Where do we stand in Defense, Security, and Foreign Relations?

El Mostrador, Saturday, May 29, 2021

Logic indicates that to discuss Defense and the Armed Forces, one must first understand the subject matter. Otherwise, one risks falling into the trap that many do, viewing it solely from a constitutional perspective or getting stuck in discussions about the military government, human rights, states of constitutional exception, and similar issues, as Mireya Dávila does in her column in this medium titled “Constituents and the Armed Forces: the duty to restore things to their rightful place in the Constitution.” This reflects not only her perception but that of many individuals who largely lack knowledge of the topic and assume outdated notions, such as the belief that the Armed Forces do not report to political power (also known as civil power), that they are deliberative and autonomous, when in fact they report to the President of the Republic through the Ministry of Defense and openly declare themselves constitutionalists. They do not engage in current political issues (the correct definition of being non-deliberative) and operate with a budget defined by the Executive and approved by Congress.

Many events have occurred this May, a month historically dominated by the sea of Chile, Prat, and naval glories, which has not been the case in the last two years, as those years have been overshadowed by the pandemic and the political unrest in our territory, leaving little visibility for other important issues regarding the development of our country.

On this occasion, I want to review three topics that may not be immediately evident to citizens and the political establishment, now heightened by the presence of 155 constituents. This week, the second AthenaLab-IPSOS survey on perceptions of foreign policy and national security, as well as the defense policy of President Piñera’s government, was published. Together and separately, these surveys provide excellent insights for those interested in these matters, particularly for those who are constituents and will need to address topics that are usually within the realm of experts but will now require their attention. Defining how Chile conducts its foreign relations, manages its national security, and the roles played by the Armed Forces are not trivial matters. That said, you will be surprised by the opinions of the general public expressed in the survey, and you will see that the common sense of Chileans clearly indicates what the priorities should be in these areas and which countries should be our friends and trading partners.

The AthenaLab-IPSOS survey is unique in its category, as there is no other similar survey conducted in Chile. It is in its second iteration, conducted annually, and helps systematize decision-making in matters of security, international relations, and defense, as it removes the topic from the realm of personal biases. It has the additional advantage of surveying both experts and the general public, which enhances its validity by not relying solely on expert opinions.

*See the survey here

In summary, what does the survey tell us? It indicates that for Chileans, the most important foreign policy objectives are combating drug trafficking, addressing climate change, regulating migration, protecting borders, and defending maritime interests. Experts, on the other hand, prioritize in the following order: protecting borders, combating drug trafficking, projecting towards the Asia-Pacific, defending maritime interests, and promoting foreign trade with other countries. In both segments, the importance of border protection and combating drug trafficking has increased, and migration is a significant issue for the general population.

On this occasion, I do not seek to delve into the specific issues of defense and national security. I leave that to the constituents, experts, and academics interested in those matters. However, I do find it important to highlight which countries serve as models for Chileans, and in that regard, there are surprises. For non-experts, the top three are the U.S., New Zealand, and Germany, while for specialists, they are New Zealand, Australia, and Singapore. This can also be viewed from the perspective of partner or competitor countries. For the general population, the list is led by China, the U.S., and Japan, with countries like Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, and Venezuela occupying the last positions. This is something to consider when we look so favorably at our neighbors. For experts in international relations, however, our main partners should be the U.S., Colombia, and the United Kingdom, reflecting a less economic and more value-political perspective, but they agree with the general public, placing Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, and Venezuela at the bottom of the list.

Changing the subject, the defense policy published this week accurately reflects the international reality we have just described, the foreign policy objectives, and the threats that concern Chileans. This is because the document was agreed upon and developed with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is the result of many hours of work by specialists in the field. Along with the survey, it should be required reading for constituents when addressing defense issues in the Constitution.

In this sense, logic indicates that to discuss defense and the Armed Forces, one must first understand the subject matter. Otherwise, one risks falling into the trap that many do, viewing it solely from a constitutional perspective or getting stuck in discussions about the military government, human rights, states of constitutional exception, and similar issues, as Mireya Dávila does in her column in this medium titled “Constituents and the Armed Forces: the duty to restore things to their rightful place in the Constitution.” This reflects not only her perception but that of many individuals who largely lack knowledge of the topic and assume outdated notions, such as the belief that the Armed Forces do not report to political power (also known as civil power), that they are deliberative and autonomous, when in fact they report to the President of the Republic through the Ministry of Defense and openly declare themselves constitutionalists. They do not engage in current political issues (the correct definition of being non-deliberative) and operate with a budget defined by the Executive and approved by Congress. Lastly, guess who will appoint the future head of the Navy when Admiral Leiva’s constitutional term of four years ends: it will be the President of the Republic from a shortlist of the five most senior vice admirals, as stipulated by the Constitution, and it will not be they who decide who will command them. 

Ultimately, it is difficult to understand the perceptions that some Chileans have of their armed institutions. It is time to understand defense and the institutions that comprise it, as well as the legal aspects that regulate them. By doing so, we will avoid many unnecessary discussions, make good use of our time, and not generate unnecessary risks to the security and defense of Chile, which—as previously indicated—both the general population and specialists understand better than one might think.

Richard Kouyoumdjian
Vice President, AthenaLab