The army is going to perform domestic functions
The armed forces of Ukraine, trained until recently only for repelling foreign aggression, can be also used from now to execute missions inside this country. This provision will make part of the new version of the law On the Armed Forces of Ukraine, of course, if the latter is to be approved by parliament. The law was debated in the first reading two weeks ago, but it was decided to postpone the voting a little. But, no matter whether this will take place now or a little later, the problem of the expansion of the Armed Forces’ functions deserves special attention, especially in our unpredictable country.
On the one hand, the updated law will fix de jure what exists de facto. For the army helped the populace to deal with the consequences of floods in Transcarpathia, the military are being constantly involved in mine clearance, while peacekeeping exercises under the NATO aegis are held quite often under the slogan of bringing relief to the victims of earthquakes. Thus military assistance in thwarting manmade or natural calamities is a natural thing supported unanimously by society. What is looked upon with certain reservations is the use of the army inside Ukraine to fight illegal armed elements and to carry out antiterrorist operations. Earlier, these tasks used to be assigned to the National Guard, but it has been disbanded this year and its units now are part of the Armed Forces. Minister of Defense, Oleksandr Kuzmuk, is convinced that the events in Russia have unequivocally confirmed the necessity of training the national army to perform such domestic missions: “It is self-deception to think that we will not intervene in this process (i.e., if something of the kind suddenly happened here — Author).” According to the general, only the Armed Forces have sufficient means and funds to do this.
The involvement of armies in doing domestic “jobs” is nothing extraordinary. For example, the Soviet Army, ostensibly exempt from any domestic functions, was used at least ten times to settle internal conflicts from 1986 till the USSR disintegration. Twice, this was at its most shameful — in Tbilisi and Lithuania. In Russia, the Military Doctrine has since 1993 allowed using the army “to counter the domestic sources of military threats.” The role of military power in ensuring internal stability in Iran, Libya and Pakistan is also a copybook maxim. In the US, the president can deploy the National Guard and regular military units on the territory of any state if, in his opinion, “unlawful obstruction” is being done to official administration, “illegal associations” are active, or internal violence breaks out and endangers the constitutional rights of citizens. But there is a basic difference in this coincidence. The more totalitarian the country is, the fewer limitations are imposed on the actions of the military. And the freer and more cruelly behave the military who fulfill the missions of the political authorities. A question arises against this backdrop: can the army, in its new role, get carried away with, so to speak, putting things in order inside the country? And to what extent is the Ukrainian army prepared to mobilize its capacities in peacetime?
Representatives of the Ukrainian General Staff claim that, in case of domestic conflicts, the army will be used to cordon off the conflict-prone area, to foil the supply of weapons and ammunition to it, and to prevent bandit formations from penetrating the area. The army may also guard the most sensitive facilities and render military and technical aid to administrative bodies and paramilitary units. We already had it: when a Tartar conflict broke out in the Crimea, the 32nd Army Corps stationed on the peninsula and commanded by the current minister of defense is said to have shared its armored personnel carriers with the National Guard.
But this is, of course, only a partial answer. And should the army be directly involved in the settlement of a domestic conflict? What will the scenario of developments be in this case — typical of a democratic or not-so-democratic country? I wish these things would not be cleared up in practice. Against this background, the military leadership, in light of the army’s new role, should initiate some accompanying actions, oriented toward the well-established democracies. The United States, for example, has special textbooks that identify the tasks of the armed forces in fighting domestic challenges; they clearly specify the conditions under which the military can be invited to suppress a domestic conflict and explain in every detail the command mechanisms and the ways of deployment of military formations. To draw a national juridical line under these requirements is only the first, if very indispensable, step to wean the political authorities from the temptation to resort to excessive force and relieve the military of the threat to become a scapegoat. Of course, this also raises the necessity for the armed forces to incorporate specially- trained units which will not immediately, as if in shock, bash the unarmed crowd but will be able to effectively solve the entire conflict. But even in the US, where all this is itemized from A to Z, there exists a negative attitude toward “domestic” strong- arm operations by both military and civilian law-enforcement bodies.
