Read the following text and give the summary in Ukrainian.

THE MILITARY ROLE IN INTERNAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY: SOME PROBLEMS

The issue of whether to deploy military forces in domestic missions is hotly debated. Those who believe the military should be utilized in an increasing number of domestic missions make several powerful arguments. According to one view, nations make a significant investment in their armed forces over time, and the employment of the military domestically is a way to obtain a return on that investment (1). Others point out that in the post-Cold War world, issues like terrorism, illicit drugs or poverty represent as immediate a danger to national survival as foreign aggression, and therefore warrant troop deployments (2). There is also the more utilitarian argument that devoting troops to domestic missions will block further attempts at downsizing the military (3).

Those who believe the military should remain exclusively focused on external missions make equally compelling arguments. A quarter century ago, Alfred Stepan argued that when military professionals focus on a domestic role they become politicized and may be tempted to stage a coup d'etat. More recently this view was echoed by Charles Dunlap and Michael Desch. Describing a fictional coup in the United States in the year 2012, Dunlap contended that the decision to divert military resources away from warfighting missions and into domestic activities in the 1990s had politicized the officer corps and weakened the legitimacy of democratic institutions and civilian officials. Without positing the danger of a coup, Desch argues that civilian control is more effective when the military maintain an external orientation (4). Another point frequently made by civilians and soldiers alike is that domestic missions have long term implications for combat readiness and troop morale (5).

This paper does not attempt to settle this debate or to tackle the broad spectrum of domestic missions that the military are invited to undertake. Not all domestic missions are created equal. It is possible to classify the military's domestic missions according to two criteria: a) the duration of a mission; and b) the nature of the activity to be performed. Time considerations are important to arguments about the impact of these missions on readiness. In this case, there are important distinctions to be made between military involvement in earthquake relief, and military participation in youth or school programs that will require a lengthier commitment. But it is also important to consider the nature of the different activities that are being proposed. Broadly speaking, there are three types of domestic missions:

1. Disaster Relief

This includes responses to natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes) and man-made disasters (explosions, environmental damage, weapons of mass destruction).

2. Law Enforcement

This involves a military role in countering riots, civil disturbances, and terrorism, as well as military involvement in drug control policies.

3. Community Service

This involves a variety of activities, from military involvement in construction projects, to participation in education or health programs. It also involves any number of cooperative ventures between military bases and the civilian communities around them (6).

The first and third types of missions pose interesting challenges for civil-military cooperation. But they do not provoke the same controversy as the second type of mission - law enforcement. When soldiers are deployed in domestic law enforcement, they might be placed in the position of having to shoot their fellow citizens, or of having to collect intelligence. What are the legal implications of these actions? What, if any, is the impact on democratic practices? This paper will analyze some of the difficulties that emerge when the military is employed in domestic law enforcement. It discusses the American military's involvement in riot control in Los Angeles in 1992, the British military's thirty-year experience of counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland, and some lessons we derive from these two cases. The argument made here is that public officials deploy the military in law enforcement missions as an act of desperation, without giving much thought to the impact that these decisions might have on military organizations, on democratic practices, and on the orderly functioning of civilian law enforcement agencies. In this respect, one weakness of the democratization literature and discourse is that it emphasizes civilian empowerment vis a vis defense policy, but not public order policy.

The paper does not address the issue of military participation in drug control policy. "Drug control" is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of activities such as drug abuse prevention, drug rehabilitation, source country programs, money laundering, and interdiction. In consumer countries, there is disagreement among analysts as to which of these activities should be emphasized. In addition, the military are involved in some of these activities but not others. An analysis of military participation in drug control must take into account the wider debate about national drug control policies. This issue is too complex to be addressed adequately here (7).

Дата добавления: 2015-07-10