New Security Relations in the Americas

Abstract

Conclusions Radically new international and domestic conditions require Western Hemisphere security establishments to consider serious adjustments in planning, doctrine, and resource allocation. The interplay between the neo-liberal political-economic model and traditional security needs confronts Latin American defense planners with uncomfortable, major challenges: Today's political and economic climate has created uncertainty within and among the region's tradition-bound military establishments In an increasingly interdependent world, a state's own territory is no longer the sole reference point for its own security arrangements Hemispheric security partners, like dancing partners confronting unexpected music with a different rhythm, must confirm shared perceptions and review their complementary roles and agreements before trying out new dance steps. New Considerations The business of national defense once was simple, with a unilateral focus and emphasis on military strength. Today a complex mix of contemporary and traditional forces act in concert on emerging multinational security relationships in Latin America. A recent conference highlighted three forces work: 1. New, freewheeling influences which cross the Americas' boundaries via the Internet, electronic fund transfers, mass media, illegal transit, and non-governmental organizations. 2. The December 1994 Miami Summit of the Americas' ringing endorsement of democracy, free markets and trade integration, which together have fundamentally altered the frame of reference for defining national interests and promoting cooperation in the Hemisphere. 3. States struggling under essential neo-liberal reforms while abject poverty, skewed income distribution, rapid population growth, massive illegal migration, and growing criminality continue to depress daily life for large sectors of society and increase pressures for government activism. Keeping Regional Change in Perspective The 1994 Miami Summit of the Americas' priorities for action did not address security relationships, but the following Partners in Hemispheric Peace and Security symposium took this step, challenging participants to think creatively about today's altered strategic environment and its significance for defense establishments and security policies. Early in the meeting several senior academic analysts emphasized the importance of keeping regional change in historical perspective. Institutional heritage and traditions are powerful pressures contributing to the uncertainty about the future within and among the hemisphere's armed forces. Strong European influences have endowed many Latin American militaries with a corporatist world view and a sense of nationalistic Darwinism in their approach to territorial issues. The U.S. experience too, in the Caribbean early in this century, often led to the creation of constabularies with internal missions rather than to establishment of defense forces under elected civilian control. Neither of these historical traditions adapts easily to today's emphasis on democratic societies, so change is difficult to accept. The military's traditional role has become ambiguous for the first time. A Central American public security expert explained, for example, that Latin America's military elites have been moved aside by civilian leaders who challenge the institution's long-standing monopoly on patriotism. In some countries, a senior North American analyst noted, the armed forces now feel unwanted and unjustly attacked for national problems not exclusively of their own making. Most perceive they are being talked at about modernization, professionalism and democratization, another agenda they believe is driven by Washington's policy priorities. The U.S. military's traditional role in hemispheric relations, heavily influenced by the Cold War and Washington's bureaucratic politics in shaping its Latin American agenda, is also changing. …