The checks and balances of national security are increasingly distorted, writes Amin Howeidi* I recently read an article about national security in a local magazine. The writer told us to pay more attention to national security, saying it is as important as bread and butter. But he kept mixing national with military security, or at least that was the impression I got. So, at the risk of stating the obvious let me begin by asserting that military security is not the same thing as national security. Military security is about power, national security about capability. Military security is the responsibility of the military leadership, who themselves act under the command of the political leadership, whereas national security is the responsibility of the political leadership. Military security is not necessarily about war. Most of the time it is about deterrence. War is a political measure, aimed at achieving a political advantage. Wars are declared by politicians, who are the same people who at some point sue for peace. The purpose of any war is to achieve peace on better terms. A good peace is one that secures a balance of interests not just of power. Unfortunately crises are most often managed on the basis of the balance of power which could well explain why some crises seem to never go away. President Anwar El-Sadat was acting realistically when he told our forces to cross the Suez Canal on 6 October, 1973, break the Bar-Lev Line, and occupy a bridgehead on the eastern bank of the canal. His aim was to break a political stalemate. Once he achieved this objective El-Sadat proceeded to seek the liberation of Sinai through political means. The limited war Egypt fought in 1973 opened the door to negotiations. National security deals with foreign threats and domestic challenges. Those in charge of national security have to decide how much of the country's resources should go to defence and how much to development. The trade-off is intricate and becomes even more complex when statesmen begin to ponder their own popularity and political longevity. According to government figures Egypt's budget was over LE52.1 billion in the red in 2002/3. Our domestic debt stands at LE370 billion, or 89 per cent of GNP. Our foreign debt is estimated at $28.5 billion. Servicing these debt costs LE35 billion annually. Non- authorised expenditure came to LE8.2 billion last year. Government statistics, published in Al-Ahram exclude the budgets of the presidency, the armed forces and the interior ministry. I am not even sure if these budgets are audited. If they are not then there is good reason to worry. Such is the sorry state of published finances, imagine the condition of those that remain unpublished. But let's go back to national security. Recently the distinction between foreign threats and domestic challenges has all but disappeared. Some outsiders now see Egypt's domestic challenges as their own business. Democracy, for example, used to be a domestic demand. Now it is a weapon used by countries with a mind to invade other nations for any number of reasons. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently told the Security Council that international borders constitute no barrier to intervention so long as the aim is to protect human rights. Humanity is indivisible, in other words, so let's change our perception of sovereignty accordingly. What Annan is saying is that political borders can be crossed and that sovereignty is a relative concept, not an absolute. Acts of aggression, massacres and corruption legitimise foreign intervention. Others seem to agree with Annan. NATO, for instance, will strike anywhere in the world in defence of the interests of its members, and not necessarily after consulting with the Security Council. Indeed, it increasingly seems that NATO no longer thinks of itself as a defence pact but as an instrument for intervention operating outside international legitimacy. As international organisations shrug off their responsibilities and crimes against humanity multiply might is once again becoming right. Does this complicate the task of statesmen as they address issues of national security? Of course it does. Preserving national security has always been a hard task. "God, what a terrible job," said Warren Harding. And yet many want to keep doing it, seeking two or three or more terms in office. Amazing, is it not? * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of general intelligence.
