Soroor Ahmed analyses the role of the army in the Third World countries and finds that in many cases it indulges in killing, looting and plundering its own people or serves the interest of several regional powers while the purpose of the army is to fight the invading forces or launch an offensive on behalf of the ruler of that country.
Be it Myanmar or Sudan, the army is in the news for indulging in killing, looting andplundering its own people or fighting among itself. These are just the latest examples.Military in many parts of the world, especially in the relatively small countries ofAfrica, Asia and Latin America excels in the art of committing all sorts of crimes on itsown civilians.
There are several countries which have no enemy in the neighbourhood yet they keep a hugearmy. As the army has no one to defend and thus has hardly any work to do, it has insteadgot the taste of power.
Besides, it gradually acquired control over the resources and industry of the respectivecountries. Thus, weakening its tight grip over the system is no easy task as it enjoysthe patronage of foreign powers.
Any civilian resistance and demand for the government of people’s choice is brutallycrushed and the army enjoys all sorts of privileges.
Ever since the emergence of independent nation-states since the middle of 20th century,global and regional powers have started using the army of these countries to expand theirinfluence. Be it the United States or the then Soviet Union (or now Russia), the lastthing they want was the growth of real democratic rules in the countries they have vestedinterest. Now China is doing the same, at least in the case of Myanmar.
If the purpose of the army was to fight the invading forces or launch an offensive onbehalf of the ruler of that country, in the modern world it has become a tool in the handsof powerful international forces. Now there is no need to defend the country but tobrutalise the countrymen at the instance of foreign masters.
SUDAN’S PROBLEM
The problem with oil and gold rich Sudan is not just confined to a tussle between thecountry’s army and Rapid Support Forces, the para-military unit. The country which gotindependence in 1956 was partitioned in 2011 and a new Christian-dominated country wascarved out after a prolonged civil war. The new nation having a population of 1.09 crore,is rich in oil, copper and other minerals and was named South Sudan. But it remained apoor landlocked country, where big and powerful foreign elements are exploiting its richresources.
In gold-rich rest of Sudan, which has a population of 4.7 crore, the army has served theinterest of several regional powers too. If the United States and Russia have their eyeson that war-ravaged country, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates too have their owninterest. The Sudanese Army and Rapid Support Forces were used by Saudi Arabia in the waragainst Yemen. They were also involved in the Libyan civil war.
Today the Sudan Army and RAF – both having over one lakh strength – are locked in a grimbattle over supremacy. Till sometimes back both were unitedly busy in crushing the massstruggle against dictatorship.
In fact, the Rapid Support Forces has come up a decade ago following another civil strifein the west of the country called Darfur. It is gold rich region and the conflict alsoacquired racial nature. The importance of gold has further increased after Sudan lost itsoil rich region of the south.
Darfur region has both Black Muslims as well as Arab Muslims, who are otherwisenumerically strong elsewhere in the country. The Arab militia, Janjaweed, was accused ofcarrying out atrocities against the minority Black Muslim population of Darfur. There wasintra-Arab quarrel too over the gold rush. Several countries have vested interest in it.
It was Janjaweed which was later converted into the para-military RSF. The army has usedit in the past but it is now not coming under its control.
MYANMAR’S CASE
On the other hand, under the new Constitution of Myanmar which came into effect in 2011one-fourth or 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament are reserved for the militaryofficers. The country has been under military rule for most of the time since itsindependence in 1948. And it’s the army which had played a key role in the making of thethird and the latest constitution in 2008.
So even if Myanmar saw a brief period of democracy, army used to have a big control overthe government. Finally, on February 1, 2021 the army once again took power. Recently itwas in the news for brutal bombardment of citizens opposed to its control. The country isestimated to have about four lakh armed forces, when apparently it has no big externalthreat.
SCENARIO IN OTHER COUNTRIES
After the signing of Camp David Accord with Israel about 45 years ago, Egypt really doesnot need a huge army of 4.38 lakh. Neighbouring Israel which is surrounded by enemies fromthree sides has just 1.60 lakh armed personnel – reservists excluded.
So, the best thing that the Egyptian Army can do is to suppress its own people. Itoverthrew the first elected civilian government in the Arab world under Mohammad Morsi.Thousands were killed and General Abdul Fatah Al-Sisi seized power in 2013 with the openhelp of Saudi Arabia and a couple of other Gulf countries. The champion of democracy, theUnited States, tacitly approved the action. No sanction was ever imposed by the westerncountries on Egypt for destroying an elected government.The human rights groupsremained more or less tight-lipped.
Army in Egypt, instead of fighting enemy, is more busy running industry and business.Similar is the situation in Pakistan which has 6.5 lakh armed forces personnel. In thename of threat to security, no attempt has ever been made to reduce its size. Militaryintervention is a regular phenomenon and the army has not only control over power, butalso over other resources and industry.
If author Ayesha Siddiqa is to be believed, the Pakistani army is the biggest industrialgroup of the country and possesses 12 per cent of the land. An army chief gets as high as100 acres of land at the time of retirement – not to speak of other officers.
North Korea, a country having just 2.6 crore, has the ground forces of over one million.Saudi Arabia has an army of 2.6 lakh whereas Britain, which has almost double thepopulation, has exactly one lakh less armed personnel.
In this era of mechanisation when countries like the United States and China have in thelast few years considerably reduced their army these countries of Third World areincreasing the strength.
One can just draw the conclusion as to what is the real motive in keeping such a huge armyand purchasing enormous number of weapons from the manufacturers in the West.