Colloquium Brief

U.S. Army War College, 

 U.S. Southern Command, and the Latin American and Caribbean Center of 

 Florida International University 

THE CHALLENGE OF GOVERNANCE AND SECURITY

Compiled by

Dr. Max G. Manwaring

Key Points and Recommendation.

• A contemporary assessment of Latin American and Caribbean security must address a comprehensive, 

all-inclusive threat environment and consider the utility of all instruments of state power.

•	 Significant threats to individual and collective security, within the context of stability, development,

democracy, peace, and effective sovereignty seriously diminish overall Latin American and Caribbean 

security. 

•	 Dealing with threats in such an interrelated and interdependent context requires “good governance,” an

imperative that must be taken seriously and operationalized.

The Latin American and Caribbean Center of Florida International University, the U.S. Southern Command, 

and the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College held the ninth in a series of major annual 

conferences dealing with security and defense matters in the Western Hemisphere on February 1-3, 2006, in 

Miami, Florida. The conference, entitled “The Challenge of Governance and Security,” brought together over 150

conferees who participated in a robust program of panels, question and answer sessions, and workshops. They

exchanged perspectives and evaluated the contemporary hemispheric security situation. The dialogued amicably,

with less tendency than in the past to either blame the United States for everything, or look to Washington to solve 

all of Latin America’s problems. At the same time, civilian and military participants engaged in little “fingerpointing” and participants made no effort to keep police forces out of the dialogue. None viewed of the military as

a menace, but rather as an important asset that had to be utilized effectively along with other instruments of national 

and international power to generate security, stability, development, democracy, and effective sovereignty. In this 
2

context, the conference dialogue centered on a broad

and virtually all-inclusive internal threat environment, 

and the need for “good governance” to deal with a

situation in which “everything is a part of everything

else.”

The All-Inclusive Internal Threat Environment.

The current threat environment in the Western 

Hemisphere is not a traditional security problem. While 

some traditional international boundary and territorial 

disputes remain alive, nontraditional subnational and 

transnational nonstate actors are actively involved 

in internal disruption and destabilization efforts that 

challenge the national security and effective sovereignty 

of virtually every nation-state in the region. The 

instability process tends to move from personal violence 

to increased collective violence and social disorder to 

kidnappings, bank robberies, violent property takeovers, 

murders/assassinations, personal and institutional 

corruption, criminal anarchy, and internal and external

population displacements. In turn, the momentum 

of this process of violence tends to evolve into more 

widespread social violence, serious degradation of the 

economy, and less and less governmental capability 

to provide security and to guarantee the rule of law. 

Then, using complicity, intimidation, corruption, and 

indifference, an unprincipled actor or nonstate group 

can quietly and subtly co-opt politicians, bureaucrats,

and security personnel to gain political control of a 

given piece of the national territory. The individual 

or nonstate group that takes control of a series of 

networked pieces of such “ungoverned territory” could

then become a dominant political actor within a state 

or group of states.

These kinds of actions are not necessarily direct 

attacks on a government. They are, however, proven 

means for weakening governing regimes. These threats 

to stability, security, and state sovereignty reflect a

logical progression from the problems of institutional 

and state weaknesses. It moves the threat spectrum 

from traditional state to nontraditional nonstate actors. 

In turn, that logical progression infers that several small 

and weak states in the Caribbean and Latin America 

are at serious risk of failure to perform their sovereign 

governance and security functions. 

Linking Security, Stability, Development, 

Democracy, and Sovereignty.

An elaboration on the insecurity process that leads 

to state failure involves the circular nature of the 

interdependent relationships among security, stability 

and development, peace and democracy, and effective 

sovereignty. It begins with the provision of personal 

security to individual members of the citizenry. It 

then extends to protection of the collectivity from

violent internal nonstate actors (including organized 

criminals, self-appointed reformers, vigilante groups), 

and external enemies. Additionally, security depends

on the continued and expanded building of a country’s

socio-economic infrastructure (that is the basis of 

well-being and stability). Then, in the context of socioeconomic development, facilitated by the establishment 

and maintenance of legitimate law and order (political 

development), a governing regime can begin to 

develop sustainable stability, peace, and prosperity. In 

this connection, the inherent stability of responsible 

democracy and concomitant political legitimacy are 

based on the moral right of a government to govern, 

and the ability of the regime to govern morally. Finally, 

the insecurity problem ends with the establishment of 

firm but fair control of the entire national territory

and the people in it, which takes us to the concept 

of sovereignty. That is, without complete control of 

the national territory, a government cannot provide 

protection against violence, or sustain an effective 

judicial system, rule of law, long-term development, 

responsible democratic processes, or a lasting peace.

The Critical Need for Good Governance.

	 Given the interrelated, multidimensional, and

circular nature of the contemporary threat situation, 

conference participants understood that two issues are 

key to effective security and stability. First, security is 

too broad and too important to pass off to either the police 

or the military. Contemporary security and stability are 

nationstate problems, andmust be addressed in a unified

and legitimizing manner by ALL the instruments of state 

power. Second, the greatest strategic-level challenge 

the countries of the Western Hemisphere will face 

in that regard is to achieve balanced socio-economic 

development with freedom and justice. In these terms, 

legitimate (good) governance is necessary to generate 
3

the institutional and societal competence and honesty 

to manage, coordinate, and sustain security, stability, 

and development effectively.

	 Thus, the unaddressed question is, “How can

governing institutions related to social welfare on one 

hand, and to the judiciary, police, and military, on the 

other, be strengthened?” The corollary is, “What are

the most effective ways and means of using limited 

resources to assist in strengthening the state?” The

immediacy of this set of problems was demonstrated 

by conference participants’ repeated articulation of 

the fact that unless and until a population feels that 

its government deals with issues of personal security 

and development fairly and effectively, the potential 

for internal and/or external forces to destabilize and

subvert that government is considerable.

Conclusions.

The conference dialogue stressed three things. First, 

participants were almost unanimous in their agreement 

regarding the necessity of governments providing 

individual and collective security and stability. In these 

terms, civilian and military officials are beginning to

understand that an aggressor may not necessarily be a 

recognizable traditional military entity. The enemy is 

now the subnational and transnational nonstate actor 

that plans and implements the kind of violence and 

instability that subverts national and regional wellbeing and exploits the root causes of instability for his

own narrow ideological and/or commercial (moneymaking) purposes. 

Second, participants clearly understood that 

the majority of Latin American citizens hold a low 

opinion of their governments and leaders. They are 

not convinced that governments and institutions are 

working toward the general welfare. Additionally, 

it is clear that judicial systems are slow and unfair, 

legislatures operate erratically and mostly in their 

own interests, and political parties are weaker and less 

representative than ever. Thus, only a few countries—

most notably Chile—have made progress toward 

achieving the aspirations of the security-stabilitydevelopment-democracy, peace-prosperity model, and 

the related needs and desires of the populace.

Third, despite the generally positive tone of the 

conference, and general agreement on the threat, no 

consensus emerged regarding the ways and means 

required to reverse the current debilitating instability

and insecurity. As it stands now, a few—but not 

all—of the Central American countries have recently 

signed a regional security agreement to help combat 

transnational gangs, drugs and arms trafficking, and

more sophisticated organized crime. But that does not 

constitute any significant movement toward a solution

to the strategic-level challenge of governance and 

security.

Recommendation. 

The security situation in the Western Hemisphere 

is extremely volatile and dangerous. It is time for the

sovereign nations of the region to address the challenges 

of good governance and security seriously. Otherwise, 

the issue will likely resolve itself—and not in a manner 

to anyone’s liking.

*****

	 The views expressed in this brief are those of the author and

do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the

Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. 

Government. This conference brief is cleared for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

*****

More information on the Strategic Studies Institute’s 

programs may be found on the Institute’s Homepage at www.

StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil.