COLUMN | The National Defense Problem in Chile

The fundamental problem of National Defense is reaching an agreement on what we want to defend or protect, and then determining the resources we allocate to that protection.

Regardless of the fact that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defense to produce defense and military policy, its formulation involves aligning political authorities with the armed forces on what will be defended, and within that, what is a priority.

Everyone obviously agrees that the defense of territory and borders is the most important, but within national territory, not everything seems to hold equal value. The continental and insular territory from Arica to Cape Horn is perceived as having higher value, while the Chilean insular territories located in the South Pacific, such as the Juan Fernández archipelago, Salas y Gómez, Rapa Nui, and the Desventuradas, are considered lower priority by all except the navy.

The same fate befalls Chilean Antarctic territory, which we all know is an integral part of Chile, but in practice does not receive the same attention and value when it comes to available means for its defense.

The exclusive economic zone, which in the case of Chile is almost five times the continental territory, is important and has many resources, which are also found on the continental shelves, both regular and extended, but it lacks Chileans living in it, diminishing its importance for the political world.

As we move further away from Chile, issues only interest the navy. Protecting the seas through which 90% of our foreign trade circulates, particularly critical points such as the Panama Canal or the Strait of Malacca, is something whose importance is not understood by everyone, assuming it is the responsibility of others, rather than a shared responsibility, to keep the oceans open for maritime trade.

What has been indicated in the previous paragraphs is of no small importance. Being able to defend everything that interests us and being in a position to protect national interests wherever they are located with limited budgets is not realistic, especially given our fiscal reality.

Prioritization should include what is sought to be protected, the threats that may exist, and obviously the budgetary availability, a topic that should be covered by the law on financing strategic capabilities as it is applied correctly and in a timely manner.

What cannot happen is that in order to avoid discussion and keep everyone happy, defense spending and investment continue to follow the old logic of the three thirds, but rather should adhere to the guidance provided by the current defense policy, which leans more towards generating and maintaining capabilities applicable in various scenarios, thus covering a good part of what is of interest to us Chileans.