A critique of “Prepared for War” by Senator Insulza

El Líbero, March 6, 2024

Wars in all their forms—state, asymmetric, irregular, hybrid, religious, ethnic, economic, geopolitical, or revolutionary—are conflicts where violence is employed, and they do not fundamentally stem from weapons.

On February 28, 2024, Senator José Miguel Insulza published an opinion column in this medium titled “Prepared for War”. Considering the author’s public political career, which includes serving as Minister of the Interior and Public Security, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, and member of the Senate Defense, Foreign Relations, Extreme Zones, and Public Security Committees, among other high-level national and international responsibilities, one expects to analyze a well-founded perspective on a matter of utmost relevance to the world. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

The opening argument is the announcement that the U.S. military industry increased its global arms sales by $81 billion last year. The article from Politico referenced by Senator Insulza was published by Joe Gould and Paul McLeary on January 29, 2024, under the title: “US weapons exports up 50% in 2023 as Washington challenges Russia, China.” The most interesting aspect of that article is that its analysis indicates that $30 billion of the $80 billion corresponds to sales of attack and transport helicopters, as well as long-range missiles to Poland and Germany, motivated by the situation in Ukraine and the need to be prepared for a more assertive Russia.

The second argument in his opinion column is astonishing. The author tells us that if a single country wanted to purchase that amount in weapons, only three countries in the world could do so, considering their military spending. This comparison adds very little to the analysis, as it is not accurate that only three countries have military expenditures exceeding $80 billion. At least India also belongs to this exclusive club, but aside from the inaccuracy in the data, there is a methodological error in equating military or defense spending. For example, with support from ECLAC, Chile and Argentina took several years of negotiations to agree on a procedure to standardize defense spending. It is not an easy task; it is extremely complex, intricate, and sensitive. For this reason, the thesis presented is refuted due to a lack of merit and rigor.

Setting aside the introductory paragraphs, we can delve into the analysis proposed by our member of the Senate Defense Committee. There is one paragraph in particular that fully captures the reader’s attention and is of such relevance that I allow myself to reproduce it verbatim. The senator states:

“There are two interesting paradoxes here. The first is that in this climate of arms race, armed conflicts become increasingly possible. Where someone sees the possibility of creating a subversive movement or seizing territory, they see it as more feasible to do so through armed means or by resorting to mercenary organizations that exist in the world, as a new form of organized crime ‘business.’ At the level of countries, where there can always be frictions inherent to coexistence in a diverse world, the acquisition of weapons goes hand in hand with possible conflicts, in which it is always the ‘other side’ that seeks confrontation.”

This paragraph must be analyzed in parts. It asserts, from the outset, that armed conflicts become more likely in a climate of arms race. That is, according to the senator’s thesis, it is the weapons that generate conflicts and, therefore, at least increase the likelihood of occurrence. Following this reasoning, the absence of weapons would eliminate conflict from the face of the earth, or at least reduce its probability of occurrence. Unfortunately for the senator, this thesis has been refuted by historical facts countless times throughout human history. Wars in all their forms—state, asymmetric, irregular, hybrid, religious, ethnic, economic, geopolitical, or revolutionary—are conflicts where violence is employed, and they do not fundamentally stem from weapons. Armed conflicts are political tools, conducted politically, inspired politically, and where the value assigned to the objective in dispute is the responsibility of those who politically lead a state. 

The second statement is remarkable, coming from a founding member of the Puebla Group. Mr. José Miguel tells us: “Where someone sees the possibility of creating a subversive movement or seizing territory, they see it as more feasible to do so through armed means or by resorting to mercenary organizations that exist in the world, as a new form of organized crime ‘business.’” It must be acknowledged that this is an excellent description of the insurgency prevailing in the Southern Macrozone. Insurgent and revolutionary violence requires weapons to contest control and sovereignty from the state in those territories they wish to conquer. 

We cannot agree more with the senator that revolutionary insurgency increasingly resembles an ‘organized crime business.’ This is not fundamentally due to the presence or absence of weapons. It is due to the ideology that permits or even encourages the use of violence to achieve political objectives and that, furthermore, validates any means to that end, including organized crime. As an example, we need only recall the FARC and cocaine, or the Mapuche insurgency and timber, all forms of financing their subversive activities.

The entire article, from beginning to end, seeks to create the perception that defense spending is a business and should be viewed as such. It attempts to sell the idea that the existence of weapons increases the likelihood of conflict occurrence, disconnected from the value of national interests and political objectives at stake. All of the above suffers from a serious lack of logical, statistical, historical rigor, and common sense.

We would have expected someone with the political and life experience of the senator to issue a strong condemnation of ideologies that advocate violence to achieve political objectives. Of religions that transform into political constitutions and condemn infidels to extermination. Of supremacist views that establish racial, cultural, moral, ideological, religious, or ethnic supremacies. Of rulers who do not alternate in power, who restrict freedoms, who elevate themselves as tyrants, even hereditary ones, among dynasties, from father to son, from brother to brother, from husband to wife. 

Wars and armed conflicts are political tools for resolving disputes. They are generated by politicians. Only if we prioritize this premise can we discuss the role of weapons in an armed conflict and many other related matters.

Richard Kouyoumdjian
Vice President, AthenaLab

Source: El Líbero