translated from Spanish: Defense Policy – The Counter

Recently, the Executive has published the new National Defense Policy. Like any policy of this type, it is a fundamental instance in the conduct of defense and also in political-military relations, a sensitive issue in any political regime, but especially in those of democratic roots.
Beyond these somewhat general considerations, the disclosure of this policy is especially relevant for at least three reasons: a) it is the first to be defined outside the logic of the Defense Books, which gives it its own unique profile. It was therefore approved by supreme decree and published in the Official Journal; (b) it fulfills the mandate of Article 97 of Law No. 18.948 (introduced by Law No. 21.174), in that the existence of a defence policy and its derived policies are the basis of the multi-year mechanism for financing the strategic capabilities of the Armed Forces;  and c) contribute to establishing the parameters in which the issues of defense and the armed forces will be debated in the current constitutional process, a discussion that has acquired a special but not surprising dynamic.
The definition of defense policies is a widely known phenomenon in the field of strategic studies and has been systematized in the chair, both in Chile and in the comparative environment. Although there are several factors that affect their enunciation, it is possible to identify elements that are common to them. Of course, any defence policy is defined at the midpoint between a state’s international policy and its domestic policy. In other words, it will reflect both its international reality and its domestic political constraints. From there, the definition of a defence policy normally interwews two types of background, namely those of a dynamic nature and those of a permanent nature.
The dynamic factors revolve around the realities of global politics and the international mobility of States. A country’s location in the international system frames its conduct, interests and objectives vis-eds. In the words of Alan Sabrosky, “nothing better defines the parameters within which a nation can (or should) act than its relative power and status in the international order.” This applies equally to the great powers and the middle countries and even to countries of smaller strategic stature; it is a question of governance and will not of size.
Associated with this is the mobility of states. It is well known that the International System, as a social system, tends to better reflect the interests of the most relevant actors and, therefore, is essentially dynamic and is under a constant process of redistribution of power. Countries that were once relevant and influential have become states of relative minor importance, sometimes in comparatively very short periods. Others, on the other hand, have become unimportants from unimportants to important countries, either in global magnitudes or in regional codes.
The permanent elements of Defence Policy, in turn, are history and geography. History is an indispensable and one would say inevitable antecedent of a country’s security relations and also of its foreign policy. History teaches and people learn, or must learn, from experience. It also has a decisive impact, often on shaping a State’s future international scenarios. Consequently, a nation’s past experiences contribute to the anticipation of its strategic horizon and, through it, shape its defense policy. Geography, on the other hand, influences the security of States in a number of ways. For the time being, it contributes to the overall dynamics of political and security relations in a given region. Secondly, it imposes conditions on the international and security actions of countries which must not be circumvented by their political leaders. In the same vein, the geographical configuration of a State will often influence its diplomatic and security approach to its environment. Security is different for an island state than for a continental country or for a weak state vis-reaching a country that is influential in the international system.
Although systematized for academic purposes, all the factors described have a converging impact on the definition of the countries’ defense policies. It is not an exercise in addition and subtraction or other arithmetic games; international and security relations never are. The intthe efforts to reduce them to numerical equations have always failed.  It is, on the contrary, a process of accretion and joint implementation according to the realities of each country. It should be noted, however, that the way in which the elements described are ostensibly reflected in the Defense Policy of the states varies according to the country and also from one factor to another. This will be influenced by the traditions and customs of its foreign policy and also by its idiosyncrasies. This is also one of the foundations of the necessary link and alignment between defence policy and the foreign policy of any state.
In this perspective, the Defense Policy recently published by the Executive is the repository of a significant theoretical collection in the field of strategic studies in Chile and manifested, in addition, in the four Defense Books. This constitutes its antecedent but also the standard with which it will be evaluated. On the other hand, the elements of any Defense Policy, now applied directly to Chile, should necessarily guide the debates on the Defense Function and the Armed Forces in the constituent process, which are expected to be healthy intense, as is typical of the discussions about a basic public function of any organized society and that , therefore, it must be reflected in its fundamental regulatory order.

The content of this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.

Original source in Spanish