Response to Eduardo Santos' column on the Chilean military budget

El Mostrador, October 15, 2023

Reality shows us that our idealism cannot extend too far in matters of external security. The old dilemma of what we yearn for cannot cloud the sad and stubborn reality.

This week, a column titled “A Consistent Budget for Our Armed Services”, was published by Mr. Eduardo Santos, in which he reiterates a series of ideas about national defense that deserve analysis.

The first proposal he presents relates to “the recent successful solutions to our neighborhood controversies,” as if these guaranteed a perpetual peace. Reality tends to be a bit more complex. First, Chile still has territorial and maritime issues in dispute with more than one neighboring country. Additionally, crises or conflicts do not only arise from boundary issues, as the phenomenon of “war” occurs due to opposing interests, far beyond just territorial concerns, in everything that may affect national interest.

He then states that the previous action —that of the “successful solutions to our controversies”— “will allow us to share the dividends of a South American zone of peace, which changes the scenarios for the development of a Defense Policy.” At this point, it would be interesting if he could detail what this zone of peace means. Does it exist? What is the basis for such a claim? Does he really think that this is shared by the national interests of neighboring countries, as well as by their diplomatic actions? Does the South American peace scenario he refers to include Argentina’s declaration in its defense policy of shared sovereignty in the Strait of Magellan and the Drake Passage, as well as claims in the extended continental shelf? I believe reality shows us that our idealism cannot extend too far in matters of external security. The old dilemma of what we yearn for cannot cloud the sad and stubborn reality.

Next, he refers to the U.S., suggesting a re-edition of a new Cold War in the Pacific, “gunboat diplomacy,” and a restriction on key smart weaponry for our F-16 fleet, defining that country as an “unreliable” strategic partner. It would be interesting if he could provide concrete evidence of this unreliability, as the current bilateral agenda between Chile and the U.S. regarding the availability of armaments, mutual training, logistical support, and doctrinal exchange is far from that characterization. Once again, reality indicates otherwise.

Then, regarding defense policy, he confuses capabilities with strategic attitudes. One thing is to have military response capability, an essential element of deterrence, and another entirely different is to have the attitude to initiate a conflict through armed attack, in open contradiction to the United Nations Charter. Moreover, nothing in the Charter affects the legitimate individual and/or collective right to self-defense of any State. And such defense is not based on speeches, ideas, or declarations, but on strategic platforms, weapon systems, and real, concrete capabilities, along with the political will to employ them. Furthermore, what can be expected of national defense if it does not have the clear conviction that, if required, it must prevail in an armed conflict? In this realm, second places do not exist.

Where we do agree is in discussing the challenges of defense and addressing the questions he raises, to build a defense and security framework that goes far beyond just neighborhood issues. Additionally, we concur that the delicate national financial situation will affect the defense sector. The relevant point is to think and define what will take priority in this case. If Chileans want to live in peace, we must rely on our own defense and internal security capabilities, not on a hypothetical and eventual South American zone of peace, which —it should be noted— is far from any reality when it is the most violent area on the planet, solely in terms of murders, kidnappings, and the actions of international criminal organizations. The South American zone of peace is still light-years away from reality in South America. And in it, our Armed Forces are already employed in internal tasks, with a cost that must be evaluated.

It does not seem logical to compare defense budgets with the incorporation of emerging technologies of the 21st century, as they are not binary nor do they constitute a zero-sum game. The art of governance involves caring for both security and development, as well as well-being, in a holistic and complementary manner.

Finally, he concludes his intervention by stating that “there is an urgent need and space to continue reducing our defense spending,” without having established in the development of his arguments why such a reduction is necessary. National defense today —and for the past couple of decades— has significantly increased the number of missions, due to decisions at the political level, participating not only in peace operations but also deploying in “States of Constitutional Exception,” which have now become the norm. Moreover, they are developing new capabilities to address risks and disasters resulting from climate change, among other factors. Furthermore, they are permanently deployed in border control.

Consequently, defense has significantly increased the spectrum of missions to be fulfilled, by mandate and subordination to the political level from which they depend, with an already reduced budget and even fewer personnel in their ranks. I believe a measure such as the one proposed would be largely rejected by the public, who are the primary beneficiaries of the high prestige and efficiency of their Armed Forces. Additionally, the error of such a measure would constitute a very detrimental action not only for national defense but particularly for citizens. Biases and prejudices cannot and should not cloud our capacity for strategic thinking. The price to pay would be too high, and reality indicates otherwise.

Mr. Santos’ initiative to bring the topic of defense into discussion is appreciated, but it should be addressed in the most serious manner possible. Defense policy is a state policy because it transcends changing governments, and it does not allow for errors; if they occur, the country would pay a high cost.

John Griffiths
Head of Studies at AthenaLab

Source: El Mostrador