548 SEER, 83, 3, 2005 Betz, DavidJ. Civil-Militay Relations inRussiaandEastern Europe. RoutledgeCurzon ContemporaryRussia and EasternEurope Series, 2. RoutledgeCurzon , London and New York, 2004. ix + 203 pp. Notes. Select bibliography.Index. [65.00. ONE of the difficultieswith the subjectof civil-militaryrelations,asDavid Betz mentions in this book, is that what it contains depends to a very large extent on the particular civil society and the military establishment with which it concernsitself.The liberalWesterndiscourse,at leastin the decade before the recentoperationsinAfghanistanand Iraq,seemed to be principallyconcerned with ensuring that the ethnic, gender and disability balance in the armed forcesreflectedthatin society at large.In Centraland EasternEuropeand the formerSoviet Union, in contrast,the questionsweremuch more fundamental. What was the military'sfunction? How much discussion should there be in public about issues of national security?How could governments and voters ensure that money allocated from meagre national budgets for defence was being spent effectively? Approached for advice and assistance,the West, and NATO in particular, insistedthat therewere no rightanswersto these questions.But they did offer two main types of supportfor newly democratic countries that wished to reengineer Warsaw Pact forces into national armed services. One, which culminated in NATO membership for several countries, was assistancewith the designof structuresto manage, forexample, policyplanning,procurement and budgeting business process skillswhich had been entirely lacking in many East European ministries before I989, not just in the ministries of defence. The other was to develop programmes of military-to-military contacts, exercises and trainingcourses, often based on existingprogrammes into which newcomerscould be assimilated. But thejamboree of internationaldefence (andlatersecuritysector)reform initiativesbarely touched civil society. The effect of this Betz makes clear in this admirable exposition of the defence transformationprocesses in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine and Russia between i 989 and 200I. Societies for which defence matters were a deliberately closed book had to develop almost overnight a coherent new version of the military'splace in society, as well as structuresand institutionsto monitor their work. The false starts,the power struggles, the interplay of strategic policy development with day-to-day decisions, which Betz explains in meticulous but very readable detail, are a salutaryreminder of how much those with a more settled military tradition takefor grantedin the fieldof civil-militaryrelations. On one level, it makesfor depressingreading.As Betz remindshis readers, none of the four countries whose experience he analyses has solved all the problems. One, Russia, has arguably yet to acknowledge that the question remainsto be addressed.But, illuminatedby extensive quotationsfrommany of the protagonists,as an epitome of the politicalprocessesat play in a crucial (though not strictly speaking revolutionary)phase in European history, the subjectmatter could not be bettered. Betz's treatmentof the subjectis also of an extremely high standard. Whilst bowing to the demands of the theoreticians , he lays out with exquisite accuracy the twists and turns of the REVIEWS 549 transformationprocess in his chosen countries,which have been well chosen to illustrate the variety of approaches and experiences common to several more countries at that time. The reader is able to read across the chronicle and see the effectof each decision, largeor small,in the widerframework. Betz is also correct in emphasizing the value of interviews and personal comment in evaluating the process in each country. The fundamentalpolicy documents and institutionswhose various incarnationshe charts,quotes and footnotes extensively -which future historiansand analystswill find a very valuable resource - are often so bland that only their rapid creation from tabulaerasaeis remarkable. What is utterly invaluable is the way Betz accompanies this blandness with the trenchant views of those who were instrumentalin theircreation- views about content and function, and what the realissueswere. Insightslikethese are often lost to posterity,or ignoredby foreignresearcherspreoccupiedwith formand processratherthan power and substance. For this very reason Betz's book should be required reading for political scientists. Apart from occasional lapses in orthography,my only criticismis that the book does not cover as much as it could. Fuller treatment of two areas in particularwould have made Betz'streatmentexemplaryratherthan outstanding . First,given the degree of ignoranceof militarymattersin the 'civil'halfof the equation, I would have welcomed a discussionof the role (orfailure)of the media in enhancing mutualunderstanding. Secondly, as evidenced by the Russian military'sweak grasp of the new political processes...
Read full abstract