COLUMN | Reflections on National Security

Navy Magazine, Friday, November 15, 2019

On Thursday, November 7, the President of the Republic, exercising his constitutional powers, convened a meeting of the National Security Council (COSENA), which had not met since 2014. This call generated all kinds of comments and, according to media reports, even an assessment from the Comptroller General of the Republic indicating that the President’s actions were inappropriate, as he believed that public order is not a national security issue and that only external threats could qualify as such.

The discussions surrounding the concept of national security are not surprising. For many, it is associated with military government, which causes an immediate rejection; for others, like myself, it seems natural and logical. Perhaps a more detailed analysis will help us understand what it entails, why it is necessary, and what needs to be improved in light of recent events.

National security as such is not defined in the Constitution of the Republic of Chile, and I understand that this was intentional due to the nature and breadth of the concept itself.

In the older versions of the Defense Book, national security was defined, but in later versions, it was first diluted and then replaced simply with security, without the qualification of national. I will transcribe some relevant paragraphs from the 1997 version, which was drafted by CA Miguel Ángel Vergara when he was Deputy Chief of the National Defense Staff: 

(National Defense Book 1997)

It is a concept that encompasses both the preservation of the internal and external security of the State, in order to ensure its sovereignty; sovereignty that ultimately allows for the freedom of action to effectively achieve national objectives.

“National security is essentially a political-level issue, considering the areas it encompasses. Indeed, there are dimensions of security: first, internal security, regarding the maintenance of internal order and public tranquility; second, economic security, concerning the establishment of basic development conditions for all productive sectors; third, social security, in relation to equality of opportunity and the most equitable access possible to the fruits of development; and fourth, external security, regarding the maintenance of national independence, state sovereignty, and territorial integrity. In this external dimension, security is primarily achieved through diplomatic functions and defense functions.”

As you can see, it is much broader than external security, and due to the new threats brought by modernity, it can be even more complex to define everything that may be considered a threat to national security. At the end of the day, the key words are sovereignty and the capacity to exercise it, and something not minor that the 1997 version includes: equality of opportunity and access to the benefits of the country’s development. It would have been beneficial not to replace this section in subsequent versions, as perhaps if we had kept it in mind, we could have avoided the current crisis that has resulted in several deaths of fellow citizens and destruction that surpasses the worst natural disasters we have ever experienced.

The modern threats faced by a state include not only traditional ones but also those arising from climate change, transnational crime, and cyberattacks, as well as hybrid threats, such as the intervention of Russia in Georgia, Ukraine, and Crimea, to name a few examples. In the Ukrainian case, Russia used a combination of cyberattacks, intelligence operations, and disinformation to alter Ukraine’s internal order and thus justify subsequent support for pro-Russian forces that they considered their compatriots.

It is said that in war, all strategies are valid, and the one who wins is the one who has the initiative and surprise; in this sense, those who wish to cause internal public order problems may lead us to think, among other things, that insurgent movements are social manifestations, which may clearly have very valid reasons for their claims, but which have been incited by them and will be used as a vector to achieve their destabilization objectives and eventual takeover of power. Most likely, they will seek to mask their intentions and will intelligently use tools such as social media and fake news, and they will also seek to restrict the state’s ability to act effectively in controlling the public order they seek to disrupt, and finally, they will take advantage of the weaknesses of democracy as a political system to defend themselves against attacks that seek to diminish or replace it with systems that appear similar but are nothing more than covert dictatorships.

In conclusion, thinking that national security is only an issue of external security is shortsighted and fails to understand the complexities of the modern world; the question that arises then is how to have a robust national security capable of managing any type of threat that may arise.

Some ideas to develop and implement are:

– Clearly define in the Constitution of the Republic what is meant by national security, and in this line, perhaps recover the definitions developed in the Defense Book in its 1997 version. There may have been a good reason at the outset not to define it in the 1980 Constitution, but in current times, its lack of definition causes more problems than benefits.
– Strengthen the role of COSENA by including other members as regular participants: the Ministers of the Interior, Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Finance, and Economy, as well as the Chief of the Joint Staff, and perhaps also the Director General of the PDI and the Minister of Social Development.
– Ensure that COSENA meets regularly and not only when convened by the President.
– Create the position of National Security Advisor (NSA). This person would report to the Head of State, oversee the National Security Office, and the COSENA secretariat. The NSA’s office should include experts in security, intelligence, and information technologies. The idea is for the advisor and their team to have a comprehensive and consolidated assessment of the threats faced, conduct prospective exercises and risk scenarios, and coordinate the work of the intelligence units of the executive, police, and armed forces.
– Develop civilian specialists in national security, who may come from political science and other related fields, who can be prepared to work alongside specialists from the police and defense institutions.
– Move quickly in reformulating the national intelligence system and the corresponding legislation, as intelligence is the basic and fundamental input needed for national security.

I conclude this article with another transcription of a paragraph from the 1997 Defense Book that I believe is appropriate to the current reality:

“In essence, security is not about ‘actions,’ but rather a ‘condition’ achieved as a result of actions aimed at mitigating or eliminating certain vulnerabilities. These actions are carried out across a broad spectrum of areas, from socioeconomic development to defense itself, also encompassing the institutional order of the Republic. Ultimately, it is the degree of integration or cohesion of a people, and the extent and depth of citizen consensus around their national objectives, that constitutes the fundamental basis for the success of any Security Policy that is desired to be applied.”

Richard Kouyoumdjian
Vice President AthenaLab