Soldiers apart: A study of ethnic military manpower policies in Singapore, Israel and South Africa.

摘要

This dissertation investigates how states construct and amend their ethnic military manpower policies. It is argued that, at first, ethnic military manpower policies are determined by national ideology. It is then asserted that, over time, ethnic military manpower policies evolve through an intricate bargaining game between politicians who fear ethnic Trojan horses within the military, military officers who seek to enhance the combat performance of their troops, and ethnic leaders who endeavor to promote the status of their groups within the state. It is also argued that the integration of ethnic soldiers depends on top-down pressures on the military to change existing policies and established ethnic traditions. Such top-down pressure may emanate from senior military officers or from defence policymakers who are hard-pressed by ethnic leaders to change existing ethnic military manpower policies.;The dissertation compares the construction and evolution of ethnic military manpower policies in Singapore, Israel, and South Africa. New information is presented concerning the systematic exclusion of Malay Muslims from military service in Singapore after 1967, the integration of Oriental conscripts and Druze soldiers into the IDF during the 1950s, and the internal decision-making processes in the South African Defence Forces during the 1970s concerning the opening up of the military to nonwhites. Lessons concerning the formulation of ethnic military manpower policies are drawn for the leaders of the new multiethnic states in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.;The singlemost important assertion of this dissertation is that effective ethnic military manpower policies result from creative compromises among politicians, military officers and ethnic leaders which allow for increasing inclusion of ethnic soldiers in the military. Like all compromises, these creative solutions rarely satisfy the parties that author them and are subject to harsh critiques from those whose priorities are absolute justice and total equality. Nonetheless, such compromises remain the only effective means whereby subordinated ethnic groups have found a place in the military.