Mega Projects Are A Threat To National Security

[Jai Dee]

MEGA-PROJECTS: Plans are ‘threat to national security’

Mixing military, social development could compromise country’s interests: Chula academic. Thailand could end up comprising its national security by mixing military modernisation with mega-project investments because the two issues are not only incompatible but could prove very costly in the long run, a leading expert said yesterday.

The most important principle to take into consideration in any procurement policy is the country’s military capability, followed by national security, economic considerations and lastly political incentives, said Chulalongkorn University Associate Professor Panitan Wattanayagorn.

Panitan accused the government of prioritising its own political incentives in its attempts to modernise the armed forces through mega-project investment schemes and barter trade.

“Politically, this may be very positive, and economically it may appear to be good on the surface,” Panitan said.

“But in reality, the armed forces may be forced to compromise and accept a system they may not want or a system that is not compatible with the existing one”, Panitan added.

Speaking to The Nation yesterday, General Sirichai Thunyasiri from the Ministry of Defence said Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had informed foreign diplomats invited to Wednesday’s gathering at Government House that the government was looking for the best possible deal. Thaksin announced that a wide range of investment projects including mass transit, water resources and military modernisation was included in the package.

When asked if Thailand was willing to accept proposals from non-traditional suppliers, such as Russia, or would continue to give priority to the United States, Sirichai said the government was not singling out any specific model or any specific country.

“We informed them of the specifications of our needs and expressed willingness to hear their offers,” Sirichai said.

American Ambassador to Thailand, Ralph Boyce, who attended Wednesday’s function said the US would be willing to consider barter trade with Thailand.

While Sirichai downplayed reports about Russia making headway with its plans to sell a squadron of SU-30MK jet fighters, Panitan reported that Russia has in fact become one of the main front-runners of the potential suppliers for Thailand, in spite of the fact that Moscow is not a traditional supplier of weapons to the country.

One of the main reasons for this, said Panitan, is that Moscow is offering a more flexible payment scheme than Western countries, including offers of exchanging jet fighters in return for Thai agricultural products.

“The Russian package in itself is very tempting. But when you include logistics, spare parts and training, it will become less attractive because Russia cannot provide a stable logistic-maintenance support,” Panitan said.

He said the long-term cost of Russian jet fighters could therefore end up more expensive than Western jet fighters.

Indonesia and Malaysia have also attempted to take on Russian weapons systems but both reported that they had faced difficulties in integrating the Russian-made system with Western arms.

The purchase of the Russian weapons systems was initially meant as a statement aimed at the US, to indicate that the two Muslim countries were willing to diversify their weapons inventories. But the end result, said Panitan, proved to be financially costly because of the difficulties in integrating Russian systems with Western-made military hardware.

Two of Russia’s main customers are China and India. But the two countries, unlike Thailand, have a solid defence industry that can also provide the logistics and spare parts for the Russian-made weapons systems.

“Thailand could end up turning to China for spare parts for Russian jets or weapons systems,” Panitan said.

Jet fighters, main battle tanks, advanced destroyers and frigates are considered to be part of an armed forces’ main platform, while small arms, cargo planes or armoured personnel carriers are not, Panitan pointed out.

“When a country is procuring a weapons system that is considered to be part of the main platform, it is making a statement that says we are ready to move closer to that arms-providing country and willing to exchange more codes and intelligence information,” Panitan said.

“I am not sure if Thailand is trying to make that statement,” he added.

Source: The Nation - December 16, 2005