Defense White Papers in the Americas: 

A Comparative Analysis1

Executive Summary

In preparation for the October 2000 Defense Ministerial of the Americas (DMA) in 

Manaus Brazil and at the request of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Institute 

for National Strategic Studies (INSS) studied the global trend toward the creation of 

Defense White Papers. The study aimed to understand the nature of these documents 

in order to prepare the U.S. delegation to discuss the tendency in Latin America and the 

Caribbean during the DMA. The INSS study team found no agreement about what 

constitutes a 'white paper' other than each is a consensus statement on a topic. The 

team examined 15 defense documents worldwide and interviewed participants in the 

development process and independent analysts. The results suggest that the formative, 

often difficult, process through which governments must move to solidify their approach 

to national security defense policy, and the structure to implement it and build 

consensus for it is the essential part of a 'white paper,' providing a constructive 

experience that benefits the country. Governments tended not to want a template for 

this process, although at the working level there is some interest in the experience of 

other states. Defense White Papers become highly stylized nationalistic documents that 

reflect a state's unique domestic circumstances and international geopolitical situation. 

The attached chart provides an overview comparison of the Defense White Paper 

processes of Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and South Africa. Past 

efforts by U.S. agencies to design templates have failed. 

Background

The recent trend toward an increased awareness and use of "white papers" in the 

international community is increasingly apparent in democratizing states. The term 

appears to have originated with the British Government's practice of using it to signify a 

policy paper that is the consensus of participating agencies or ministries. Beyond the 

British experience there is no general agreement on a definition. Many new national 

governments have found "defense white papers" and the consensus-building process 

used to produce them particularly helpful for demonstrating civilian expertise and 

leadership in the politically sensitive area of national security. These normally 

unclassified (transparent) documents play an important role in forging internal 

agreement within the executive branch and external accord with the national legislature 

and key sectors of society on national defense policy and resource priorities that match 

 1

 This paper was prepared by the INSS Study Team, John A. Cope, Senior Research Fellow, and Laurita 

Denny, Senior Research Assistant in September 2000 and revised in April 2002. Mr. Cope can be 

contacted at (202) 685-2373 ot copej@ndu.edu. 

1
the country's domestic realities at a particular point in time. The white papers also help 

in explaining the policy consensus to the national electorate. 

An INSS study team examined 15 Defense White Papers from around the world and 

interviewed individuals who either participated in or were close to a developmental 

process. The team found most of the documents to be uniquely national statements of a 

security or defense concepts at a particular point in time and for specific reasons. The 

tone and the depth of the information presented vary considerably. Most states agree 

that they are meant to be dynamic documents that can change, at least in part, with a 

change in administration. The difficult challenge of continuing to produce a general 

national agreement, however, results in papers that are not often nor easily modified. 

The team's analysis identified four useful areas for comparisons that provide insight into 

this security phenomenon and highlight the flexibility that exits in creating one. The 

points of comparison include: 

• The catalyst for the paper's development. 

• The nature of the ensuing developmental process. 

• The concept of national security and the nature of defense policy guidance 

embodied in the paper. 

• The format used to present the white paper. 

 

Points of Comparison 

Catalysts for Development

The INSS team's analysis found three different catalysts for creating a Defense White 

Paper. The creative impulse originates either in the executive branch or the national 

legislature, or it can originate with an external political imperative, such as a 

requirement for membership in an international organization. We also determined that 

the nature of the catalyst usually establishes several parameters for the document. It 

often shapes the approach followed in drafting the white paper as well as influence its 

substance, tone, and ultimate format. The experience of Eastern European Partnership 

for Peace states provides an example of the third type of catalyst. NATO set 

requirements that dictated to these governments their document's ultimate structure, a 

great deal of the content, and its tone. In Latin America, the general tendency to date 

has been for the executive to initiate the effort and define the process. However, in 1996 

the Argentine legislature played the role of catalyst, but it did not prescribe the process. 

Developmental Process

In the 15 cases examined the process to produce a Defense White Paper took one of 

three forms. After an initial period of research, the first option is for one agency, usually 

the Ministry of Defense, to draft the document with working level consultation outside 

the ministry, and then present the proposal for approval to the national catalyst for the 

project, either the president or the legislature. In the second option, the president 

2
establishes an inter-governmental working group and directs it to develop the paper. 

The leader of the working group may come from the President's staff, the Foreign 

Ministry, or the Ministry of Defense. The number of participating agencies can vary. The 

aim of this approach is to build consensus within the executive branch before submitting 

the product to the president for review and then ultimately to the legislature for approval. 

In the third alternative, the composition of the working group (or groups) and 

consensus-building approach is broadened beyond the government to include external 

experts, such as academic specialists, representatives from non-governmental 

organizations and leaders from the private sector. This process has been used 

successfully in South Africa, Canada and Chile. 

The basis for selecting one of these forms appears to depend on the degree to which 

national security is a domestic political issue of immediate concern. In the cases 

examined, a high degree of public interest suggests the greatest need for broad 

consensus building. 

Concept of National Security

At the heart of a Defense White Paper is the government's concept of national 

security. This tends to follow one of two approaches to national security affairs. Many 

of the countries examined adopted a largely state-centric perspective. In this case, 

national security is linked to issues of relative power, alliances, and the imperative to 

counter threats to sovereignty. This concept focuses on external threats to the 

physical integrity of the country, which usually includes a maritime economic exclusion 

zone (normally 200nm from the coastline). The second approach places less 

emphasis on physical security (although it remains a factor) and focuses on domestic 

political, economic, social and environmental concerns. In Latin American White 

Papers, governments have tended to emphasize a traditional conservative view of 

national security and identified with the first approach. On the other hand, South 

Africa and Canada are examples of states less focused on external threats. They 

have taken the domestic oriented approach to their Defense White Papers. Rarely 

addressed are threats of a non-traditional transnational variety that require serious 

coalition building with neighboring countries. 

Structure of Presentation

The team found two distinct structural approaches to presenting Defense White 

Papers. The first, and most common, is a single document that lays out national 

political and strategic direction for security affairs. This guidance is then translated 

into three parts: a presentation of military roles in society, specific missions for the 

armed forces, and finally the comprehensive mid-to-long range planning on such 

issues as defense posture, force design, force levels, equipment modernization and 

funding. The second format utilizes more than one document. There is a paper that 

provides a national security concept, overall defense priorities and specific policy 

guidance, and one or more companion documents that address defense planning and 

budgetary issues. This approach offers greater flexibility in adapting the 

3
implementation of national defense policy to a dynamic and changing environment 

without having to reestablish a policy consensus just to update the guidance 

document. Both approaches to structuring Defense White Papers can work effectively. 

The second reflects a national approach that over time has been institutionalized to 

cope with changing domestic priorities and international security concerns. The 

Government of Chile, which has one document, is expected to publish its second 

Defense White Book in 2002. 

Western Hemisphere Experience 

Canada (1994)

In response to the Prime Minister's directive to reassess security issues facing 

Canada, the government adopted a two-tiered multi-agency process that has been the 

most wide-ranging used in the Western Hemisphere. The Prime Minister established a 

Special Joint Committee that consulted ordinary citizens, defense experts, 

disarmament advocates, non-governmental organizations, Canadian allies, as well as 

the parliament in developing a national security concept. The Defense White Paper 

process, led by the Minister of National Defense, incorporated the recommendations 

of the Special Joint Committee and involved other government Ministries, as well as 

defense civilian and military leaders. The overall process resulted in a single 

document that addressed the national security concept, the intricacies of defense 

policy and doctrine, and military resource issues. The concept of national security was 

broadly defined to include transnational threats to Canadian security as well as a 

range of domestic concerns. External threats to the security of the state were of 

minimal concern. 

The Canadian document includes the following topics: 

• The international security situation. 

• Domestic security issues and considerations. 

• Combat capable forces. 

• The defense of Canada. 

• Canadian-US defense cooperation. 

• The role of Canada in international security. 

• The implementation of defense policy (includes a detailed discussion on 

managing resource requirements of the individual branches of the military). 

Chile (1996; the process to develop a second iteration began in 2001) 

Chile was the first Latin American country to produce a defense white paper. A 

presidential desire to present a national consensus on defense doctrine that was 

easily understood by the population at large was the principal impulse for producing a 

"While Book on Defense." The Ministry of Defense led an exhaustive process that 

included participation by representatives of other government agencies, select 

4
academic and non-governmental experts and leaders from the private sector. It took 

two years to complete the process. The product was a single document that set forth 

a national security concept and defense doctrine. The White Book focused specifically 

on external threats to the physical integrity of Chile. In addition to ensuring a 

consensus on the essential elements of the Chilean defense doctrine, the 

developmental process ultimately drove agreements on defense policy, resource 

allocation and funding. The major components of the Chilean White Book include: 

• The geo-political situation confronting Chile. 

• Chile's national security concept. 

• The defense priorities and interests of Chile. 

• An outline of the Chilean military structure, including a discussion of 

civilian/military relations and roles of the military. 

• Economic factors in the defense of Chile, including a discussion of the 

budgeting process. 

Brazil (1996) 

In the absence of a Ministry of Defense (established in 1998) and at the direction of 

President Cardoso, a political-military committee from the executive branch, in 

consultation with other agencies, ministries and non-governmental experts, led the 

process to develop a national security document. Unlike the Chileans and Argentines, 

the Brazilians adopted the multi document organizational approach to the structure of 

the Defense White Paper. They created a short document that presented the overarching national security interests of the country and general guidance for security 

issues. Specific elements of national defense planning can be found in separate 

presentations within the annual budgetary process. The Brazilian budgetary process 

requires the military to submit for Congressional approval, via the president, 

information about military planning, organization and resource allocation. The 

Brazilians, like their South American neighbors, took a conservative view of national 

security, primarily focusing on issues of external threat. Brazil's policy paper 

succinctly addresses: 

• The international security situation. 

• The national security priorities and Brazilian objectives of national defense. 

• Strategic guidance. 

• Specific directives. 

Argentina (1998) 

The Argentine Congress initiated the process leading to a Defense White Paper. The 

legislature desired a document that provided a plan to implement defense laws and 

policies already approved by congress. The Ministry of Defense prepared the Defense 

White Paper. Prior to congressional approval, non-governmental experts, including 

5
academicians and representatives from influential “think tanks”, vetted the product. The 

process involved fewer participants than in Chile; however, it still provided important 

opportunities for consensus building within the government. The Argentines also took a 

narrow view of national security, limiting the scope to issues of external threat. 

Argentina, like Chile, created a single expansive document that includes in-depth 

discussion of the following topics: 

• Geo-political overview of international and regional security issues. 

• National security interests and defense policies. 

• The roles and missions of the military. 

• The structure of the military, including the joint staff and the services. 

• Equipment and personnel resources available to the military. 

• Financial resources, including the defense budget. 

United States

The United States, by law, produces two annual documents that together are the 

equivalent of a Defense White Paper. Since the Goldwater-Nichols Department of 

Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, the White House annually publishes its national 

security strategy, which presents worldwide national interests, goals and objectives that 

are vital to the security of the United States and a broad strategic framework to realize 

them over time. This relatively short document articulates a concept of national security 

that proposes short-term and long-term uses of the political, economic, military and 

other elements of national power to protect or promote its interests and achieve its 

goals and objectives. The national security strategy report addresses both state-centric 

and transnational issues. The second document, which also is required annually by the 

law governing the organization and operation of the Defense Department, is the 

Secretary’s "Annual Report to the President and the Congress." This part of the ‘white 

paper’ has to accomplish two tasks. The first is to report on the condition and readiness 

of today’s armed forces. By law, this must be done by the Secretary of Defense, each 

Service Secretary, and the Chairman of the reserve Forces Policy Board. The second 

task is to present a defense strategy derived from the White House strategy report, the 

military requirements of the defense strategy, mid-to-long range defense planning 

guidelines, and the Department’s annual budget request. These documents often 

change. The main focus in 2002 is on transforming the Department of Defense and the 

U.S. Armed Forces for the demanding realities of the 21st Century. Parallel to the U.S. 

approach to Defense White Papers, the Department of State prepares a similar annual 

report on U.S. foreign policy and operations worldwide. The formative processes used 

by the United States are institutionalized. This facilitates changing the thrust of 

documents when required by domestic and international circumstances. 

6
Other Latin American Countries

Uruguay, El Salvador and Guatemala have initiated their processes to prepare a 

defense white paper and are reviewing their current defense doctrines and policies. 

Each state is at a different stage of drafting, vetting, and editing. 

Conclusion

The INSS study team concluded that there are no universal templates for the 

preparation of defense white papers. While a few points of comparison exist, national 

idiosyncrasies and governmental desires preclude the establishment of a single 

comprehensive approach. At the working level, governments do look at documents 

produced by other states primarily for ideas about document organization and 

occasionally substance. But foremost, the study shows that a defense white paper's 

most important contribution to a country is the process that a government chooses to 

follow in producing it. There is great benefit to be gained from the initial national and 

international research, the development of a national security concept and defense 

policy guidance, the trade offs in setting policy and priorities, and the consensus 

building among civilian and military participants that takes place in the process. Ideally, 

governments will institutionalize this dynamic process to facilitate adapting national 

security and defense to changing realities in international and domestic threat 

environments.

Attachment: Organizational Overview 

7
8
"Defense White Papers in the Americas: A Comparative Analy

sis" 

Organizational Overview

Country

Catalyst for Dev

elopment 

Dev

elopmental 

Process 

Legislative Approval of White Paper 

Concept of National Security

Structure of Presentation 

Has the WhPaper chan

Canada (1994) 

Executive Directive 

Ministry of Defense led expanded working groups 

Y

es Domestic / Human 

Focus 

1 document No 

Chile (1996) 

Executive Directive 

Ministry of Defense led expanded working groups 

Yes State Centric 1 document Currently un

consideratio

Brazil (1996) 

Executive Directive 

Executive led expanded working groups 

No approval for strategy. Legislature controls budget 

State Centric Multi-document No 

Arg

entina

(1998) 

Legislative Directive 

Ministry of Defense Document 

Yes State Centric 1 document No 

United States (annual) 

Legal Requirement 

National Security Strategy: NSC led Interagency working group 

Annual Report: DoD 

document 

No formal approval for strategy. Legislature controls budget. 

State Centric 2 documents Yes, annua

South Africa (1996) 

Executive Directive 

Ministry led expanded working groups 

Y

es Domestic / Human 

focus 

2 documents No