Mustafa Uluçakar∗
Introduction
Most countries consider parliament to be the supreme authority responsible for democratic control of the military. In addition, in most democracies, the decision-making process consists of a series of procedures whereby the governing body takes the decision to send military troops abroad only with the approval of parliament. In this context, parliament is responsible for controlling civilian-military relations as a whole and overseeing the decision-making process to authorise military operations abroad, in particular on behalf of its citizens.
Disputes between developed countries are increasingly being resolved through non-military means. When their armies instead step in to solve issues between less developed countries, many challenges in civil-military relations that had been deemed resolved begin to emerge. Such peace support operations reveal that mission formats differ substantially from those in conventional theatres. The military engaged in a less-developed country encounters an environment in which perceptions of democracy and democratic order are different, and where different cultural, social and psychological interactions are dominant. Moreover, the military is required to engage in missions that entail having civil expertise in these environments, even indirectly, such as establishing a functional democratic system and state/national order.
Theoretical Framework
The Spanish Minister of Defence appointed after the death of General Franco in 1982, who made an important contribution to the democratisation of the Spanish military, said that studies carried out on civil-military relations suffered from a lack of theory. According to Burchill’s 2001 study, quoted by Serra,
‘theories define not only our style of expression but also our ethical and practical horizons’.1 It is clear that theoretical works help us to understand the rationale underlying facts and evaluate the results obtained in academic studies, particularly in the field of political science. Furthermore, theories do not only explain and/or predict, but they also indicate types of possibilities for solutions and for further development. Thus, it is thought to be beneficial to construct a
∗ Col. (ret.) Mustafa Uluçakar is a PhD Candidate at the Hacettepe University in Turkey.
1 Burchill 2001, 2.
theoretical framework to assist us both with understanding this topic of study and to think about the different possible solutions.
Serra has observed that ‘the academic circles in the United States started to discuss seriously the area of civil-military relations thanks to a clash between Clinton and the military in the 1990s’.2 In relation to this observation, Serra stated ‘I doubt Huntington would rewrite today what he had written as a foreword of his work The Soldier and the State.’ With regard to military missions abroad, it is evident that the theoretical debates carried out in the United States in the 1990s had an eventual impact on practice in this area. Thus, to make the responsibility and powers of parliaments in relation to these tasks more comprehensible, it will be beneficial to review the theoretical debates that took place between the governing body and the US military leadership in the 1990s.
These debates were constituted with a view to differentiating the engagement levels, as well as the institutional features of the military changing over time. One of the most important issues revealed in these debates is that there can be solidarity between the military and parts of the legislature to resist other deputies and the government, which may be opposed to their plans, due to the nature of the military industrial complex. In this, the military can be identified as a collective pressure group.
Dauber thinks that ‘the doctrine suggesting gradual force usage as in Vietnam is now being converted into the short-term use of force that can be concluded with less casualty in the 1990s, namely into a doctrine where technical standards are the dominant factor’.3 According to Dauber, ‘during the planning and decision-making of a military operation, this approach rendering the technical standards dominant allow the military to preside over the debates by exerting a monopoly of expertise on these issues.’4
This type of operation raises questions relating to how the lack of civil expertise among the military might be tackled in order to control and supervise the elements5 considered integral parts of the decision-making process of the civil authority relating to national security. Hence, Serra states that ‘my increasing awareness about the political realities in different countries has allowed me to see the ignorance of the civil body that is responsible for reformation in those countries on military issues’.6 Feaver points out that military personnel may take their place in some part of the decision-making process by proxy and by making proposals to assess and eliminate the threat; however, the
2 Serra 2011, 9.
3 Dauber 1998, 438.
4 Ibid., 438.
5 The National Security Decision-Making Process contains various phases such as defence and force planning, hardware modernisation, planning, budgeting and
implementation systems, defence procurement, military doctrines, intelligence collection, assessment, and psychological warfare.
6 Serra 2011, 7.
final decision must remain with the civilian authority.7 Nevertheless, Feaver’s
‘way-out’ proposal is not capable of adequately explaining how parliaments and governments that lack expertise on many technical issues can provide oversight on a military that constantly develops new methods counteracting such processes.
Another area put forth at the engagement level is the military operational method whereby the military conducts missions similar to police operations. Janowitz identified this practice in the 1960s. According to Janowitz,
‘when a consistent international relationship form is sought rather than victory and when the military is forced to employ a minimum use of power and consistent defensive stances, then the military institution is converted into a police organization’.8 The experiences with Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that United States troops are obliged to perform tasks in accordance with Janowitz's ‘police organization’ method.
Avant's findings agree with those of Serra, suggesting that support from parts of the legislature gave the military a reason to reject the governing body’s decision in the 1990s.9 Based upon this finding, Avant considers that a civil consensus ‘between the governing body and the legislature’ will be the most effective tool in solving the problem.
Common Practices Regarding the Oversight Function of Parliaments Although parliamentary functions for controlling the armed forces in a democratic manner and to provide oversight of relevant foreign missions can vary from country to country, generally, the approval, recommendation and warning functions are the same.
It is necessary for parliaments to establish a method for fulfilling the functions relating to oversight and supervision. This entails setting up special commissions and committees. Through these commissions and committees, it is anticipated that parliaments will have the power to monitor the whole national security policy and defence planning process. These committees and commissions work in areas such as foreign affairs, planning and budget, industry, commerce, science and technology, defence industry support/governance, and so forth.
In the control system chain, the governing body and the judiciary also play important roles in addition to and/or apart from that of parliament. In many democratic systems, the head of state or president is also the chief commander of the armed forces. These roles and functions are perceived and constituted by different methods (symbolic, solid, less/more active forms). The positioning of
7 Feaver 1992, 149.
8 Janowitz 1971, 418.
9 Avant 1997, 90.
national security councils within the governing body in some countries, as well as the related mandates and responsibilities, vary widely.
The principal duties of parliaments related to sending troops abroad are to approve the troop deployment prior to or after the deployment; in other words, to approve the decision of the political authority regarding the use of force.
During this process, parliament is expected to take into account the operational details of a decision, such as the framework of the mission, unit composition, amounts of personnel armaments and equipment, the terms of reference, rules of engagement, and so forth.
Using different implementations methods that vary from country to country, parliaments can do the following:
• Approve the budget for the mission.
• Demand additional information channels to assuage concerns regarding the decision of the political authority to send troops abroad.
• Demand that governing body inform parliament by utilising the intelligence services, other national institutions and/or international organisations, institutions and partners.
• Use, for information purposes, methods such as questioning, censure, urgent sessions, statements, official investigations and visiting troops abroad.
• In the case of opposition to a decision by the governing body, a vote of no confidence may take place.
The decision process related to the deployment of troops abroad can proceed as relatively closed sessions and in a technical format where military and civilian expertises are utilised jointly. Nonetheless, in terms of the democratic requirement to be accountable to citizens, the system must be sufficient to be able to monitor and provide oversight for these processes in almost every aspect.
A number of considerations may be mentioned in terms of the delicacy and importance of the political decision-making process regarding troop deployment abroad. First and foremost: the deployment of troops to another state's area of sovereignty, for whatever reason, does not only substantially affect the relations with that country alone, but usually also those with other countries in the region. Second, military missions to be conducted abroad require the use of significant resources. These missions do not only constitute a heavy financial burden in terms of resources such as armaments, vehicles, equipment, munitions, allowances, maintenance, supply and depreciation costs, but they also require the deployment of a significant number of human resources to a region where major risks are involved. In other words, sending troops abroad is something that should go beyond the process of strategic level decision-making and execution conducted only within the institutional structure of the state. And third, the decision to send troops abroad has a significant
effect on individual citizens. These decisions are closely associated with social perceptions, established ethical values and cultural settings.
In parallel with these considerations, devising the decision-making processes related to sending troops abroad in a manner to be monitored on behalf of citizens by organs such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), non-political organisations (NPOs), media bodies and universities monitoring these processes, gains more importance. When taking a decision to send troops abroad, especially with regard to international relations and financial aspects, the elementary factors differ from country to country. For example, in some countries, constitutional, legal, ethical, traditional and cultural aspects may be more prevalent.
Furthermore, the military may show institutionalised reflexes to influence the planning and execution stages of mission types that involve serious risks for the troops. The new and different political design emerging with the change in the operational area for troops also affects the in-house aspect of civil-military relations as a whole. In this respect, whether or not the engagements of the military stay within the traditional cultural framework, forming the perception of the citizens of the states to which the military is assigned and within the assent criteria composed within this framework, emerges as a new area of discussion.
More specifically, the differentiation of the identity of the superior command in this framework can also be judged either in terms of international relations or in terms of country-specific values. Besides, the requirements, nature, costs and implementation methods of peace support missions and the international problems arising as a result of this implementation may create an environment where the institutional trust felt both for the state and for the military may be questioned.
In relation to decisions on deploying troops abroad, parliaments need to consider the conditions in which the troops will be deployed and the extent to which these will be acceptable to the public. Parliaments are also expected to use their power to expressly discuss the details of the decision, such as the following:
• Is the mission compliant with the constitution and the international and national legal framework?
• To what extent is the permission of the host country influential?
What is the allocated budget and how will the budget be spent?
• Are the operational details of the deployment clear and unequivocal and which of parliament’s approval criteria were decisive?
• How will the review of the military operations be made?
It is a common expectation that a parliament will discuss the decision and the policies of the governing body related to the deployment of troops openly and in
detail, question the executive and the members of the military under oath (if necessary) and investigate suspicious cases.
Furthermore, it is necessary to have answers to the following questions in order to understand the differences in the oversight and supervision functions related to the missions to be conducted abroad, in terms of responsibility and authorisation levels:
• Are there possibilities for communication between members of parliament and the relevant bodies conducting the operation?
• Are there means allocated to parliamentary committees for visiting troops abroad, and for sharing the observations and information obtained during such visits with the parliamentarians and the public?
• Is parliament granted direct oversight power of the peace support mission before and after sending the troops abroad, without endangering the safety of the operation?
• Since the process in parliament will take a long time, are there conditions where the oversight power of parliament is suspended and/or exceptions are applied?
In relation to the possible duties and responsibilities regarding military deployment abroad, there are particular areas where parliaments may contradict the powers of the relevant governing body responsible for implementing the operation. Issues such as confidentiality, operational security, international procedures and methods, as well as national norms and cultural settings that differ from country to country, affect these discussions. To this extent, the question of whether the multinational chain of command of deployed armed forces allows oversight is emerging as the main issue for discussion.
Another debated issue is whether the mandate of parliament is applicable to the intelligence support of the operation to be conducted.
Legal Framework and Current Practices of the Turkish Grand National Assembly Relating to Military Deployment Abroad
In the past, several Turkish governments have applied to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) for military deployment abroad; this has happened more than 30 times since 1950. All the applications were accepted, except one.10 However, the decision by the Democrat Party for military deployment in Korea in 1950 was taken without the consent of the TGNA. After this, the decision process related to military deployment abroad was arranged as a
10 It was requested by the Council of Ministers in 2003. The Government applied to Parliament for permission to send troops to Northern Iraq and the use of Turkish airspace by air units belonging to foreign armed forces in accordance with the principles and rules to be determined by the Turkish authorities for a likely military operation.
Permission for a period of six months was granted.
separate article in the Constitution of 1961. Since then, the provision specifying that the mandate for permission would remain with the TGNA has been converted into a constitutional provision. This arrangement was maintained in the Constitution of 1982, but a second paragraph was added to the article, bestowing the President with a mandate to use the armed forces in cases of imminent emergency.
The provision related to the military deployment of the Turkish Armed Forces (Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri, TSK) is stated in Article 92 paragraph F of the section related to legislation of the chapter concerning the basic organs of the Republic of the Constitution of 1982.11 The format of this arrangement in the Constitution reflected to TGNA's Rules of Procedure as Article 130 entitled
‘Sending or Acceptance of Use of Armed Forces’ specified in the section entitled ‘Declaration of War and Decisions Concerning the Armed Forces’.
Furthermore, according to Article 117 of the Constitution, the Council of Ministers is responsible to Parliament for the protection of National Security and for preparing the Armed Forces for national defence. 12 Moreover, the assignment of this power to the TGNA is clearly stated in Article 16 of the ‘Law for Mobilisation and State of War’, dated 1983 and numbered 2941. It is also pointed out that the expression ‘for a certain period’ in Article 130 of the TGNA's Rules of Procedure implies that the power of decision for determining the period is given to the TGNA. The decision power related to other issues, especially to the use of force (where, how much, how, and so forth), is left to the discretion of the Council of Ministers.13
The results of the examination carried out by the Constitutional Court, in response to an appeal by the Social Democratic People’s Party, in relation to TGNA decisions no. 107 and 108,14 show that when the TGNA gives the Council of Ministers permission to use military force, this is not construed as an absolute takeover of power, and the TGNA’s right to monitor the developments resulting from this decision continues to be valid. It is explicitly understood that the TGNA can change or revoke this permission whenever necessary. However, according to Özbudun, ‘since the decision for sending armed forces abroad are political due to its nature and based upon preference and discretion, this should
11 The mandate to permit the declaration of war in cases of emergency was accepted as legitimate under international law, and military deployment of the Turkish Armed Forces abroad or deployment of foreign armed forces in Turkey, with the exception of conditions required by international treaties or international protocols, remains with the TGNA. In case the country is under attack when the TGNA is on vacation or during the interim period, and when an immediate decision must be made, the President may decide to deploy the Turkish Armed Forces.
12 Bakırcı 2000, 473.
13 Kanadoğlu 2003, 416.
14 In 1990, as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, TGNA decisions 107 and 108 permitted the Government to take measures to protect Turkish interests.
also be discussed, as such decisions are excluded from judicial review by the Constitutional Court’.15
The debates on the powers of the Government and the Parliament seemed to be drawing to a close with the Constitutional arrangement in 1961.
However, the expression ‘the conditions accepted under international law as legitimate required to be taken into consideration by TGNA while giving permission to the Council of Ministers for sending and deployment of troops’ still requires debate. Particularly during the discussions surrounding the memorandum of 1 March 2003, issues of ‘how the legitimate conditions were to be determined’ and ‘what these conditions were’ led to a number of questions.
The issue of ‘who would decide the conditions’ not mentioned explicitly in Article 92 of the Constitution lay right at the heart of the debate. Furthermore, remarks were also made indicating that ‘the conditions for conformity to international law’
did not apply with regard to Article 92, and that the TGNA's decision would be
did not apply with regard to Article 92, and that the TGNA's decision would be