since there is no direct threat to the national security, the prior task for Kazakhstan is to gather a professional army which is capable of handling the low intensity and medium intensity conflicts. NATO has played a major role in the process of professionalization of Kazakhstani army as a part of practical cooperation between Kazakhstan and NATO.
Initially, Kazakhstan set a goal to fully professionalize the military by 2013. However, there are still conscripts in Kazakhstani army. According to the last statistics, 15000 conscripts are inducted each year. To be fair it is worth mentioning that Kazakhstan made a significant progress in the professionalization of the army. For example, the proportion of the professionals to the total army increased from 40 % in 2002 to 80 % in 2016. This growth can be explained by the social and material support from the state to contract-based soldiers. There are also other reasons for the creation of the professional army, such as expense reduction due to the decrease in the number of conscripts and the necessity to be adapted to diverse security environment.
Russia is different in its process of professionalization of the army compared to Kazakhstan. Russian first president Yeltsin wanted to professionalize the military after the First Chechen war, where Russian military suffered heavy losses among the conscripts. Contract based soldiers demonstrated high military training and high fighting capacity in the First Chechen war compared to the conscripts. Russia had no opportunities to professionalize and reform their military till the beginning of the 2000’s because of economic difficulties as well as other reasons provided by the Desch. He argued that the Yeltsin’s aim was to reform the military by reducing its size, rooting out corruption, depoliticizing it, modernizing it by putting it on a professional, volunteer basis, and high technology. However, the military has consistently resisted most of these reforms.
As the result of the professionalization process the number of conscripts decreased  twice from 2000’s to 2016. At present, Russia has a mixed principle of manning the Armed Forces compared to Kazakh counterpart, where the number of professionals is much higher than the number of the soldiers. According to the statistics of 2015, the number of contract-based soldiers and conscripts in Russia are 300,000 and 270,000 respectively.
The first steps in the professionalization of the Russian military was unsuccessful during Ivanov’s rule in MOD. Government did not provide enough material and financial support to the contract-based soldiers. The situation started to change during the rule of Shoygu. According to the estimated data, half a million contract based soldiers will serve in the military by 2020 and the number of conscripts will keep decreasing.
To conclude, we can notice the growing proportion of professionals to the total army force in the militaries of Kazakhstan and Russia. However, the governments of both states are not going to fully professionalize their military in the near future. This is due to the fact that there is no consensus among officials regarding the professionalization of the army.