Chile sets out its defence strategy targets emphasizing global cooperation
The Chilean government released its new 2012-2024 National Defence and Security Strategy (ENSYD) this week which promises to address “new threats” to Chilean security in an international context.
The strategy, presented by President Sebastián Piñera and Defence Minister Andrés Allamand, would be implemented upon the approval of Allamand’s proposed military funding modification.
“Chilean integration into the international scene gives us a lot of opportunities, but also presents more threats,” Piñera said. “Security today goes beyond the traditional scope of defence, which is the protection of sovereignty, independence and the land and sea of our country. The emergence of new threats extends to non-traditional issues including arms trafficking; drug trafficking, organized crime, piracy and much more.”
Allamand said the new defence strategy’s international outlook stresses a need for “broad security.”
“We need to be able to protect our national interests,” he said. “But to do that nowadays, you have to look at the international context and cooperate with other countries.”
Piñera pointed to the steps Chile’s defence policy has already made on the international stage. Besides from leading international humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, such as the UN mission in Haiti, Chile has also signed upwards of 80 bilateral and multilateral defence agreements worldwide.
Looking forward, Allamand spoke of plans to increase and diversify military training in order to strengthen “military abilities without increasing military forces or military measures.”
Opposition Socialist Party Senator and President of the Senate Camilo Escalona voiced his concern over increased military activity at the strategy’s presentation.
“The Latin American experience of military forces’ involvement in security tasks has been widely negative, and at a very high social cost, especially concerning narcotics trafficking,” Escalona told the press.
Escalona also took issue with the fact that the new strategy depends on Allamand’s recent proposal to reform military spending, which has not yet been passed in the Senate.
“(This new defence strategy) assumes – possibly incorrectly – that the new (military spending) law will be passed,” Escalona said. “I would also like to clarify that I do not agree with this document.”
Allamand’s proposal would repeal Chile’s so-called “copper law” which ties Chile’s military funding proportionally to state-owned copper company Codelco’s annual sales. It would instead subject the military budget to Congressional approval, with a minimum funding limit. The proposal passed unanimously through the Chamber of Deputies in early June.
Piñera hailed the smooth progress of the bill through the Chamber, and expressed hope that it will also “pass quickly” through the Senate.
By Angus McNeice & Maria Giulia Agostini - The Santiago Times
Suggested Stories
-
May 24th 2013
Pacific Alliance agrees to eliminate tariffs for 90% of goods beginning July
-
May 24th 2013
South America re-election rash: Ecuador’s Correa takes office for the third consecutive time
-
May 23rd 2013
Cristina Fernandez administration limits overseas dollar extractions to a minimum
-
May 23rd 2013
Penn calls for Dakar rally to cancel Bolivia unless a US citizen is released
28 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Who is Chile 'afraid of' ?............... I can understand world UN peace-keeping contribution, trafficking and organised crime,
but is there a REAL defence need ... a real threat?
Nations/people from overseas?
Adjacent nations?
Its own people?
Each of these three needs a different strategy, with different procurements.
Is there evidence from the procurements in place and planned, as to which is/are the REAL defence threat(s)?
This is just one of the ways that we can look behind the words of politicians and their media mouthpieces, to see where the fears for their nation REALLY lay.
could this be a new cold front where east meets west?
1. argieland. Almost certainly has its (greedy) eyes still fixed on the remainder of Patagonia. Another step toward another invasion of the Falklands. And once Patagonia is completely argieland's, why not slurp up the rest of Chile?
2. Bolivia. Morales would love to see the argie forces moving up from the south. Ready for the “fraternal” assistance toward Bolivia's access to the Pacific.
3. Shortly before Bolivia's “annexation” by argieland. Given the argie forces moving up through “ex-Chile”, argie forces on the border and Brazilian forces approaching through “ex Paraguay”.
Will it be “peaceful”? Or can we watch them all killing each other? Even if it is “peaceful”, we can look forward to the rebellion of the “ordinary” people once they realise what Chavez, CFK and Rousseff intend. Serfdom!
I hope chile use it to protect their own country and not to help NATO...because Southamerica is the only pace place in the world, and we dont want terrorist on here
And stop playing video games.
Chile isn’t particularly afraid of any conventional external threats, but still we can’t let our guard down so it is important to maintain our military superiority over our neighbours. What is more of a threat, is the risk that imported corruption from narco trafficking takes hold in Chile.
Conqueror,
I am sure that invasion of Chile is not in any RG plans and even if it were it would result in total failure.
To achieve this the military have invested huge resources, outspending Argentina, Peru and Bolivia combined. The spending continues and the focus now is offensive as with the latest helicopter carrier and amphibious assault ship youtu.be/wpgB6a51ktA
Sadly this level of taxpayer money has to be spent as our neighbors CANNOT be trusted.
Past experience has taught us this. We have lost millions of klm2 because we put our trust on our neighbors and the treaties we had signed (Patagonia) with them. Everyone in Chile now wants a strong modern defence force, only a very few in the extreme left oppose it.
Hold on, you signed a TREATY, how is “losing” anyhing? When did Bolivia and Peru take any land from you. They never could.
Argentina is not interested in Chile anymore. If anything we are looking north to southern Bolivia.
The simplest way to avoid any future problems is to have a force that can clearly and quickly destroy the threat. Even if it costs a fortune it's worth it.
Perhaps. But I'm not sure what other “numerous” issues you have in mind, they have all been resolved. Argentina did not break any treaties in the Patagonian matter, however, it just did what was par for the course back in the 19th century.
The USA used a weak period in Mexico's internal government to invent a non-existent military incursion by that country into the USA, in order to go to war with them. That's just how it was back then militarily, the strong prayed on the weak.
And still the case today though not as “in your face”. It is mainly economic.
We want Tarija in Bolivian now anyways. That's our next expansionist target.
Chile and Argentina both claim the same land. In this case, the Antarctic sector. The Antarctic Treaty may be just a 'Piece of Paper'.
Just one reason for Chile to have a realistic defence policy.
Big new Chilean Andean gold deposits might be another.
Or Argentinian access to a year-round Pacific port ... Puerto Montt would be so much more convenient than Ushuaia for access to the east Pacific economies.
The Argentinian military is (currently) not a problem, but surrogate forces of Cuba (like in Angola), China (like in Vietnam), Russia (like in Korea), USA (like in Colombia), Italy (like in Ethiopia), etc, etc.
Reasons and justifications can be created for third-party powerful countries to give strength to a weaker bordering state.
Always wise to 'keep your guard up', but the trick is to avoid initiating a serious arms-race.
Good question about recent Argentine defence minister visit to China. Chile might have noticed.
Chile's navy participated in the recent RIMPAC 2012 games (ships and dive team unlike Perú, Colombia and Britain contributing a single commander. Ecuador absent of course.
Like the Argentine-Brazil quest to project power through the South Atlantic (and confronting Britain), Chile's Pacific projection would triangulate with its Easter Island territory 3500kms from Chile and well-embedded in the Southern Pacific Ocean region. Chilean Navy seems to be clear that Easter Island and Juan Fernandez Islands are important, but in addition to peacekeeping - and to projecting Chilean foreign policy abroad.
Reference RIMPAC 2012 Participating Forced:
www.cpf.navy.mil/rimpac/2012/forces/
Nuestras Fuerzas, Escuadra Nacional:
www.armada.cl/nuestras-fuerzas/prontus_armada/2009-01-23/122834.html
In 1978 we were storng theatened by Argentina when they evicted the HR Majetic Queen Elizabeth II announcie with her desition about the three Beagle Channel´Is. calling as “insanely nule” and because our Gvt. decided for the first time to oppose them firmly up to a mediator have to intervine we saved without a territory loss again...In that opportunity was just with courage more than weapons due our material inferiority but human preparation superiority of our armed forces.....Reconignized that, our country decided to become a powerful military force to never be threatened again by any country, neighbor or not....to give us the peaceful enviroment we deserve to became a developed country soon next years.....(and the first in LA).
Differently remaining LA country we have made public our defence policy so no one can adduce that they were´t warned of our intentions on defence matters....so be prevented from now on....
One of your beloved neighbors gained independence for you, remember?
Pinocho is burning in hell, Videla and friends are rotting in jail, so nothing to worry about Sergio. I don't think the Kirchner's are planning to invade their cousins in Punta Arena.
Look at the Falklands: The well trained (less than a thousand total) British defense force, backed by 4 typhoon fighters and 1 destroyer can easily defeat Argentina in a defensive war.
Chile’s well-equipped forces using Leopard tanks, heavily armed frigates with our Scorpène and Thomson submarines as well as our F-16s insure that no one wants to mess with us.
Chile also has no desire to attack anyone either and only participates in UN peace keeping operations.
that - rather than the Golan Heights - the Indian army model is appropriate - with the high-altitude defense lines in Kashmir.
Trouble is, the high border between AR & CH is thousands of Km long, only levelling-out in southern Patagonia. Perhaps it would be better to let AR do their Hannibal act, then destroy once the supply-lines become over-extended.
@12 War of the Pacific 1879 to 1883. Chile was fighting Bolivia and Peru. Although Chile was winning, it needed to ensure that argieland didn't join with Bolivia and Peru. Thus the Boundary Treaty 1881.
@21 Would that be Jose de San Martin? Who assisted Bernardo O'Higgins. A fine Irish name. Might also mention the Scotsman, Lord Thomas Cochrane.
@23 Check out Operation Soberania. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Soberan%C3%ADa) Nowadays, expect the main forces to be the 2nd and 3rd Army Divisions together with the Rapid Deployment Force.
The problema is that every so often, guys who play console games get in to power. It is therefore sensible, productive and good for peace to be prepared for the worst.
TTT
What is Argentina’s interest in Bolivia?
Does Evo know about this?
Conqueror,
It is a moot point. Even if they wanted to invade Punta Arenas, they couldn’t. Their armed forces are dilapidated and antiquated.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!