Political control of strategic capabilities already exists

El Mostrador, January 6, 2022

It should be noted that the Armed Forces, in addition to dedicating most of their resources to tactical and technical training, have also enhanced their personnel in the areas necessary for discussion through master’s and doctoral programs at universities such as Harvard, King’s College, Carnegie Mellon University, National Defense University, Georgetown University, Complutense University of Madrid, and Pontifical Comillas University in Spain. To have modern and flexible Armed Forces, it is essential to understand the context in which military force is developed and employed. These institutions have recognized the new security landscape in which we live, without dismissing “emerging codes” as proposed. Consequently, any political administration of defense cannot overlook this valuable capacity and critical mass, especially when they are scarce in the country. We lean towards a healthy integrative relationship between civilians and military personnel working for a robust and efficient defense in pursuit of national interests. No one is surplus here.

In 2019, Law 21.174 was approved, establishing a new financing mechanism for the strategic capabilities of National Defense, incorporating the Ministry of Defense, the National Congress, and the General Comptroller’s Office into the discussion on capabilities.

In an opinion column in this medium titled “Strategic Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century,” Mr. Eduardo Santos states that the new administration, led by the future Minister of Defense, must generate agreements and take charge of what Santos has termed the “absent owner,” clearly referring to the political authority, which he claims has not exercised responsible ownership. We believe this comment is unfair, as the political leadership of defense—in general—has performed correctly; otherwise, it would grant an unrealistic and improper influence to the Armed Forces, given that the country has complied with laws and their respective regulations, with a clear predominance of political power over military force for several decades. It may not be perfect, but it is one that is currently commensurate with any democracy. Therefore, while we share some of the author’s points, such as the need for more prepared civilians in defense matters—while also agreeing that the requirements for strategic capabilities are much more than a military issue—it is necessary to clarify some aspects on which we evidently do not agree.

The author emphasizes that the new team arriving at the Ministry of Defense must promote a strategic capability planning project that includes a “strengthened civil institutionality.” However, this already exists. In 2019, Law 21.174 was approved, establishing a new financing mechanism for the strategic capabilities of National Defense, incorporating the Ministry of Defense, the National Congress, and the General Comptroller’s Office into the discussion on capabilities.

The aforementioned law is built on six pillars, of which two are worth mentioning. First, the Defense Policy corresponds to the guiding criterion for strategic capabilities. This, generated by the Ministry of Defense, along with military policy and other sectoral public policies, serves as the superior criterion for planning. Second, there are explicit mechanisms for civil and democratic control of defense spending. On one hand, the General Comptroller’s Office can observe supreme decrees and order audits, while exercising the necessary oversight over investments. On the other hand, the National Congress will be informed of projects, review their budgets, receive observations from the Minister of Defense regarding the General Comptroller’s Office, and will account annually for how strategic capabilities are materialized. It is a fact that the “civil institutionality,” as Santos calls it, plays a critical role in the development of strategic defense capabilities.

[quote type=”highlight”]To have modern and flexible Armed Forces, it is essential to understand the context in which military force is developed and employed.[/quote]

Additionally, it is noteworthy that there is an intention to inhibit military personnel from participating in discussions about the development of strategic capabilities. In this regard, if proposals for education or improvements in health policies are needed, specialists in the field will surely be called upon. The same applies to Defense. It is true that this discussion should occur at the ministerial level and that more specialized civilians are needed, but it is surprising to attempt to develop Defense and its capabilities without the input of the Armed Forces. It is about integrating and coordinating the best specialists, without making biased distinctions, understanding that military personnel advise and propose, while political power resolves.

Moreover, it should be noted that the Armed Forces, in addition to dedicating most of their resources to tactical and technical training, have also enhanced their personnel in the areas necessary for discussion through master’s and doctoral programs at universities such as Harvard, King’s College, Carnegie Mellon University, National Defense University, Georgetown University, Complutense University of Madrid, and Pontifical Comillas University in Spain. To have modern and flexible Armed Forces, it is essential to understand the context in which military force is developed and employed. These institutions have recognized the new security landscape in which we live, without dismissing “emerging codes” as proposed. Consequently, any political administration of defense cannot overlook this valuable capacity and critical mass, especially when they are scarce in the country. We lean towards a healthy integrative relationship between civilians and military personnel working for a robust and efficient defense in pursuit of national interests. No one is surplus here.

Furthermore, without mentioning references, Santos claims that a “budgetary debate primarily focused on the restrictions imposed by the financial situation produces a mental block in military leaders.” Nothing could be further from the truth! On one hand, it underestimates and offends the capabilities of our military, naval, and air personnel, who have led missions and exercises earning international prestige, and on the other, it disregards the fact that the Armed Forces of Chile and their leaders are clear that it is political power that defines priorities and approves financial resources. Moreover, for a couple of decades, they have been fulfilling a greater number of missions that they have had to plan, propose, and execute without any type of blockages and with less budget.

Finally, we invite continued informed discussion on these matters. We agree that there are problems in the area of Defense, but these do not primarily concentrate on the Armed Forces as is intended to be presented; rather, they relate more to the role of the political power that commands them. The Armed Forces “belong to everyone” and will continue to do so. According to several recent surveys, they are the best-evaluated and perceived institutions by Chileans, at least better than the governments that lead them, the Congress that controls them, and some who criticize them.

Pilar Lizana and Marcelo Masalleras
Researchers at AthenaLab