John Griffiths: "If you are going to deploy the Armed Forces to perform police functions, it is better to deploy the police instead."

Ex-Ante, May 12, 2022

The head of studies at AthenaLab and former Chief of Staff of the Army, John Griffiths, observes the government’s idea of creating an intermediate state with skepticism. “Let us not pretend to solve a political problem with the use of force. We are inventing concepts when there are constitutional provisions to uphold the rule of law.”

-In response to the rise in violence, President Boric proposed an “intermediate state” that would allow the Armed Forces to secure roads, for example. Do you think this is a good idea?

-When you use force, whether for public order or military purposes, the first thing to do is identify the problem. What is the nature of your problem? If it is political, the solution must be political. Because there is a tendency to favor the use of force, in its police or military version, too easily, when they are instruments for different purposes.

-Is the danger that these exceptional states become normal?

-Of course. What cannot be done with states of exception is to transition them to a state of normalization. States of exception are for a limited period, because you are also using military force, and that has its costs. We cannot deploy forces to the streets with responsibilities if you do not provide them with the necessary powers.

-Jackson said that the project aimed to guarantee free transit without undermining people’s rights.

-If you are going to deploy the Armed Forces to the streets to perform police functions, why not just deploy the police instead? It is better to deploy the police because they are the ones trained and equipped for that. If you send the Armed Forces to the streets, do not expect them to become police officers. We have law enforcement and public security forces that are still in good shape and sufficiently numerous to handle the problem.

-Apparently, this was also an issue for Piñera: when the unrest occurred, he wanted to deploy troops to the streets, but he was warned that it was not appropriate.

-Because the Armed Forces have a doctrine for acting within the constitutional framework. Article 101 establishes their purpose. They have been trained for war and other emergencies or disasters. Furthermore, Articles 39 to 45 of the constitution establish states of exception. You cannot deploy the Armed Forces expecting them to act as police. This is not done anywhere in the world. They are deployed as Armed Forces and have military-grade weaponry. That is the point.

If you want to deploy the Armed Forces to the streets as police, but restricted in their use of force, I ask you, why deploy them at all? To ease your conscience?

–There is also a problem with the type of weaponry used by the Armed Forces.

-The Armed Forces are not preventive; they have equipment and a doctrine, and training that is very different from that of the Carabineros. If your problem is public order, use law enforcement. But with political will. Now, creating these intermediate states, what is that? It smells to me like an attempt to avoid a responsibility that one has to resolve a political issue.

-The project for critical infrastructure has been revived, which could be secured by the Armed Forces. Is this a reasonable option?

-I believe they could collaborate, but it is necessary to define what critical infrastructure is, what role the military will have, and for how long. The initiative was presented by Senator Aravena and Senator Pugh, Law 13.086, but it was rejected in the Chamber of Deputies, and I understand that a mixed commission will meet next Monday to discuss that law, which was stalled. There you could have a law that grants powers to the Armed Forces when there are situations of disorder and ensures certain critical infrastructure. But I also need to clearly establish the powers of the military for the defense of that critical infrastructure.

-The government has not had the votes for this project, so it has had to postpone it. Has this issue been poorly managed?

-More than the government, we as a country have had a complex about not wanting to address security issues with the tools provided by the rule of law. Today, we even come to invent intermediate states of exception, which are legal fictions that will ultimately lead you to not achieve the objective and end up harming more what you want to protect.

If we want the rule of law to prevail, there must be the political will to recover it in areas where it does not prevail. And this is done with a series of elements that political power has at its disposal, among them force, but not only force. There is also justice and prevention.

-Another point raised by the Armed Forces is that there is no legal clarity regarding what may happen to their members if there are confrontations and they react with lethal force.

-Responsibilities must be aligned with powers. And if someone shoots at me, I must exercise my right to self-defense. When one makes the decision to use uniformed personnel, it is evident that there will be costs. It would be unrealistic to think that I can deploy military force to the streets and that there will be no costs.

I do not mean to say that this is the law of the jungle. The military acts with rules of engagement, authorized by political power and fully consistent with international law. But they need support. I cannot deploy them to the streets and leave them in a limbo, or in a gray area where they are unclear about who supports them.

That is why the Armed Forces are absolutely right to be concerned, because it is their responsibility to ensure the safety of each of their personnel. I cannot go out to the streets and then have 20 personnel imprisoned.

-How do you evaluate the actions of the Armed Forces in La Araucanía during the state of exception?

-According to open-source reports, they helped generate greater stability and reduce levels of violence. However, every time you employ the Armed Forces, it is an exception. What cannot happen is for that exceptionality to become normality. If you have the Armed Forces in a state of exception for a year, it is because you have a much more serious problem that you are avoiding.

We have been dealing with this problem in the southern macrozone for several years, and what we have seen are strategies aimed at maintaining public order without addressing the underlying issue. From a strategic perspective, this is very bad because you are managing, not solving the problem.

-This adds to a series of security problems in the country. In fact, Undersecretary Vergara said this was the worst moment in 25 years.

-But it is not a surprise, let’s say. If you look back 25 years, this has been escalating; it did not arise overnight. But it was not addressed. So do not tell me you are surprised. There has not been a real political will to resolve it.

What I want to say is that we should not pretend to solve a political problem with the use of force. We are inventing concepts when there are constitutional provisions to uphold the rule of law.

There is a tendency to use military force as a remedy for all symptoms, and it is not. It is not the morphine that alleviates all pains. It is a specific tool used in exceptional situations.