John T. Fishel

"THE ROLE OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE"

Primera Parte (ver traducción al español por ALTAVISTA)

THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN LATIN AMERICA: THE ROLE OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE JOHN T. FISHEL CENTER FOR HEMISPHERIC DEFENSE STUDIES NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY

Prepared for delivery at the meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Hyatt Regency Miami, March 16 - 18 2000. Disclaimer: This paper is the work of the author and in no way reflects the official position of the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, the United States government, or any other government in the Americas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people have contributed to this study. First, I wish to thank my colleagues At the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, Herb Huser, Bill Spracher, Sam Fitch (who spent Fall 99 as a visiting professor with us), Jose Martin, and Thomaz Costa. All of you helped in several ways. A special thanks to my friend and CHDS colleague, Boris Saavedra, Brigadier General (Retired), Venezuelan Air Force for all his help and especially his correction of my Spanish in the development of the survey instrument. Thanks to Brazilian Fellows in CHDS courses, Alexandre Fucille and Paulo Kuhlman who were the first pre-test respondents. Thanks to the second two pre-test respondents, Karina Doña and Carlos Maldonado. All four of you were absolutely indispensable to the success of the research. Thanks to the Fellows who responded to the survey: Jorge Amonzabel, Sara Barraza, Felix Besio, Jimmy Garcia, Vania Garcia, Luis Garfias, David Gutierrez, Jose Isaza, Felix Madariaga, Antonio Martinez Uribe, Raul Montoya, Adrian Moya, Mario Nuñez, Octavio Nuñez, Guillermo Pacheco, Julio Palacios, Ubaldo Reyes, Rivka Schuster, Plinio Villalaz, Rosa Maria Wantland-Garcia, Urbano Raul Zoccola, and the rest of the 348 graduates of the CHDS resident program. This paper could not have been written without you! Needless to say, all errors of fact and interpretation are mine alone.

INTRODUCTION In 1995 at the first Defense Ministerial of the Americas held in Williamsburg, Virginia, a number of Ministers of Defense from Latin America told US Secretary of Defense, William Perry, that their greatest problem in gaining control of their ministries and the armed forces was the dearth of qualified civilian defense specialists. As a result of that generalized complaint Secretary Perry promised at the next Defense Ministerial in Bariloche, Argentina the following year that the United States would create a center for defense studies in the hemisphere to support the development of such a civilian cadre. Thus, in 1997 the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies was founded in Washington, DC with the mission to educate civilians for positions in the defense establishments of the region. The assumption underlying the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) is that the existence of a corps of civilian defense specialists both within and without government, but especially inside the defense ministry, will contribute significantly to healthy, democratic civil-military relations. Moreover, based on the reports of the first Defense Ministerial, it was assumed that such a corps did not exist and would have to be created. How accurate are these assumptions? Is it true that there are no significant groups of civilian defense professionals at work in the countries of Latin America? Perhaps, even more significant, is it true that a corps of civilian defense specialists is likely to contribute to the kind of civilian control of the military that we posit as the basis of democratic civil-military relations? This paper is designed to begin to address these questions. First, it considers the theory of democratic civil-military relations in general terms, drawing heavily on the work of Douglas Bland. After looking at a generic theory, the paper posits two exemplar models, the Anglo-parliamentary model and the US model, comparing their similarities and differences in terms of the generic theory. Following this look into theory, the paper discusses the data: how it was collected, its strengths and limitations. Then the data are analyzed and findings reported and discussed. In this section the paper suggests preliminary answers to the questions asked in this introduction.

Bajar el documento completo. Click aquí.