Response to the editorial "Republican Military Ethics"
This article was translated automatically and may contain differences from the original. For reference, read the original.
El Mostrador, August 4, 2023
As a result of the security crisis affecting the country and the majority of Chileans, there are voices calling for a more active role of defense institutions in addressing the problem. In this case, it is essential to exercise prudence and good judgment in understanding the difference between political issues, the enforcement of the rule of law, and military matters. The former are resolved with the political power tools provided by the Constitution and laws; the latter, by enforcing the law; and military issues are resolved by breaking the adversary’s will to fight.
One of the topics that always captures public attention is the role of the Armed Forces (FF.AA.). The monopoly on the legitimate use of force and weapons granted by their institutional role generates a certain degree of interest and even fascination. It cannot be overlooked that, several times in our history, the use of military power has been decisive for the political trajectory of the nation, and there is also a belief that a military action similar to that of September 11, 1973, could be repeated, which I completely dismiss. However, it is impossible to ignore that the armed institutions possess capabilities that grant them influence and power.
On July 16, 2023, El Mostrador published a editorial titled “Republican Military Ethics,” which is appreciated as it allows us to delve deeper into what military ethics is, if it exists separately from general ethics, and if so, how its application is understood within the context of republican concepts such as representative democracy, the checks and balances of Chile’s political organization, and the relationships between military institutions and the powers of the State.
The editorial is constructed based on two isolated facts: the document of personal reflections published by General Ricardo Martínez before the end of his constitutional term as Commander of the Chilean Army in March 2022, and the statements made by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy on Dawson Island in June 2023.
General Martínez’s reflections are personal, although published while he was Commander-in-Chief, but they do not constitute an official document of the Chilean Army. They were published before his retirement from active service and are worth what they are, namely, the reasoned opinion of Ricardo Martínez. If someone expected them to become study material for military personnel in training or for institutional doctrine, they are mistaken. As personal reflections, they aim at other purposes, which—as previously indicated—are to convey what General Martínez thinks about the last 50 years of the Chilean Army. They will surely be used as study material by those interested in Chile’s military history or the role of the military in politics. It is a brave document, as it expresses opinions that are known not to be to everyone’s liking, but which clearly illustrate what the general understands to be the most recent history of his institution, to which he belonged for over 40 years before retiring.
Admiral De La Maza’s statements seek to close a chapter. The novelty lies in the fact that the statements come from the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and are made in the context of the 50th anniversary of September 11, but in themselves, that is, fundamentally, they are not extraordinary and are quite obvious. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force are non-deliberative, hierarchical institutions that obey the Constitution, laws, and current regulations, and they have no intention of repeating past actions, of being involved in politics, or of being used for political purposes by those who wish to use them to gain or maintain power.
The editorial, in its final paragraph, implies that military institutions must be clear about the role they play in Chile’s political life, which is key to the future development of the Republic. It is difficult not to agree with this, but I do disagree that this should create tension within the armed institutions of 2023, which are very clear about their purpose. The only source of tension arises when the tasks and roles assigned to them by political leaders of National Defense shift from being exceptional, limited situations of the highest constitutional rank to almost permanent, everyday situations that divert them from their primary professional duties. The Armed Forces are well-regarded in Chile (see the latest CEP survey), they understand their role as permanent institutions of the Republic, and they fulfill that professional role very well, earning the trust, respect, and even affection and admiration of the citizenry.
To avoid getting entangled in the discussion, let us not forget that the current Constitution clearly states, in Article 101, the purpose and fundamental aspects of the Armed Forces of Chile:
“The Armed Forces under the ministry responsible for National Defense are constituted solely by the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. They exist for the defense of the homeland and are essential for national security.”
“The Armed Forces and Carabineros, as armed bodies, are essentially obedient and non-deliberative. The forces under the ministries responsible for National Defense and Public Security are also professional, hierarchical, and disciplined.”
If the institutions of National Defense and politicians, especially those holding the Executive Power, adhere to what is indicated in the two preceding paragraphs, there should never be any problems of any kind. If political issues are resolved through politics within the framework of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, no one will risk being attributed to the military, and this issue will not be a topic. A very different matter arises when the FF.AA. are placed in dilemmas created by political situations, as was the case in 1891 and 1973.
As a result of the security crisis affecting the country and the majority of Chileans, there are voices calling for a more active role of defense institutions in addressing the problem. In this case, it is essential to exercise prudence and good judgment in understanding the difference between political issues, the enforcement of the rule of law, and military matters. The former are resolved with the political power tools provided by the Constitution and laws; the latter, by enforcing the law; and military issues are resolved by breaking the adversary’s will to fight.
Having said all of the above, is there something that can be called “military ethics”? Yes, of course there is, but its scope is specific to what is properly military and to the culture associated with that way of life, and not as some interpret it, linked only to undesirable situations that have criminal characteristics, such as mismanagement of finances, acquisitions, and other reprehensible acts. For those who commit such acts, the maximum rigor of the law should be applied, as should be the case for anyone who commits crimes with Chilean funds.
The military ethics of those in active service, retired, or part of the reserves is given by what they swear when they take their oath to the flag. In that oath lies the essence of military ethics, which states:
“I (name and rank), swear by God and by this flag, to serve my homeland faithfully, whether at sea, on land, or anywhere, even to the point of giving my life if necessary; to fulfill my military duties and obligations, in accordance with the laws and regulations in force; to promptly and punctually obey the orders of my superiors; and to put all my effort into being a (soldier – sailor – aviator) who is brave, honorable, and loves my homeland.”
The military ethics of soldiers, sailors, and aviators is found in the text of the oath, in pride and love for the homeland, in reverence for their symbols, history, and tradition. The institutions of Defense do not have a monopoly on patriotism, by no means, but one cannot live the military life without patriotism. Ethics is also present in the voluntary renunciation of a series of rights and benefits that the rest of the citizenry has and that uniformed personnel cannot exercise or enjoy. What constitutes a mistake is attributing military ethics to the connection between defense institutions and the conduct to be observed by them regarding the political leadership of the Republic, a matter that is well safeguarded and clearly established in the Constitution that currently governs us, and in the organic and simple laws that derive from it, something that should not be lost in the new Constitution and in the legal bodies that accompany it.
Richard Kouyoumdjian
Vice President AthenaLab
Source: El Mostrador
