COLUMN | Armed Forces and National Defense: An Evaluation of 2019 and the Challenges of 2020

2019 will be unforgettable. The last quarter nearly changed the way all Chileans walk, and the same certainly applies to the Armed Forces, which, due to their nature, are directly or indirectly affected by everything that happens in Chile, or by what they do for Chile, such as contributing to nation-building in the most remote areas of our geography. There is no more tangible evidence than the death of 32 aviators and 3 military personnel, accompanied by 3 civilians who were going to perform professional work, who gave their lives in the ill-fated Hercules when it fell into the Drake Passage while en route to work in Chilean Antarctica. To them, we extend our tribute and admiration, and to their families, all our affection and gratitude. What a tragic and terrible way to end the year, and considering that accident as one of the events that significantly affects the armed institutions, I invite you to summarize 2019 from the perspective of an external observer looking at the Defense institutions and how the twelve months of the year unfolded for them:

They started by extinguishing fires, and all indications suggest they will end 2019 doing the same. Like it or not, this versatile capability seems to be here to stay unless the strategy of this government and those that follow changes regarding how to address the effects of climate change, and that it does not rely in the future on the use of military forest brigades, the marine infantry, or the use of maritime reconnaissance aircraft or FACH drones. These same versatile capabilities are what President Piñera’s government is using to support the police in securing the northern border due to organized and transnational crime operating in that area, taking advantage of the vastness and complexity involved in monitoring and detecting those seeking to profit from the inhospitable nature of those territories.

They began as one of the best-rated institutions according to Cadem and are ending the year in the same condition. Yes, the scores were impacted by events in the months following October 18, but they did not affect their very good relative positions. This raises questions, and even more so, it suggests that those at the bottom of the list may be leading efforts to reduce or neutralize them. The armed forces belong to all Chileans, and historical experience indicates that we must avoid them being used or captured by various interest groups.

The army started with judicial problems affecting both active and retired officers, and all indications suggest that Judge Rutherford will continue processing generals and colonels, as she has not validated the army’s legal position that those who traveled were following a current procedure. The army has already corrected a good part of its administrative and control processes, and even implemented a crime prevention model similar to what is required of private companies, and proposed modifications to its corporate governance aimed at improving its control and auditing capacity. Unfortunately, its more recent past continues to haunt it and prevents it from focusing on the army of the future.

2019 was supposed to be the year to address the substantive issues of National Defense, and to be honest, we were on the right track until October 18 appeared, which justifiably changed our priorities. This explains issues such as defense policy and associated topics like the definition of traditional and modern threats we must protect against, and national interests we wish to safeguard, whether territorial or maritime; financing and budget; professional career and pension costs; cultural aspects of women’s incorporation; improvement of internal administration and control systems and procedures; and a significant issue already identified previously, the need for good intelligence, as without it, all the above may ultimately be worthless. The latter includes the funding that intelligence and counterintelligence activities require to operate adequately, which, by their nature, are evidently classified.

October 18 and the events that have transpired in the following months deserve a separate chapter. Not only did it place the armed forces in the role of protagonists by having to support the police who were overwhelmed by the level and intensity of violence, but it also demonstrated the complete absence and ineffectiveness of the national intelligence system, which might be comparable to the failures demonstrated by the United States during the attack on Pearl Harbor or the attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington. This prompts us to reconsider whether we want to employ institutions as a safety net against police failures, and if we do, how and under what circumstances we would do so. What is clear is that deploying them on the streets is no joke and must be accompanied by clear objectives and rules of engagement that are not ineffective or that jeopardize the tasks assigned to them. In this sense, their use to protect critical infrastructure may be a good idea, but only if it is accompanied by the appropriate powers to carry out the mission assigned to them.

We must be cautious about the issue of versatility. Too much versatility may be efficient from a resource utilization perspective, but logic suggests that an excess of it can lead to ineffectiveness, as they may be able to do many things, but none of them well. We must not forget that the armed forces have the task of defending sovereignty and protecting national interests, which may include, among other things, maritime (exclusive economic zones and foreign trade), aerial (passenger and cargo transport), or terrestrial (borders) interests. Continuing to add mission areas does not seem to be a good idea, and if new needs arise, I recommend reassessing existing ones and discontinuing some activities, as merely increasing them can lead to short-term gains and long-term issues.

Why is it necessary for the national intelligence system to function and for the definition of what the armed forces do and their purpose to exist and be thought out in advance? It is necessary because the world has become more complex and threats more diffuse and difficult to predict. This compels us to remain vigilant and possess capabilities that ideally allow us to anticipate and/or react adequately to, among other things, cyberattacks, disinformation and destabilization actions, joint actions by subversive groups and organized crime that may or may not be supported from abroad, the effects of climate change on human populations such as droughts and wildfires, depletion of marine resources, and efforts by third parties seeking to affect maritime transport and port operations, applying the same to air traffic and airports. We could continue with many other examples of non-traditional threats that now accompany the classic ones, which certainly have not disappeared and compel us to take national defense and security seriously, as what is ultimately at risk is our capacity to be sovereign, independent, and to live in democracy.

We will gain nothing if we do not understand national security as a concept that encompasses not only defense against external threats but also includes public order and internal stability of the republic, harmonious and inclusive economic development that allows for a nation with social cohesion and a common understanding of what we want to be and how we want to achieve it. October 18 taught us a lesson in this regard, and we must not stumble over the same stone twice if we wish to become a prosperous, developed, inclusive nation where all Chileans feel they have a place and something to contribute. The best national security we can have is a Chile where 17 million people are happy and content, and concerned about having a safe and prosperous Chile.

To shape all of the above, we will need armed institutions, police, and intelligence that are not only effective but also efficient and well-managed, as otherwise, their very effectiveness may be jeopardized if they are not efficient and if they are not perceived as ethical and integral. In this sense, we must not abandon the efforts being made in this area, and it is not excessive to be more stringent than the pope.

Before concluding, I want to mention one of the great challenges we face in defense, which is the participation of civil society in matters of national security and defense. The security and defense of Chile is not solely the responsibility of the President of the Republic, the Minister of Defense, and the commanders-in-chief of the armed institutions. It belongs to all Chileans, and as such, with the same enthusiasm we engage in issues of education, health, and social security, we must take an interest in these matters, as you may have noticed, the world is no longer as safe and calm. By interest, I mean having civilians prepared in military matters so that these do not remain a monopoly of the armed forces. If this does not happen, then we should not complain later or indicate that they operate independently or that no one understands them. Institutions prepare to work with civilians, and I would hope that the opposite would also occur.

I conclude once again by paying tribute to the 38 who fell in the Drake Passage while serving the nation, and I hope their families are well supported during this time by all Chileans, as they alone are experiencing firsthand what it means for a loved one to have given their life for Chile.

Richard Kouyoumdjian
Vice President AthenaLab