Israel, Bolivia, and the United Kingdom: The Serious Damage of Boric to National Defense

Ex-Ante, March 7, 2024

The government’s decision to exclude Israel from Fidae—damaging relations with a key supplier for the Chilean Armed Forces—adds to other very harmful measures for national security adopted by President Boric. One is the opening of the borders with Bolivia 24 hours a day, which facilitates access for a neighbor whose corrupt institutions are unable to control crime, drug trafficking, and smuggling. A neighbor that has also signed a defense agreement with Iran, a theocracy that promotes terrorism. Last but not least is the unusual disdain shown towards the United Kingdom, another key supplier for the Armed Forces.

---

It is the essential duty of the State to safeguard national security, as stated in Article 1 of the Constitution. The purposes for which we organize socially cannot be fulfilled without security. This basic assumption, which the citizenry clearly understands (as shown by surveys), seems not to be comprehended in La Moneda. Otherwise, the current situation would be inexplicable.

The first concern relates to Bolivia. The Bolivian Customs reported this week that Chile has agreed to extend the operation of the border with Bolivia from 10 hours a day to 24 hours, 365 days a year.

Bolivia celebrates this unlimited access to Arica and Iquique as a strategic, historic advancement for its international trade; and the press reports that Chile is even considering opening a new border crossing for Bolivia to export lithium through Iquique (milestone 60).

How can this be explained in Chile? It cannot be explained. There is no official announcement. Nothing to alleviate concerns that this total opening will result in an increase in crime in our country, which is already severely affected by insecurity and irregular migration, especially in the north.

What can justify extending facilities to a neighbor whose corrupt institutions are incapable of controlling crime, drug trafficking, and smuggling? The 1904 Treaty, where Chile guarantees free passage through its ports, does not obligate border crossings and ports to operate 24 hours a day.

All of this is even more inexplicable in light of the Bolivia-Iran defense agreement from last July. Iran provides Bolivia with drones and cutting-edge technology (which could aid transnational crime in its flow to neighboring countries); and at the same time, uses Bolivia as a base for intelligence activities related to drug trafficking and terrorism.

This agreement, therefore, warrants that all countries bordering Bolivia reconsider their defense strategies. Argentina has strongly protested and is now planning further actions in this regard.

What is the reaction of the Chilean government? None. Does the Chilean government have any global geopolitical analysis? Opening our borders even further to Bolivia is opening them to Iran, organized crime, and terrorism, and is irresponsible in light of the local security crisis.

In addition to the total inaction in the face of this threat from a neighboring country and the disruption of regional balance in terms of defense, there is the mistreatment of allies. We are not talking about mere protocol impasses.

Chile has not had an ambassador in the United Kingdom for half a year, the most important European post for the country from the perspective of defense, investments, finance, and advanced human capital training.

In this half year, the Boric government has deemed it more necessary to appoint officials in Guyana and Greece than to urgently repair the damage in this key bilateral relationship; a serious damage, not caused by the furniture designer who blamed her missteps on King Charles.

The leaked audio from the meeting of Foreign Minister Urrejola’s team revealed something much graver: Chile has committed not to allow British ships to dock in Chilean ports on their way to or from the Falklands/Malvinas.

In other words: we have jeopardized the 200-year alliance we have with the main supplier of our Navy. It is not surprising that the British government, then, acknowledges the continuous insult from Chile. And for this reason, the career diplomats who—without an ambassador—handle these matters no longer have access to anyone.

In this serious national security and defense landscape, the third element is the decision to marginalize Israeli companies from the International Air and Space Fair (FIDAE), organized by the Chilean Air Force.

In light of the Israel-Hamas war, a dynamic situation with uncertain length and terrible consequences, all countries naturally manage a range of humanitarian aid options and possible forms of protest. But President Boric opts for a measure that severely damages national defense, while the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs remain eerily silent.

To understand the gravity of the situation, one must look at Chile’s long-standing relationship with the State of Israel, where the defense component is a key aspect. It is important to differentiate the State of Israel from the Netanyahu government, which is currently waging a war where serious crimes have been committed. The cold reality reveals an undeniable national dependency.

Israeli companies, global leaders in defense, security, and cybersecurity, maintain a close relationship with the Chilean Armed Forces. Israel has been, for decades, a key supplier to the Air Force, Army, Navy, Carabineros, and the PDI.

A significant portion of our arsenal is Israeli: we are talking about missiles, tanks, rifles, boats, air and maritime surveillance aircraft, machine guns, ammunition, radars, riot control vehicles, encrypted communication technology, and systems for intercepting enemy communications for strategic use.

The international tender held in 2021 for Chilean satellites (useful in defense, science, mining, water resources, energy, and more) was awarded to Israel, a world leader in space intelligence. A five-year contract worth $120 million.

The provision of all this material, the maintenance of equipment, and the training to use it has been key to the deterrent role of the Chilean Armed Forces and an element of regional peace.

Those who think—without any other element than common sense—that we can simply change suppliers should know that this is not like changing a car.

The service for a part of the most sophisticated and expensive weaponry within Chile’s arsenal is provided by Israel, and there is no alternative, as in many cases they involve sealed black boxes. It should also be noted that many weapons (such as missiles) must be maintained without being used, trusting that when the day comes to use them, everything will function properly.

In other words, the functionality of the Chilean arsenal is possible thanks to a technological and human exchange built over decades based on mutual institutional trust. Therefore, there is no replacement overnight.

The current government of Chile has not formally broken diplomatic relations, nor treaties, contracts, or memoranda. However, by abandoning its historical neutrality in the Middle Eastern conflict with a series of escalating actions, it has severed a key relationship that our Armed Forces maintain. The price to pay could be very high.

Without the exchange of experience and training (currently organized by the defense attachés of both countries), and without the maintenance provided by Israeli companies, our weapons will not be operational to defend us. Our decades-long investment in defense and security may be considered lost.

For this reason, it is childish to compare the exclusion of Israel from FIDAE with that of Russia a couple of years ago, a gesture with zero cost (Russia does not supply anything to Chile).

No one disputes that the President of the Republic conducts the country’s international relations, that the Armed Forces are subordinate to civil power, that the Chilean people are pained by the catastrophe implied by the conflict in the Middle East, and that there should be protests against violations of international law. But no country can or should shoot itself in the foot by adopting sanctions that fundamentally compromise national interest.

Did the government measure the consequences before excluding Israel from FIDAE? Did it do so before turning its back on the United Kingdom, our main historical ally? Did it weigh what it meant to open the borders to Bolivia 24 hours a day and thereby to Iran?

Chileans deserve a good answer.

Paz Zárate
Senior Researcher, AthenaLab

Source: Ex-Ante