Security and 

Defense 

Studies Review

Interdisciplinary Journal of the William J. Perry

Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies

Volume 16 2014

ISSN: 1533-2535

Ricardo L. Alessandrini, Silvana L. 

Elizondo, Virginia Iribarne, y 

Silvana Pascucci,

El Sistema Interamericano de Defensa: 

Hacia un Esquema Más Armónico de 

Gobernanza Multinivel

Lucas Fonseca and Tiago Delgado, 

The Inter-American Strategy to Combat 

Threats to Cybersecurity: Consequences 

and Challenges

Peterson Silva, A Primeira Estratégia 

Nacional de Defesa Brasileira (2008): 

Cinco Anos Depois

Pat Paterson y Cristina Blain, Derechos 

Humanos y la Lucha Contra 

las Organizaciones Criminales 

Transnacionales: Una Estrategia 

Imprescindible

R. Evan Ellis, The Rise of China 

in the Americas

NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM

Posture Statements to the 

U.S. Congress

Patricia Kehoe, Perry Center 

Discusses Women in Peace and 

Security

Book Review: Narcoland: The 

Mexican Drug Lords

By Anabel Hernández 

(translated by Iain Bruce)

Reviewed by Patricia Kehoe 

Book Review: Balancing Liberty 

and Security: An Ethical Study 

of U.S. Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance: 2001–2009

By Michelle Louise Atkin

Reviewed by Kevin Newmeyer 
Security and Defense Studies Review

Staff

Kenneth LaPlante, Acting Director

Patrick Paterson, Editor-in-Chief

Yamile Kahn, Managing Editor

Alicia Brau, Assistant Editor

Patricia Kehoe, Assistant Editor

Editorial Board

Raúl Benítez Manaut, Investigador

Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades

Universidad Autónoma de México

J. Samuel Fitch, Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science

University of Colorado at Boulder

Ivelaw Griffith, President

Fort Valley State University, Georgia

Oswaldo Jarrín, Professor

Universidad Internacional del Ecuador

General (ret.) Julio Hang, Director

Institute of International Security and Strategic Affairs

Jennifer Holmes, Associate Professor of Political Science

University of Texas at Dallas

Hal Klepak, Professor of War Studies and Latin American History

Royal Military College of Canada

Richard Millett, Professor of History Emeritus

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

Patricia Olney, Associate Professor of Political Science

Southern Connecticut State University

Eliezer Rizzo de Oliveira, Profesor Núcleo de Estudos Estratégicos

Universidade de Campinas, São Paolo, Brasil

Carlos Ospina, Professor and Chief of Defense Chair

William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies

Orlando J. Pérez, Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science

Central Michigan University
Security and Defense 

Studies Review

An Interdisciplinary Journal

Volume 16

2014

William J. Perry Center 

for Hemispheric Defense Studies

National Defense University

Abraham Lincoln Hall

260 5th Ave., Bldg. 64

Washington, DC 20319-5066
The opinions in the Security and Defense Studies Review do not necessarily reflect those of the 

William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, the National Defense University, 

or the U.S. Department of Defense.

Submissions for the Perry Center Security and Defense Studies Review should be emailed to 

chdsejournal@ndu.edu, with the subject line “Submission for SDSR," or mailed to Managing Editor, 

Publications, William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, National Defense University, 

Abraham Lincoln Hall, 260 5th Ave., Bldg. 64, Washington, DC 20319-5066. Submission guidelines are 

available at chds.dodlive.mil/publications/.
Security and Defense Studies Review

Volume 16

2014

Contents

Message from the Director 5

El Sistema Interamericano de Defensa: Hacia un Esquema Más Armónico 

de Gobernanza Multinivel 

Ricardo L. Alessandrini, Silvana L. Elizondo, Virginia Iribarne, 

y Silvana Pascucci 7

The Inter-American Strategy to Combat Threats to Cybersecurity:

Consequences and Challenges

Lucas Fonseca and Tiago Delgado 26

A Primeira Estratégia Nacional de Defesa Brasileira (2008): Cinco Anos Depois

Peterson Silva 39

Derechos Humanos y la Lucha Contra las Organizaciones Criminales 

Transnacionales: Una Estrategia Imprescindible

Pat Paterson y Cristina Blain 57

The Rise of China in the Americas

R. Evan Ellis 90

NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM Posture Statements to the U.S. Congress 106

Perry Center Discusses Women in Peace and Security 

Patricia Kehoe 132

Book Review: Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords and Their Godfathers

By Anabel Hernández (Translated by Iain Bruce)

Reviewed by Patricia Kehoe 136

Book Review: Balancing Liberty and Security: An Ethical Study of U.S. Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance: 2001–2009

By Michelle Louise Atkin

Reviewed by Kevin Newmeyer 138

Contributors 140

Volume 16 / 2014 5

Message from the Acting Director

Welcome to Volume 16 of the Security and Defense 

Studies Review (SDSR)! As this edition goes to press 

and distribution, security and defense officials in the 

Americas are preparing their principals for numerous 

regional and sub-regional executive events including 

the upcoming 11th Conference of the Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA) to be held in Arequipa, 

Peru. Accordingly, Volume 16 of the SDSR focuses on 

thematic issues that will likely be raised at these events, 

including the Conference: cooperative security efforts 

in the Americas, cyber security, the use of the military to combat transnational 

organized crime, and external actors in the Americas, among others.

We begin this SDSR edition with an article from a group of authors in Argentina on cooperative security efforts in Latin America. The authors examine the 

numerous theoretical dimensions of the topic and the history of cooperative security in the region. They propose a bold reform to the system, one that emphasizes 

regional initiatives yet also extends responsibility for specific threats to experts. 

I trust our readers will find their recommendations on inter-American security 

cooperation illuminating. 

Lucas Fonseca and Tiago Delgado of Brazil scrutinize the cyber security 

challenges faced by many Latin American nations. The authors examine the OAS 

Strategy on Cyber Security and, in particular, the development of Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) in many nations. The authors contend 

that the capacity of government experts to keep up with the rapid evolution of 

information technology, inadequate or antiquated legislation on cyber security 

that is rapidly overcome by developments in the computer industry, and sufficient 

education of prosecutors and judges are challenges faced by most countries in the 

Americas.

Next, Peterson Silva, a recent alumnus of the Perry Center, examines the 

2008 Brazilian National Security Strategy. Silva provides a detailed analysis of 

the development of the national strategy and an assessment of its functions after 

five years. Our readers, especially those involved in developing modern defense 

strategies in a rapidly changing, multi-faceted security environment, might draw 

important lessons from Brazil’s experience.

Perry Center Editor-in-Chief Pat Paterson and former Perry Center research assistant Cristy Blain of Colombia examine the risks of using the military in operations 

against transnational organized crime. Paterson teaches the human rights and rule of 

law course at the Perry Center and Blain has extensive experience on human rights 

issues from her studies in France, the United States, and Colombia. After a detailed 

theoretical discussion of the issues, they use the U.S. experience in Iraq from 2003 

to 2008 to demonstrate the clear dangers of deploying the armed forces in support to 

civilian authorities without adequate education and the proper strategy. 
6 Security and Defense Studies Review 

The Perry Center’s Dr. Evan Ellis contributes the next article on China’s 

growing role in the Americas. Dr. Ellis, one of the United States’ leading authorities on China in Latin America, has published three books and scores of articles 

on the topic. His most recent analysis takes the readers deep into Chinese foreign 

relations in Latin America and provides an extraordinary level of detail. I am confident you will find his article stimulating and informative.

The next chapter of the journal is a summary of Congressional testimony 

provided by General John Kelly of the U.S. Southern Command and General 

Chuck Jacoby of the U.S. Northern Command. Between the two of them, they 

have responsibility for, foremost, protecting the U.S. homeland and, secondly, 

coordinating security efforts on behalf of the U.S. with its partners in the Western 

Hemisphere. Their reports to Congress, blunt and candid, are excellent synopses 

of the multi-faceted forms of crime and threat that the U.S. and its partners face.

The next item in SDSR 16 is drawn from the March 2014 Hemispheric Forum conducted at the Perry Center on the topic of women in peace and security. 

Perry Center Professor Celina Realuyo hosted a panel of distinguished academic, 

diplomatic, and defense officials who spoke on the role of women in peace and security. The prestigious panel included representatives of the diplomacy, defense, 

and development pillars of U.S. national security strategy. 

We conclude Security and Defense Studies Review 16 with two book reviews. Perry Center Assistant Editor Patricia Kehoe provides an in-depth book 

review on Narcoland, a recent publication by Mexican author Anabel Hernández, 

who reports from the frontlines of the war against organized crime in Mexico. 

Hernández’s story is a gripping account of the last few years of the drug war in her 

country, the risks she took to research the book, and the collusion of government 

officials with traffickers. An eye-opening read.

Perry Center Professor Kevin Newmeyer provides the second book review on 

the ethics of U.S. foreign intelligence collection. The book, Balancing Liberty and 

Security: An Ethical Study of U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 2001–2009

by Dr. Michelle Louise Atkin, examines the competing theories of utilitarianism 

and contractarianism to describe how U.S. officials shaped elements of the national security strategy following the 9/11 attacks. It is a profound example of the 

dilemma Latin American nations also face as they combat elusive threats while at 

the same time try to respect civil liberties of their constituents. 

Our next edition, SDSR 17, will cover thematic issues of global importance 

from a unique Hemispheric perspective and, as always, relative to regional and 

international security and defense fora. We invite all our readers to submit their 

own research for publication in one of the Center’s nearly half dozen journals and 

periodicals. On our website, http://chds.dodlive.mil, you will find a Publications 

Handbook and a Writing Guide for authors interested in publishing their works. 

Submit your research and articles for publication to our editorial team by sending 

them to chdsejournal@ndu.edu.

With best regards,

Kenneth LaPlante

Acting Director, Perry Center
Volume 16 / 2014 7

El Sistema Interamericano de Defensa: 

Hacia un Esquema Más Armónico 

de Gobernanza Multinivel

Ricardo L. Alessandrini, Silvana L. Elizondo, 

Virginia Iribarne, y Silvana Pascucci1

Resumen

El Sistema Interamericano de Defensa puede ser analizado 

como una gobernanza regional de seguridad, en la que coexisten 

mecanismos y prácticas de diferentes niveles y alcances que 

se solapan en tiempo, espacio y funciones. El objetivo del 

presente artículo es estudiar cómo ese solapamiento ha afectado 

la provisión de seguridad en los sucesivos contextos históricos 

y cuál es la situación actual, en base a un enfoque funcional. 

Se examinará para ello el desempeño de los mecanismos 

relacionados con la seguridad colectiva (56 conflictos) y la 

seguridad cooperativa (5 temas), identificando las dinámicas 

entre los distintos niveles.

Dicho análisis permitirá concluir que, a partir de la 

creación de UNASUR, el solapamiento de mecanismos 

transitó de una interacción cooperativa a una compleja, en la 

que se refuerzan las tendencias competitivas. En base a ello, 

se propone el diseño de una gobernanza mejor articulada que 

refleja el papel protagónico de las regiones como proveedoras 

de seguridad dentro del sistema hemisférico.

Introducción 

Retomando el ya tradicional ejercicio de debatir los alcances de la seguridad y la 

defensa en el hemisferio, se ha abierto a partir de 2010 una nueva etapa de discusión, en esta oportunidad centrada en la vigencia de los instrumentos y componentes del Sistema Interamericano de Defensa (SID). La percepción crítica sobre 

algunas instituciones propias de contextos estratégicos superados y el fortalecimiento de los organismos regionales, en particular la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR), enmarcan esta nueva fase de reflexión. 

En este artículo hemos buscado ir más allá del análisis de estos factores de 

coyuntura y estudiar el rol del SID en la provisión de seguridad en las diferentes 

etapas de su trayectoria, profundizando la caracterización del desempeño actual 

desde una perspectiva funcional. El planteo está estructurado sobre cuatro interrogantes centrales: qué es el SID; cómo funciona; cuáles son los principales prob-
8 Security and Defense Studies Review 

lemas que enfrenta; y, finalmente, sobre qué fundamentos podrían estructurarse 

alternativas para mejorar su diseño. 

Como recorte inicial se ha definido al SID como el conjunto de instrumentos y componentes destinados a garantizar la paz y seguridad en el hemisferio, 

proveyendo y coordinando respuestas a las amenazas y agresiones a los estados, sean éstas extra-continentales o regionales. Sus pilares fundacionales son la 

Junta Interamericana de Defensa (JID), el Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia 

Recíproca (TIAR) y la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), a los que se 

han sumado a lo largo de más de 70 años una multiplicidad de mecanismos de 

diferentes niveles, alcances y especificidades temáticas que hoy conforman una 

arquitectura flexible de seguridad.

El concepto de arquitectura flexible permite poner en perspectiva algunas 

particularidades de su funcionamiento. Más allá de los convencionalismos de su 

denominación, el SID no parece funcionar como un sistema sino como una gobernanza de seguridad. Según D. Flemes y M. Radseck, la gobernanza incluye todas 

las “estructuras de autoridad formales e informales, que coordinan, manejan y 

regulan respuestas colectivas a las amenazas a la seguridad de los estados en una 

determinada región”.2 Para los autores, estas estructuras “pueden ser codificadas 

en formas institucionales formales y vinculantes, pero también pueden ser identificadas normas de comportamiento y acción aceptadas informalmente por los 

estados de la región”.3 El concepto describe adecuadamente las dinámicas del 

SID, caracterizado por una multiplicidad de estructuras, niveles y mecanismos, 

formales e informales, viejos y nuevos, que coexisten sin jerarquías y se fundamentan sobre distintos conceptos de seguridad.

La multiplicidad propia de la gobernanza regional deviene, casi naturalmente, en un permanente solapamiento de mecanismos y prácticas de seguridad, 

fenómeno que ha sido abordado desde la teoría por E. Adler y P. Greve.4 Los autores señalan que existe solapamiento u overlap en la medida en que la provisión 

de seguridad es transformada por la presencia de diferentes estructuras, y que 

el solapamiento puede presentarse en cuatro dimensiones: ‘temporal’; ‘espacial’; 

‘relacional’ y ‘funcional’.5

La dimensión temporal se refiere a la superposición de mecanismos y prácticas de seguridad que se presenta en los tiempos de transición entre un orden 

internacional y otro, con la coexistencia de viejas y nuevas instituciones. Dicho 

solapamiento permite identificar cuáles de ellas son preferidas por los estados 

para dar respuesta a las amenazas y cómo se reacomodan los viejos organismos 

al nuevo contexto. 

La dimensión espacial, por su parte, se refiere a los factores geográficos e 

identitarios que definen a las distintas regiones. Como geografía, se asiste en el 

hemisferio a una multiplicidad de espacios superpuestos que proporcionan a los 

estados una pertenencia múltiple, con un esquema disperso. En tanto identidad, 

se encuentran también una variedad de relatos superpuestos articulados sobre las identidades Panamericana y Latinoamericana, a las que se suma la 

naciente identidad Suramericana.

El estudio de la dimensión relacional sintetiza los impactos que las relacio-
Volume 16 / 2014 9

nes especiales de seguridad imprimen sobre la dinámica regional, destacándose 

tres tipos de relacionamientos: la hegemonía, que superpone a las relaciones regionales una dinámica radial; las nuevas asimetrías, generadas por el ascenso 

de potencias emergentes; y las viejas díadas basadas en conflictos territoriales 

históricos que implican desafíos para la seguridad regional. Puesto simplemente, 

el rol de Estados Unidos, el ascenso de Brasil y las relaciones de competencia por 

disputas territoriales constituyen factores imprescindibles a la hora de repensar la 

institucionalidad hemisférica y regional.

Finalmente, dentro de la dimensión funcional se aborda la superposición de 

esfuerzos que los diferentes niveles de gobernanza llevan adelante alrededor de 

un mismo tema. Sintéticamente, se diferencian entre las funciones relacionadas 

con el manejo de crisis y conflictos, vinculadas a la seguridad colectiva y aquellas propias de la seguridad cooperativa, destinadas a prevenir el conflicto y afianzar la zona de paz. Dentro del primer grupo, se analiza la defensa común frente 

a agresiones externas, el manejo y resolución de los conflictos armados hacia 

adentro del grupo y la gestión de crisis institucionales que puedan devenir en 

hechos violentos. Dentro del segundo, se consideran las medidas de fomento de la 

confianza y la seguridad, la cooperación ante desastres naturales y catástrofes de 

envergadura, los intercambios en materia de formación en defensa, el desarrollo 

de un pensamiento estratégico común y la proyección de seguridad a través de 

operaciones de paz de las Naciones Unidas.6

Las dimensiones espacial y relacional son las que proveen los elementos contextuales fundamentales para el análisis, siendo la hegemonía de Estados Unidos 

un dato estructural de inocultable relevancia para comprender la evolución del 

SID. En el entendimiento de que las características de estas dos dimensiones han 

sido extensamente trabajadas en el ámbito académico,7 el desarrollo de este artículo se centrará en las otras dos dimensiones: la temporal, que da cuenta del extenso proceso de creación institucional que ha devenido en la actual gobernanza, 

y la funcional, que permitirá poner de relieve cuáles son los organismos que abordan los desafíos a la seguridad y la defensa en los diferentes niveles, cómo puede 

ser calificado el desempeño de éstos y de qué manera se presenta su coexistencia 

en términos de cooperación y competencia. 

El solapamiento en la dimensión temporal

El SID reúne las respuestas institucionales generadas por tres entornos de seguridad específicos, cada uno de los cuales fue correspondido con un desarrollo 

conceptual sobre el alcance de la seguridad. El primero de ellos tuvo lugar en la 

década del ‘40, cuando se creó la JID (1942), el TIAR (1947) y la OEA (1948), 

dentro del modelo de seguridad colectiva. El segundo momento correspondió a 

los años ‘90, cuando se institucionalizaron diversas herramientas de seguridad 

cooperativa articuladas en torno a la Comisión de Seguridad Hemisférica (CSH, 

1995) y el proceso de Conferencias de Ministros de Defensa de las Américas 

(CMDA, 1994). Se crearon además en esta etapa numerosos organismos destinados a la lucha contra las amenazas transnacionales y mecanismos subregionales 

de seguridad cooperativa, que agregaron la lógica regional a una definición de 
10 Security and Defense Studies Review 

la seguridad que hasta entonces era casi exclusivamente hemisférica. El tercer 

momento de creación institucional tuvo lugar a comienzos de 2000, cuando a 

partir del concepto de seguridad democrática y multidimensional se firmó la Carta 

Democrática Interamericana (CDI, 2001), se instaló la Secretaría de Seguridad 

Multidimensional (SSM, 2005) y se reformó la JID (2006), transformando un 

organismo de seguridad colectiva en un mecanismo de seguridad cooperativa. 

Exceptuando este último caso, de éxito aún incierto, las instituciones creadas 

en cada etapa se sumaron de manera desarticulada a las anteriores, sin reemplazarlas o transformarlas, derivando en la compleja arquitectura actual. La complejidad se ha presentado en dos sentidos: horizontalmente, por la agregación de 

mecanismos nuevos en un mismo nivel; y verticalmente, por la incorporación 

de todas las iniciativas subregionales y regionales que fueran contribuyentes al 

mantenimiento de la paz en el continente.8

 Dicha complejización institucional se 

presenta tanto en materia de resolución y manejo de conflictos como en el plano 

preventivo de la seguridad cooperativa, propio de las últimas décadas.

Si se analizan los cincuenta y seis conflictos y crisis identificados en sus 

70 años de historia (véase Tabla N°2), se desprende que entre 1948 y 1982 los 

instrumentos utilizados por el SID han sido exclusivamente el TIAR y la Carta 

de la OEA, presentándose un solapamiento de mecanismos del mismo nivel, el 

hemisférico, y basados en el mismo concepto de seguridad, la colectiva.9

 Recién a partir de 1983 se evoluciona hacia un planteo menos centrado, con el surgimiento de espacios regionales de seguridad, dándose los primeros pasos hacia 

un esquema multinivel. Exceptuando los mecanismos intervinientes en la crisis 

centroamericana en los ’80, que buscaron diferenciarse de los hemisféricos, una 
Volume 16 / 2014 11

vez iniciada la década del ’90 los organismos regionales que participaron en la 

provisión de seguridad junto con los interamericanos lo hicieron a partir de un 

solapamiento cooperativo, es decir, con un alineamiento de perspectivas entre 

los diferentes niveles. Durante el nuevo milenio, este alineamiento se complejizó crecientemente, deviniendo hacia 2008, año de la creación de UNASUR, en 

un nuevo tipo de interacción multinivel que podríamos denominar solapamiento 

complejo. En esta etapa comienza a hacerse evidente un debilitamiento del rol del 

hemisferio y un fortalecimiento del papel de las regiones en el manejo de crisis, 

un área en la que la coexistencia presenta tanto modalidades complementarias 

como competitivas.

El manejo de conflictos durante la guerra fría: solapamiento en clave 

hemisférica 

En los veintiséis conflictos ocurridos en el hemisferio entre 1948 y 1982, el SID 

respondió con exclusividad a través de sus instrumentos hemisféricos de seguridad colectiva: el TIAR (13 oportunidades) y la Carta de la OEA (13 aplicaciones).10 Ambos instrumentos sirvieron a la lógica de la lucha contra el comunismo 

que caracterizó a la guerra fría, aunque también fueron invocados para conflictos 

de tipo territorial (7 sobre 13 casos totales de esta etapa en el caso del TIAR y 4 

sobre 13 casos totales en el caso de la Carta de la OEA), ocurridos en su mayoría 

en Centroamérica y el Caribe. 

La preferencia por uno u otro instrumento se presentó en términos de su alcance diferenciado, siendo el TIAR el único instrumento que considera la defensa colectiva contra agresiones externas y el único que prevé la posibilidad 

de aplicación de sanciones, contemplando entre sus herramientas el despliegue y 

uso de la fuerza (a consideración de cada estado). Sin embargo, estos cursos de 

acción particulares han funcionado de manera excepcional. El TIAR operó en 11 

oportunidades como un instrumento de seguridad colectiva intra-regional para el 

manejo de conflicto inter-estatales y en sólo 2 casos fue activado como instrumento de defensa común frente a agresiones externas: la crisis de los misiles (1962) y 

el conflicto en el Atlántico Sur (1982). Las sanciones se impusieron en 4 oportunidades: República Dominicana – Venezuela (1960), Cuba (1961-62/1962/1964), y 

el despliegue de fuerzas se ha dado en los casos de Panamá (1959) y Cuba (1962). 

En la mayoría de los casos el uso de la fuerza ha sido canalizado a través de la 

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) vía el Consejo de Seguridad (CS), 

reflejando la reticencia de los países americanos a aplicar la fuerza a través de 

mecanismos regionales. 

En la misma línea, los países latinoamericanos han preferido en general recurrir a la Carta de la OEA para el manejo de conflictos regionales, afianzándose 

su papel desde mediados de la década del ’60. A diferencia del TIAR, que cuenta actualmente con 18 miembros, la Carta de la OEA es un instrumento verdaderamente hemisférico, su enfoque es más amplio y está centrado en la prevención y resolución pacífica de conflictos. Sus aplicaciones han sido mayormente 

de carácter declarativo, reafirmando los principios de solidaridad continental, no 

intervención y defensa del sistema interamericano. 
12 Security and Defense Studies Review 
Volume 16 / 2014 13
14 Security and Defense Studies Review 
Volume 16 / 2014 15

Con sus particularidades, ambos instrumentos concentraron el manejo de los 

conflictos hasta mediados de los años ’80, cuando la OEA empezó a ser vista como 

un organismo en declinación y el TIAR comenzó a recibir cuestionamientos. El 

fracaso de la solidaridad continental en el conflicto del Atlántico Sur en 1982 y 

la emergencia del Grupo Contadora en respuesta a la cuestión centroamericana 

marcaron puntos de inflexión y desde entonces han ganado protagonismo instrumentos e instancias de carácter regional, que fueron minando la exclusividad del 

espacio hemisférico.11

Si bien en los ’80 la creación de instancias regionales buscó explícitamente excluir a Estados Unidos, a partir de los ’90 la coexistencia de espacios hemisféricos y 

regionales de seguridad presentó una complementariedad tácita, aunque con matices.

Del solapamiento cooperativo al complejo 

Alineados por la idea de la seguridad cooperativa, los años ’90 vieron florecer una 

multiplicidad de mecanismos complementarios, que buscaron desescalar los conflictos vecinales y afianzar el paradigma democrático. Los esfuerzos de confianza 

mutua lograron desarmar tensiones interestatales, por lo cual los instrumentos 

hemisféricos centraron su participación en la gestión de crisis de gobernabilidad 

democrática, a través de la aplicación de la Resolución 1080. Instrumentos como 

el TIAR y la Carta de la OEA prácticamente no fueron invocados en este período, 

con la excepción de la reacción ante los atentados terroristas del 11-S de 2001 

en Estados Unidos, situación frente a la cual los países del hemisferio acordaron 

por unanimidad activar el TIAR como mecanismo de solidaridad continental. La 

fecha coincidió con la institucionalización del paradigma democrático a partir de 

la adopción de la CDI, tal vez el último consenso de envergadura alcanzado en el 

nivel interamericano.12

Desde entonces, las regiones fueron poco a poco fortaleciendo sus mecanismos para el manejo de los conflictos, de acuerdo a dinámicas y criterios propios, 

tendiendo en algunos casos a fragmentar el espacio hemisférico en lugar de alinearlo. En este sentido, la conformación de UNASUR en el año 2008 marcó una 

instancia clave, otorgando mayor complejidad al escenario de gobernanza hemisférica y abriendo un período de solapamiento menos armónico, cuyos contrastes 

han quedado expuestos en los últimos años. 

En las siete crisis y conflictos que involucraron a países suramericanos, la 

organización regional intervino de manera paralela a la OEA, logrando afianzar 

un modus operandi propio. La informalidad de las instancias de diálogo y consulta establecidas entre los países de la UNASUR ha sido preferida en general 

por los países en conflicto, a excepción de Colombia, que siempre priorizó la vía 

hemisférica. 

La flexibilidad institucional de la UNASUR y su diplomacia de presidentes 

han resultado importantes ventajas para el organismo regional, contrastando con 

el formalismo de la OEA. En consecuencia, la UNASUR se ha constituido como 

foro relevante para el manejo de conflictos en los casos de la crisis institucional 

de Bolivia en 2008 y en la desarticulación de la escalada entre Venezuela y Colombia en 2009 y 2010. Sus intervenciones coexistieron con los buenos oficios 
16 Security and Defense Studies Review 

de la OEA, organismo que en marzo de 2008 había interactuado también con el 

Grupo de Río, protagonista de la descompresión del conflicto entre Colombia y 

Ecuador. En el caso de las crisis democráticas (Honduras, Ecuador y Paraguay), la 

UNASUR también ha actuado en forma paralela a los mecanismos OEA desarrollando instrumentos propios como el Protocolo Adicional sobre compromiso con 

la democracia (2010). Aún sosteniendo puntos de vista diferentes (principalmente 

en la crisis de Paraguay del 2012 y en la actual coyuntura venezolana), ambos 

niveles han manejado las transiciones de manera simultánea, consiguiendo hasta 

el momento limitar la violencia. La UNASUR se ha mostrado como un organismo 

más proactivo que las instituciones hemisféricas en la provisión de estabilidad 

pero no deja de ser una iniciativa reciente cuya institucionalización está aún en 

proceso y debe consolidarse. Hasta el momento, la coexistencia de mecanismos 

con perfil diferenciado ofrece canales institucionales alternativos a las partes en 

conflicto y ha contribuido en varias ocasiones a la superación pacífica de las crisis. 

Pero las últimas participaciones tienden a reforzar una tendencia a la polarización, 

alejándose de la complementariedad inicial.

En materia de defensa común frente a agresiones externas, en cambio, no 

puede hablarse de un solapamiento, ya que los únicos mecanismos vigentes, 

aunque en franco desuso, son los hemisféricos.

El solapamiento en la agenda cooperativa

En materia de cooperación y prevención de conflictos, el solapamiento de mecanismos y prácticas también parece haber transitado de la complementariedad a 

la complejidad, situación en la que coexisten tensiones y convergencias. Si bien 

conceptualmente todos los esfuerzos en materia de cooperación suman, se vienen 

presentando en los últimos años iniciativas puntuales que han despertado recelos entre los niveles hemisférico y regional, fundamentalmente en el escenario 

suramericano. El organismo más activo del espacio interamericano en materia de 

seguridad cooperativa es la JID reformada, mientras que en la UNASUR la cooperación se profundiza alrededor del Consejo de Defensa Suramericano (CDS, 2008).

Comenzando por el nivel continental, es oportuno recordar que la JID es la 

institución de la defensa hemisférica más antigua (1942). Nació como un organismo autónomo de planificación para la defensa colectiva de las Américas y luego de más de 60 años viró hacia un esquema de seguridad cooperativa, cuando 

fue incorporada como una entidad de la OEA con funciones de asesoramiento 

técnico, consultivo y educativo en asuntos militares y de defensa.13

Aunque es prácticamente la única institución hemisférica que ha sido formalmente reformada, la percepción sobre su desempeño actual es dispar entre sus 

estados miembros. Si bien se reconoce que la JID realiza las actividades que le 

son asignadas, tanto por el Estatuto como por la Asamblea General de la OEA,14

estas funciones parecen no ser esenciales para la defensa interamericana o bien se 

superponen con funciones realizadas por otros organismos internacionales, interamericanos o regionales.15 Tal es el caso de las tareas de inventario de las medidas 

de fomento de la confianza (que también desarrolla la CSH), el desminado (conducido por el Programa de Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonal, AICMA de 
Volume 16 / 2014 17

la OEA), la cooperación ante desastres (solapamiento con el nivel regional y otros 

organismos hemisféricos, como el Comité Interamericano para la Reducción de 

Desastres Naturales, CIRDN), las actividades de formación (superposición entre el Colegio Interamericano y la Escuela Suramericana de Defensa (ESUDE), 

además de otras iniciativas ya en curso), entre otras.

En vista de esta situación, en el seno de la OEA y de la JID surgió la necesidad de reflexionar sobre la alternativa de trabajar en su fortalecimiento o apuntar 

a una revisión integral del sistema, articulándose la discusión sobre una serie de 

ejes puntuales. En primer lugar, se ha planteado la necesidad de afianzar la conducción civil de la institución, reforzando el compromiso de las carteras de defensa para asegurar la dirección política y recortar posibles espacios de autonomía 

militar. La naturaleza técnico militar que presenta hoy la organización hace que 

el cumplimiento de algunas funciones relacionadas con las políticas de defensa 

no se ajuste a los parámetros de conducción política prevista por el Estatuto. En 

segundo orden, surgen como preocupación las nuevas funciones que la JID promueve para sí misma, buscando expandirse hacia nuevos temas y nuevos roles. 

Hacia nuevos temas, debido al interés de algunos países por incorporar cuestiones de seguridad multidimensional, en consonancia con el involucramiento de 

las Fuerzas Armadas en asuntos de seguridad pública que se está dando en varios 

estados. Y hacia nuevos roles, manifestado en el interés de la JID de ir más allá 

de las funciones de asesoramiento que le son propias, propiciando tareas de coordinación. Las mismas se vinculan con su designación como secretaría técnica 

permanente de la CMDA, que implicaría asumir responsabilidades en la implementación de las decisiones de dicho foro, así como en la agenda de asistencia 

ante desastres, en el cual la JID impulsa para sí un rol coordinador. 

Frente a estos desafíos, han surgido importantes divergencias entre los países 

que procuran la consolidación de la JID y aquellos estados que cuestionan fuertemente su rol. Argentina, que ha planteado ante la CSH su visión crítica, sólo está 

dispuesta a aceptar una JID con una agenda acotada a la defensa y un alcance 

funcional de asesoramiento. De hecho, se encuentra entre los países que rechazan 

las tareas de coordinación, de naturaleza más operativa, como en el caso de asistencia ante desastres. Por otra parte, países como Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador y 

Venezuela han optado directamente por retirar a sus delegados de la institución.16

Estas divisiones también han quedado expuestas al interior de las recientes 

CMDA, la principal instancia de encuentro del sector político de la defensa en 

América. Al analizar la evolución del proceso de CMDA, que ha llegado ya a diez 

reuniones, se evidencia que se trata de un espacio en el que las posiciones de los 

estados han dejado de alinearse. Se presentan, en este sentido, dos dinámicas más 

o menos claras: por un lado, se percibe que las temáticas netamente hemisféricas 

van dejando lugar a una lógica más concentrada en las regiones, que las declaraciones denominan “las tres Américas”; por otro lado, se aprecia una agenda cada 

vez más colmada de temas, que se corresponde con la amplitud de la seguridad 

multidimensional y que da como resultado declaraciones finales menos precisas y 

relevantes a la hora de valorar sus aportes al SID. Cuando en 2012 se buscó llevar 

el eje de discusión a iniciativas más concretas, los consensos generales se perd-
18 Security and Defense Studies Review 

ieron y fue necesario recurrir a un sistema de votación, que marcó las fracturas 

entre los países del hemisferio. 

Contrastando con esta tensión a nivel hemisférico, en el espacio regional las 

actividades del CDS de la UNASUR evolucionan con un importante nivel de 

consenso. Se trata de un foro de discusión específico de la defensa en la región 

y ha sido definido, dentro del paradigma de la seguridad cooperativa, como una 

“instancia de consulta, cooperación y coordinación”, que busca consolidar una 

zona de paz, construir una identidad suramericana en defensa y fortalecer la cooperación regional en la materia.17

Los niveles de cooperación en el espacio suramericano son más profundos e 

intensos que en el nivel hemisférico y esto se debe no sólo a la limitada cantidad 

de miembros (12 en contra de los 35 que componen el continente), sino también 

a la proximidad geográfica de los países, la afinidad cultural y la cercanía en términos identitarios que existe entre ellos. Aunque es necesario señalar que el CDS 

sólo avanza sobre los temas en los cuales existe acuerdo, presentándose divergencias significativas en aspectos que pueden vincularse a la inserción internacional.

Nos encontramos entonces con dos niveles claramente diferenciados que se 

solapan funcionalmente, presentando tendencias discordantes. En algunas funciones existe un mayor potencial de articulación entre niveles por tratarse de 

temáticas positivas; en otras, el potencial competitivo es manifiesto, ya que son 

visualizadas como ejes de la construcción de un espacio identitario regional desde 

el cual avanzar en oposición al interamericano. Es en este punto donde pensar en 

una gobernanza mejor articulada que refleje el papel protagónico de las regiones 

cobra sentido. 

Una de las áreas fácilmente armonizables es el campo de las medidas de 

confianza mutua. El nivel hemisférico -mediante la JID, la CSH y la CMDAjuega un rol relevante como modelador y articulador, generando criterios para la 

estandarización, sistematizando información y difundiendo acuerdos alcanzados, 

mientras a nivel regional es posible avanzar en medidas más profundas en base 

a la vecindad y los desafíos compartidos. Así, en el espacio interamericano se 

alcanzan medidas de primera generación, no vinculantes, cuando en la UNASUR 

se ha avanzado en medidas de segunda o tercera generación, como la Declaración de Guayaquil (2010), el Registro Suramericano de Gastos, el mecanismo de 

transparencia del inventario militar y los ejercicios combinados a la carta para 

operaciones de mantenimiento de la paz. 

En materia de proyección de estabilidad a través de operaciones de paz también es posible una articulación, ya que es un tema en el que UNASUR tiene 

experiencia acumulada y donde el nivel hemisférico tiene una participación muy 

limitada. UNASUR podría liderar su tratamiento en la agenda interamericana, en 

coordinación con otros países americanos con trayectoria en la materia. 

Los otros tres temas analizados en este artículo: formación en defensa, pensamiento estratégico y cooperación ante desastres, aparecen en cambio con una 

agenda compleja. A pesar de no ser naturalmente excluyentes, se trata de áreas en 

las que se han planteado cuestiones identitarias y operativas que complejizan la 

armonización.
Volume 16 / 2014 19

En el eje de formación en defensa, el Colegio Interamericano Defensa (CID), 

parte orgánica de la JID, presenta una clara dependencia de Estados Unidos en 

términos de su ubicación18 y de sus aspectos operativos y logísticos, aunque es en 

general valorado positivamente por sus egresados. Muchos países de la UNASUR 

entienden que los mecanismos desarrollados por el CDS, como el Programa de 

Formación de Civiles en Defensa, el Curso Avanzado de Defensa y la recientemente creada Escuela Suramericana de Defensa (2013) reemplazan a los espacios 

interamericanos, mientras otros países los consideran complementarios. 

De manera similar, UNASUR ha desarrollado el Centro de Estudios Estratégicos para la Defensa (CEED)19 como un espacio estratégico regional que apunta 

a crear un pensamiento propio, diferente del construido desde ámbitos interamericanos como la JID. 

Finalmente, un área en la que el solapamiento ha devenido en importantes 

tensiones es la de asistencia humanitaria en casos de desastres. En el nivel hemisférico la JID ha trabajado el tema como parte central de su agenda, resultando de 

gran interés para legitimar su labor en el sistema. Algunas de las actividades que 

propone avanzan incluso en cuestiones operativas, apuntándose a un rol coordinador que excedería el alcance de su Estatuto. Como se puso de manifiesto en la 

CMDA de Punta del Este (2012), no todos los países están de acuerdo con las 

iniciativas del nivel interamericano, que incluyen la creación de una plataforma 

de coordinación continental. Varios países suramericanos manifestaron sus preferencias por avanzar en UNASUR, donde se está trabajando en un Protocolo de 

Cooperación entre los Ministerios de Defensa que aborde de manera permanente 

e integral la asistencia ante desastres a nivel regional.

En síntesis, un campo como el cooperativo, en el cual el potencial de complementariedad es muy alto y las iniciativas tienden a sumar, ha sido escenario 

de las tendencias múltiples que se están esbozando en los distintos niveles. Esta 

agenda ha expuesto además una creciente dispersión de las preferencias dentro 

del espacio suramericano, reflejadas en un relacionamiento diferenciado de los 

estados con la UNASUR y con el hemisferio. En palabras de S. Borda, “esta es 

una de las mayores tensiones que se presentan entre los gobiernos del área: mientras algunos ven la UNASUR como uno de los múltiples tableros en donde jugar, 

otros simplemente la ven como el foro por excelencia donde se tramitarán las 

diferencias regionales y cuya consolidación, en parte, puede contribuir al deceso 

final de la OEA”.20

Aportes para un posible rediseño del SID

La permanente agregación de instrumentos y componentes a lo largo de 70 años 

ha devenido en un SID poco armónico, redundante y atravesado por relaciones de 

cooperación y competencia entre niveles e instituciones. Estas relaciones evolucionan permanentemente y transforman la manera en la que se provee la seguridad en el hemisferio, reinstalando cíclicamente debates sobre su diseño. Resulta 

evidente que el solapamiento de los ’90 no ha tenido el mismo efecto sobre la 

seguridad regional que el solapamiento más reciente, marcado por el protagonismo de UNASUR. La idea de arquitectura flexible que sirvió para caracterizar 
20 Security and Defense Studies Review 

el relacionamiento desestructurado de entonces parece ser hoy en día un abordaje 

insuficiente. 

Sin embargo, aún no se configura una alternativa clara. La UNASUR, que 

ha instalado la preferencia por la provisión de defensa y seguridad en el nivel 

regional, es una organización muy joven, está poco institucionalizada y presenta 

algunas tensiones intra-grupo. Los espacios hemisféricos, por su parte, muestran 

una declinación relativa y están limitados por la heterogeneidad y asimetría de sus 

miembros, aunque todavía pueden hacer valer su extensa trayectoria, su amplia 

representatividad y su compleja institucionalidad. 

Frente a este contexto, ¿es posible pensar un diseño del SID que considere las 

necesidades de la defensa hemisférica y la lógica regional de manera más articulada? 
Volume 16 / 2014 21

Las alternativas que están hoy sobre la mesa se enuncian en base a dos preferencias opuestas. Por un lado, algunos países entienden que no es necesaria una 

reforma y que la mejor opción es dejar que ambos niveles coexistan sobre esta 

base ad hoc, ofreciendo un menú de opciones institucionales para escoger caso 

por caso. Otros, en cambio, entienden que la reforma no es posible por los condicionamientos estructurales del SID, en particular la hegemonía de Estados Unidos, y por lo tanto es necesario trabajar para que el espacio suramericano sustituya 

al hemisférico como proveedor de seguridad. Argumentamos que es posible avanzar sobre una tercera alternativa, basada en un diseño que permita la coexistencia 

ordenada de ambos niveles. En el nuevo esquema, las regiones jugarán un papel 

central, con responsabilidades funcionales primarias sobre los temas de seguridad 

y defensa, siendo el espacio interamericano el articulador de regiones, el potenciador y nivelador de capacidades, y el respondedor de último recurso frente a 

amenazas de gran envergadura.

El concepto rector de esta propuesta es la idea de subsidiariedad, que supone 

que los problemas de defensa y seguridad deben ser inicialmente abordados por la 

autoridad más próxima al asunto en cuestión, sin excluir a los niveles más amplios, 

como el hemisférico e incluso el internacional. La alternativa de reforma del SID 

a partir de la subsidiariedad se estructura sobre dos lineamientos centrales. Por un 

lado, el hemisferio es concebido como el espacio de reunión y coordinación de las 

al menos cuatro regiones que lo componen (Suramérica, Centroamérica, Caribe y 

Norteamérica), que tendrán una representación regional en el SID, además de las 

representaciones nacionales. Por otro lado, la región tendrá prioridad en el manejo 

de las cuestiones de seguridad y defensa, siendo el hemisferio un ámbito de participación posterior, tanto en el manejo de conflictos y crisis como en el abordaje 

de las funciones de seguridad cooperativa.

En el manejo de los conflictos interestatales y en las crisis de gobernabilidad 

democrática del propio espacio, el nivel regional tendrá la responsabilidad primaria, mientras el nivel hemisférico intervendría a posteriori si el intento regional 

no prosperara. Para el caso de las crisis institucionales, UNASUR ya ha diseñado 

un instrumento (el Protocolo Adicional) y se encuentra en elaboración un protocolo suramericano de paz y seguridad para disputas entre estados, aún no concretado. En relación a la defensa contra agresiones extra-continentales, las regiones 

conciben una disuasión de hecho basada en la cooperación pero no disponen de 

instrumentos específicos, por lo cual podría mantenerse la opción de no innovar.

La prioridad regional sería una norma consensuada a través de la práctica 

y que no demandaría reformas en los instrumentos hemisféricos, aunque sí la 

institucionalización de algunas funciones en el nivel regional que aún no están 

convalidadas. 

En materia de seguridad cooperativa, la propuesta de subsidiariedad se articula a través de la representación regional en las instituciones hemisféricas 

(CMDA, JID, CID) y por la asignación de diferentes niveles de involucramiento 

en el manejo de los temas de agenda (medidas de fomento de la confianza y la 

seguridad, cooperación ante desastres naturales, formación, pensamiento estratégico y operaciones de paz). 
22 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Se incorporarían en los diferentes espacios de la defensa interamericana representantes regionales (UNASUR, SICA, CARICOM, ASPAN, por ejemplo), 

cuya tarea sería promover la agenda de la región respectiva en el marco hemisférico, facilitar los consensos y articular las actividades de los organismos regionales entre sí y con el interamericano. Cada región podría definir temas de interés 

especial y delimitar cuáles son, según su perspectiva, las tareas de seguridad multidimensional que, no estando asociadas a la defensa, por su excepcionalidad y 

escala requieren la aplicación del instrumento militar. Esta reforma demandaría 

la transformación de la JID en un organismo de naturaleza política, donde los 

delegados nacionales representen a los ministerios de defensa u organismos similares, y cuyo alcance comprenda a todos los países del hemisferio. 

Si consideramos la subsidiariedad según el criterio de áreas temáticas, tomando a la región como primer respondedor y el hemisferio como articulador, 

vemos que el potencial de concretar la propuesta es alto, ya que se trata de iniciativas en las que la profundidad de los compromisos tiene relación directa con la 

interdependencia de enfoques de seguridad, amenazas compartidas y cantidad de 

jugadores. En el campo de las medidas de confianza, la subsidiariedad permitiría 

ordenar las tareas a desarrollar en los niveles regional y hemisférico. En la proyección de estabilidad a través de operaciones de paz, la experiencia acumulada por 

los países de la UNASUR podría sumarse a la más reciente participación de países 

centroamericanos y de Canadá para convertir al espacio hemisférico en un ámbito 

de intercambio de lecciones aprendidas. 

En otros temas de seguridad cooperativa, en cambio, transformar el solapamiento en un complejo institucional subsidiario se presenta más dificultoso. Si 

bien se trata de áreas no excluyentes, las mismas han sido visualizadas como ámbitos de construcción de la identidad regional, dando lugar a agendas divergentes 

(formación, pensamiento estratégico, cooperación ante desastres). 

Aunque avanzar en esta propuesta demandará repensar la defensa continental 

desde una nueva perspectiva, el tratamiento subsidiario de los temas y las representaciones regionales aportarían un mayor dinamismo al espacio hemisférico, 

que se haría eco de las diversas preocupaciones regionales, potenciando los organismos que están en mayor capacidad de atender los problemas y limitando las 

superposiciones y planteos competitivos.

Para ello es necesario trabajar en un fuerte consenso entre los países del continente y dentro de los organismos regionales. Su implementación no es compleja 

pero la obtención de apoyo puede dificultarse por la fragilidad de los compromisos en las diferentes regiones. En este caso hemos abordado la propuesta desde 

el caso testigo de la UNASUR, pero para implementar una reforma como la presentada es necesario que todos los mecanismos regionales se consoliden y puedan 

convertirse en respondedores primarios confiables, institucionalmente afianzados, 

capaces de actuar con una voz en el espacio hemisférico y de llevar adelante los 

requerimientos de defensa y seguridad que se presenten. 

Conclusión

La idea central de este artículo ha sido identificar, a partir de un diagnóstico com-
Volume 16 / 2014 23

prensivo del SID, los principales problemas que afectan a la provisión de seguridad en las Américas en base a un enfoque funcional. Éste nos ha permitido 

caracterizarlo como una gobernanza compleja y con múltiples solapamientos, que 

ha perdido los niveles mínimos de consenso que supo tener años atrás y se ha convertido en una oferta dispersa de soluciones institucionales que reaccionan frente 

a las crisis y compiten por dominar temas de agenda. 

Hasta el momento, esta oferta institucional parece haber resultado suficiente 

cuando el objetivo ha sido mantener la estabilidad. Pero si la aspiración colectiva es avanzar hacia comunidades de seguridad regionales insertas en un espacio hemisférico de paz y cooperación, será necesario abordar una reforma audaz 

como la propuesta, que se centre en cómo impulsar los intereses compartidos de 

los diferentes estados del hemisferio y no en posiciones excluyentes. 

La idea de subsidiariedad aparece como una alternativa válida para repensar 

el SID desde una perspectiva proactiva, ya que permitirá evitar el estancamiento 

que supone el status quo, así como la fractura que implica la salida de países 

americanos de las instituciones hemisféricas. La reforma se presenta de esta 

manera como un camino posible para construir la defensa como un bien público 

regional sin dañar la provisión de este bien a escala hemisférica.

Notas

1. El presente artículo se basa en los resultados de un proyecto de investigación más amplio, llevado a cabo por la Sede Naval del Centro de Estudios Estratégicos para la Defensa 

“Manuel Belgrano” del Ministerio de Defensa de Argentina, entre los años 2011 y 2013, 

dirigido por el Dr. Federico Merke. Los análisis y contenidos vertidos en este artículo no 

representan la opinión de ninguna institución oficial del estado argentino y son de exclusiva responsabilidad de sus autores.

2. Daniel Flemes y Michael Radseck, “Creating Multilevel Security Governance in South 

America”, GIGA Working Papers, N° 117 (diciembre 2009):7. http://www.giga-hamburg.

de/en/system/files/publications/wp117_flemes_radseck.pdf 

3. Ibid: 7.

4. Emanuel Adler y Patricia Greve, “When security community meets balance of power: 

overlapping regional mechanisms of security governance”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 35, Supplement S1 (febrero 2009): 59-84. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di

splayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5078576

5. Ibid: 59-84. Estas dimensiones han sido redefinidas y reordenadas según las características del escenario hemisférico.

6. La lucha contra las amenazas transnacionales no fue incluida en este análisis ya que, si 

bien se evidencia un creciente involucramiento del instrumento militar, se trataría de un 

espacio propio de la seguridad pública y no de la defensa nacional, concebida en términos 

interestatales.

7. Pía Riggirozzi y Diana Tussie, The Rise of Post-Hegemonic Regionalism in Latin America, Dordrecht: Springer (2012); Andrés Malamud, “Overlapping Regionalism, No Integration: Conceptual Issues and the Latin American Experiences”, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 

2013/20 (2013) http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/26336/RSCAS_2013_20.

pdf?sequence=1; Jorge Dominguez, “International Cooperation in Latin America: The Design of Regional Institutions by Slow Accretion”, en Crafting Cooperation. Regional In-
24 Security and Defense Studies Review 

ternational Institutions in Comparative Perspective, eds. Amitav Acharya and Alastair Iain 

Johnston, 83-128 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Javier Corrales y Richard E. Feinberg, “Regimes of Cooperation in the Western Hemisphere: Power, Interests, 

and Intellectual Traditions”, International Studies Quarterly, N° 1, Vol. 43 (marzo 1999): 

1-36 http://maihold.org/mediapool/113/1132142/data/Corales-Feinberg.pdf; Federico 

Merke, “Sudamérica y la Agenda de Seguridad Hemisférica: El Desafío de las Asimetrías”, 

Pensamiento Propio, año 14, N°29 (enero 2009):245-258 http://www.cries.org/documentos_cries_old/29.pdf; Mónica Herz, “Does the Organization of American States Matter?” 

Institute of International Relations PUC-Rio Working Paper 34 (april 2008):1-35. http://

mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/57413/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/

df9c52a2-2dc9-4ca6-9a4e-05fa2a399a31/en/WP34.2.pdf. José Antonio Sanahuja, “Regionalismo post-liberal y multilateralismo en Sudamérica: El caso de UNASUR”, Anuario 

de la Integración Regional de América Latina y el Gran Caribe 2012: El regionalismo “post–

liberal” en América Latina y el Caribe: Nuevos actores, nuevos temas, nuevos desafíos, N°9 

(2012):19-71 http://www.cries.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/anuario2012.pdf.

8. Entre los principales instrumentos y componentes regionales del SID se destacan: en el 

Caribe, la Comunidad del Caribe (CARICOM) y el Sistema de Seguridad Regional (SSR); 

en Centroamérica, el Sistema de Integración Centroamericano (SICA), el Tratado Marco 

de Seguridad Democrática (TMSD) y la Conferencia de las Fuerzas Armadas Centroamericanas (CFAC); en América del Norte, el North American Aerospace Defense Command 

(NORAD) y la Alianza para la Prosperidad y la Seguridad de América del Norte (ASPAN); 

en Suramérica, el Consejo de Defensa Suramericano (CDS) y el Protocolo Adicional al 

Tratado Constitutivo sobre compromiso con la Democracia (PA), pertenecientes a la Unión 

de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR).

9. Actualmente 35 estados suscribieron la Carta fundacional de la OEA, mientras que sólo 

18 son parte del TIAR (México, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela y Ecuador han denunciado 

el tratado).

10. Dada la dispersión e inexactitud existente en la bibliografía especializada y las fuentes 

de la misma OEA en cuanto a las oportunidades en las que se utilizó el TIAR y la Carta de 

la OEA, se ha recurrido a fuentes primarias y corroborado caso por caso a fin de obtener un 

análisis preciso de sus aplicaciones. Se han tomado como referencia los documentos originales de la OEA correspondientes a las Actas de las Reuniones de Consulta de Ministros de 

Relaciones Exteriores, Actas del Consejo Permanente de la OEA, Notas y Declaraciones 

en relación a los conflictos en particular.

11. Los principales conflictos regionales fueron abordados por otros foros e instrumentos, 

como el Grupo de Contadora y el Grupo de Apoyo a Contadora, la Comunidad del Caribe 

(CARICOM), el Sistema de Integración Centroamericano (SICA), la Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración (ALADI), la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones (CSN), 

entre otros. De estos mecanismos, emergería hacia 1990 el Grupo de Río, una instancia 

de consulta permanente y concertación política que coaligó a países de América del Sur, 

Caribe y Centroamérica.

12. La CDI ha actuado en 9 oportunidades consolidándose como un instrumento de gestión 

de crisis institucionales, evitando la escalada de violencia al interior de los estados. De éstos, en 7 oportunidades ha actuado de manera preventiva y en 2 reactiva, ante una ruptura 

del orden democrático, siendo Honduras la aplicación de la CDI más resonante y debatida.

13. El Estatuto de marzo 2006 formaliza la relación institucional entre la JID y la OEA, 

le otorga autonomía técnica para el cumplimiento de sus funciones, asegura la supervisión 

civil y la conformación democrática de sus autoridades (anteriormente la presidencia y 

la secretaría eran retenidas por Estados Unidos, como país sede), otorga la posibilidad de 
Volume 16 / 2014 25

que los delegados sean tanto civiles como militares y aclara que la JID no tendrá un papel 

operativo ni podrá realizar actividades de planeamiento.

14. El Estatuto le asigna doce funciones y la Asamblea General de la OEA establece mediante sus mandatos entre cuatro y seis funciones por año. 

15. Para realizar el análisis este equipo de trabajo ha cotejado las funciones establecidas 

en el Estatuto de la JID y la Asamblea General de la OEA, con las Actas de Reunión del 

Consejo de Delegados, los Informes Anuales y otros documentos oficiales, en particular 

desde su reforma en 2006.

16. Actualmente, de los 27 estados miembros que hasta 2012 integraban el Consejo de 

Delegados de la JID, mantienen su membresía 23, y efectivamente envían delegados y 

participan de las reuniones 16 países.

17. Estatuto del Consejo de Defensa Suramericano de la UNASUR, 11 de diciembre de 

2008, Santiago de Chile, Chile. 

18. El CID se encuentra ubicado en instalaciones militares pertenecientes al gobierno estadounidense (Fort McNair).

19. Es válido destacar que el CEED es hasta hoy la única institución de la UNASUR con 

representantes permanentes. Tiene a cargo iniciativas como el Registro de Gastos, el Formulario Suramericano de Inventarios Militares, las políticas de inclusión de las mujeres a 

las fuerzas, entre otras.

20. Sandra Borda, “Desafíos y Oportunidades de UNASUR”, Documentos CRIES 18, 

(abril 2012): 1-33. http://www.cries.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DOC18-web.pdf.
26 Security and Defense Studies Review 

The Inter-American Strategy to Combat 

Threats to Cybersecurity:

Consequences and Challenges

Lucas Fonseca and Tiago Delgado

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the Inter-American 

Strategy to Combat Threats to Cybersecurity, highlighting the 

roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders, including 

governments, international organizations, the private sector, 

and civil society. The article emphasizes the recent success 

achieved by this international arrangement by observing the 

increase in the number of national Computer and Security 

Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) in America, as well as the 

intent to create a regional cybersecurity culture in partnership 

with the private sector and civil society and the cooperation 

between law agencies throughout the continent.

The OAS and its specialized bodies play a vital 

role in this regional initiative. For this reason, in the InterAmerican Cybersecurity Strategy, the adoption of a three-pillar 

organization reflects the duties of CICTE, CITEL, and REMJA. 

It also firmly expresses the need for the actions of these bodies 

to be strongly and constantly articulated in order to achieve a 

comprehensive approach to cyber stability.

Finally, this article points out the major challenges 

faced by the OAS and its member states regarding threats 

to cybersecurity in the 21st century. This includes possible 

legislative measures and the enhancement of international 

cooperation, both in a regional and a global scale. 

Cybercrime in the Americas: A Brief Overview

The dissemination and use of information and communication technologies, as 

well as existing and potential threats in the information security realm, pose challenges to policy makers worldwide. There is increasing concern over how individuals and groups, including criminal organizations, may use cyberspace to take 

part in disruptive and illegal online activities.

As a result of the growth in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) market, dependence on ICT infrastructure rose, and, consequently, “the 
Volume 16 / 2014 27

breadth of information that follows ICT development is a beacon for cybercriminals with malicious intent, ranging from crippling critical infrastructure to stealing sensitive data.”1

Although considerable progress has been achieved in the field of cybersecurity, there is still much to be done; the development of norms, laws, and ways of 

cooperation have only recently begun. The inherently dual-use aspect of ICTs, the 

open use of the Internet, the competing interests among stakeholders, and national 

differences regarding threat perception are usually seen as obstacles when trying 

to address cybersecurity issues.2 The Convention of Europe (2004), the only binding international instrument in this field, can be cited as an important step toward 

the regulation of cybercrime. Many countries object to the Eurocentric nature of 

the Convention’s drafting and content, however, and there is no similar mechanism in the Americas that could be adapted to regional necessities and particularities. Notwithstanding, such a regulation should be developed in order to help 

create a common understanding of cybercrime, strengthen regional and global 

cooperation, and guide the development of national legislations.

Due to global interconnectivity, which makes it impossible for a State to 

single-handedly improve cybersecurity, broad international cooperation between 

governments, the private sector, and civil society is key for an effective regulation of cyberspace and for preventing and fighting cybercrime. Sharing the best 

policies, exchanging information, and building capacity in developing countries 

are also essential. In the Americas, the OAS ought to be the primary regional intergovernmental organization responsible for this.

It is important to highlight, furthermore, that the OAS plays an active role 

in strengthening cyber security throughout the continent, being responsible, for 

example, for promoting cyber security policy initiatives, regional cooperation, 

harmonization of domestic legislations, and law enforcement against cybercrime 

in the Americas.3

Changing perspectives, the growth rate of Internet users in the Americas, especially in Latin America, is notably one of the highest in the world. This clearly 

highlights the necessity to foster the creation of a culture of cybersecurity and to 

discourage the misuse of Internet and information systems, as well as to develop 

information networks that are trusted and reliable.4 In addition to this, the creation of a culture of cybersecurity demands an active participation of the private 

sector, non-governmental organizations, and civil society, as they can strongly 

contribute to promoting awareness of this subject and strengthening security in 

cyberspace, especially in developing countries. According to The Blue Book: 

Telecommunication Policies for the Americas:

It must be borne in mind that each state’s responsibility for designing sector policies, following up their evolution, and playing a guiding part in promoting economic growth with equity 

unquestionably includes taking account of the role of the private 

sector, private and public investment in research and development, regulation, new technologies and network security, trade 

in telecommunications equipment and services, and strategies 
28 Security and Defense Studies Review 

at the regional and world level for the development and use of 

information and communication technologies.5

Unfortunately, one of the tendencies detected in the last few years is the increasing number of cyber incidents in the Americas and the fact that organized 

crime has frequently used the Internet to commit cybercrimes, including money 

laundering and breaching of financial systems. According to the OAS Trend Micro report “Tendencias en la Seguridad cibernética en América Latina y el Caribe 

y respuestas de los gobiernos,”6

 the economic losses due to hacking cannot be 

precisely defined; however, they most likely surpass the losses caused by any 

other type of crime, including drug trafficking. Additionally, according to Symantec Intelligence Report (2013)7

, 5 OAS countries feature in a top 10 list of sources 

of spam.

8

The use of the cyberspace by criminal groups is a serious issue in the Americas, as “the regional narco-economy and associated gangs use online platforms 

to organize and advertise their activities, recruit members, intimidate authorities 

and citizens, extort money and hire contract killers,”9 as well as to launder money through the purchase of online services and cash transfers. Besides advanced 

credit card fraud and identity theft, “narco cartels and drug dealers, gang members, human traffickers and others harness the power of the web to organize operations, intimidate competitors and others, seek recruits, flaunt state controls, extort 

money and sell their wares.”10 It is, therefore, no surprise that the governments 

in the Americas are seriously concerned about cybercrime and how to address it.

The growth of cybercrime in the Americas, and also worldwide, can be explained not only as a consequence of the exponential growth in Internet users, 

but also because the origin of a disruption and the identity of the perpetrator can 

be difficult to ascertain and Information and Communication Technologies are 

ubiquitous and widely available, which enables almost any civilian to launch a 

malicious cyber operation. Considering that the cyberspace has no borders, users 

can access and disseminate information, as well as commit cybercrimes, from 

almost anywhere.

Therefore, cooperation among States is crucial, with the aim to address security risks, respond quickly to cyber incidents, and promote law enforcement. 

Governments, the private sector, and civil society must work together to coordinate national efforts, legal approaches, and international responses to future cyber 

threats. The development of an Inter-American Strategy to Combat Threats to Cybersecurity constitutes one of the most important measures adopted by the OAS 

members to fulfill these needs.

The Inter-American Strategy and the OAS’s role

Regional intergovernmental organizations are generally known to promote international cooperation in a way unlikely to be achieved in global scale. Usually this is because regional approaches involve fewer and like-minded states and that “agreement 

to and implementation of specific measures is easier at the regional level than at the 

global level, especially in regions with highly developed cooperation arrangements.”11
Volume 16 / 2014 29

Having said that, the OAS is “the primary regional intergovernmental organization responsible for promoting cyber security policy initiatives, regional 

cooperation, harmonization of domestic legislation, incident response, and law 

enforcement against cybercrime.”12

During the OAS cybersecurity conference in Buenos Aires in July 2003, the 

OAS General Assembly stressed the need to develop an Inter-American strategy 

to address cybersecurity issues in its resolution AG/RES.1939. The document asserted their decision to “begin work on the development of a draft integral OAS 

cybersecurity strategy that addresses multidimensional and multidisciplinary aspect of cybersecurity.”13

In the same year, the III Meeting of the Group of Governmental Experts on 

Cybercrime published document OEA/Ser.K/XXXIV, which contained a series of 

recommendations in relation to hemispheric efforts to combat cybercrime.

The Group of Governmental Experts first calls attention to the importance of 

having specific units, provided with all necessary human, financial, and technical 

resources, with the responsibility to investigate and prosecute different modalities 

of cybercrime. Relating to this, many countries in the last few years have set up 

Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs).14 These teams of IT security experts have the responsibility of responding to computer incidents, as well 

as of resisting attacks on network systems and limiting damage. These units are 

also expected to provide timely information about the latest threats and assistance 

in response to incidents.15 The benefits of having a CSIRT, though, are not limited 

to this. They can offer centralized coordination of IT issues, specialized handling 

of and response to incidents, expert assistance and support for users to quickly 

recover from security incidents, and the ability to deal with legal issues and preserve evidence, besides keeping up-to-date information in the security field and 

contributing to raising awareness of this issue.

16

The article then discusses issues related to the legal system, investigation and 

prosecution of cybercrimes, and legal frameworks. It reiterates that the States’ 

legal systems must be adequate to combat cybercrimes by criminalizing their 

different modalities and ensuring the collection and preservation of electronic 

evidence. To ensure prevention, investigation, and prosecution of cybercrimes, 

States may have to review or amend their penal codes by updating criminal laws, 

procedures, and policies.17

Eneken Tikk states that “every nation has the responsibility to include the 

most common cyber offences in its substantive criminal law.”18 This measure, 

due to the existing global interconnectivity and the fact that cybercriminals can 

bypass borders with ease, aims predominantly to avoid “cybercrime havens,” and 

to discourage the misuse of Information and Communication Technologies.

Also, the exponential development of tools in the digital world makes it difficult for national legislations to regulate all sorts of new devices specifically.19

So, an adequate level of flexibility is necessary to prevent legislation from being 

prematurely obsolete owing to technological development. This is possible by 

establishing general principles that can be adapted to new circumstances.

20

It should be highlighted that an effective anti-cybercrime effort will also re-
30 Security and Defense Studies Review 

quire the training of prosecutors and judges. This process requires broad international cooperation and the sharing of the best techniques. The lack of adequate 

legislation and cybersecurity policies has brought difficulties to various countries 

trying to stop and prosecute cybercriminals.21

It is very difficult to investigate crimes in cyberspace not only because of 

the anonymity offered by the Internet and its open nature, but also because cybercriminals, aware that they can be backtracked, try to conceal information and 

evidence by using anti-forensics techniques. On the other hand, “anti-forensics is 

rare since most users have little need to hide anything besides passwords, so any 

evidence of it is a clue that a drive is worth inspecting further.”22

The report, finally, calls for broader international cooperation, including between other international organizations, and demonstrates the need for periodic 

meetings of the Group of Governmental Experts, in order to come up with recommendations to identify and describe the various types of cybercrime and to suggest measures to prevent the creation of cybercrime havens.

In 2004, the OAS General Assembly approved resolution AG/RES.2004 -

Adoption of a Comprehensive Inter-American Strategy to Combat Threats to 

Cybersecurity: A Multidimensional and Multidisciplinary Approach to Creating 

a Culture of Cybersecurity. The document urged member states to adopt the InterAmerican Cybersecurity Strategy, described in its Annex A, to establish national 

CSIRTs, to coordinate efforts, and to implement the recommendations of the 

Group of Governmental Experts of REMJA, “as a means of creating a framework 

for enacting laws that protect information systems, prevent the use of computers 

to facilitate illegal activity, and punish cybercrime.”23

This document, produced by the joint efforts of member states, their experts, 

and the technical expertise of CICTE, CITEL, and REMJA Group of Governmental experts, is guiding cybersecurity policy throughout the Americas.24 The 

strategy aims to raise public awareness, create a culture of cybersecurity, identify 

or establish national CSIRTs, and enhance hemispheric cooperation to address cybersecurity issues. The resolution recognizes, furthermore, that the effectiveness 

of a framework for protecting the information systems that constitute the Internet 

depends on raising internet users and operators awareness of security and vulnerabilities, fostering public-private partnerships, and adopting cybercrime policies 

and legislation, as well as identifying, evaluating, and stimulating the adoption of 

technical standards and best practices.

To be effective, a strategy must identify and evaluate potential risks and 

threats, establish cybersecurity-related goals, and define the roles and responsibilities of all participants in networks and information systems, that is, not only 

the governments and international agencies, but also the private sector and civil 

society.

Before discussing these groups, it is important to reinforce that the international organizations have a large spectrum of work, which ranges from establishing or strengthening norms and principles to prevent misuse of new cyber 

technologies, to promoting national prevention of, preparation for, response to, 

and recovery from cyber incidents. It is important to mention that international 
Volume 16 / 2014 31

organizations have the power to bring together the most relevant actors in the cybersecurity domain—governments, the private sector, civil society, and individual 

citizens.25

The Declaration on Security in the Americas was approved during a 2003 

Organization of American States Special Conference on Security in Mexico City. 

It demonstrated the need for a new concept of hemispheric security, which should 

be multidimensional and capable of fighting both traditional and new threats. It 

recognized that these new threats require multifaceted responses by different parties, including the private sector and civil society. Finally, it stressed the OAS’s 

commitment to develop a culture of cybersecurity in the Americas and to develop 

and implement an integral cybersecurity strategy.

Member States

First, it should be emphasized that governments take different approaches toward 

cybersecurity. Some consider cybersecurity a national defense and security topic. 

Others think it has a greater impact on economic development. A third group considers it a key factor for education, social interaction, and governance focused on 

citizens, although most try to take all of these considerations into account in their 

cybersecurity system.26

Although countries are only beginning to develop norms and principles for 

cyberspace governance, the Inter-American Strategy seems to be a great initial 

step, which can guide further amendments and reforms on legal systems. Notwithstanding, working on a Convention similar to the European Convention on 

Cybercrime is an important measure to harmonize national legislations and adapt 

regulations to regional interests and necessities.

Governments also have the duty to establish national CSIRTs and specialized law enforcement agencies, develop a national cybersecurity policy, promote 

capacity-building, and take legal measures to address cybercrimes. According to 

the Blue Book, legal efforts should take under consideration, among other principles, the protection of users, the promotion of infrastructure, research, technological development, the access of all citizens to the information, and the use of 

telecommunications to facilitate the integration of countries and the growth of 

regional markets.27

CICTE

The main purpose of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE) 

is to promote and develop cooperation among States, as well as prevent, combat, 

and eliminate terrorism.28 Regarding cybersecurity, the CICTE supports member 

states in the creation of CSIRTs and promotes a secure hemispheric network of 

National CSIRTs for information sharing and coordination between countries. It 

also fosters a culture of cybersecurity to discourage the misuse of the Internet and 

information systems and promotes the development of information networks that 

are trusted and reliable.

In 2004, CICTE approved the Declaration of Montevideo. In this Declaration, 

it recognized the creation of a National Points of Contact Network to facilitate and 
32 Security and Defense Studies Review 

improve the exchange of information and the sharing of the best techniques on 

hemispheric counterterrorism cooperation. The Network also sought to address 

the need to intensify the exchange of information among competent authorities in 

order to facilitate the rapid and safe flow of information concerning prevention, 

punishment, and the elimination of terrorism. Finally, this international instrument recognized threats to cybersecurity as an emerging terrorist threat, expressing the commitment of member states to identify and fight them.

The main responsibility of the CICTE set by the Inter-American Strategy is 

the creation of an Inter-American Watch and Warning Network to promote the 

rapid flow of information on cybersecurity and to rapidly respond to crises, incidents, and threats to security in cyberspace. Therefore, the CICTE should formulate plans for a CSIRT Inter-American Network, which would work 24/7 to 

offer orientation and technical support in case of a cyber incident. The Watch 

and Warning Groups ought to be indigenous, operated by specialized personnel 

and established on minimum norms for inter-CSIRT cooperation and information 

exchange. They would be expected, furthermore, to create public awareness, so 

that civil society can know how to notify a cyber incident and to whom to report it.

In 2012, the CICTE approved the Declaration Strengthening Cybersecurity 

in the Americas. It reiterated previous achievements, such as the Declaration on 

Security in the Americas (Mexico, 2003) and the OAS General Assembly’s resolutions AG/RES.1939 (XXXIII-O/03) and AG/RES.2004 (XXXIV-O/04), as well 

as the multidimensional and multidisciplinary approach on cybersecurity established by the OAS Comprehensive Inter-American Strategy to Combat Threats to 

Cybersecurity and the need to strengthen partnerships among all cyber-security 

stakeholders.

The document expressed the regional concern about enhancing international 

cooperation and the renewed commitment to implement the OAS Inter-American 

Strategy. The importance of the development of national cybersecurity strategies 

and the establishing and/or strengthening of national CSIRTs were also emphasized.

CITEL

The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL) has the objective 

of facilitating and promoting the continuous development of telecommunications 

in the Hemisphere.29 Consequently, its responsibility is to fight against the use of 

ICT for criminal purposes and to create a culture of cybersecurity.

The main role of CITEL regarding the Inter-American Strategy is to identify 

and adopt technical norms in order to obtain a secure Internet architecture in a

multi-step process. It should moreover identify obstacles that may prevent the 

application of these norms on regional networks.

CITEL should also seek public-private partnerships and cooperation with 

other international organizations, such as the ITU (International Telecommunications Union). The partnership with this organization, in particular, resulted in the 

publication of Blue Book: Telecommunication Policies for the Americas.
Volume 16 / 2014 33

REMJA

The main responsibility of the meetings of Ministers of Justice or other Ministers 

or Attorneys General of the Americas (REMJA) is to ensure that OAS member 

states adopt the necessary legislation to combat cybercrime and protect Internet 

users. This is done through technical assistance to create proper laws against 

cybercrime, through capacity-building measures, seminars, and conferences. 

REMJA can also facilitate the cooperation between national judiciary bodies and 

enforcement bodies in order to better investigate and prosecute cybercriminals 

located overseas.

According to the Inter-American Cybersecurity Strategy, all member states 

must establish prosecutorial and legal prohibitions to attacks against the confidentiality, integrity, and security of computer systems.30 Furthermore, all countries 

must adopt clear procedures in accordance with international norms regarding the 

government’s access to the communications and data stored, when necessary to 

the investigation of a felony.31

Future Challenges

Given the inherent characteristics of cyberspace, such as its global range, only 

international cooperation can achieve the goals set by national policy makers, 

the private sector, and society. The reasons for that are well-known, due to the 

increasing national dependency on the international ICT infrastructure and the 

many societal and economic gains that the investment in this kind of technology 

creates, both in developed and developing countries.

On a global stage, states face a great number of problems, and a new pattern 

of behavior needs to be adopted in order to finally reach cyber peace. As one author describes it:

The existing governance model, which depends on an almost 

tribal assembly of stakeholders in various frail institutions, is 

inadequate for the security and stability needed for a key global 

infrastructure. Many governments, finding the current situation 

intolerable, are exploring where it is appropriate for them to 

increase their role, to reduce risks to their economies, public 

safety and national security created by a weakly governed Internet. The turbulence over Internet governance, as states extend 

sovereign control into cyberspace to protect their national interests, will complicate reaching agreement on norms for international cybersecurity.32

According to the International Telecommunication Union’s report The Quest 

for Cyber Peace, “the fundamental problem is the lack of design and analysis 

methods which are scientifically proven to master the enormous complexity of future interconnected digital systems, especially regarding safety, reliability, functionality and security (privacy, authenticity, data security).”33

Therefore, it is also necessary that international cooperation be encouraged in 

various sectors, such as the Internet national nodal centers, the dialogue with the 
34 Security and Defense Studies Review 

global service providers, the Computer Emergency Response Teams, the incident 

management and response field, the critical infrastructure protection, the sharing 

and deployment of the best methods, the continuous process of raising awareness of cyber threats, the adoption of acceptable legal norms, and coordination 

between law enforcement agencies. 

As one may realize, developed countries have different views on the nature of 

cybersecurity and on how to prevent its failures from threatening national critical 

infrastructure. This makes consensual agreements difficult to achieve, especially 

when the idea of a binding treaty is discussed. In order to prevent the divergences 

between nations from halting the progress of negotiations related to Internet governance, some principles must be present, like the protection of the freedom of 

speech, even when it makes anonymity easier. Policy makers must also be mindful that no adequate response can be given without the support of the private 

sector. The relationship between governments and private companies needs to be 

transparent, reliable, structured, accountable, and constant.

It is also known that mistrust and misperceptions are common in the discussion of cyber governance. For this reason, the regional organizations may present 

the best way to find solutions to this particular issue. The United Nations Institute 

for Disarmament Research, in its report Confronting Cyberconflict, states that: 

Regional organizations have a long history of working with 

TCBMs (Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures) 

in conventional security areas. Housing such initiatives in a 

regional organization framework has many positive aspects. 

First, such an initiative builds on models and lines of communication already familiar to participating states. Therefore, 

methodologies that have been successful in other areas have 

the potential to be transferred over to cyberspace. Furthermore, 

regional organizations may be better able to respond to regional 

concerns or requirements—especially if the cyber capacities of 

their member states are at a similar stage of development.34

In this sense, the very nature of the Inter-American Cybersecurity Strategy is 

noteworthy for its visionary planning and that its goals have a multidisciplinary 

approach. First of all, it has a three-pillar structure, divided between CICTE, CITEL, and REMJA, bearing in mind their unique expertise and scope of action. 

This way, all the fundamental issues that risk the continental cybersecurity are 

addressed in all possible manners: legally, technically, militarily, socially, and 

economically.

Second, the Inter-American Cybersecurity Strategy is aware that only through 

the coordination between nations and institutions, the communication with users 

and Internet servers, the identification of secure technical practices, and the adoption of proper national legislations that regulates cybercrimes will it be possible 

to enhance cybersecurity in America. 

Another important argument in the cybersecurity debate is how developing 

countries may be part of the discussions, even though they are not seen as Cyber 

Powers. Once again, the regional organizations may be the best way to include 
Volume 16 / 2014 35

small States, as they are also affected by any major cybersecurity breach or incident, given that no national economy is independent from the cyber sphere. With 

that in mind, it is understandable why Latin America has distinct visions about 

cybersecurity. While the most developed regions, such as Europe, North America, 

and some parts of Asia, are worried about issues related to cyberwar and cyber 

terrorism, Latin American countries are more preoccupied with cyber-mediated 

crime, such as e-banking scams, money laundering, drug trafficking, and child 

pornography.

What must be acknowledged is that the increase in Internet access in Latin 

America is responsible for many permanent changes in different parts of life, such 

as politics, education, culture, society, and economy. Therefore, the OAS faces 

some key implications that must be addressed through its multilateral body and 

through frequent revision of the Inter-American Cybersecurity Strategy, in order 

to stop it from becoming obsolete in a short period of time. One way of doing so 

is to broaden the approach taken by the OAS by “accounting for the multi-faceted 

ways in which cyberspace is generating positive and negative forms of empowerment.”35 That is, although the cyber sphere is responsible for more efficiency both 

at the public and the private sectors, it also allows criminals to act anonymously 

and with the likelihood of significant reward at miniminal risk.

Another implication for the OAS is that it needs to “monitor change, from a 

broad to granular scale, and disseminate information on a routine basis,” due to 

the variety of the characteristics of cyber threats and responses in Latin America. 

Last, embodied by the Inter-American Cybersecurity Strategy, “close and continuous coordination between states, the private sector and civil society,”36 is the 

best path towards coping with the challenges posed by the technological digital 

advances. 

Importance must also be given to the respective attributes of states, companies, and, above all, citizens; after all, they are the end users of computer technology and the main victims of cybercrimes. The path that must be followed by 

nations around the world is the creation of a culture of cybersecurity—which is 

one of the objectives of the Inter-American Cybersecurity Strategy, specifically 

of CITEL—and that can only be accomplished by close communication between 

the participants in the cyber sphere. The United Nations General Assembly has 

written a resolution with the guiding principles of a global culture of cybersecurity: awareness, responsibility, response, ethics, democracy, risk assessment, security design and implementation, security management, and reassessment. And 

the OAS has done its part; these principles are all included in the Inter-American 

Cybersecurity Strategy, and are particularly attributed to the organs that compose 

the strategy’s three-pillar structure: CICTE, CITEL, and REMJA. However, one 

must note that the principles defended in the UN resolution need to be constantly 

revised and put into practice, which poses a challenge to the OAS and its member 

states: will they be able to carry out the Inter-American Cybersecurity Strategy 

sustainably? 

In the future, light should be shed on the legal discrepancies that characterize 

the current national cyber legislations, namely the role that REMJA is playing 
36 Security and Defense Studies Review 

in the Inter-American Cybersecurity Strategy. However, the legal and prosecutorial cooperation stated in the Recomendaciones de la Reunión Inicial del Grupo 

de Expertos Gubernamentales en Materia de Delito Cibernético in 2003 is not 

enough to address the issue of cross-border cyber criminality. Actually, the OAS 

must bear in mind that the legal cooperation aspects present in the Inter-American 

Cybersecurity Strategy are only the beginning of a journey toward an agreement 

such as the Budapest Convention. According to the International Telecommunication Union’s Global Cybersecurity Agenda, it is necessary to give life to “the 

elaboration of strategies for the development of cybercrime legislation that is 

globally applicable and interoperable with existing national and regional legislative measures.”37

The responsibility of CICTE is also to achieve goals, as the Inter-American 

Cybersecurity Strategy states, because technical cooperation and development are 

not enough to attain CICTE’s goals. The OAS and its institutions also need to 

create something that does not simply depend on words, but on actions: trust. In 

order to accomplish this, a delicate but consistent infrastructure needs to be created in the Americas, so that the member States—their CSIRTs especially—may 

be able to communicate safely and quickly disclose information to regional stakeholders about any cyber incidents. For this purpose, each and every government in 

the Americas will need to educate their societies about how users can protect their 

personal computers and whom to call when a cyber incident happens. Otherwise, 

given the dependency on critical infrastructure linked to information and communication technologies that can be damaged by cyber offenses, the lack of trust 

may be responsible for social erosion and national and international instability. 

On a national scale, other actions need to be taken. Governments must be 

responsible for creating a technical regulation to establish security standards to 

private operators of critical infrastructure, as well as analyzing how the civil society and economy can be injured by cyber disruptions, and elaborating, in collaboration with academia and the private sector, recovery and response plans. The 

government must also identify possible new threats and train/prepare specialized 

personnel to operate the national cybersecurity structure. In a recent article, Peter 

Sommer and Ian Brown describe the holistic approach required to ensure public 

and private adaptation of cyber security strategy.

Regulators need a better idea of the inter-dependencies of systems supporting critical national infrastructure, as well as an up-to-date understanding of the 

motivations and capabilities of potential attackers. Policymakers need to be able 

to identify and remove incentives that are causing market actors to under-protect 

systems. They also need the capability to horizon-scan for new threats, and to understand the likely long-term direction of technological development. The managers of critical information systems need better facilities to detect and block attempts 

to breach security controls. Law enforcement agencies need new tools to track the 

originators of such attacks. Users need much more user-friendly software that enables 

them to carry out their day-to-day activities in a secure way. Further work is also 

needed to strengthen the investigative resources of the police and similar agencies.38

The particular case of Latin America is a good example of cyber security 
Volume 16 / 2014 37

challenges and helps to explain how the OAS can assist its member states in dealing with the cybersecurity issues with the incentive to create national CSIRTs and 

specialized law enforcement bodies and to adopt proper legal frameworks. However, the OAS needs to find out how the private sector, the civil society, and the 

Latin American governments can move together toward an environment of close 

cooperation and cyberpeace under the aegis of a common cybersecurity culture:

It is urgent that Latin American governments devote greater 

attention to defining norms to govern cyberspace and ensure 

they take balanced measures. On the one hand, governments 

must begin adopting more sophisticated approaches to regulating content as a means of addressing some of the perverse outcomes of cybercrime. Likewise, private sector entities should 

also be encouraged to adopt more proactive actions since they 

have much to lose from intellectual property theft, piracy and 

a range of criminal offences. Meanwhile, civil society groups 

should be supported to draw attention to the implications of 

such measures on the state-citizen relationship and in particular, 

privacy. 

Developing a cyber security strategy requires a delicate balance. Government responses that are too heavy-handed could result in undue surveillance and 

repression. At the same time, aggressive policies are necessary to combat a resilient opponent. Hence, cyber crime efforts must be an equilibrium that protects 

fundamental rights of citizens while at the same time deterring cyber criminals.

Notes

1. Organization of American States, Trend Micro, Tendencias en la Seguridad Cibernética 

en América Latina y el Caribe y respuestas de los gobiernos (Trend Micro, 2013): 8.

2. Götz Neuneck, “Assesment of International and Regional Organizations and Activities,” 

in Cyber Index. (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2013): 92.

3. Michael Portnoy and Seymour Goodman, Global Initiatives to Secure Cyberspace: An 

Emerging Landscape (New York: Springer, 2009).

4. Brian Sullivan, “Regional Efforts to Strengthen Cybersecurity in Americas” (presented 

at the Internet Governance Forum, Port of Spain Trinidad and Tobago, August 8, 2011).

5. Inter-American Telecommunication Comission and International Telecommunication 

Union, The Blue Book: Telecommunication Policies for the Americas ( CICTE and ITU, 

2005): 2.

6. Trend Micro, 2013.

7. Symantec. Symantec Intelligence Report, 2013.

8. See Table 1 in Annex 1.

9. Open Empowerment Initiative, Cyberspace & Open Empowerment in Latin America

(The SecDev Foundation; Igarapé Institute, 2013): 1.

10. Open Empowerment Initiative, Cyberspace & Open Empowerment in Latin America: 2.

11. Neuneck, 101.

12. Portnoy and Goodman, 57.

13. OAS General Assembly, AG/RES. 1939 (Organization of American States, 2003): 2.
38 Security and Defense Studies Review 

14. Sullivan. See Figure 1 in Annex 1.

15. International Telecommunication Union, Cybersecurity: The Role and Responsibilities 

of an Effective Regulator, 9th ITU Global Symposium for Regulators, Beirut, 2009.

16. ENISA, A Step-by-Step Approach on How to Set Up a CSIRT, 2006.

17. International Telecommunication Union, Cybersecurity: The Role and Responsibilities 

of an Effective Regulator.

18. Eneken Tikk, Ten Rules for Cybersecurity (Tallin, NATO CCDCOE, 2011): 11.

19. Filipe Domingues Cerqueira Alves, “EU Law and Internet Traffic Control Lost between 

Privacy Rights and Freedom of Individual and Corporate Enterprise,” in Proceedings of 

the 11th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security (Reading: Academic 

Publishing International Limited, 2012).

20. Inter-American Telecommunication Comission and International Telecommunication 

Union, The Blue Book: Telecommunication Policies for the Americas, 2005.

21. Organization of American States, Trend Micro, Tendencias en la Seguridad Cibernética en América Latina y el Caribe.

22. Neil Rowe and Simson Garfinkel, “Finding Suspicious Activity on Computer Systems,” in Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security (Reading: Academic Publishing International Limited, 2012).

23. OAS General Assembly, AG/RES. 2004 (OAS, 2004): 4.

24. Portnoy and Goodman.

25. Neuneck.

26. Organization of American States. Trend Micro: Tendencias en la Seguridad Cibernética en América Latina y el Caribe.

27. Inter-American Telecommunication Comission and International Telecommunication 

Union, The Blue Book.

28. Sullivan.

29. Portnoy and Goodman.

30. “Member States should establish criminal or legal prohibitions to provide confidentiality, 

integrity and security of computer systems.” (AG/RES. 2004 (XXXIV-O/04), p. 10).

31. “When necessary for the investigation of an offense, countries should have clear procedures with international standards for government access to communications and stored 

data.” (AG/RES. 2004 (XXXIV-O/04), p. 10-11).

32. James Andrew Lewis, “Confidence-Building and International Agreement in Cybersecurity,” in Confronting Cyberconflict, ed. Kerstin Vignard (Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2011): 56.

33. Axel Lehmann, Vladimir Britkov, and Jacques Bus, “Technology Trends and Threats,” 

in The Quest for Cyber Peace, ed. Hamadoun Touré (Geneva: International Telecommunication Union, 2011): 41.

34. Ben Baseley-Walker, “Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Cyberspace: Towards Norms of Behavior,” in Confronting Cyberconflict: 36.

35. The Open Empowerment Initiative. Cyberspace & Open Empowerment in Latin America. (Rio de Janeiro: Igarapé Institute; Ottawa: The SecDev Foundation, 2013.)

36. Ibid.

37. International Telecommunication Union, Global Cybersecurity Agenda. (Geneva: International Telecommunication Union, 2007).

38. Peter Sommer and Ian Brown, “Reducing Systemic Cybersecurity Risk” (OECD, 

2011): 87.
Volume 16 / 2014 39

A primeira Estratégia Nacional de Defesa Brasileira 

(2008): Cinco Anos Depois

Peterson Silva

Resumo

O objetivo deste trabalho é realizar um breve balanço das 

repercussões da Estratégia Nacional de Defesa (END) de 

2008. Mais especificamente, o foco é analisar as principais 

transformações derivadas da END no setor de defesa brasileiro 

entre 2008 e 2013. Nesse sentido, foram analisadas as legislações 

e as publicações acadêmicas brasileiras mais significativas 

produzidas sobre o tema durante o período. Argumenta-se que 

apesar de não se ter alcançado a plenitude das metas previstas na 

própria END, este documento foi fundamental no que concerne 

a iniciar o processo de efetiva imersão dos temas de segurança 

e defesa na agenda de políticas públicas no Brasil.

Introdução

Em 18 de dezembro de 2008, foi lançada a primeira Estratégia Nacional de Defesa 

(END) brasileira. Seu objetivo era vincular o setor de defesa a uma estratégia 

nacional de desenvolvimento de longo prazo. Os trabalhos do comitê encarregado 

da formulação da END foram iniciados em setembro de 2007.1

 Seis anos depois, 

em setembro de 2013,2 o Congresso Nacional aprovou os textos da terceira Política Nacional de Defesa, da segunda Estratégia Nacional de Defesa e do primeiro 

Livro Branco de Defesa Nacional, concretizando uma série de aperfeiçoamentos 

institucionais realizados nos últimos cinco anos.

A END de 2008 não significou o fim dos inúmeros problemas encontrados 

no setor de defesa brasileiro nas últimas décadas. Entretanto, argumenta-se neste 

trabalho que a primeira END teve um papel crucial no que se refere a iniciar um 

lento e gradual processo de efetiva imersão dos temas de segurança e defesa na 

agenda brasileira de políticas públicas. 

Nesta direção, este artigo está divido em duas partes. Na primeira, é apresentado um breve panorama das políticas de defesa brasileiras desde a Constituição 

de 1988. Na segunda, é feita uma introdução dos principais pontos da END, os 

quais são acompanhados de uma breve análise dos avanços e desafios verificados 

entre 2008 e 2013.

Esta discussão se torna importante na medida em que permite melhor compreender o contexto da dinâmica militar brasileira nos últimos anos, lançando luz 
40 Security and Defense Studies Review 

aos processos políticos internos de um dos países emergentes mais importantes 

neste início do século XXI.

Breve panorama sobre o debate acerca da segurança e defesa nacionais 

após a Constituição de 1988 e o entorno sul-americano

A primeira Política de Defesa Nacional (PDN) foi elaborada em 1996 durante 

o governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2002). Esse documento pode ser 

visto sob dois ângulos. De um lado, pode-se dizer que a timidez de suas diretrizes 

não produziu efeitos concretos no setor de defesa brasileiro. Não por acaso, este 

documento foi rotulado por acadêmicos, políticos e militares como uma espécie 

de “declaração de intenções” produzida a partir de uma tentativa de concialiação 

entre concepções diplomáticas e militares (Oliveira, 2005, p. 459-467). De outro 

lado, a PDN de 1996 lançou as bases do que mais adiante se tornaria o debate sobre a criação, em 1999, do Ministério da Defesa3

 (Alsina, 2003; Fuccille, 2006).

Não apenas a elaboração da primeira PDN como também a criação do Ministério da Defesa foram cercadas de várias tensões, como os eventos que culminaram na queda do primeiro ministro da Defesa, Élcio Álvares, poucos meses após 

sua nomeação (Miyamoto, 2004; Oliveira, 2005; Fuccille, 2006). 

Em linhas gerais, é possível destacar os seguintes fatores recorrentes no 

debate sobre segurança e defesa no Brasil entre 1988 e 1999: o contexto de redemocratização após o regime militar brasileiro (1964-1985), a emergência de uma 

“crise de identidade” nas forças armadas após o fim da Guerra Fria, o fortalecimento da Amazônia como elemento central das concepções estratégicas nacionais, a pouca prioridade dos assuntos de segurança e defesa na agenda política 

brasileira e a elevada autonomia militar (Martins Filho e Zirker, 2000; Marques, 

2003; Santos, 2004).

Sob a presidência de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2010), é lançada, em 

2005, a versão atualizada da Política de Defesa Nacional (PDN).4 Esta ainda continha os mesmos traços significativamente genéricos de sua predecessora de 1996. 

Oliveira (2009, p.75), por exemplo, afirma que a PDN de 2005 tinha incorporado 

“conceitos da Escola Superior de Guerra com o tempo da ONU”. 

No entanto, a nova PDN também pode ser visualizada em um contexto de 

gradual, porém tenso, amadurecimento institucional do Ministério da Defesa. 

Nesse sentido, são emblemáticas a queda em 2004 do ministro José Viegas5

 e a 

escolha do então vice-presidente José Alencar para assumir o posto. Ademais, é 

possível destacar o lançamento em 2005 da primeira Política Nacional da Indústria de Defesa (PNID),6

 representando um real avanço nas interações com outros 

atores nacionais, como o Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia e os empresários 

ligados à indústria de defesa. 

Um dos mais importantes fatores a ser destacado entre 1999 e 2005 é o surgimento de uma “cultura de ministério da defesa”, apesar de todas as vicissitudes 

verificadas nesse interregno, sobretudo em termos de relações civis-militares 

(Winand e Saint-Pierre, 2010). Ainda podem podem ser apontadas como marcas desse período a adoção gradual de um conceito mais multidimensional7

 de 

segurança (Villa e Viana, 2010, p. 94), a resistência dos militares brasileiros à 
Volume 16 / 2014 41

adoção de “papéis de polícia,”8 especialmente no que se refere ao combate direto 

ao tráfico de drogas (Santos, 2004), e a crescente associação das discussões sobre 

defesa ao campo mais amplo da ciência e tecnologia (Brasil, 2003).

Em 2008, três ações políticas foram realizadas paralelamente. Em maio, foi 

lançada oficialmente a Política de Desenvolvimento Produtivo (PDP), a qual incluiu a indústria de defesa em seus “Programas Mobilizadores em Áreas Estratégicas”. Em 16 de dezembro, foi criado o Conselho de Defesa Sul-Americano 

(CDS)9

 da União de Nações Sul-Americanas (Unasul). Finalmente, em 18 de 

dezembro, foi lançada a Estratégia Nacional de Defesa (END),10 prevendo uma 

série de novas medidas legais e estudos complementares interna e externamente 

ao Ministério da Defesa.11

O contexto interno brasileiro foi o principal motivador da elaboração da primeira END. Conforme apontado anteriormente, desde a Constituição de 1988 

o setor de defesa brasileiro sofria pela falta de diretrizes claras, bem como pela 

obsolescência da maioria de seus principais equipamentos militares (Oliveira, 

2009, p. 73). Este cenário de falta de solidez institucional e de estagnação de 

grandes aquisições militares continuou mesmo após a criação do MD, em 1999, e 

o estabelecimento da PDN de 2005. Enquanto isso, outros países sul-americanos 

convertiam recursos oriundos, por exemplo, da boa fase das commodities no mercado internacional para a modernização de seus equipamentos de defesa, como 

Venezuela (petróleo) e Chile (cobre), ou mesmo recebiam apoio externo, como no 

caso da Colômbia (Villa, 2008).

Em 2007, contudo, emergiu mais uma crise civil-militar, tendo como fatores 

centrais o assim denominado “caos aéreo” na aviação civil e a fragilidade da estrutura e da atuação do MD verificada no episódio (Oliveira, 2009). Abalado pela 

crise, o ministro Waldir Pires (31/03/2006 - 25/07/2007) deixou o cargo e Nelson 

Jobim (26/07/2007 - 04/08/2011) assumiu a direção do MD. Jobim, desde o início, teve confiança do presidente Lula não apenas para inicialmente afastar a crise 

aérea do Palácio do Planalto como também, mais adiante, para liderar o processo 

de restruturação das forças armadas. 

Assim, foi instituído em setembro de 2007 um comitê interministerial com 

o objetivo de modernizar a estrutura nacional de defesa. Este comitê foi composto pelos ministros da Defesa, da Secretaria de Planejamento de Longo Prazo da 

Presidência da República (futura Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos – SAE), da 

Fazenda, do Planejamento e da Ciência e Tecnologia, bem como os comandantes 

da Marinha, do Exército e da Força Aérea, assessorados pelos seus respectivos 

estados-maiores. O relatório final com as diretrizes gerais do então denominado 

“Plano Estratégico Nacional de Defesa” estava previsto para ser entregue ao presidente Lula em sete de setembro de 2008 (Dia da Independência) (Jobim, 2008). 

Paralelamente, no contexto de uma posição mais assertiva do segundo mandato do governo Lula (2006-2010) em relação a temas de segurança e defesa 

(Villa e Viana, 2010), a ideia da criação de um foro no âmbito da União das Nações Sul-americanas (Unasul) dedicado à discussão de temas de segurança e defesa ganhou força. Tal iniciativa contou com o esforço pessoal do ministro Jobim 

e pode ser vista como uma ligação entre o processo de formulação da END e o 
42 Security and Defense Studies Review 

contexto da sequência de tensões sul-americanas observadas nos anos ante-riores, 

como o Plano Colômbia (2000) e as crises na Venezuela (2002), na Bolívia (2004) 

e no Equador (2005) (Villa e Viana, 2010). 

Desde o início, a proposta brasileira de criação do CDS/Unasul não previa o 

estabelecimento de exércitos comuns, de forças conjuntas de caráter permanente 

ou uma de aliança militar clássica. A intenção era criar um foro capaz de oferecer soluções pacíficas de controvérsias, mantendo a região livre de conflitos (JOBIM, 2008). Tal visão é coerente com a tradicional relação entre política externa 

e política de defesa no Brasil, com destaque para, em um esforço de síntese, três 

pontos considerados fundamentais. 

Primeiro, ressalte-se a tradicional postura adotada pela política externa brasileira de manter a América do Sul livre de instabilidades políticas. Alsina (2009, 

p. 181), por exemplo, afirma que a estratégia brasileira de política externa seria, 

basicamente, lastreada fortemente pela “manutenção da estabilidade no subcontinente como forma de evitar o desvio de recursos diplomáticos escassos para o 

tratamento de temas não diretamente relacionados à problemática do desenvolvimento”.

Em segundo lugar, o Brasil tem historicamente prescindido do uso da força militar em sua estratégia de inserção internacional. Lima e Hirst (2006), por 

exemplo, ressaltam que o país tem se esforçado para ser reconhecido como grande 

ator regional e global, utilizando-se principalmente de ações multilaterais e de soft 

power, abstendo-se consistentemente do desenvolvimento de hard power. 

Por último, destaca-se a tradicional distância entre política externa e política 

de defesa no Brasil (Alsina, 2006). Lima (2010, p. 404), por exemplo, afirma:

A bibliografia existente sobre o tema sugere que legado histórico, fatores 

ideacionais e instituições aprisionaram o desenvolvimento da política externa e 

da política de defesa em rotas paralelas que, na ausência de uma agência política 

voltada para a mudança do status quo, permaneceram fracamente integradas.

Com base nesse sucinto quadro, as discussões paralelas envolvendo a criação 

do CDS/Unasul e o estabelecimento da END sem dúvida foram importantes para 

se evitar percepções equivocadas por parte dos vizinhos sul-americanos ou mesmo de outros países em relação ao processo de reestruturação militar brasileiro em 

discussão naquele período. Nesse sentido, incluem-se as frequentes percepções 

sobre o risco de uma “corrida armamentista” na América do Sul (Zamora, 2010), 

inclusive na grande mídia.12

Em linhas gerais, dois conjuntos de fatores fornecem pistas mais significativas sobre a origem da série de aquisições militares sul-americanas ocorridas 

na última década do que a acepção de que uma corrida armamentista nos moldes tradicionais estaria em andamento no subcontinente (Villa, 2008). Primeiro, 

constata-se que, nos anos 80 e 90, vários programas militares foram sistematicamente adiados ou marginalizados por falta de verbas em todo o subcontinente. 

Certamente, contribuíram nessa direção a marginalização dos temas de segurança 

e defesa nas agendas políticas sul-americanas após o fim das diferentes ditaduras 

observadas na região. Em segundo lugar, o boom das commodities e o frequente 

uso nos anos 2000 de discursos nacionalistas por parte de alguns políticos sul-
Volume 16 / 2014 43

americanos13 voltados para seus respectivos públicos internos completam esse 

quadro mais provável das explicações possíveis no que se refere às ondas relativamente recentes de modernização militar na região.

Em dezembro de 2008, tanto a END quanto o CDS/Unasul se tornaram 

realidade. Juntas, essas duas iniciativas marcam um novo passo para o debate 

brasileiro sobre temas de segurança e defesa, conforme abordado a seguir.

A END de 2008: principais pontos, avanços e desafios

A seguir, são analisados os pontos considerados mais relevantes da Estratégia 

Nacional de Defesa (END) de 2008, os quais são acompanhados de uma síntese 

dos avanços, desafios e perspectivas, tendo como base a literatura especializada 

brasileira, as políticas de defesa elaboradas até então (1996 e 2005), notícias veiculadas na mídia e as principais legislações produzidas, basicamente, entre 2008 

e 2013.

A retomada do termo segurança nacional. É interessante notar que, pela primeira vez desde o fim da ditadura militar no Brasil, o termo “segurança nacional” 

foi retomado em várias passagens da END (Oliveira, 2009, p. 75-76). Contudo, 

não só nesta parte em especial, mas em outros segmentos da END, o emprego dos 

conceitos de segurança e defesa deixam algumas dúvidas sobre o escopo das afirmações. No início do documento, por exemplo, o decreto de sua aprovação afirma 

que “os órgãos e entidades da administração pública federal deverão considerar, 

em seus planejamentos, ações que concorram para forta-lecer a Defesa Nacional”. Mesmo para os padrões atuais de constantes buscas por soluções integradas 

envolvendo vários atores em segurança e defesa (INSS, 2008), torna-se possível 

questionar até que ponto este documento não poderia se chamar “Estratégia de 

Segurança e Defesa Nacionais”, como no caso do Reino Unido (2010) ou, mais 

recentemente, da França (2013).

Portanto, longe de se aventar a perigosa subordinação das variadas dimensões da vida em sociedade aos imperativos de um eventual conceito ampliado 

de segurança nacional, uma estratégia de segurança e defesa nacionais, bem debatida e elaborada com a efetiva participação de diversos atores, poderia ensejar 

diretrizes mais claras para outros órgãos federais em relação a temas como saúde 

(ex. epidemias) ou inteligência (ex. bens sensíveis).

Brasil como país pacífico na América do Sul. Logo na introdução, as duas primeiras orações da END são: “O Brasil é pacífico por tradição e convicção. Vive 

em paz com seus vizinhos.” É louvável, portanto, que as primeiras palavras da 

primeira estratégia nacional de defesa brasileira remeta à ideia de paz com países 

vizinhos.

De fato, em termos práticos, as discussões no âmbito do CDS/Unasul têm 

proporcionado algumas importantes iniciativas de intercâmbio e de cooperação. 

Além do envolvimento de países como Colômbia, Chile e Argentina no programa 

do cargueiro KC-390 desenvolvido pela Embraer, podem ser destacados os avanços no projeto de desenvolvimento do primeiro avião de treinamento básico sulamericano (Unasul-1),14 a criação da Escola Sul-americana de Defesa (Esude),15
44 Security and Defense Studies Review 

e a aquisição de lanchas colômbianas para serem utilizadas pelo Exército e pela 

Marinha na Amazônia.16

Os três eixos estruturantes e os três setores estratégicos. Na exposição de motivos, é possível verificar um resumo da estrutura da END de 2008. Conforme essa 

passagem, o documento está focado em ações estratégicas de médio e longo prazos com o objetivo de modernizar a estrutura nacional de defesa, atuando em três 

eixos estruturantes: (1) reorganização das Forças Armadas, (2) reestruturação da 

indústria de defesa brasileira e (3) política de composição dos efetivos militares. 

Mais especificamente sobre a reorganização das Forças Armadas, encontrase três setores considerados estratégicos: o cibernético, o espacial e o nuclear. No 

setor cibernético, sob responsabilidade do Exército Brasileiro, o grande impulso 

ocorreu apenas após as notícias sobre espionagem norte-americana no Brasil no 

contexto das denúncias de Edward Snowden, ex-colaborador da Agência Nacional de Segurança dos Estados Unidos (NSA). Destaca-se nessa direção o trabalho realizado pelo recém-criado Centro de Defesa Cibernética (CDCiber), bem 

como as discussões no Congresso sobre o assim denominado “Marco Civil da 

Internet”.17

No setor espacial, sob responsabilidade da Força Aérea, é possível dizer que 

desde o acidente ocorrido em 2003 na Base de Alcântara, as atividades envolvendo o Veículo Lançador de Satélites (VLS-1) não evoluíram significativamente. O 

VLS é um dos programas militares que se arrastam nos planejamentos de defesa 

desde os anos 80 (Cavagnari, 1993).18 No entanto, em 2013, foi assinado o contrato entre a empresa brasileira Visiona (Embraer e Telebrás) e as europeias Thales e 

Arianespace no quadro do fornecimento do programa do Satélite Geoestacionário 

de Defesa e Comunicações Estratégicas (SGDC).19

O Brasil e a questão nuclear. A área nuclear, sob responsabilidade da Marinha, 

é uma dos três setores considerados estratégicos pela END. Ao longo do documento, o foco da discussão sobre essa área se alterna entre três tópicos principais: 

o programa do submarino de propulsão nuclear da Marinha, a questão energética e 

o campo mais amplo da Ciência, Tecnologia & Inovação. Não há quaisquer sinais 

na END indicando que o Brasil poderá produzir uma arma nuclear no futuro. Ao 

contrário, o texto é bem explícito em afirmar que “por imperativo constitucional e 

por tratado internacional, privou-se o Brasil da faculdade de empregar a energia 

nuclear para qualquer fim que não seja pacífico” (Brasil, 2008, p. 33). 

De fato, o Brasil possui uma série de elementos constitucionais e internacionais consolidados na área de não-proliferação, como o Tratado de Tlatelolco, 

o Tratado de Não-Proliferação Nuclear (TNP) e a Agência Brasil-Argentina de 

Contabilidade e Controle de Material Nuclear (ABAC). 

Assim, a afirmação verificada na END de 2008, e mantida na atualização de 

2012 (Brasil, 2012a, p. 21), de que o Brasil “não aderirá a acréscimos ao Tratado de Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares destinados a ampliar as restrições 

do Tratado sem que as potências nucleares tenham avançado na premissa central 

do Tratado: seu próprio desarmamento nuclear”, deve ser entendida no contexto 

da forte oposição por parte de determinados setores do Itamaraty e da Defesa em 
Volume 16 / 2014 45

relação a tratados desiguais em geral e não no que se refere especificamente a uma 

descabida eventual ambição nuclear armamentista brasileira. 

Apesar de algumas posições nacionalistas isoladas,20 qualquer ambição em 

relação a um artefato nuclear brasileiro representaria um imenso e desnecessário 

problema diplomático-militar de consequências regionais e internacionais desastrosas, além de destoante do perfil das políticas externa e de defesa observado nas 

últimas décadas. Ademais, além dos tradicionais fatores diplomáticos e militares, é possível identificar outros elementos mais amplos de ordem científico-tecnológica (ex. radiofármacos) presentes no debate contemporâneo sobre política 

nuclear no Brasil.

O trinômio monitoramento/controle, mobilidade e presença. A END estabelece como diretriz a organização das Forças Armadas sob a égide do trinômio 

monitoramento/controle, mobilidade e presença. É possível dizer que foi com 

base nessa concepção que projetos como o Sistema Integrado de Monitoramento 

de Fronteiras (Sisfron) e o Sistema de Gerenciamento da Amazônia Azul (Sisgaaz) ganharam força nos últimos anos. 

Basicamente, o Sisfron é um programa, sob responsabilidade do Exército, 

com o objetivo de, em coordenação com outras agências, monitorar os mais de 

16.000 km de fronteiras terrestres brasileiras. 

O Sisfron também é considerado uma peça fundamental para o Plano Estratégico de Fronteiras (PEF).21 O PEF é um dos resultados mais concretos dos debates 

ocorridos no contexto da primeira END. Trata-se de uma iniciativa interagências 

lançada em 2011 com o objetivo de enfrentar ilícitos transfronteiriços e fortalecer 

a integração com países vizinhos. A base de suas ações são as operações “Ágata” 

(de caráter temporário) e “Sentinela” (permanente), as quais envolvem a ação 

coordenada de vários órgãos federais e estaduais, como as Forças Armadas, a 

Polícia Federal, a Receita Federal, o Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis (Ibama), a Agência Brasileira de Inteligência (Abin), 

o Centro Gestor e Operacional do Sistema de Proteção da Amazônia (Censipam), 

a Fundação Nacional do Índio (FUNAI), entre outros, além de órgãos estaduais 

(ex. polícias militares e civis). 

O Sisgazz, por sua vez, é um programa sob a responsabilidade da Marinha do 

Brasil com o objetivo de monitorar, proteger e permitir a exploração sustentável 

da costa marítima brasileira. Ao lado do Programa de Submarinos (Prosub), o Sisgaaz conquistou espaço nos últimos anos entre as prioridades militares brasileiras 

em função da descoberta de vastas reservas de petróleo em águas profundas (PréSal). Além disso, estima-se que mais de 90% do comércio exterior brasileiro seja 

realizado por vias marítimas. 

Tanto o Sisfron quanto o Sisgaaz representam os mais complexos “sistemas de sistemas” já adquiridos pelo Brasil desde as discussões na década de 

90 envolvendo o Sistema de Vigilância da Amazônia (Sivam - atual Censipam). Este, por sua vez, foi transferido da Presidência da República para o 

Ministério da Defesa em 2011.22 No mesmo ano, o MD deixou de atuar diretamente na área da aviação civil após a transferência da Agência de Aviação 

Civil (ANAC) para a Presidência da República.
46 Security and Defense Studies Review 

O fortalecimento do ministro da Defesa. A mudança mais significativa após 

a END de 2008 foi a “Lei da Nova Defesa”23, aprovada em 2010, a qual basicamente ampliou os poderes do ministro da defesa perante as Forças Armadas. 

Com essa lei, os comandantes militares passaram a ser indicados pelo ministro da 

Defesa e nomeados pelo Presidente da República. 

A mesma lei estabeleceu a implantação do então inédito Livro Branco de 

Defesa Nacional, lançado em 2012, bem como estendeu o poder de polícia do 

Exército na faixa de fronteira brasileira para a Marinha e a Força Aérea, algo que 

até pouco tempo encontrava significativas resistências por parte dos militares. 

A criação do EMCFA e da Secretaria-Geral. Uma das grandes inovações da 

END foi indicar a criação de um Estado-Maior Conjunto das Forças Armadas 

(EMCFA), o qual foi criado em 2010 pela “Lei da Nova Defesa”, com o objetivo 

de enfrentar a tradicional autonomia das respectivas Forças (Marinha, Exército e 

Força Aérea).

Mais adiante, em 2013, foi criada, no mesmo nível institucional do EMCFA, 

a Secretaria-Geral do MD com o intuito de conferir maior organicidade à vertente 

civil da Defesa, bem como de possibilitar ao ministro da Defesa se dedicar mais 

diretamente aos assuntos de direção política do MD.24 Sob a Secretaria-Geral ficaram o Departamento do Programa Calha Norte (DPCN) e o Centro Gestor e 

Operacional do Sistema de Proteção da Amazônia (Censipam).

Criação da Seprod/MD. Em 2011, foi criada a Secretaria de Produtos de Defesa (Seprod),25 com o objetivo de formular e dirigir de forma mais centralizada 

a política de compras de produtos de defesa do MD, facilitando o diálogo com 

outros órgãos e entidades governamentais e com o setor privado brasileiro. A Seprod/MD foi prevista na END de 2008 com o objetivo de “formular e dirigir 

a política de compras de produtos de defesa” (Brasil, 2008, p. 36). Ademais, 

conforme a mesma END, o ministro da Defesa delegaria “aos órgãos das três 

Forças poderes para executarem a política formulada pela Secretaria quanto a 

encomendas e compras de produtos de defesa específicos de sua área, sujeita tal 

execução à avaliação permanente pelo Ministério” (Ibidem). No entanto, essa 

visão mais centralizadora das compras militares brasileiras indicada pela END 

de 2008, praticamente desapareceu na END de 2012, ainda não se tornou uma 

realidade, permanecendo as Forças com relativo elevado grau de autonomia nesse 

segmento, sobretudo em função do atraso na elaboração do Plano de Articulação 

e Equipamentos de Defesa (PAED).

O Retid. Conforme previsto na END de 2008 (Brasil, 2008, p. 18), foram lançados, em 2012, os fundamentos do Regime Especial Tributário para a Indústria de 

Defesa (Retid).26 O Retid estabelece normas especiais para compras, contratações 

e desenvolvimentos de produtos e de sistemas de defesa. 

Por um lado, essa lei pode ser considerada fruto direto dos contatos regulares 

entre membros do governo, grupos de militares e empresários do setor de defesa 

ao logo da última década, com destaque para o papel exercido pelo Comitê da 

Indústria de Defesa (Comdefesa) da Federação das Indústrias do Estado de São 

Paulo (Fiesp)27 e pela Associação Brasileira das Indústrias de Materiais de Defesa 
Volume 16 / 2014 47

e Segurança (Abimde). 

Por outro lado, até o momento, ainda não é possível avaliar os resultados 

práticos dessa medida, uma vez que a instrução normativa dispondo sobre a aplicação do Retid, emitida pela Secretaria da Receita Federal, só ocorreu em 2014.28

O Paed. A END de 2008 previa a elaboração de planos de equipamento e articulação das Forças Armadas, tendo em vista um período de vinte anos. Esses 

planos seriam conjugados em uma proposta de projeto de lei de equipamento e 

articulação de defesa nacional, originalmente prevista para 2009. Na época, uma 

das inspirações balizadoras dessa proposta era a experiência francesa com a Lei 

de Programação Militar (“Loi de Programmation Militaire”). 

Em 2012, o Livro Branco de Defesa Nacional apresentou pela primeira vez o 

Plano de Articulação e Equipamento de Defesa (PAED), afirmando que “o PAED 

consubstancia, de forma coerente, os projetos estratégicos das Forças Armadas 

que visam a atender às demandas por novas capacidades da Defesa” (Brasil, 

2012a, p. 192). Todavia, este Plano, conforme apresentado no Livro Branco de 

Defesa de 2012, resumia-se a uma espécie de lista de compras sem articulação 

interna. 

Os projetos foram apresentados separados por Força (Marinha, Exército e 

Força Aérea), abrangendo prazos excessivamente longos (ex. 2009-2033) e sem 

quaisquer priorizações ou relações de complementaridade interforças, bem como 

sem previsão de fontes de recursos, indicadores, metas, planos contingentes ou 

critérios objetivos de monitoramento e de avaliação de desempenho.

No total, a soma dos projetos elencados no Paed, de acordo com o Livro 

Branco de 2012, atinge cerca de R$ 400 bilhões ao longo de aproximadamente 

20 anos, ou seja, uma média de quase R$ 20 bilhões por ano. Esse valor, portanto, destoa substancialmente do histórico de investimentos do MD. Conforme 

podemos verificar a partir de dados disponibilizados oficialmente (Figura 1), a 

média do montante de investimentos anual do Ministério da Defesa, no período 

2000-2012, foi de aproximadamente R$ 4,8 bilhões, com picos de cerca de R$ 

9 bilhões (2010) e de R$ 10 bilhões (2012). Portanto, levando em consideração 

apenas o montante total, torna-se bastante questionável a viabilidade dessa versão 

inicial do Paed, a qual até o momento ainda não foi alterada. 

Os comandos conjuntos. Na END de 2008 é possível encontrar em várias passagens um esforço de buscar a articulação entre as três Forças, incluindo a indicação 

de formação de comandos conjuntos ao longo de todo o território nacional, como 

exemplificado a seguir:

Pelas mesmas razões que exigem a formação do Estado-Maior 

Conjunto das Forças Armadas, os Distritos Navais [no caso da 

Marinha] ou Comandos de Área [nos casos do Exército e da 

Força Aérea] das três Forças terão suas áreas de jurisdição coincidentes, ressalvados impedimentos decorrentes de circunstâncias locais e específicas [...]. Em cada área deverá ser estruturado um Estado-Maior Conjunto, que será ativado para realizar e 

atualizar, desde o tempo de paz, os planejamentos operacionais 
48 Security and Defense Studies Review 
Volume 16 / 2014 49

da área (Brasil, 2008, p. 14). 

Nesse quesito em especial, até o momento, não é possível verificar avanços 

significativos. Tal previsão, contudo, foi mantida na END de 2012 (Brasil, 2012a, 

p. 34-35). Certamente, trata-se de uma mudança organizacional (e cultu-ral) ambiciosa que demandará tempo e cursos específicos ao longo das respectivas carreiras militares. Uma questão que não está devidamente esclarecida, entretanto, é 

se haverá uma espécie de representação do MD nesses futuros Estados-Maiores 

Conjuntos Nacionais, tendo em vista esforços de adensamento das relações com 

diferentes segmentos da sociedade, como associações de empresários do setor de 

defesa (ex. Comdefesa e Abimde) e universidades/centros de pesquisas civis (ex. 

cursos, seminários e estágios), ou outros órgãos governamentais (ex. PF e Receita 

Federal).

Forças armadas e segurança pública. Uma das diretrizes encontradas na END 

de 2008 é a de preparar efetivos para o cumprimento de operações de garantia da 

lei e da ordem (GLO). O emprego das Forças Armadas em questões de segurança 

pública é uma questão recorrente desde a Constituição de 1988, salientando a 

Operação Rio de 1994 (Fuccille, 1999). Em 2001, foi aprovada a lei que fixa as 

diretrizes para o emprego das Forças Armadas em operações GLO.29 Em 2004, 

esse tipo de operação foi mais uma vez tratado pela legislação, mas no contexto de 

missões subdiárias em geral.30 Contudo, foi apenas com a “Lei da Nova Defesa” 

que tais limites ficaram mais delimitados, conforme previstos na primeira END 

(Brasil, 2008, p. 16-17):

O País cuida para evitar que as Forças Armadas desempenhem 

papel de polícia. Efetuar operações internas em garantia da lei 

e da ordem, quando os poderes constituídos não conseguem 

garantir a paz pública e um dos Chefes dos três Poderes o requer, faz parte das responsabilidades constitucionais das Forças 

Armadas. A legitimação de tais responsabilidades pressupõe, 

entretanto, legislação que ordene e respalde as condições específicas e os procedimentos federativos que deem ensejo a tais 

operações, com resguardo de seus integrantes.

Em 2010, em uma operação de escala até então inédita, policiais do Rio de 

Janeiro ocuparam as favelas do Complexo do Alemão apoiados pelas Forças Armadas. Blindados da Marinha, helicópteros do Exército e soldados do Batalhão 

de Operações Especiais da Polícia Militar do Rio de Janeiro (BOPE) ganharam as 

páginas dos noticiários no Brasil e no exterior.31 O envolvimento das Forças Armadas em operações GLO ocorreu em várias oportunidades, com destaque para 

a atuação em favelas do Rio de Janeiro (2011),32 no contexto da greve de polícias 

militares na Bahia (2012),33 na Conferência das Nações Unidas da Rio+20 (2012), 

na visita do Papa Francisco ao Rio de Janeiro (2013), na Copa das Confederações 

(2013) e na proteção do leilão do campo petrolífero de Libra (2013). 

Em 2014, foi editado pelo EMCFA/MD o Manual da Lei da Ordem, com o 

objetivo de estabelecer orientações para o planejamento e o emprego das Forças 

Armadas em operações de GLO.34 Também em 2014, está previsto o envolvi-
50 Security and Defense Studies Review 

mento das Forças Armadas em mais uma ocupação de favelas no Rio de Janeiro, 

sendo a sexta vez que esse tipo de operação é realizado neste estado desde 2007.35

É possível dizer, portanto, que as operações GLO, ao lado das operações 

Ágata e Sentinela no contexto do Plano Estratégico de Fronteiras (PEF), correspondem às missões mais demandadas às forças armadas brasileiras desde a 

primeira END, especialmente quando considerados os próximos grandes eventos 

a serem realizados no país: a Copa do Mundo (2014) e os Jogos Olímpicos (2016).

Gastos com pessoal e manutenção do serviço militar obrigatório. Um dos eixos estruturantes da END de 2008 é a questão da composição dos efetivos das 

Forças Armadas. Entre as diretrizes do documento está a de manter o Serviço 

Militar Obrigatório (SMO). Mais especificamente, o “objetivo, a ser perseguido 

gradativamente, é tornar o Serviço Militar realmente obrigatório” (Brasil, 2008, 

p. 19). Há explicitamente na END a valorização do SMO como instrumento de 

unidade nacional, algo que não pode ser ignorado considerando-se as dimensões 

territoriais e a diversidade cultural do Brasil. 

No entanto, em primeiro lugar, em um mundo de transformações tecnológicas aceleradas e de recursos limitados, torna-se possível questionar a efetividade 

dessa orientação. Ademais, a END de 2008 orienta que as “Forças Armadas limitarão e reverterão a tendência de diminuir a proporção de recrutas e de aumentar a proporção de soldados profissionais” (Brasil, 2008, p. 37). Na prática, tal 

orientação se mostra inviável para qualquer força militar moderna, especialmente 

em segmentos aéreos (ex. caças) e navais (ex. submarinos) nos quais são exigidos 

anos de aperfeiçoamento e de constante treinamento. Não por acaso, vários países 

têm abandonado a conscrição, com destaque para o “berço” do serviço militar 

universal moderno: a França.36

Na END de 2012, o trecho supracitado simplesmente desaparece. Ademais, 

conforme observado por Oliveira (2009, p. 78), as mulheres ainda não podem 

cumprir o SMO no Brasil. Porém, havia a previsão na END de 2008 de um futuro “serviço civil” no Brasil (Brasil, 2008, p. 38), no qual as mulheres poderiam 

participar. Curiosamente, a ideia do serviço civil no Brasil também desaparece na 

END de 2012.

É possível afirmar que a questão do SMO está diretamente relacionada 

à composição de efetivos e aos impactos dos gastos com pessoal. Mais 

especificamente, o maior desafio do MD é lidar com o crescente peso do 

pagamento de inativos e pensionistas. Com base em dados disponibilizados pelo 

MD (Figura 2), cerca de 71% do orçamento militar brasileiro de 2012 foi destinado para o pagamento de pessoal. 

Entretanto, também conforme dados do MD (Figura 3), cerca de 62% dos 

gastos com pessoal são destinados para pagamentos de inativos e pensionistas. 

Trata-se, portanto, de uma difícil questão a ser considerada nos próximos anos.

Defesa e Congresso. Os membros do Congresso têm paulatinamente aumentado 

sua presença na agenda política de defesa nos últimos anos, tanto em termos de 

ações individuais de congressistas, quanto no que diz respeito a ações mais institucionais. Destaca-se, nesse sentido, os trabalhos no âmbito da Comissão de 
Volume 16 / 2014 51
52 Security and Defense Studies Review 
Volume 16 / 2014 53

Relações Exteriores e de Defesa Nacional da Câmara dos Deputados (Credn) e 

da Comissão de Relações Exteriores e Defesa Nacional do Senado (CRE). Ambas as comissões vêm realizando uma série de audiências públicas, seminários e 

divulgação de atividades legislativas, inclusive utilizando a rede mundial de computadores. Em 2008, por exemplo, foi lançada a Frente Parlamentar da Defesa 

Nacional na Câmara dos Deputados, a qual foi renovada, em 2011, com mais de 

200 parlamentares.37

Ademais, a “Lei da Nova Defesa” estabelece que o Congresso apreciará a 

cada quatro anos, a partir de 2012, versões atualizadas da Política de Defesa Nacional, da Estratégia Nacional de Defesa e do Livro Branco de Defesa Nacional 

encaminhadas pelo Poder Executivo, o que claramente contribui para o fortalecimento do controle civil dos temas de segurança e defesa.

A carreira civil no Ministério da Defesa. A primeira END estabelece a criação 

de uma carreira de especialistas civis em defesa na Administração Pública. Tratase, evidentemente, da medida mais sólida no que tange a conferir efetiva direção 

política civil da Defesa no longo prazo (Cleary, 2006). 

Por um lado, o envolvimento direto e regular dos militares no MD foi, sem 

dúvida, essencial para o amadurecimento de uma “cultura de MD”. A participação dos militares no dia-a-dia do Ministério também pode ser vista como uma 

forma de possibilitar uma transição mais gradual no que se refere à realidade da 

convivência por vezes difícil não só entre diferentes Forças (Marinha, Exército e 

Força Aérea), e suas respectivas peculiaridades terminológicas e culturais, mas 

também entre diferentes ministérios, órgãos e entidades da Administração Pública, políticos, empresários, contrapartes internacionais, entre outros, a partir de 

uma perspectiva mais ampla, isto é, do ponto de vista de um Ministério da Defesa. 

 Por outro lado, depois de todo o avanço institucional sucintamente relatado 

neste artigo, especialmente após a END de 2008, não faz sentido inexistir uma 

carreira de Estado na área de defesa ou ao menos outras formas mais flexíveis e 

transparentes de seleção. Hoje, por exemplo, a Escola Superior de Guerra (ESG), 

a Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos da Presidência da República (SAE) e o 

Ministério da Defesa não possuem quaisquer canais de recrutamento e de seleção 

profissional regulares e transparentes para civis. Há apenas, por enquanto, cargos 

e funções de confiança (DAS), os quais são preenchidos preponderantemente a 

partir de critérios políticos. 

Tal quadro proporciona alguns desafios consideráveis em termos administrativos. Ao mesmo tempo que a rotatividade de militares no MD se mostrou 

extremamente salutar para o surgimento e posterior consolidação de uma “cultura 

de MD”, também apresenta problemas em relação à continuidade de discussões e 

projetos em função da elevada rotatividade dos militares nos diferentes postos e, 

consequentemente, da dificuldade em se manter uma espécie de memória institucional atinente a determinados temas e discussões. Salienta-se que até o momento 

tal carreira ainda não foi criada no MD, embora conste na END de 2012.
54 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Considerações finais

A primeira Estratégia Nacional de Defesa (2008) é, sem dúvida, um marco no 

debate sobre temas de segurança e defesa no Brasil. Com base no breve balanço 

dos desdobramentos deste documento realizado neste artigo, é possível verificar 

um sólido avanço institucional no Ministério da Defesa nos últimos cinco anos.

Embora a totalidade das tarefas previstas na END de 2008 ainda não tenha 

sido alcançada, seu principal mérito foi o de ter iniciado um processo de efetiva imersão dos temas de segurança e defesa na agenda de políticas públicas no 

Brasil.

A partir do sucinto balanço realizado neste trabalho, também é possível vislumbrar dois dos principais desafios apresentados ao MD nos próximos anos. 

Em primeiro lugar, a questão dos elevados gastos com pessoal, em especial com inativos e pensionistas, certamente terá que ser enfrentada em alguma 

medida. Esses relativos altos gastos com pessoal culminam em uma espécie de 

“achatamento” da parcela destinada para custeio e, sobretudo, para investimentos. 

Simplesmente aumentar o gasto de defesa brasileiro, portanto, não se apresenta 

como uma opção eficiente e razoável tendo em vista a avalanche de outras prioridades nacionais, inclusive em áreas mais próximas, como a segurança pública, 

conforme o aumento das operações GLO realizadas pelas forças armadas nas últimas décadas evidencia. Enfrentar tal questão, obviamente, não é algo trivial e 

também não pode ser resultado de decisões precipitadas, mas sim deve ser inserido no contexto mais amplo da contínua busca pela qualidade do gasto público, de 

se fazer “mais e melhor com menos”.

Em segundo lugar, certamente o próximo desafio do MD será relativo à priorização de objetivos face a recursos limitados. Hoje, as forças armadas brasileiras 

estão orientadas para um amplo leque de missões/atividades além das prerrogativas clássicas (ex. GLO, missões de paz, proteção de fronteiras, formação cidadã, C&T), bem como detêm a ambição de implementar simultaneamente vários 

mega-programas militares (ex. Sisfron, Sisgaaz, Prosub e Proteger). Tais atuações 

ocorrerão cada vez mais intrincadas com vários outros atores (ex. Congresso, ministérios, associações empresariais, universidades). Assim, a concepção de prioridades e sua gestão não podem ser mais visualizadas como algo eminentemente 

técnico e militar, mas sim crescentemente intersetorial. Daí a importância de uma 

carreira civil na Defesa que, no médio e longo prazos, seja capaz de contribuir 

para uma maior organicidade à formulação, implementação, monitoramento e 

avaliação de políticas públicas tendo em vista o papel da Defesa. Nesse sentido, 

a excessiva simplicidade com que o Paed foi inicialmente apresentado no Livro 

Branco de Defesa Nacional de 2012 sinaliza a crucialidade dessa carreira para o 

MD na atualidade.
Volume 16 / 2014 55

Notas

1. Decreto Presidencial de 06 de setembro de 2007.

2. Decreto Legislativo no 373, de 25 de setembro de 2013.

3. Lei Complementar no 97, de 9 de junho de 1999.

4. Decreto Presidencial no 5.484, de 30 de junho de 2005.

5. Em 2004, o ministro Viegas entregou sua carta de demissão ao presidente Lula, em 

função de vários atritos políticos com as Forças Armadas, com destaque para o episódio 

envolvendo o então comandante do Exército, General Francisco Albuquerque, e posições 

sobre o Golpe de 64.

6. Portaria Normativa no 899, de 19 de julho de 2005.

7. Tal concepção pode ser representada pela “Declaração sobre Segurança nas Américas” 

da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA), de outubro de 2003.

8. Ressalte-se nessa direção a criação, pelo Decreto no 5.289, de 29 de novembro de 2004, 

da Força Nacional de Segurança Pública (FNSP). O intuito da FNSP foi justamente criar 

uma opção intermediária entre as polícias estaduais e o emprego das forças armadas brasileiras em situações de crises. 

9. O CDS é composto pelos ministros da Defesa da Argentina, Brasil, Uruguai, Paraguai, 

Bolívia, Colômbia, Equador, Peru, Chile, Guiana, Suriname e Venezuela.

10. Decreto no 6.703, de 18 de dezembro de 2008.

11. A própria END elencava tarefas a serem realizadas em suas “Disposições finais” (BRASIL, 2008, p. 67-70).

12. Consultar, por exemplo, “Uruguay and US fear arms race in South America”. The 

Guardian, 15/10/2009. “A South American arms race?” TIME, por Andrew Downie, 

21/12/2007.

13. Ver, por exemplo, “Chávez jokes about helping Iran build nuclear bomb”. The Guardian, por James Sturcle, 07/10/2009.

14. “Avança o projeto de treinador básico Unasul-1”. Defesanet, 04/06/2012. 

15. “Unasul cria a Escola Sul-americana de Defesa”. Inforel, 25/02/2014. 

16. “Brasil compra lanchas da Colômbia para defesa fluvial”. Portal G1, 02/05/2012. 

17. “Espionagem abre discussão sobre preparo do Brasil para uma guerra cibernética”. 

BBC Brasil, por Maurício Moraes, 14/10/2013. 

18. “Após 30 anos de desenvolvimento, Brasil quer lançar satélites em 2015”. Terra, 

06/04/2013. 

19. “Visiona assina contratos com fornecedores do sistema do satélite geoestacionário brasileiro”. Embraer, Press Release, 12/12/2013.

20. Em 2006, por exemplo, o então secretário-geral do Itamaraty, Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães, se envolveu em uma polêmica sobre a possibilidade de o Brasil abandonar o TNP. 

“Itamaraty negar ter intenção de deixar tratado nuclear”. BBC Brasil, 10 de novembro de 

2006. 

21. Lei no 7.496, de 08 de junho de 2011.

22. Decreto no 7.424, de 05 de janeiro de 2011.

23. A Lei Complementar no 136, de 25 de agosto de 2010 alterou a Lei Complementar no 

97, de 9 de junho de 1999.

24. Discurso de posse do secretário-geral do Ministério da Defesa, Ari Matos Cardoso, 

03/05/2013.

25. Decreto no 7.364, de 23 de novembro de 2010.

26. Lei no 12.598, de 22 de março de 2012.

27. O Comdefesa foi criado em 2004 e hoje é um departamento na Fiesp, do qual este autor 
56 Security and Defense Studies Review 

é, até o momento, membro-convidado no contexto de atividades com fins estritamente 

acadêmicos.

28. Instrução Normativa n.o 1.454, de 25 de fevereiro de 2014. 

29. Decreto no 3.897, de 24 de agosto de 2001.

30. Lei Complementar no 117, de 2 de setembro de 2004.

31. “Brazil sends military troops to violence-plagued Rio”.CNN, 27/11/2010.

32. “Hundreds of Brazilian military police raid slum in Rio de Janeiro”. CNN, 19/06/2011.

33. “Aniversariante, general recebe bolo e saudações de manifestantes na BA”. Portal G1, 

07/02/2012.

34. Portaria Normativa no 186 do Ministério da Defesa, de 31 de janeiro de 2014.

35. “RJ receberá força federal pela 6a vez desde 1o mandato de Cabral, em 2007”. Portal 

G1, por Káthia Mello.

36. “France salutes end of military service”. BBC News, 29/11/2001.

37. “Relançada a Frente Parlamentar de Defesa”. Defesanet, 15/06/2011. 
Volume 16 / 2014 57

Derechos Humanos y la Lucha Contra las 

Organizaciones Criminales Transnacionales: Una 

Estrategia Imprescindible 

Pat Paterson y Cristina Blain 

Resumen

Los gobiernos de América Latina han tenido que recurrir a 

sus Fuerzas Militares para combatir el crimen organizado. 

Los militares, muy respetados en la mayoría de las naciones 

latinoamericanas, tienen la disciplina y el poder de las armas 

para contrarrestar estos grupos. Sin embargo, el uso a los 

militares en operaciones policiales es una solución peligrosa. 

Soldados sin el entrenamiento o la educación adecuada, podrían 

incurrir en violaciones de derechos humanos y poner en riesgo 

la legitimidad de la institución castrense ante la sociedad civil. 

La experiencia de EE.UU. en Irak demuestra los riesgos de 

desplegar las fuerzas armadas que carecen de un entrenamiento 

apropiado. Utilizada incorrectamente, esta fuerza puede 

ser contraproducente y puede poner en peligro el objetivo 

estratégico más importante: el apoyo de la población. El respeto 

por los derechos humanos genera legitimidad que conduce a 

la colaboración y el apoyo ciudadano y oportunidades de 

inteligencia para las fuerzas militares.

Introducción

A lo largo de la región latinoamericana, los gobiernos han tenido que recurrir a 

sus Fuerzas Militares para combatir el crimen organizado. Estos grupos criminales –narcotraficantes en Colombia, carteles en México, maras en Honduras o 

pandillas en Brasil– usan la violencia para aterrorizar a sus oponentes y manejan 

gigantescos recursos financieros obtenidos del tráfico ilegal. Los militares, muy 

respetados en la mayoría de las naciones latinoamericanas, tienen la disciplina 

y el poder de las armas para contrarrestar estos grupos. Sin embargo, usar a los 

militares en operaciones policiales es una solución peligrosa, un riesgo cargado 

de complicaciones. Los soldados, normalmente entrenados para derrotar a su 

enemigo usando máxima fuerza letal, necesitan un entrenamiento extenso sobre 

la lucha contra un enemigo que se encuentra mezclado con la población. Soldados sin el entrenamiento o la educación adecuada, podrían incurrir en violaciones 

de derechos humanos y poner en riesgo la legitimidad de la institución castrense 

ante la sociedad civil. En consecuencia, el despliegue de fuerzas armadas conlleva 
58 Security and Defense Studies Review 

serios riesgos tanto para los civiles en regiones particularmente afectadas por el 

crimen organizado, como para la misma reputación de las instituciones militares. 

Este artículo examina el uso de las Fuerzas Militares latinoamericanas en 

operaciones policiales domésticas. Asimismo, describimos a las Organizaciones 

Criminales Transnacionales (OCT), sus tácticas, su centro de gravedad y sus objetivos estratégicos. Comparamos estos grupos de crimen organizado con grupos de insurgencia política, e identificamos características comunes entre ambos. 

Analizamos por qué las policías, normalmente bien entrenadas y preparadas para 

misiones que requieren discreción en el uso de la fuerza, son a menudo incapaces 

de combatir las OCT. También revisamos el marco legal del conflicto armado bajo 

estas circunstancias, los principios de guerra contenidos en el derecho internacional humanitario DIH, y cómo éstas pueden aplicarse a este tipo de conflictos. Por 

otra parte analizamos los desafíos de identificar intenciones hostiles, mientras se 

combate un enemigo entremezclado con la población civil, y cómo las fuerzas de 

seguridad son posteriormente contenidas/limitadas al uso de la defensa propia. 

Comparamos estos casos con la experiencia de Estados Unidos en Iraq, para demostrar los riesgos de desplegar fuerzas armadas carentes de un entrenamiento 

apropiado. Por último, cuestionamos qué tan apropiado es el marco institucional 

de las fuerzas armadas para enfrentar esta problemática. 

Después de nuestro análisis, llegamos a una serie de conclusiones: En primer 

lugar, los militares en América Latina a quienes se les ha asignado este tipo de 

misiones, luchan en un conflicto similar contra la insurgencia política que muchos 

de los países de la región han experimentado. La amenaza actual no está motivada 

políticamente, pero es igual de compleja y multifacética. Los grupos de crimen 

organizado en las Américas representan un tipo de insurgencia urbana, integrada 

por criminales violentos, llenos de recursos y motivados por la avaricia, con la 

intención de maximizar su utilidad, y que buscan libertad de maniobra tomando 

el control sobre territorios apartados, lejos del poder y la presencia legitima del 

Estado. Más importante aún, es que muchos de los elementos que caracterizan a la 

insurgencia política, se encuentran presentes en las organizaciones criminales. Es 

esencial que los líderes de la región identifiquen correctamente la naturaleza y los 

aspectos particulares de la amenaza para poder desarrollar estrategias apropiadas 

para combatir el crimen organizado. En segundo lugar, hemos encontrado que 

algunas naciones latinoamericanas están utilizando tácticas que son contraproducentes a la estrategia general. Nuestros hallazgos distan de la táctica de Mano Dura 

utilizada por muchas naciones, de la creencia general de que métodos agresivos 

son, por sí mismos, adecuados y suficientes para solucionar el problema. Como 

en la insurgencia política, la fuerza militar es solo una de muchas herramientas 

necesarias para la victoria. Utilizada incorrectamente, esta fuerza puede ser contraproducente, y poner en peligro el objetivo estratégico más importante: el apoyo 

de la población. El respeto por los derechos humanos – y la rendición de cuentas 

cuando se cometen errores– genera legitimidad que conduce a la colaboración y 

el apoyo ciudadano y oportunidades de inteligencia para las fuerzas militares. Por 

último, concluimos que muchas de las fuerzas armadas en América Latina están 

mal preparadas para este tipo de operaciones. Existen obstáculos institucionales 
Volume 16 / 2014 59

y culturales dentro de las fuerzas armadas, para desarrollar una estrategia adecuada. Pero quizá el mayor impedimento para combatir efectivamente el crimen 

organizado en la región es la carencia de educación y entrenamiento de las fuerzas 

militares con respecto a la verdadera naturaleza de la amenaza y las tácticas apropiadas para combatirla. 

Organizaciones criminales transnacionales 

Las Organizaciones Criminales Transnacionales (OCT) en América Latina representan en este momento la más grande amenaza a la seguridad y estabilidad de la 

región.1 Estos grupos trafican drogas, armamento y personas, y dependen de las 

ganancias ilícitas para financiar sus operaciones. Ellos representan una amenaza 

irregular a las ideas tradicionales de soberanía. No son controladas por un gobierno central, no están reguladas ni restringidas por las fronteras internacionales 

y no representan un Estado-nación. Por el contrario, tienen un sistema de mando 

altamente descentralizado, y son más una red de criminales que una fuerza militar 

cohesionada. Sus estructuras de mando están descentralizadas de tal manera que 

es casi imposible derrotar al enemigo capturando o dando de baja a los líderes 

de la organización. Debido a que trafican en el mercado negro con productos 

como drogas y armas, los gobiernos deben combatir las fuerzas de demanda del 

mercado. En otras palabras, las OCT utilizan problemáticas comunes en muchos 

países latinoamericanos (corrupción, pobreza, desempleo, y una juventud privada 

de derechos), como una fuente de reclutamiento y motivación.2

Las OCT son quizá el oponente más formidable que nuestras fuerzas militares 

han enfrentado en décadas. Están equipadas con armamento pesado, incluyendo 

rifles de alto calibre y carros bomba. Estos grupos no cumplen normas internacionales sobre conflicto armado que los militares están obligados a cumplir según el 

derecho internacional. Las OCT aterrorizan a sus oponentes, no hacen distinciones entre civiles y militares y usan el chantaje y la extorsión de manera reiterada. 

Tienen vastas organizaciones de inteligencia conformadas por espías humanos y 

abogados que han logrado penetrar los más altos niveles del gobierno y del poder. 

Jueces y funcionarios estatales se han convertido en parte de la nómina del cartel, 

brindando protección política y jurídica a estos grupos. Están extremadamente 

bien financiados; se estima que sus ganancias son de aproximadamente US$6.2 

trillones al año, el equivalente al 10% del PIB mundial.3

Estos grupos son de diversas dimensiones y con características únicas. Las 

Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionaras de Colombia – FARC-EP, por ejemplo, se originaron como una guerrilla subversiva en los años sesenta para luchar contra el 

gobierno central corrupto en Bogotá. No obstante, en los años noventa, el grupo 

se degeneró para convertirse en una organización criminal enfocada en el tráfico 

de cocaína y marihuana, la extorsión y el secuestro. En su punto más alto de influencia a finales de esa década, las FARC llegaron a controlar cerca del 40% del 

área rural colombiana.

Los Zetas, uno de los carteles más grandes y feroces de las docenas de organizaciones existentes en México, fueron engendrados de los cuerpos de guardaespaldas del Cartel del Golfo en las provincias del noreste del país. En 2010, 
60 Security and Defense Studies Review 

éstos traicionaron a sus antiguos líderes y hoy son el cartel que opera en la mayor 

porción del territorio mexicano. Su red de operaciones se expandió desde Centroamérica a través de casi todo México oriental y a cientos de ciudades de los Estados Unidos. Algunos reportes de seguridad han registrado que esta organización 

opera incluso en Venezuela y Colombia.4 En lugar de utilizar la extorsión para 

mantener el control de sus lucrativos corredores de tráfico ilegal, emplean tácticas 

brutales de violencia –decapitaciones, desmembramientos, linchamiento público, 

tortura y masacres indiscriminadas de migrantes.

Las pandillas de Centroamérica –la Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) y Calle 18 

(M-18) son las más notorias– se estima que alcanzan entre los 70,000 y 100,000 

miembros.5 Operan en varias ciudades centroamericanas y se basan en la extorsión y crímenes menores para financiar sus actividades. Su vasta red de miembros 

se extiende a lo largo de la región y frecuentemente sirven como soldados de a pie 

y mensajeros de los grandes carteles de la droga. 

En Brasil, las organizaciones como Primeiro Comando da Capital o Comando Vermelho, operan desde las favelas en las ciudades principales como Rio de Janeiro y Sao Paulo. Trafican principalmente con armas y drogas ilícitas, problemas 

que han aumentado en los últimos años, debido a que cada vez más narcóticos 

son traficados a través de Brasil. De acuerdo con una fuente, las bandas controlan 

entre el 40% y el 50% de las favelas en Rio de Janeiro.6

El “nuevo Paradigma” para los Militares en América Latina7

Las operaciones de seguridad que se llevan a cabo en la actualidad en el hemisferio contra las Organizaciones Criminales Transnacionales, no encajan en la definición estricta de operaciones contra-insurgentes. De acuerdo con la doctrina de 

Estados Unidos, la insurgencia es un movimiento organizado que busca derrocar 

un gobierno a través del uso de la subversión y el conflicto armado.8 En este sentido, los insurgentes pueden tener fines políticos, religiosos o ideológicos. Las OCT 

en América Latina por su parte, son grupos criminales profesionales motivados 

por la codicia y la avaricia, y no necesariamente por poder político. 

Sin embargo, es cierto que algunos elementos de la violencia en México y 

Centroamérica son comunes a los de la insurgencia política.9

 Las OCT aunque no 

pretenden derrocar el gobierno central o regional, buscan suficiente control sobre 

el gobierno y las fuerzas de seguridad oficiales, para asegurar su libre movilidad 

y evitar ser perseguidos por la justicia. Buscan controlar el territorio de un país no 

por el control político, sino para obtener un beneficio económico. Esto lo pueden 

lograr aterrorizando autoridades locales, intimidando a las fuerzas de seguridad, 

o conspirando con funcionarios corruptos que les aseguren la protección legal en 

caso de ser arrestados.10 Al sobornar a funcionarios del gobierno, a las fuerzas armadas, jueces, y patrullas fronterizas, las OCT logran mover su producto ilegal libremente dentro y fuera del territorio nacional. El presidente de Guatemala Pérez 

Molina reconoció la magnitud de la problemática cuando declaró: “el narcotráfico ha crecido, ha penetrados las instituciones, a los fiscales y a los jueces...”11

Esto efectivamente significa que los criminales toman el control de un área, sea 

de manera directa o indirecta, para convertirse en líderes de facto de la zona.12
Volume 16 / 2014 61

En 2011 por ejemplo, algunos analistas declararon que el estado de Tamaulipas 

al este de México como cercano a un estado fallido, debido a que las fuerzas del 

gobierno habían perdido presuntamente el control de toda la provincia, quedando 

en manos de fracciones del cartel de los Zetas.13

A lo largo de América Latina, los líderes políticos han enviado a sus militares 

a las calles a combatir la oleada de crímenes que han convertido a esta región en 

la más violenta del mundo.14 De las 50 ciudades con más homicidios en el mundo, 

42 se encuentran en Latinoamérica, producto de la violencia del crimen organizado que ha consumido la región.15 El ejemplo más reciente en el cual el gobierno 

ha ordenado a los militares a combatir el crimen organizado fue en abril de 2014 

en Brasil, para la “pacificación” de las favelas en las ciudades más grandes del 

país. En marzo de 2014, Colombia desplegó 2,400 soldados e infantes de marina 

al puerto de Buenaventura en el Pacífico para tomar el control de diferentes zonas 

de la ciudad que estaban en manos de grupos criminales. México, Perú y la mayor 

parte de naciones de Centroamérica están presenciando la confrontación violenta 

de las fuerzas militares con las redes criminales.

En estas operaciones contra el crimen organizado, la inteligencia juega un 

papel fundamental. La oscura red de criminales depende de la clandestinidad para 

mover sus productos ilícitos y mantener una base de operaciones. Consecuentemente, el apoyo y legitimidad de la población civil es el centro de gravedad y la 

clave para obtener la victoria en un conflicto de estas características.16 Las fuerzas 

de seguridad así como los grupos criminales intentan obtener el mayor apoyo posible de la población. En países donde la pobreza, los bajos niveles de educación 

y un débil sistema de salud son lo común, surgen oportunidades para que las 

organizaciones criminales tomen ventaja de la falta de presencia gubernamental. 

Cualquier estructura, lícita o ilícita, presente en estas zonas, ofrece incentivos 

financieros y cierto nivel de estabilidad para las familias. Los civiles tienen la 

opción de apoyar o rechazar ya sea a los grupos criminales o a las fuerzas de seguridad, con base en su percepción de cuál puede generarles un mayor beneficio. 

A pesar de tener el riesgo de retaliación por parte de los miembros de los carteles, 

los civiles que cooperen con las fuerzas militares pueden llegar a resistir los esfuerzos de coerción de los criminales, y proveer inteligencia vital a las fuerzas de 

seguridad sobre la ubicación y el quehacer de los miembros de un grupo criminal. 

Esta es inteligencia valiosa, difícil de obtener y mantener con otros métodos. Los 

civiles que cooperan con los militares lo hacen bajo su propio riesgo. Saben que 

una vez que los soldados dejen de hacer presencia, ellos o sus familias serán sujetos de retaliaciones por parte de los grupos criminales.17

Como en una insurgencia política tradicional, puede haber un espectro de la 

población que apoya o se opone a la estructura criminal. Una porción de la población estará asistiendo directamente a los criminales a cambio de un pago. Los 

civiles que apoyan las OCT pueden aportar asistencia crítica con nuevos reclutas, 

líneas de abastecimiento y logística, e información sobre los esfuerzos del gobierno. Otros pueden ser ambivalentes, sin apoyar directamente el crimen organizado 

ni oponiéndose a éste, por miedo a sufrir represalias. Otros incluso pueden ser 

abiertamente opositores de la actividad criminal. El comportamiento de la fuerza 
62 Security and Defense Studies Review 

de seguridad es esencial para mantener el apoyo de la población, disuadir a otros 

ciudadanos de cooperar con los grupos criminales, y reclutar más seguidores que 

puedan proveer inteligencia valiosa. 

Esta inteligencia puede también aportar información para desarrollar programas de desarrollo por parte de los gobiernos en zonas que necesitan estímulos 

económicos. Si las fuerzas de seguridad son percibidas como justas, la población 

local apoyará la presencia militar sostenida, facilitando otro tipo de esfuerzos del 

gobierno en el área, tales como proyectos de desarrollo. Esto desalentará a los 

ciudadanos marginales a desarrollar actividades ilícitas como fuente de ingresos y 

como resultado, reduciría su apoyo a los grupos de crimen organizado.18

Por estas razones, es transcendental que las fuerzas de seguridad tomen todas 

las precauciones para evitar daños colaterales o afectar víctimas inocentes durante las operaciones de seguridad. Como el enemigo continuamente opera entre 

la población, los civiles corren el riesgo de ser víctimas de balas perdidas, fuego 

cruzado o incluso ser atacadas por equivocación. Las fuerzas militares que no están entrenadas en este tipo de operaciones centradas en la población civil, pueden 

excederse en el uso excesivo de la fuerza contra la población. Teniendo en cuenta 

que el apoyo de la comunidad es clave para la victoria, las acciones equivocadas 

pueden enemistar a la población con las fuerzas oficiales. 

La ley del conflicto armado está diseñada para proteger a los no-combatientes 

en estas situaciones. También llamada Derecho Internacional Humanitario, esta 

ley está compuesta por los principios de guerra reconocidos internacionalmente 

diseñados para proteger a los no-combatientes en tiempos de guerra. En términos 

formales, esto es conocido como Jus in bello, la ley que regula las acciones de 

los Estados una vez iniciado un conflicto bélico. En otras palabras, los Estados y 

sus fuerzas, tienen limitaciones legales y morales que se aplican a la conducta de 

desatar una guerra. Estas están codificadas en las Convenciones de Ginebra y en 

muchos otros tratados aceptados internacionalmente.19

Las leyes más reconocidas que regulan la guerra, incluyen los principios de 

discriminación, necesidad, humanidad, y proporcionalidad. La discriminación 

(también referida como distinción), es el principio más importante. Requiere que 

las partes de un conflicto dirijan sus acciones solo contra combatientes y objetivos 

militares, y que tomen las medidas apropiadas para distinguir entre combatientes 

y no combatientes. Los ataques militares deberían estar dirigidos al enemigo y 

nunca hacia civiles o propiedad privada. La necesidad le exige a las partes limitar 

sus acciones a aquellas que son indispensables para asegurar la sumisión total del 

enemigo tan pronto sea posible. El principio de humanidad prohíbe a las partes 

infligir actos violentos o emplear métodos calculados para causar sufrimiento innecesario. Dicho de otro modo, el derecho de los beligerantes a adoptar medios 

para herir al enemigo no es ilimitado. Está prohibido utilizar armas, proyectiles o 

materiales que causen sufrimiento innecesario. El principio de proporcionalidad, 

le exige a las partes asegurar que las pérdidas de vida anticipada o de propiedades 

a partir de un ataque, no sea excesivo en relación con la ventaja militar directa que 

se espera obtener del mismo. Un ataque en el cual se espera la pérdida incidental 

de vidas civiles, heridas o daños a su persona o propiedad, deben ser evitados.20
Volume 16 / 2014 63

Es importante reconocer que la ley del conflicto armado permite una amplia 

variedad de conductas que serían ilegales en una situación de paz. Por lo general, la destrucción intencional de propiedad privada y la restricción severa a 

las libertades individuales son inaceptables en tiempos de paz, pero aceptables en 

épocas de guerra. Incluso las acciones que un combatiente sabe podrían poner a 

la población en peligro de muerte, son legales cuando son aplicadas de acuerdo 

a los principios de necesidad, humanidad, proporcionalidad y distinción. Esto 

representa una responsabilidad moral inmensa para las fuerzas de seguridad. 

Cuando ocurre un incidente que involucra una violación de derechos humanos, 

no es suficiente declarar que la acción militar era necesaria de acuerdo con los 

principios del conflicto armado. Los hechos deben concordar con la narrativa. 

Si la rendición de cuentas por parte de los militares es dudosa o engañosa, o si es 

contraria a los reportes de testigos, la reputación de la unidad militar será cuestionada. 

La aplicación y vigilancia apropiadas de la ley del conflicto afectarán la legitimidad de las fuerzas armadas. Cuando la población acepta la legitimidad de la 

acción militar y su presencia, también pueden llegar a perdonar errores cometidos 

por las fuerzas militares si los soldados son percibidos como cuidadosos en evitar 

causar daños excesivos. Si las fuerzas de seguridad no son percibidas por el público como respetuosas de los derechos humanos y de los principios del derecho 

internacional humanitario, sus acciones, incluso aquellas que sean aceptables dentro del marco legal del conflicto, podrían generar resentimiento público.

Durante las operaciones contra las OCT, las fuerzas de seguridad siguen estas reglas con el fin de evitar causar violaciones a los derechos humanos. Estas condiciones son difíciles de cumplir en circunstancias tan salvajes y austeras 

como las que enfrentan las unidades en medio del combate. El oponente se mezcla 

entre la población, algunos miembros de la comunidad en ocasiones colaboran 

o coluden con los criminales y las fuerzas irregulares que no utilizan uniformes 

son difíciles de distinguir de los civiles inocentes. Los soldados deben aceptar un 

riesgo adicional para evitar hacerles daño a los no-combatientes. Cuando hay una 

confrontación con los criminales de un área urbana, los soldados deben a menudo 

hacer una pausa para confirmar la identificación de su blanco, y decidir cuál es 

la decisión más apropiada. Bajo estas circunstancias, esta pausa puede marcar la 

diferencia entre la vida y la muerte. 

En estas situaciones, gran parte de la responsabilidad resta en el comandante de 

la unidad para asegurar que sus hombres y mujeres estén adecuadamente preparados 

para estas operaciones y que el liderazgo de la unidad esté pendiente para asegurar 

que el comportamiento de los soldados sea el adecuado. De acuerdo con la doctrina 

del derecho internacional humanitario, no es admisible excusarse con que el soldado 

simplemente seguía órdenes. Los soldados están obligados a desobedecer órdenes 

ilegales. Sin embargo, son raros los casos en los que el soldado tenga este comportamiento. Parte de la disciplina inculcada en gran parte de la doctrina militar seguir 

órdenes sin dudar ni debatirlas. Muchos elementos de las leyes del conflicto armado 

son demasiado complejos y largos, para un soldado. Si las violaciones en efecto ocurren, el comandante debe llevar a cabo una investigación, pedir al militar que rinda 
64 Security and Defense Studies Review 

cuentas y tomar la acción correctiva para prevenir que un incidente similar se repita.21

Comparación entre las capacidades de la policía y las fuerzas militares. 

En muchos países latinoamericanos, particularmente en México y la mayoría de 

países de Centroamérica, la responsabilidad de combatir el crimen organizado 

queda en manos de los militares y no de la policía. La policía no tiene el entrenamiento ni el equipamiento necesario para combatir OCT fuertemente armadas. 

Adicionalmente, la policía en la región es generalmente muy mal remunerada, 

y por lo tanto, vulnerable a la corrupción y al soborno ofrecido por los grupos 

criminales.22

Esta corrupción genera una carencia de confianza por parte de la población. 

Por ejemplo en una encuesta de 2008, en promedio el 44% de los latinoamericanos pensaban que su policía estaba involucrada en acciones ilegales. En Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala y Venezuela más del 60% percibían que su policía 

nacional estaba involucrada en acciones delincuenciales.23 Incluso en países en 

los que se han llevado reformas al interior de la policía, para evitar la comisión 

sistemática de abusos de derechos, su debilidad a la hora de combatir el crimen 

los dejaba con mínima credibilidad operacional. Esto se manifiesta en una falta de 

colaboración ciudadana con la policía. La corrupción de la policía y la colusión 

con criminales no es cierta en todos los casos de la región. La policía nacional 

colombiana y la carabineros chilena por ejemplo, son consideradas como instituciones muy profesionales que reciben relativamente pocas reclamaciones 

relacionadas con derechos humanos, y tienen procesos relativamente transparentes de investigación, sistemas judiciales imparciales y programas robustos de supervisión. 

Las mismas ventajas que los militares tienen sobre la policía pueden generar 

detrimento al involucramiento de los militares en operaciones contra el crimen 

organizado. Los soldados son entrenados para ganar guerras usando el máximo de 

su fuerza, incluyendo fuerza letal.24 Esto es contrario a la acción policial, la cual 

debe utilizar el mínimo de fuerza y a minimizar el escalamiento de la misma. El 

rol de la policía normalmente requiere un alto grado de discreción en sus juicios, 

tales como la decisión de prevenir o detener, ignorar o investigar. Las armas militares están diseñadas para acabar con el enemigo, y generalmente no son apropiadas para el propósito de contrarrestar actividades menores de delincuencia. 

Los soldados no están preparados para patrullar las calles o tratar con criminales 

difíciles de distinguir entre los civiles y que se presumen inocentes mientras no se 

les compruebe lo contrario. La lógica militar, su capacidad de disparo y de ataque, 

cuando son ejercidos para la seguridad doméstica o en misiones similares, como 

combatir el narcotráfico, plantean un alto riesgo a la seguridad de los ciudadanos. 

La participación militar en asuntos internos y misiones de seguridad ha llevado en 

múltiples ocasiones a que se presenten casos de violación de derechos humanos.25

Actos hostiles vs. Intenciones hostiles

Mientras que las unidades militares llevan a cabo operaciones para el mantenimiento del orden entre la población civil, los soldados con frecuencia deben 
Volume 16 / 2014 65

utilizar la fuerza para protegerse ellos mismos, a su unidad, o a otras personas 

o propiedades. En general, las fuerzas militares pueden utilizar su fuerza letal 

cuando son sujetos de un acto hostil o una intención hostil. Un acto hostil –el uso 

de la fuerza contra una unidad militar– es relativamente fácil de distinguir. Ocurre 

cuando una unidad o un objetivo que la unidad debe proteger, recibe ataques de 

fuego de un criminal o un enemigo. 

Lo que es más difícil de determinar en estas situaciones es la intención hostil. 

La intención hostil está definida como la amenaza del uso inminente de la fuerza 

contra una unidad o un objetivo que la unidad debe proteger.26 En operaciones 

domesticas de mantenimiento de la ley y el orden, se pueden presentar diversos 

escenarios. Los soldados pueden ser enviados para instalar puestos de control, 

barricadas, controles de carreteras, inspeccionar casas o llevar a cabo operaciones 

directas contra un enemigo conocido. ¿Qué ocurre si un vehículo hace caso omiso 

en un retén de carretera y no disminuye la velocidad? ¿Qué acciones son permitidas en esta situación? ¿Qué ocurre si el sujeto que desobedece es un enemigo 

emprendiendo la huida? ¿Pueden los soldados disparar contra el sujeto? ¿Qué 

pasa si el perpetrador huye después de enfrentar a la unidad militar? ¿Pueden los 

soldados disparar al enemigo si hay presencia de civiles en el área con el riesgo 

de que haya daños colaterales?27 Las acciones militares pueden generar resentimiento y protestas de la población local. En estas circunstancias, los soldados 

pueden encontrar una amplia variedad de situaciones de intención hostil por parte 

de los civiles. Por ejemplo, ¿podrían los soldados disparar contra manifestantes 

que estén atacando con piedras a la unidad? ¿Usando ladrillos? ¿Bombas molotov? ¿Qué nivel de uso de la fuerza es permisible en esas circunstancias?

A las fuerzas armadas siempre se les ha permitido el uso de la defensa propia 

para protegerse a ellos mismos y a otras unidades.28 Cuando una unidad militar 

opera en entornos peligrosos y no están adecuadamente educados o entrenados 

en el escalamiento de las técnicas de uso de la fuerza, pueden tomar una postura 

agresiva, cuando aún quedan otras opciones no-letales.29

Como resultado, las unidades militares en estas situaciones deberían preocuparse más por la protección de la fuerza, que por evitar la generación de daños 

colaterales. En estas circunstancias, darle demasiado énfasis a la defensa propia 

puede estar en detrimento del éxito de una misión. Al mismo tiempo, el uso 

moderado de la fuerza y la discriminación de los objetivos genera riesgos para las 

unidades. Es un riesgo necesario. Si las fuerzas militares abren fuego contra cada 

presunta amenaza, se cometerán errores, se hará daño a los civiles y la confianza 

y legitimidad del esfuerzo militar se pondrá en peligro.30 Estos incidentes pueden 

incluso llevar a ciudadanos ambivalentes o indiferentes a unirse a grupos de crimen organizado por resentimiento o animosidad de las fuerzas de seguridad. 

En México por ejemplo, una encuesta de 2012 reveló que había una mayor 

preocupación en asuntos de violación de derechos humanos por los militares y la 

policía que por el crimen la corrupción y el narcotráfico.31 Setenta y cuatro por 

ciento de los encuestados consideran que las violaciones de derechos humanos 

por parte de fuerzas oficiales son un asunto de suma gravedad, casi igual al de la 

violencia derivada del narcotráfico (la cual alcanzó un 75%). Quizá como resul-
66 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Gráfica 1. Problemas en México

tado, la percepción y el apoyo del público de los militares mexicanos disminuyó 

drásticamente, de 77% en 2009 a 62% en 2011.32

Legitimidad

Como en las campañas de contrainsurgencia, la lucha contra las OCT es esencialmente una competencia entre criminales y fuerzas de seguridad por la legitimidad.33 En cualquier sociedad moderna, los ciudadanos apoyan a líderes que 

ellos consideran representan mejor sus intereses. Estos líderes les proveen servicios básicos como seguridad, educación, salud y asistencia en épocas de crisis. 

A cambio, los ciudadanos aceptan realizar determinados sacrificios, tales como 

pagar impuestos, aceptar la autoridad de los líderes y sus representantes, y pueden 

perdonar los errores cometidos por sus gobernantes siempre y cuando hayan ocurrido durante la ejecución de sus funciones oficiales y dentro del marco de la ley 

nacional. La legitimidad representa justicia o legalidad. Significa la aceptación y 

el apoyo de una población, de un conjunto de reglas y de una autoridad. La autoridad política depende del acuerdo tácito o explícito de la población.34 Aceptar 

la autoridad como legítima implica cierto nivel de consentimiento por parte de 

la población hacia las acciones de esa autoridad. Y más allá, implica aceptar las 

decisiones de dicha autoridad, incluso si dichas acciones no son deseadas. De 

acuerdo con la doctrina norteamericana de contrainsurgencia, la victoria se logra 
Volume 16 / 2014 67

cuando la población consiente la legitimidad del gobierno y deja de apoyar activa 

o pasivamente la insurgencia.35

En la lucha moderna contra las OCT, las fuerzas militares son percibidas 

como representantes legítimos del gobierno. A las fuerzas militares se les da autoridad extraordinaria especialmente durante estados de excepción cuando las 

libertades políticas y civiles son suspendidas para permitir operaciones de seguridad urgentes. Bajo estas condiciones, cada operación tiene un componente de 

principio de legalidad.36 Cualquier acto que la población considere ilegítimo (tal 

como el maltrato de detenidos u otros actos criminales perpetrados por soldados) 

puede incitar a la desobediencia por parte de los civiles al Estado de derecho. 

De acuerdo con la doctrina norteamericana sobre el principio de legalidad, “la 

habilidad de una unidad militar de establecer el Estado de derecho dentro de su 

zona de control depende de su propio cumplimiento a las normas que restringen 

las acciones de los soldados y protegen a la población del aparente uso arbitrario 

de la fuerza”.37

La experiencia de los Estados Unidos en Iraq

La experiencia norteamericana en Iraq brinda muchas lecciones para las naciones 

latinoamericanas comprometidas en conflictos contemporáneos semejantes.38 Habiendo iniciado en 2003 después de una victoria relativamente rápida de una guerra 

convencional sobre los militares de Saddam Hussein, las fuerzas estadounidenses 

no estaban preparadas para llevar a cabo operaciones policiales de mantenimiento 

de la ley y el orden durante la fase de postconflicto en el país. Los Estados Unidos 

utilizaron la estrategia equivocada y en repetidas ocasiones, tácticas inapropiadas 

en el intento de proveer seguridad y derrotar la insurgencia en ese país. Como resultado, Estados Unidos casi pierde la guerra. De hecho sufrió pérdidas humanas 

significativas entre sus propias tropas, entre las fuerzas de coalición, y entre la 

población civil que en retrospectiva, pudieran haberse evitado. 

En 2006, Estados Unidos implementó una nueva estrategia en Iraq que se 

enfocaba en proveer seguridad a los civiles iraquís, demostrando su respeto por 

los derechos humanos y enfatizando en el acatamiento de los principios de guerra, 

lo que permitió casi reversar la situación. Como resultado, la situación casi da un 

vuelco total y los cambios positivos no tenían precedentes. El número de ataques 

a las fuerzas norteamericanas disminuyó, el apoyo civil hacia las mismas incrementó, y los soldados estadounidenses percibieron un aumento en la cooperación 

en inteligencia provista por los ciudadanos iraquís.

Mucho se ha escrito de la experiencia estadounidense en Iraq.39 Cerca de 2.5 

millones de hombres y mujeres valientes sirvieron en Iraq. Muchos ejecutaron 

acciones heroicas en las circunstancias más peligrosas. De ninguna manera insinuamos siquiera que esta fue una fuerza, nada menos que de profesionales y 

honorables militares. Sin embargo, se cometieron errores críticos principalmente 

por dos razones: (1) educación y entrenamiento inadecuados para un ambiente 

peligroso y hostil, y (2) una estrategia inapropiada. El costo de estos errores fue 

muy alto. Cerca de 4,500 estadounidense murieron y aproximadamente 32,000 

más fueron heridos. Más de 100,000 civiles iraquíes murieron durante el con-
68 Security and Defense Studies Review 

flicto.40 Nuestra intención en esta sección no es revisar por qué se cometieron 

errores estratégicos y tácticos. Por el contrario, buscamos evaluar las lecciones 

de la experiencia estadounidense en Iraq, que pueden ser aplicadas a los casos 

latinoamericanos en circunstancias similares. Por una parte, la lucha contra un 

enemigo irregular adaptable, violento y oscuro mezclado con la población; por 

otra parte pueden aprenderse lecciones de cómo una estrategia que incluye el 

respeto por los derechos humanos puede alimentar sustancialmente el apoyo de la 

comunidad y contribuir en el éxito en el conflicto. 

Después de la primera invasión a Iraq el 20 de marzo de 2003, la armada y 

los Marine Corps necesitaban menos de tres semanas para conquistar Bagdad. El 

9 de abril los marines derrocaron una estatua de Hussein en la plaza Firdos, marcando de manera simbólica el fin a 24 años de tiranía en el país. A pesar del rápido 

éxito de las fuerzas estadounidenses durante las fases de combate del conflicto, 

Estados Unidos no estaba en absoluto preparado para la inestabilidad, el caos y la 

lucha interna que surgiría inmediatamente después. En abril de 2003, Bagdad y 

otras ciudades principales colapsaron ante una ola de caos y anarquía. El país rápidamente se deterioró hacia un escenario de conflicto étnico principalmente entre 

Sunís y Chiitas por el poder.41 Los soldados americanos, sin entrenamiento ni 

preparación para este tipo de operaciones policiales, se enfocaron erróneamente 

en la estrategia centrada en el enemigo de “capturar o matar” a los rebeldes, propugnada por el comandante en Iraq General Ricardo Sánchez (2003-2004) y su 

sucesor el General George Casey (2004-2007).42

Muchas lecciones de la experiencia en Iraq pueden ser aplicadas al caso de 

las OCT en América Latina. En primero lugar, el primer error de Estados Unidos 

fue no haber entrenado y educado apropiadamente a sus soldados.43 Bajo estas 

condiciones, las fuerzas americanas fueron obligadas a llevar a cabo una serie 

de misiones para las cuales no estaban entrenadas. Estados Unidos había estado 

preparado para combatir una guerra convencional contra fuerzas regulares, tales 

como la Guardia Republicana Iraquí, un enemigo previamente identificable y un 

tipo de conflicto que permitía hacer el uso máximo de la fuerza para aniquilar al 

oponente. El Dr. Colin Kahl, profesor de la Universidad de Georgetown a quien 

le fue asignada la tarea de evaluar las tácticas militares en Iraq, declaró que “los 

militares de Estados Unidos no se prepararon ni entrenaron adecuadamente para 

operaciones de estabilización y contrainsurgencia.”44 Por el contrario, el país 

enfrentaba un enemigo imposible de distinguir de la población civil y que permanecía escondido usando explosivos en las carreteras, carro bombas, y francotiradores para atacar a las fuerzas de la coalición. A medida que aumentó el estado 

de anarquía y violencia, los iraquíes vieron a las fuerzas americanas como parte 

del problema y no como la solución. Los ataques a unidades militares norteamericanas se intensificaron y escalaron rápidamente.45

Las críticas a las tácticas de los militares americanos llegaron desde sectores 

inesperados. Un oficial militar británico, consternado por el evidente descuido al 

respeto de los derechos humanos por parte de los soldados americanos, escribió: 

“El uso de la fuerza de los americanos no es proporcional y excede la amenaza a 

la que nos enfrentamos. Ellos no están preocupados por las muertes de iraquíes. 
Volume 16 / 2014 69

Su actitud hacia los iraquíes es trágica. Es espantosa.”46

Las condiciones del combate en este ambiente requerían el máximo de 

discreción. Antes de 2005 por ejemplo, pocas fuerzas americanas tenían el entrenamiento y la doctrina en procedimiento para el uso de puestos de control y 

barricadas. Cientos de retenes y barricadas fueron instalados alrededor de las ciudades iraquíes. Muchas de estas estaciones requerían mejor iluminación, uso de 

luces de bengala, señales de advertencia en el idioma local, luces intermitentes 

y barreras para reducir la velocidad de los automóviles. Los soldados no tenían 

ningún método para advertirle a los vehículos que se acercaban que disminuyeran la velocidad: ni advertencias verbales, ni medios no letales de detención, ni 

disparos de advertencia, ni barrotes o clavos en la carretera y ni siquiera disparos 

para averiar el vehículo. En vez de eso, los soldados en innumerables casos abrieron fuego y usaron la fuerza letal.47

Como parte de esta búsqueda agresiva de insurgentes y municiones escondidas, Estados Unidos condujo el allanamiento de aproximadamente 8000 casas desde mayo de 2003 hasta mayo de 2005. Muchas de estas redadas fueron 

realizadas durante la noche y causaron daños a la propiedad de civiles iraquíes, 

generando en consecuencia, el resentimiento y humillación por parte de la población. Aproximadamente 80.000 hombres iraquíes fueron arrestados y encarcelados como resultado de estas redadas. A pesar de esto, solo 30% del total 

produjo algún tipo de evidencia.48 

Las bombas instaladas en las carreteras (dispositivos explosivos improvisados o DEI) y carros bomba suicidas, causaron la mayor parte de bajas de la 

coalición. Para 2007 alcanzaron casi 2/3 de todas las bajas norteamericanas.49
70 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Como resultado, los soldados americanos temían el acercamiento de vehículos 

iraquíes a sus convoyes y con frecuencia disparaban cuando estos vehículos se 

aproximaban mucho. Los DEI eran normalmente activados a través de teléfonos 

celulares. Por lo tanto, los civiles usando celulares representaban una amenaza 

para los soldados y se convertían en un blanco.50

Otros ejemplos incluyen fuerzas norteamericanas usando fuego anti asalto 

contra morteros. Una de las tácticas de la insurgencia era ingresar a un barrio y camuflarse entre la comunidad, disparar morteros dirigidos a las fuerzas de coalición 

y retirarse inmediatamente. Estados Unidos desarrolló un radar anti asalto que le 

permitía a las fuerzas de coalición identificar la ubicación del origen del disparo 

de mortero. Sin embargo, la precisión de esta tecnología era insuficiente para 

responder con exactitud al enemigo, y las fuerzas norteamericanas terminaban 

por disparar a zonas pobladas con su artillería pesada.51

Los soldados americanos, bajo extrema presión y estrés operacional, 

cometieron horrorosos errores que trajeron ira a los iraquíes y ensombrecieron 

muchas de las acciones positivas que habían adelantado las fuerzas de Estados Unidos. En abril 28 de 2003 por ejemplo, las fuerzas americanas en Fallujah 

dispararon contra una multitud de manifestantes asesinando a 15 personas.52 Este 

suceso generó una serie de ataques de venganza contra las fuerzas americanas. 

Uno de los peores ejemplos es la masacre de Haditha el 19 de noviembre de 2005. 

Después de un ataque con DEI a su convoy, en el cual murió un marine y quedaron dos más heridos, los marines estadounidenses masacraron 24 civiles iraquíes, 

incluyendo mujeres y niños, como parte de un esfuerzo vengativo. Para empeorar 

las cosas, el evento fue inicialmente calificado como un ataque por parte de los 

rebeldes, hasta que la revista Time desafió a las autoridades militares a llevar una 
Volume 16 / 2014 71

inspección más profunda de los hechos. El intento de ocultar o lavar la verdad de 

los hechos, degradó aún más la imagen y credibilidad de Estados Unidos y provocó la ira de los rebeldes en el país. 

Los oficiales norteamericanos se preguntaban cómo unas fuerzas tan entrenadas y disciplinadas como los marines podrían llegar a cometer tales atrocidades. 

La investigación oficial concluyó en el 2006 y determinó que la cadena de mando 

del grupo ignoró indicaciones de desobediencia, “una falta de voluntad, cercana 

a la negación, por parte del comandante de batallón de examinar un incidente que 

le podría resultar inconveniente a él y a sus marines”. También reportó que los 

soldados americanos consideraban que proteger civiles iraquíes no era tan importante como proteger soldados americanos. Los marines, quizá como resultado de 

la insensibilización inevitable que se desprende de un ambiente de guerra, consideraron que el daño colateral fue el “costo de hacer negocios, y que los marines 

debían llevar a cabo su trabajo, sin importar qué haya que hacer para lograrlo.”53

Algunas encuestas realizadas a soldados y a marines revelaron que muchos 

de ellos no reconocían la directiva estratégica de respetar los derechos humanos 

y el derecho de guerra.54 En una encuesta dirigida por la armada norteamericana, 

de sus soldados que tenían una exposición frecuente en combate, 10% reportaron 

haber maltratado civiles o dañado propiedad privada sin que fuera necesario, solo 

38% afirmó que los civiles deberían ser tratados con respeto y dignidad, un tercio 

estaría dispuesto a torturar un enemigo captivo si esto salvara la vida de un compañero, menos de la mitad de los encuestados dijeron que reportarían incidentes 

de conductas antiéticas.55 Incluso después del año adicional de entrenamiento y 

adoctrinamiento, los resultados de la encuesta mostraban un leve cambio de tendencia. La encuesta MHAT (Mental Health Advisory Team) de 2007 reportó muy 

pocas mejoras sobre incumplimientos éticos de los soldados y marines en Iraq.56

Cuando los errores se cometieron, Estados Unidos intentó reparar a las víctimas o a sus familias. Por ejemplo, el 4 de marzo de 2007, en un acto suicida 

donde una camioneta se estrelló contra un convoy de Infantería de Marina cerca 

de Jalabad, Afganistán. Durante la consiguiente confusión, los infantes abrieron 

fuego indiscriminadamente contra la población a lo largo de numerosas millas de 

una carretera llena de multitud. Diecinueve civiles fueron asesinados y otros 50 

resultaron heridos. El comandante de brigada de la armada encargado, declaró a 

las familias de las víctimas estar “profundamente avergonzado” por este incidente y lo denominó un “terrible error”. Las familias de los sobrevivientes fueron 

indemnizadas cada una con US$2,000 para compensar su pérdida.57 De acuerdo 

con una fuente, los oficiales americanos pagaron US$32 millones en reparaciones. 

En otros casos, los funcionarios pidieron perdón por los errores de sus tropas. En 

otro incidente, el vice almirante McRaven, un veterano de operaciones especiales, pidió perdón personalmente a un padre que perdió a varios miembros de su 

familia por un error de las fuerzas americanas.58

En 2006 la situación en Iraq era tan nefasta que muchos políticos contemplaron la retirada del conflicto. En las encuestas públicas, cada vez más iraquíes 

culpaban a las fuerzas de Estados Unidos por la violencia en el país, más que a la 

insurgencia sunita, las milicias chiitas o los terroristas de Al Qaeda juntos.59 Como 
72 Security and Defense Studies Review 

resultado, casi 50% de la población de Iraq apoyaba los ataques a las fuerzas 

invasoras de coalición.60 El Iraq Study Group, un grupo de asesores en diseños 

de política pública, fue convocado por el presidente Bush en 2006 para plantear 

alternativas. En octubre de ese año, reportaron que la situación era grave y en 

deterioro. 

El segundo gran problema que impedía el éxito de Estados Unidos en Iraq, era 

la inapropiada estrategia y doctrina aplicada al ambiente de combate. De acuerdo 

con un reporte sobre los militares norteamericanos en Iraq durante el mandato de 

Sánchez, “no solo no había un plan de contrainsurgencia, sino de ningún tipo: ni 

estrategia, ni misión, ni criterios o benchmarks para medir e incluso definir el éxito o el fracaso”. De hecho, Estados Unidos no contaba con un marco estratégico 

para manejar a las comunidades y a la población civil en general.61 Oficiales de 

alto rango de Estados Unidos estimaron que la operación de este país solo podría 

durar algunos meses y que las tropas estarían de regreso en verano.62

No fue hasta que el general David Petraeus se hizo cargo de las operaciones 

en Iraq en 2007 e implementó una estrategia centrada en la población, que las 

condiciones iniciaron un mejoramiento real.63 La estrategia de Petraeus enfatizaba 

en la protección de la población, un uso más discrecional de la fuerza y un fuerte 

enfoque en derechos humanos. Su llegada coincidió con la etapa más violenta de 

la guerra. Había 160 ataques rebeldes diarios y Estados Unidos sufría más de 80 

muertes al mes. Con la nueva estrategia, las muertes civiles descendieron dramáticamente de 3500 al mes en julio de 2006 a 600 en enero de 2008. El número de 

tropas americanas caídas en combate descendió también de 600 por mes en 2007 

a 200 en 2008.64

Petraeus y otros altos mandos entendieron que este tipo de conflicto requería 

una nueva aproximación al uso de la fuerza. El almirante Mike Mullen, asesor 

del presidente dijo: “en este tipo de guerra, cuando el objetivo no es la derrota 

del enemigo, sino el éxito del pueblo, menos es realmente más. Cada vez que 

una bomba errante o una bomba precisa es erróneamente dirigida asesinando o 

hiriendo civiles, tomamos el riesgo de reversar nuestra estrategia meses, si no, 

años. Los incidentes de bajas civiles, nos hieren más en el largo plazo, que los 

éxitos tácticos que logremos contra el enemigo”.65

El liderazgo norteamericano también elevó los principios de guerra relacionados con derechos humanos a niveles sin precedentes. La perseverancia, la legitimidad, y limitación se convirtieron en objetivos militares tan importantes como 

otros principios tradicionales de la guerra, tales como la sorpresa, la unidad de 

mando, masa y maniobra.66

Petraeus notó la importancia de que todas las fuerzas norteamericanas entendieran los riesgos asociados con el uso excesivo de la fuerza. Un pequeño error 

táctico de un oficial o de un soldado podría acarrear repercusiones para la estrategia. Él se refería a los soldados jóvenes operando en estas condiciones como “tenientes estratégicos”, o “cabos estratégicos” debido a que un error de un líder de 

escuadrón, un comandante de pelotón o un oficial de compañía, puede a menudo 

generar olas de resentimiento. Dichas acciones pueden servir como catalizador de 

protestas masivas. 
Volume 16 / 2014 73

En 2009, el secretario de defensa Robert Gates tomó una decisión inusual de 

retirar del cargo al general David McKiernan, comandante de las fuerzas americanas en Afganistán. Éste era percibido como un oficial demasiado convencional 

y reacio a la adopción de la estrategia centrada en la población.67 Era la primera 

vez que un comandante había sido retirado de su cargo desde la guerra de Corea. 

En su lugar, Gates designó al teniente general Stanley McChrystal, un veterano en 

operaciones especiales quien, como Gates y Petraeus, era visto como un líder más 

creativo y estratega más innovador que entendía la urgencia de ganar apoyo de la 

población limitando el uso de la fuerza. 

McChrystal continuó haciendo énfasis en las tácticas de contrainsurgencia establecidas por Petraeus. El hizo un llamado a un cambio cultural entre las tropas, 

diciéndoles: “Debemos cambiar la manera en que pensamos, actuamos y operamos”. También reconoció el alto riesgo que su estrategia centrada en la población 

implicaba para las fuerzas americanas. Como una de sus primeras órdenes, les 

pidió a los comandantes usar una mayor discreción y limitación con el uso de la 

fuerza. “Reconozco que el uso controlado y disciplinado de la fuerza conlleva 

riesgos para nuestras tropas, pero el uso excesivo de las misma que deriva en una 

población enemistada, producirá muchos y mayores riesgos”.68

En retrospectiva, Estados Unidos carecía severamente de preparación para 

una tarea de la magnitud de Iraq. Las fuerzas americanas desde 2003 hasta 2006 

no tenían una estrategia establecida, ciertamente ninguna que hiciera énfasis en 

los derechos humano, en principios de distinción y limitación y en la población 

como una fuente fundamental de inteligencia. Una vez que la nueva estrategia fue 

implementada en 2007, las condiciones en Iraq –para las fuerzas norteamericanas 

así como para los civiles iraquíes– empezaron a mejorar. Estados Unidos estaba 

en el filo de un abismo, una posición que un asesor denominó “la derrota estratégica más colosal en la historia de los Estados Unidos”.69

Los altos mandos oficiales consideraron a los retos que las fuerzas militares 

estadounidenses tenían en Iraq –construcción del Estado-nación, enfoque centrado en la población, y respeto por los derechos humanos–, como una revolución 

en los asuntos militares. Este tipo de tácticas son una parte crítica de los requisitos 

operacionales extremadamente complejos que demandan largos e intensos entrenamientos previos al despliegue de tropas. El general del ejército Peter Chiarelli, 

se refirió a los requisitos multi-tareas del soldado contemporáneo como “operaciones de espectro total” en las cuales este debía ser capaz de llevar a cabo 

operaciones defensivas, ofensivas y de estabilización de manera simultánea. En 

estas situaciones se requiere que los soldados conduzcan operaciones de combate, entrenen fuerzas extranjeras, provean servicios esenciales, contribuyan al 

buen gobierno, y promuevan el pluralismo económico, todo al mismo tiempo. 

Cada tarea implica un ambiente dinámico con grados variables de riesgo y agilidad mental para identificar los requerimientos de fuerza necesarios.70 Otro oficial 

militar, el general ex comandante de la Infantería de Marina Charles Krulak, 

definió la complejidad de la guerra moderna, como tener que luchar una guerra 

de tres bloques. Un bloque, los infantes de marina, estarían en una guerra dirigida 

contra el oponente. En un bloque adyacente, podrían estar separando facciones y 
74 Security and Defense Studies Review 

brindando primeros auxilios a civiles heridos. En un tercer bloque ellos podrían 

estar implementando proyectos de desarrollo y entregando ayuda humanitaria a 

los refugiados.71

Retos y obstáculos

El respeto por los derechos humanos y por los principios del derecho internacional humanitario es necesario, pero puede no ser suficiente para asegurar la 

guerra en la lucha contra el crimen organizado. En muchos casos, la única opción 

para poder enfrentar muchos criminales expertos es capturarlos o darlos de baja. 

Sin embargo, la acción militar es uno de una variada cantidad de instrumentos 

necesarios para combatir el crimen organizado. Hay otros componentes de gran 

importancia para una estrategia holística contra las OCT: Un plan de comunicaciones estratégico, negación de asilo para miembros de la organización criminal, 

minimización de áreas no gobernadas, reducción de la corrupción, promoción de 

proyectos de desarrollo social y económico, provisión de servicios básicos y de 

seguridad ciudadana.

Más allá del ambiente nublado y frecuentemente confuso de operaciones, 

hay varias razones en las que las violaciones de derechos humanos por parte de 

fuerzas de seguridad ocurren bajo otras circunstancias.72 Sin embargo como lo 

demostró la experiencia de Iraq, las dos razones más comunes son la falta de entrenamiento y educación, y el apoyo de los líderes hacia una estrategia centrada 

en la población. Las operaciones contra las OCT son complejas y es difícil 

preparar a las fuerzas militares para cada contingencia a la que se enfrentarán. 

Adicionalmente hay muchas otras preparaciones que las unidades militares 

deben recibir antes de su despliegue. Comunicaciones, maniobra y patrullaje, armas, primeros auxilios, protección de la fuerza, procedimientos en los puestos de 

control, asuntos civiles, escalamiento de la fuerza, etc. Estas demandas compiten 

con una cantidad limitada de tiempo para la capacitación antes del despliegue. 

Tan importante como es la capacitación y el entrenamiento, el liderazgo es 

de gran peso para prevenir violaciones de derechos humanos y errores tácticos. 

Los líderes militares que establezcan una doctrina en la cual los Derechos Humanos (DDHH) son tratados como imperativos estratégicos, pueden comunicar 

esos estándares y expectativas a sus subordinados. Los soldados seguirán órdenes. 

Si estas órdenes son transmitidas efectivamente, desde la cadena de mando, y 

reforzadas con supervisión, los errores se reducirán. Sin embargo una falta de 

imposición y aplicación, o la imposibilidad de llevar a cabo investigaciones, y 

una limitada rendición de cuentas por parte de los superiores enviará el mensaje 

a la tropa de que el apoyo a los derechos huumanos es más retórico que real. Los 

altos mandos deben promulgar el respeto por los DDHH a través de órdenes verbales y escritas, y hacerles seguimiento para asegurar que dichas órdenes se estén 

cumpliendo apropiadamente.73

Los líderes políticos comparten la responsabilidad de las acciones militares. 

Antes de que un militar sea asignado para una operación contra OCT, los políticos 

civiles deben asegurarse que estos estén entrenados y equipados apropiadamente 

para la misión. Además los líderes políticos deben brindar una guía clara a 
Volume 16 / 2014 75

sus fuerzas a través de la promulgación de reglas de enfrentamiento (RDE) 

para entablar combate. Las RDE proveen una guía táctica y protección legal 

para las decisiones que deban tomar de vida o muerte durante el combate. Las 

RDE también deben ser desarrolladas de tal manera que expongan una lista de 

acciones admisibles y acordes con los objetivos diplomáticos, económicos, políticos y legales.74 Estas reglas deberían ser desarrolladas para rendir cuentas de las 

circunstancias de seguridad en las que los soldados operan. Es imposible predecir 

todos los escenarios pero una cuidadosa deliberación de los requerimientos de la 

misión le permitirá a los líderes nacionales a proveer una apropiada RDE para sus 

fuerzas. 

La cultura dentro de muchas instituciones militares puede ser también un 

impedimento para las acciones contra las OCT. Las fuerzas armadas, con su larga tradición y costumbres, no son instituciones fáciles de cambiar. Las unidades 

militares son generalmente organizaciones cercanas y fraternales. La lealtad hacia 

la unidad en el servicio es una característica importante que genera cohesión e 

insularidad. Cuando se cometen errores, es difícil para los altos mandos conducir 

investigaciones imparciales sobre violaciones de DDHH. Los oficiales con frecuencia no quieren abrir investigaciones a las acciones de su tropa, temen que se 

exponga su propia mala conducta o sus errores. Incluso si las intenciones del comandante son moralmente imparciales, una cultura de silencio entre los soldados 

es frecuentemente un fruncido para compartir información que los incrimine.75

Adicionalmente estas operaciones muchas veces requieren una presencia de 

largo plazo y una gran cantidad de paciencia política. El enemigo es evasivo, 

adaptable e inteligente. Opera desde las sombras y evita la confrontación directa 

con las fuerzas de seguridad. Si son conducidos por un área, esperarán y volverán 

cuando sea ventajoso hacerlo. En contraste, las operaciones militares son relativamente de corto plazo. Las unidades militares son rotadas frecuentemente y las 

nuevas unidades entrantes necesitan semanas incluso meses, para desarrollar un 

ritmo de operaciones, establecer contactos con los civiles, y entender la naturaleza 

de la amenaza. En el momento en que se vuelven competentes en estas operaciones, en muchos casos están listos para retirarse. Los errores que se cometen 

durante la transición de estas fuerzas pueden generar enemistad. Por esta razón 

las fuerzas militares deben ser ofensivas y operar con rapidez. Necesitan mucha 

voluntad política de sus representantes electos y paciencia por parte del público 

para que les permita cumplir la misión a tiempo. 

Las fuerzas de seguridad que operan en estas condiciones difíciles tienden 

a deshumanizar o des- individualizar al enemigo. La deshumanización implica 

ignorar las calidades humanas de una persona y tratarla como un objeto en vez de 

un ciudadano con derechos humanos y civiles inherentes.76 En teoría, es más fácil 

justificar las acciones de uso de la fuerza contra personas que son retratadas como 

menos que un ser humano. Esta puede ser una preocupación entre los países latinoamericanos, con problemas graves de exclusión política y grandes poblaciones 

de ciudadanos indígenas. 

En otros casos, los soldados pueden justificar sus acciones a través de una 

desconexión moral en la cual racionalizan que sus acciones, especialmente aque-
76 Security and Defense Studies Review 

llas que resultan en violaciones de DDHH, son menos severas que las acciones 

de los criminales.77 En general esto es cierto; los errores en DDHH cometidos por 

fuerzas de seguridad latinoamericanas no son cercanos a las tácticas brutales y 

horrendas de las OCT, conocidas por desmembrar, torturar, y decapitar a sus víctimas. Sin embargo, esta comparación es una falacia. Los soldados de un gobierno 

son representantes de un estado legítimo y por lo tanto están obligados a cumplir 

leyes del conflicto armado, y tratados internacionales que su país haya ratificado. 

Los miembros de las OCT por su parte son criminales y al ser arrestados deberían 

rendir cuentas en una corte penal por sus acciones. 

La frustración y falta de confianza en el sistema judicial puede convencer a 

muchos militares a tomar acciones de justicia por su cuenta, como árbitros de la 

culpa o la inocencia, porque creen que el sistema judicial tiene tantos defectos o 

está tan corrupto, que no es capaz de procesar efectivamente a los criminales.78

La tasa de impunidad en países de Latinoamérica supera el 95% en parte, debido 

a que las cortes están sobrecargadas de casos, no hay suficientes profesionales 

en derecho para procesar y existe un componente de corrupción. Esto significa 

que los criminales arrestados y acusados difícilmente puedan ser procesados y 

sentenciados por sus crímenes. Asimismo, muchos sospechosos languidecen en la 

cárcel esperando a ser procesados o enjuiciados durante meses o años. Teniendo 

conocimiento de esto, algunas fuerzas de seguridad pueden creer que hacer justicia en las calles puede ser una respuesta más oportuna en la lucha contra las 

OCT.79 Por las mismas razones, frecuentemente se dan asesinatos por venganza 

ejecutados por militares o policías a lo largo de la región.

Conclusiones

Los líderes militares en América Latina enfrentan un gran reto. Deben entrenar 

a sus soldados para que éstos comprendan y se comprometan con las reglas de 

enfrentamiento en las operaciones policiales locales, protejan a los civiles y a su 

vez se protejan a ellos mismos. Muchos soldados tienen experiencia en operaciones internas pero principalmente en operaciones de atención a desastres como 

terremotos o huracanes, o en operaciones internacionales de mantenimiento de la 

paz, y no contra criminales violentos que usan tácticas terroristas y se entremezclan hábilmente con la población. Muchos soldados en este tipo de situaciones 

son jóvenes, sin experiencia, asustados, débilmente entrenados, enojados, confundidos y cansados. Deben tomar decisiones de vida o muerte en segundos. El 

conocimiento en DDHH, del derecho internacional humanitario y las reglas de 

enfrentamiento, deben ser su segunda naturaleza, de tal manera que cuando se 

enfrenten a un escenario difícil, el entrenamiento les permita tomar una decisión 

eficaz y bien informada. Para muchos de ellos, pueden percibir que el sistema está 

diseñado para encerrarlos: cámaras de video omnipresentes que graban sus acciones, leyes internacionales que les limitan el uso de la fuerza, y prensa y ONG que 

vigilan cada una de sus acciones. 

La mayoría de los militares reconocen los riesgos inherentes de llevar a cabo 

operaciones policiales. Es un tipo de misión que muchos de ellos no buscarían 

ni preferirían. Sin embargo, la situación de seguridad en la mayoría de los países 
Volume 16 / 2014 77

de América Latina es tan nefasta que existen pocas opciones disponibles para los 

líderes políticos diferentes a desplegar a sus fuerzas armadas para operaciones 

internas para mantener la ley y el orden.80 Las tasas disparadas de crimen, la 

inseguridad ciudadana, cárceles sobrepobladas y violentas, y sistemas judiciales 

disfuncionales, han creado una crisis en la seguridad de la región. Sin embargo, a 

menos que los militares estén entrenados específicamente para este tipo de operaciones, sus acciones pueden empeorar la situación. Antes de ser desplegados en 

este tipo de entorno, los soldados deberían recibir un entrenamiento riguroso que 

incluya control de masas, reglas de enfrentamiento, escalamiento de la fuerza, 

maniobras en áreas densamente pobladas, y relaciones y asuntos civiles entre 

muchos otros.81

Varios países que han tenido este tipo de experiencia pueden proveer una 

lista de mejores prácticas en este sentido. Primero, desarrollar un centro de entrenamiento en derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario (DIH) para 

todas las fuerzas de despliegue. Segundo, brindar entrenamiento y educación en 

derechos humanos y DIH antes de cada operación. No hay tiempo durante la 

crisis. Tercero, complementar la capacitación y el entrenamiento con escenarios 

y ejercicios. Cuarto, practicar el escalonamiento del uso de la fuerza. Por último, 

desplegar abogados especializados en asuntos militares al terreno. 

En este caso, la adaptación estratégica es un imperativo que puede marcar la 

diferencia entre la victoria o la derrota. Como los EE.UU. se dio cuenta de que 

en Iraq, los militares latinoamericanos pueden tener éxito tácticamente pero fallan estratégicamente si no desarrollan la estrategia adecuada.

82 Como el general 

John Galvin escribió en su citado artículo “Uncomfortable Wars: Toward a New 

Paradigm”, la “efectividad de un oficial y su oportunidad de éxito, ahora y en el 

futuro, dependen no solo de su carácter, conocimientos y habilidades, sino también y más que nunca, de su habilidad para comprender el ambiente cambiante 

del conflicto”.83

Las condiciones de seguridad en América Latina no tienden a mejorar en el 

mediano plazo. La pobreza y la exclusión continuarán produciendo nuevos reclutas para las OCT. La demanda por drogas ilícitas y otros productos seguirá creciendo. Los nativos continuarán su lucha por libertades políticas y civiles. Como 

el ex secretario de defensa, Robert Gates atestiguó que “podemos esperar que una 

guerra asimétrica permanecerá como el principal soporte del campo de batalla por 

un tiempo indeterminado”.84 Los militares de la región estarán involucrados en 

este tipo de misiones por mucho tiempo. Entre más rápido desarrollen la doctrina 

apropiada y aprendan las tácticas necesarias para ganar el apoyo de la comunidad, 

más rápido vencerán ese oponente resistente y adaptable. 
78 Security and Defense Studies Review 
Volume 16 / 2014 79
80 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Notas

1. Los funcionarios del gobierno de los Estados Unidos actualmente caracterizan a las 

organizaciones de narcotráfico (DTO por su sigla en inglés de drug trafficking organizations) en México, como la mayor amenaza de crimen organizado para el país. Las DTO 

mexicanas “dominan la provisión y distribución al por mayor de la mayor parte de drogas 

ilícitas en Estados Unidos” y están presentes en más de mil ciudades norteamericanas. 

Fuente: “National Drug Threat Assessment 2011,” National Drug Intelligence Center, pág. 

7. La “Declaration on Security in the Americas” en 2003, de la Organización de Estados 

Americanos (OEA) detalla muchas de las amenazas de los grupos de crimen organizado 

transnacional.

2. En su reconocido artículo “Etnicidad, Insurgencia y Guerra Civil”, de los politólogos 

James Fearon y David Laitin, concluyen que la mayor parte de los conflictos modernos no 

son el resultados de disputas étnicas o religiosas, diferencias políticas e ideológicas, ni reclamos económicos, sino la existencia misma de condiciones que favorecen la insurgencia, 

tales como gobiernos centrales débiles, corrupción, y territorios sin control estatal. James 

Fearon and David Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,” American Political Science Review, vol 97, no. 1, Febrero, 2003.

3. Doug Farah, “Transnational Organized Crime, Terrorism, and Criminalized States in 

Latin America: An Emerging Tier-One National Security Priority,” Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle, PA, Agosto 2012.

4. “National Drug Threat Assessment 2011,” National Drug Intelligence Center. 2011.

5. Ana Arana, “How the Street Gangs took Central America,” Foreign Policy, May/June 

2005; Ana Arana, “The New Battle for Central America,” Foreign Policy, Nov/Dec 2001; 

Federico Breve, “The Maras: A Menace to the Americas,” Military Review, 2007; 88-95.

6. En 2006 las organizaciones criminales de Brasil lanzaron ataques coordinados contra 

unidades policiales y desencadenaron revueltas en diferentes cárceles del país. Treinta personas, principalmente policías, murieron en medio de 55 ataques simultáneos. De acuerdo 

con un estudio del Centro de Investigación sobre la Violencia de la Universidad de Rio de 

Janeiro, en 2008 el Comando Vermelho controlaba el 38.8% de las áreas más violentas de 

la ciudad, frente a un 53% en 2005. Fuente: Gollo, Luiz Augusto. “Vigilante Groups in 

Brazil Trump Drug Gangs and Become Rio’s New Authority”. Brasil, Noviembre 11, 2009.

7. El general británico Rupert Smith es uno de los funcionarios oficiales contemporáneos 

en utilizar la frase “the new normal” y “guerra entre la gente” para describir los retos de 

combatir enemigos irregulares que operan entre la población civil. Ver Rupert Smith, The 

Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (Londres: Penguin Books, 2006), 

16-17.

8. De acuerdo con la doctrina militar norteamericana, “una estrategia militar de contrainsurgencia incluye acciones militares, paramilitares, políticas, económicas, psicológicas 

y cívicas, llevadas a cabo por un gobierno para derrotar la insurgencia”. Fuente: COIN 

Manual FM 3-24, 2006. Otras definiciones más amplias pueden ajustarse mejor a la lucha 

contra el crimen organizado en América Latina. Por ejemplo, David Kilcullen define la 

insurgencia como un “movimiento popular que busca cambiar el statu quo a través de la 

violencia y la subversión”. Fuente: Contrainsurgencia (Londres: Oxford University Press, 

2010), 12.

9. Diversos académicos especializados en asuntos de seguridad en América Latina describen 

el crimen organizado como un tipo de insurgencia. Por ejemplo, el Dr. Max Manwaring 

del U.S. Army War College, afirma que las pandillas son una mutación de la insurgencia 

urbana, “debido a que buscan controlar el poder político para garantizar la libertad para ac-
Volume 16 / 2014 81

tuar y para tener el ambiente comercial que ellas desean”. Ver Max G. Manwaring, “Street 

Gangs: The New Urban Insurgency,” Strategic Studies Institute, Marzo 2005. Link: http://

www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub597.pdf . Otro autor, Robert Killebrew, 

aduce que el crimen organizado en el continente Americano “ha dejado de ser un simple 

asunto de delincuencia, y se ha convertido en una amenaza que ha evolucionado hacia una 

forma de insurgencia criminal expandida y conectada a través de redes”. Killebrew y Bernal, “Crime Wars Gangs, Cartels and U.S. National Security” 2010 Link: http://www.cnas.

org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_CrimeWars_KillebrewBernal.pdf.

10. La lista de funcionarios de alto rango en América Latina acusados de colaborar con 

grupos de crimen organizado es larga y distinguido. En 1989 el ministro del interior de 

Bolivia Arce Gómez fue arrestado y acusado por narcotráfico y sentenciado a 30 años de 

cárcel. En 1990 el presidente de Panamá Manuel Noriega fue acusado de narcotráfico. En 

1994 el presidente colombiano Ernesto Samper fue acusado de recibir fondos de los carteles de la droga para su candidatura. En 1997, el zar antidroga, General Jesús Gutiérrez 

Rebollo, fue arrestado por narcotráfico y corrupción. En 2007, el Departamento del Tesoro 

de Estados Unidos acusó a tres altos funcionarios del gobierno venezolano (incluyendo al 

alto mando de inteligencia militar, al director de inteligencia y al ex ministro de interior y 

justicia) como cerebros y cómplices de tráfico de estupefacientes. En noviembre de 2008, 

el zar antidrogas mexicano Noé Ramírez fue acusado de aceptar sobornos de narcotraficantes. En 2010 el director de la Policía de Guatemala y el zar antidrogas fueron arrestados por 

coludir con organizaciones narcotraficantes. En 2011 el general Rene Sanabria, exdirector 

antidrogas de la policía de Bolivia fue sentenciado a 15 años de cárcel por intentar traficar 

3000 libras de cocaína hacia Chile. El actual presidente de Surinam Desi Bouterse fue 

declarado in absentia en Países Bajos por tráfico de drogas; a pesar de este hecho, este fue 

reelegido en 2010. 

11. Juan Forero, “Entrevista: Presidente de Guatemala Otto Pérez Molina,” Washington 

Post, Abril 10, 2012.

12. Moises Naim describe las naciones bajo el control del crimen organizados como “Estados mafiosos”. “Mafia States: Organized Crime Takes Office.” Foreign Affairs, Mayo/

Junio 2012. Ver también Gary Hale, “A ‘Failed State’ in Mexico: Tamaulipas Declares 

Itself Ungovernable,” James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 2011; y 

Julian Miglierini, “Tamaulipas: ‘Failed State’ in Mexico’s war on drugs.” BBC News, Abril 

13, 2011.

13. Existen axiomas que generan sensibilidad en torno al significado de insurgencia. En 

septiembre de 2012, la secretaria de Estado de Estados Unidos Hillary Clinton comparó 

la lucha del gobierno mexicano contra las OCT, con el combate por parte del gobierno 

colombiano contra la insurgencia de las guerrillas de izquierda, en particular las FARC. 

Su analogía provocó una reacción del presidente Obama, quien al día siguiente declaró 

que la comparación no era acertada: Colombia enfrentaba una insurgencia política genuina 

en la cual los guerrilleros pretendían derrocar el gobierno central; por su parte los carteles 

mexicanos eran organizaciones criminales profesionales que buscaban la libertad de movimiento para su beneficio económico sin pretender tomarse el poder central. 

14. David Luhnow, “Latin America is World’s Most Violent Region.” Wall Street Journal, 

abril 11, 2014.

15. Anahi Rama, “Honduras and Venezuela have the world’s highest murder rates: UN,” 

Reuters, Abril 10, 2014; Ver también Seguridad, Paz y Justicia. Las 50 ciudades más violentas del mundo, Ranking 2012. Disponible en línea en: http://www.seguridadjusticiaypaz.org.mx.

16. David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (New York: Praeger, 
82 Security and Defense Studies Review 

2006), 74. En la doctrina militar norteamericana, el centro de gravedad se refiere a las 

“fuentes de poder de una fuerza militar que deriva su libertad de acción, su fortaleza física 

y su voluntad de lucha”. El centro de gravedad, la vulnerabilidad clave del enemigo que 

puede ser atacada y explotada, es donde las fuerzas de seguridad deberían enfocar sus 

capacidades y recursos. En consecuencia, identificar el centro de gravedad del enemigo 

y desarrollar los medios para derrotarlo es el camino más directo para la victoria. Fuente: 

Joint Publication 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington 

DC, U.S. Government Printing Office). 

17. Rebecca Bill Chavez, “Integrating Human Rights and Public Security,” Joint Force 

Quarterly 64 (2), 2012; 67-73.

18. La competencia por el apoyo del público es tan importante para el enemigo como para 

las fuerzas de seguridad legítimas del gobierno. En Irak, la fuerzas armadas norteamericanas interceptaron en septiembre de 2005 un mensaje del segundo al mando de la organización terrorista Al Qaeda Ayman al-Zawahiri advirtiéndole al líder de esta organización 

en Irak, que sus tácticas indiscriminadas y violentas contra los musulmanes en Irak estaban 

generando el rechazo de la opinión publica contra Al Qaeda. Ver: Peter Bergen, “Ayman 

al-Zawahiri: How He Became Bin Laden’s No. 1.” Time Magazine, Abril 30, 2006.

19. La Convención de Ginebra se aplica al conflicto armado internacional (CAI) y al conflicto armado no-internacional (CANI). La mayoría de las OCT en América Latina no se 

clasifican dentro de ninguna de estas categorías. El conflicto en la medida que es transnacional, no es internacional (entre Estados). Asimismo las OCT no cumplen con los criterios 

para los CANI (en donde las fuerzas que se enfrentan son regulares, hay una fuerza militar 

organizada sujeta a un mando central en control y autoridad, con soberanía territorial, y 

que demuestra respeto por la ley de la guerra). Por lo tanto, los miembros de las OCT son 

perseguidos de acuerdo con la ley penal de los países donde operan. En todo caso, el DIH 

como la convención de Ginebra contiene reglas universales sobre el uso de la fuerza que 

debe ser aplicado a cualquier situación de combate. (por ejemplo tomando precauciones 

para que no se involucre a la situación civil durante la confrontación). 

20. Informacíon extraída del Manual de Derecho Operacional de EE.UU., producido por el 

Juez de la Fiscalía General de Charlottesville, VA.

21. Ver por ejemplo “Human Rights Watch Rips Mexico for Rights Abuses by Military.” 

Latin American Herald Tribune, Enero 24, 2012.

22. Para conocer dos análisis sobre los retos de las fuerzas policiales en América Latina 

ver: Stephen Johnson, Johanna Mendelson Forman, and Katherine Bliss, “Police Reform 

in Latin America: Implications for U.S. Policy,” Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), Febrero 2012; and “Protect and Serve? The Status of Police Reform in Central 

America,” Washington Office on Latin America, 2009.

23. Numerosas encuestas del Latin American Public Opinion Poll (LAPOP, www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/) indican que la mala conducta de la policía es considerada un problema 

crítico en muchas naciones de la región. Ver por ejemplo: “Police Abuse in Latin America” 

(LAPOP, 2009), “Police Misconduct and Democracy in Latin America” (LAPOP, 2010), 

“Trust in the National Police” (Americas Barometer, 2011).

24. Por ejemplo en Estados Unidos la doctrina Powell (denominada así por el director 

Colin Powell) se refiere a la estrategia militar de usar el máximo de poder destructivo para 

aniquilar al enemigo.

25. Donald Campbell y Kathleen Campbell, “Soldiers as Police Officers/Police Officers as 

Soldiers: Role Evolution and Revolution in the United States.” Armed Forces and Society

36(2), 339.

26. Definiciones de acto hostil e intención hostil han sido obtenidas del U.S. Operational 
Volume 16 / 2014 83

Law Handbook, producido por el U.S. Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center en Charlottesville, Virginia. Las definiciones entre los dos términos pueden diferir en cada país de 

América Latina y el Caribe.

27. Muchos militares latinoamericanos llevan a cabo entrenamientos similares para unidades destinadas a realizar operaciones internacionales de mantenimiento de la paz (PKO). 

28. El derecho inherente de la defensa propia es una doctrina de la Carta de las Naciones 

Unidas: “Nada en esta carta debería prevenir el derecho inherente de la defensa propia 

individual o colectiva bajo un ataque armado”. 

29. Dos incidentes recientes exponen ejemplos de respuestas adecuadas e incorrectas en 

este tipo de circunstancias: En julio de 2012 en Toribío, Colombia, una unidad militar fue 

asignada para proteger una estación de comunicaciones en una colina, pero fue confrontada 

por manifestantes de la etnia indígena Nasa. Armados solo con garrotes, los manifestantes 

rodearon la estación y solicitaron a los soldados colombianos abandonar el área. El oficial 

encargado de la instalación, enfrentando una decisión de disparar contra los manifestantes y causar una posible masacre, ordenó a sus hombres no hacer uso de la fuerza para 

repeler la protesta. Varios fotógrafos capturaron en imágenes y video el momento en que 

los manifestantes expulsaron a los soldados forzosamente de la instalación. Cuando estas 

imágenes se hicieron públicas, los soldados obtuvieron elogios por parte de la opinión 

pública por negarse a usar la fuerza y evitar el derrame de sangre. En otro ejemplo en el 

cual estas circunstancias fueron manejadas inadecuadamente, la policía y los militares de 

Guatemala enfrentaron una protesta de indígenas mayas, quienes bloqueaban las carreteras 

en Totonicapán en 4 octubre 4 de 2012. Los soldados guatemaltecos dispararon contra los 

manifestantes que solicitaban reformas educativas y por servicios básicos, dejando un saldo de ocho muertos y 30 heridos. El coronel que estaba al mando de esta operación y ocho 

soldados más fueron arrestados y procesados por la justicia. Ver: Randal Archibold, “Guatemala Shooting Raises Questions About Military’s Expanded Role,” New York Times, 20 

Octubre 2012.

30. Quizá el ejemplo más convincente de la historia de los Estado Unidos es el incidente 

en Kent State, Ohio en mayo de 1970. La guardia nacional intentó sofocar una protesta 

estudiantil contra la expansión de la guerra de Vietnam hacia Camboya en el campus de la 

universidad. Los soldados afirmaron que oyeron disparos y por defender su vida, abrieron 

fuego contra estudiantes desarmados asesinando a cuatro e hiriendo a nueve. El incidente 

generó una ira nacional y fue catalizador para que la opinión pública se opusiera a la guerra 

en Vietnam y contra la administración de Nixon. 

31. Pew Research Center, “Mexicans Back Military Campaign Against Cartels.” Junio 20, 

2012. http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/20/mexicans-back-military-campaign-againstcartels/.

32. Pew Research Center, “Crime and Drug Cartels Top Concerns in Mexico.” Agosto 

31, 2011. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2011/08/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Mexico-ReportFINAL-August-31-2011.pdf. Otra referencia recomendada: Roderic Ai Camp, “Armed 

Forces and Drugs: Public Perceptions and Institutional Challenges,” Washington DC: 

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2010; Archibold, Randal, “Mexican 

General is Charged in Killings and Abuses.” New York Times, Febrero 1, 2012.

33. David Galula describió la contrainsurgencia como una “batalla por la población”. 

Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, 1964.

34. El sociólogo Max Weber definió el Estado como “una entidad que reclama el monopolio del uso legítimo de la violencia”. La política como vocación. Max Weber, Politics as a 

Vocation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946).

35. David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, 75-76. También cita-
84 Security and Defense Studies Review 

do en el FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency Manual, 1-3. La legitimidad es el principal objetivo 

de la estrategia contrainsurgente. El término “legitimidad” aparece más de 130 veces en el 

manual anteriormente referido. Este concepto es tan esencial a la doctrina militar norteamericana que ha sido elevado al nivel de otros principios básicos de guerra, incluyendo la 

maniobra, la unidad de comando, y la sorpresa. Ver Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations. 

Para un excelente resumen sobre legitimidad durante operaciones militares ver: James W. 

Hammond, “Legitimacy and Military Operations.” Military Review, 2010; 68-79. 

36. Thomas B. Nachbar, The Rule of Law Handbook: A Practitioner’s Guide, (Charlottesville, VA: Center for Law and Military Operations, 2008), 316.

37. Thomas B. Nachbar, “Defining the Rule of Law Problem,” Green Bag, primavera de 

2009, 316.

38. Reconocemos que la experiencia de Estados Unidos en Irak es fundamentalmente diferente de las de muchos países latinoamericanos cuyas fuerzas militares han llevado a cabo 

operaciones para el mantenimiento del orden público dentro de sus propios países. La 

norteamericana era una fuerza de ocupación extranjera en un país extranjero que planteaba 

obstáculos lingüísticos, sociales y culturales durante un conflicto sectario. En contraste, 

las fuerzas militares latinoamericanas operan dentro de sus propios países, confrontando 

grupos de crimen organizado, donde se habla el mismo idioma y se comprenden las identidades sociales y culturales. Al mismo tiempo, existen numerosas similitudes entre la experiencia estadounidense y la de los militares latinoamericanos. Ambas fuerzas operan en 

contra de un enemigo extremadamente violento que comete atrocidades y genera terror, y 

el cual posee una fuerza irregular que no se puede distinguir entre los civiles. Ambas fuerzas están obligadas a operar en áreas con presencia mínima del Estado, están reemplazando 

temporalmente a las fuerzas de seguridad locales hasta que estas puedan ser desarrolladas 

adecuadamente y son generalmente obligadas a operar en áreas altamente pobladas. 

39. Ver por ejemplo Thomas Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Misadventure in Iraq 

(New York: Penguin, 2006); Michael Gordon y Bernard Trainor, Cobra II: The Inside Story 

of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (New York: Vintage, 2007); James Fallow, “Blind 

into Baghdad,” The Atlantic, 01 Enero 2004; George Packer, The Assassin’s Gate: America 

in Iraq (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005); Bob Woodward, State of Denial: 

Bush at War, Part III (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006); Thomas Ricks, The Gamble

(New York: Penguin, 2009).

40. El Cuerpo de Conteo de Irak, una página de internet dedicada al conteo de bajas durante la guerra, ha sido reconocida por su metodología, en la cual estima el número total de 

bajas civiles (no combatientes) alrededor de 120,000. Ver https://www.iraqbodycount.org/. 

Adicionalmente varios académicos han examinado la responsabilidad de Estados Unidos 

por la muerte de los civiles en Irak. El Dr. Colin Kahl, profesor de Georgetown University y consultor del Departamento de Defensa, junto con la comunidad de inteligencia, 

exa-minaron cuidadosamente este hecho. Kahl fue diputado asistente de la Secretaría de 

Defensa para Medio Oriente en el Pentágono desde febrero de 2009 a diciembre de 2011. 

En sus funciones, fue asesor senior de política para la secretaría de defensa para Egipto, 

Irán, Irak, Israel y los territorios Palestinos. En sus investigaciones concluyó que “la escala 

general de muertes civiles en Irak es una acusación al fracaso del gobierno de Estados 

Unidos de planear adecuadamente para las contingencias posteriores a la invasión, lo cual 

permitió la emergencia del caos desde el inicio de cambio de régimen”. Fuente: Colin Kahl, 

“In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs?” International Security, Vol. 32, no. 1, Verano 2007. 

41. Los sunitas eran la minoría en el país pero retenían la mayor parte del poder político 

bajo el mandato de Saddam Hussein. Cuando fue derrocado la mayoría chiita rápidamente 

llenaron el vacío de poder que se generó. En muchos casos buscaron vengarse de los 
Volume 16 / 2014 85

funcionarios sunitas por la tiranía perpetrada durante tres décadas con Saddam Hussein. 

Los sunitas en respuesta, formaron una insurgencia contra el gobierno central. Los chiitas 

formaron a su vez milicias para protegerse de los ataques de la insurgencia. La situación se 

tornó en poco tiempo en una lucha sectaria. Sunitas representaban aproximadamente 20% 

de la población, los kurdos de 20%, y los chiítas para el 60% restante.

42. Según numerosas fuentes, Sánchez nunca desarrolló una estrategia coherente en su año 

al mando en Irak. Casey, por su parte, desarrolló una estrategia centrada en el enemigo, 

uno que se centra en matar o capturar insurgentes. Con respecto a su estrategia, Casey dijo: 

“Nuestra intención es mantener la presión sobre los insurgentes mientras nos dirigimos 

hacia las elecciones. No se trata de ganar corazones y mentes; no vamos a hacer eso aquí en 

Irak”. The Economist, “When Deadly Force Bumps into Hearts and Minds,” 29 December 

2004. 

43. La mayoría de soldados norteamericanos desplegados a Irak recibieron un entrenamiento en uno de estos centros: (1) National Training Center en Fort Irwin, California, 

(2) Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center en Twentynine Palms, California, o (3) Joint 

Readiness Training Center en Fort Polk, Louisiana. En 2006 el General George Casey 

inauguró una academia COIN en Taji, Irak, Las fuerzas que ingresaban al país debían 

atender un entrenamiento de una semana para cubrir la comprensión básica de conceptos 

sobre contrainsurgencia incluyendo el respeto por los derechos humanos, la protección a la 

población y la consecución de inteligencia a través de contactos civiles.

44. Colin Kahl, “In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs?” International Security, vol 32, no. 1, 

Verano 2007, 20. 

45. El número de ataques contra fuerzas norteamericanas y de la coalición se dispararon 

de un promedio de 200 por semana en enero de 2004 a 1200 semanales en julio de 2006. 

46. Sean Rayment, “US Tactics in Iraq Condemned by Top British Officers,” The Telegraph, Abril 12 de 2004.

47. En marzo de 2005, fuerzas norteamericanas dispararon contra un vehículo que transportaba un general de la armada italiana quien llevaba consigo a un rehén recientemente 

liberado en el aeropuerto internacional de Irak. El General Mayor Nicola Calipari fue 

asesinado en el incidente. Los soldados norteamericanos declararon que el vehículo no 

acató las señales de tráfico a medida que se aproximaba al puesto de control. El automóvil 

recibió más de una docena de disparos de rifles automáticos. Las oficiales italianos reclamaron que los soldados estadounidenses usaron un exceso de fuerza. Este incidente generó 

un enredo internacional y dañó las relaciones ítalo-americanas. 

48. Colin Kahl, “In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs?” International Security, vol 32, no. 1, 

Verano 2007, 9.” Tambien ver The Economist, “When Deadly Force Bumps into Hearts 

and Minds,” 29 December 2004. 

49. “More Attacks, Mounting Casualties,” Washington Post, 30 Sept 2007; Rick Atkinson. 

“Hubo una curva de aprendizaje de dos años... y mucha gente murió en ese lapso” Washington Post, Octubre, 2007. Ver también Iraq Index from Brookings Institution, Diciembre 

2007.

50. Los militares Americanos fueron denigrados por la prensa por sus tácticas violentas. 

Neta Crawford del Boston Globe escribió “el tipo de guerra que Estados Unidos está 

luchando y las reglas para entablar combate producen atrocidades sistemáticas”. Fuente: 

Neta Crawford, “Democracy and Norms of War: Locating Moral Responsibility for Atrocity in Iraq,” redactado para la conferencia de 2006 de la American Political Science Association en Filadelfia. Seymour Hersh del New Yorker declaró que “Nunca había existido 

una Fuerza Armada tan violenta y sanguinaria como la que ha estado en Irak”. Fuente: 

Martin Lukacs, “There has never been an Army as Violent and Murderous as the one in 
86 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Iraq,” McGill Daily, October 2006. Ambos citados por Kahl, 2007, 4 y 5.

51. Human Rights Watch, “Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties 

in Iraq (New York: Human Rights Watch, Diciembre 2003), 41-54. Ver también Nigel 

Aylwin-Foster, “Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations,” Military Review, 

Oct-Nov 2005.

52. Alice Hills, “Fear and Loathing in Falluja,” Armed Forces and Society, Vol 32/no. 4, 

July 2006, 623-639.

53. “‘Simple Failures’ and ‘Disastrous Results’: Excerpts from Major General Eldon A. 

Bargewell’s Report,” Washington Post, Abril 2007, pag. A13. También ver James W. Hammond, “Legitimacy and Military Operations.” Military Review, 2010; 68-79.

54. Este sentimiento fue capturado por las fuerzas militares en su examen posterior sobre el 

ambiente de combate. En un análisis de 127 operaciones de pacificación en Irak entre mayo 

de 2003 y mayo de 2005, ha existido un fuerte enfoque a las operaciones de redadas, acordonamiento, barridos y búsqueda. Había una inclinación hacia las maniobras cinéticas de 

gran escala y el enfoque al asesinato de insurgentes, sin proteger a la población. Reportado 

en Nigel Aylwin-Foster, “Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations,” Military 

Review, Oct-Nov 2005.

55. Military Health Advisory Team IV survey, 2007. Link: http://armymedicine.mil/Documents/Redacted1-MHATV-OIF-4-FEB-2008Report.pdf.

56. Military Health Advisory Team V Encuesta, Febrero 14 2008, 12.

57. Josh White, “69 Afghans’ Families Get a U.S. Apology,” Washington Post, Mayo 9, 

2007.

58. Ambos eventos ocurrieron en Afganistán y no en Irak, pero son bueno ejemplos del 

tipo de reparaciones y rendición de cuentas que muchos miembros del servicio procuraron 

para ganar apoyo de la población. El segundo evento tuvo lugar en Afganistán después de 

una redada de las fuerzas especiales estadounidenses basadas en inteligencia errónea que 

resultó en la muerte de dos mujeres embarazadas. Mcraven no solo pidió disculpas públicas sino que ofreció una compensación en ganado por las pérdidas, un gesto común en las 

costumbres de la zona. Fuente: Nick Shifrin, “U.S. Vice Admiral Apologizes for Afghan 

Deaths,” ABC News, Abril 10 2010.

59. Iraq Index, Brookings Institution, diciembre 2007, 46.

60. Iraq Index, Brookings Institution, marzo 2006, 40.

61. Fred Kaplan, The Insurgents (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2013), 96. El general 

Casey intentó desarrollar una estrategia de contrainsurgencia a su llegada en Bagdad en 

Agosto de 2004. Sin embargo, enfrentó resistencias al interior de la institución en el Pentágono y con su falta de experiencia propia con el concepto. Un equipo de expertos fue 

finalmente convocado en febrero de 2006 para redactar el nuevo manual de contrainsurgencia (FM 3-24), el cual no fue publicado sino hasta diciembre de 2006. 

62. Kaplan, 59.

63. Petraeus llegó a Irak en marzo de 2003 como comandante mayor general de la división 

101st Airborne Division. Después de luchar en el sur de Bagdad, sus fuerzas fueron asignadas a Mosul y áreas adyacentes del norte de Irak. Fue muy reconocido por implementar uno de los mejores planes de contrainsurgencia en Irak entre 2003 y 2004. La revista 

Newsweek reportó que sobre su unidad que “no existía una fuerza que trabajara más para 

conquistar los corazones y mentes de los iraquíes, que la 101st Airborne Division liderada 

por Petraeus”, en un artículo acerca de él. Ver Brian Mosely, “Can This Man Save Iraq?” 

Newsweek, Junio 2004. Después de una segunda vez en Irak en 2004 fue seleccionado 

para suceder por el General George Casey como comandante general de las Fuerzas Multinacionales en Irak. 
Volume 16 / 2014 87

64. Josh White, Charles Lane y Julie Tate, “Homicide Charges Rare in Iraq War; Few 

Troops Tried for Killing Civilians,” Washington Post, agosto 28, 2006. Ver también Iraq 

Index, Brookings Institution, Diciembre 2008.

65. Landon Lecture Series Remarks. Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs Staff, Kansas State 

University, Marzo 2010. Mullen también agregó que el uso de la fuerza puede ser contraproducente si esta es usada imprudentemente. Recomendó a las tropas evitar el uso de 

la fuerza de manera excesiva, y solo de manera precisa y basada en principios”. También 

reportada por Tom Shanker “Joint Chiefs Chairman Readjusts Principles on the Use of 

Force,” Washington Post, Marzo 2010. Con esta nueva estrategia, Estados Unidos tomó 

numerosas precauciones para evitar que se causaran daños colaterales. Colina Kahl en 

su artículo lista muchas maneras en que Estados Unidos buscó evadir el daño durante la 

guerra de Irak, por ejemplo, en el caso en que planeadores de inteligencia identificaron 

12.700 blancos que fueran protegidos de ser atacados. Esto incluyó colegios, hospitales, 

plantas de tratamiento de agua, plantas eléctricas y otro tipo de infraestructura. La lista 

diseñada para cumplir con la ley internacional humanitaria que prohíbe los ataques a este 

tipo de blancos, fue diseñada con la asistencia de ONG de derechos humanos, y actualizada 

ocasionalmente por juristas militares. Los militares también intentaron usar municiones de 

precisión guiadas cada vez que fuera posible. Las municiones que tuvieran un gran potencial explosivo eran demasiado riesgosas para ser usadas en concentraciones urbanas. Las 

municiones guiadas con menor perímetro de explosión ayudaron a reducir el daño colateral. De acuerdo con una fuente, 97% de las municiones usadas en Irak en 2007 y 2010 eran 

PGM mientras que en 2003 eran 68%. Colin Kahl, “In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs?” 

International Security, Vol. 32, no. 1, Verano 2007.

66. Joint Publications 3-0, Joint Operations, Agosto 11 2011.

67. Ann Scott Tyson, “General David McKiernan Ousted as Top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan,” Washington Post, Mayo 12 2009.

68. ISAF Commander Counterinsurgency Guidance, http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf. Ver también McChrystal’s Frank Talk on Afghanistan, Septiembre 24, 2009. CBS entrevista de 60 minutos. También reportado en 

Kaplan, 325-326.

69. Kaplan, 252.

70. Peter W. Chiarelli and Patrick R. Michaelis, “Winning the Peace: The Requirement for 

Full-Spectrum Operations.” Military Review, Julio – agosto 2005, 4-17. El ex secretario 

de defensa Robert Gates describió estas condiciones en los siguientes términos: “El éxito 

militar no es suficiente para ganar. El desarrollo económico, la construcción de instituciones y el Estado de derecho, la promoción de la reconciliación interna, el buen gobierno, la 

provisión de servicios básicos.” Source: Robert Gates, Landon Lecture at the Kansas State 

University, November 26, 2007. 

71. El general Krulak concebía la idea una guerra de tres bloques durante su cargo entre 

1995 y 1999. Se basaba en sus observaciones sobre Somalia y otras operaciones. Consideraba que el futuro campo de batalla sería urbano y asimétrico, con condiciones cambiantes 

y dificultad para distinguir entre combatientes y no combatientes. Charles Krulak, “The 

Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Three Block War,” Marines Magazine, January 1999. 

También ver Walter Dorn y Michael Varey, “The Rise and Demise of the ‘Three Block 

War,’” Canadian Military Journal, Vol 10, no 1, 2009, 38-45. 

72. La investigación militar sobre la masacre de My Lai en Vietnam identificó nueve factores que contribuyeron en el incidente: falta de entrenamiento adecuado, actitudes hacia los 

vietnamitas, actitud permisiva, factores psicológicos, problemas organizacionales, naturaleza del enemigo, planes y órdenes, actitud de los funcionarios del gobierno, y liderazgo. 
88 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Otra investigación militar determinó que las “tropas americanas no comprendían de lleno 

la Convención de Ginebra”. W R. Peers, The My Lai Inquiry (New York and London: W. 

W. Norton and Company, 1979), 3. Ver también Robert Rielly, “The Inclination for War 

Crimes,” Military Review, 2010, 52-58.

73. Una falta de liderazgo fue definida como la principal causa del incidente de My Lai en 

Vientam en Marzo de 1968, cuando cerca de 350 civiles vietnamitas fueron masacrados 

por soldados norteamericanos durante las operaciones llevadas a cabo en el sur de Vietnam. 

74. Estas condiciones –como el deseo militar de la flexibilidad en el uso de la fuerza y la 

imposición de limitaciones frente a los civiles– pueden crear fricciones entre los militares y 

los civiles. Por ejemplo en la primera batalla de Fallujah, Irak en abril de 2004, los marines 

rodearon esta ciudad que resguardaba a insurgente sunitas. No obstante, solo después de 

tres días los líderes civiles dieron la orden de detener las operaciones. El general James 

Conway dio una reprimenda a los líderes civiles por solicitar un ataque tanto agresivo y 

después ordenando que se suspendiera. Seis meses después en noviembre de 2004, Estados Unidos lanzó una segunda batalla en Fallujah, esta vez con 10,000 tropas. Rajiv 

Chandrasekaran, “Key General Criticizes April Attack in Fallujah,” Washington Post, septiembre 2004, A17. Ver también Robert Jay Lifton, “Haditha: In an ‘Atrocity-Producing 

Situation’ – Who is to Blame?” Editor and Publisher, junio 14, 2006. Varios reportes indican el esfuerzo que los marines hacían para evitar bajas de civiles. Kahl, fn 80.

75. Douglas Pryer, “At What Cost, Intelligence?,” Military Review, 2010, 100; Mark Sappenfield, “Can the Military Effectively Investigate Itself?” Christian Science Monitor, junio 2006. También ver Josh White, Charles Lane y Julie Tate, “Homicide Charges Rare 

in Iraq War; Few Troops Tried for Killing Civilians,” Washington Post, Agosto 28, 2006.

76. Christopher Barnes, “Moral Disengagements: When Will Good Soldiers Do Bad 

Things?” Military Review, 2010, 46-51; Robert Rielly, “The Inclination for War Crimes,” 

Military Review, 2010, 52-58.

77. Christopher Barnes and Keith Leavitt, “Moral Disengagement: When Good Soldiers do 

Bad Things,” Military Review, 2010, 46-51.

78. Mark Ungar, Policing Democracy: Overcoming Obstacles to Citizen Security in Latin 

America, (Washington, DC and Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012). En Irak en marzo de 2007, soldados estadounidenses capturaron cuatro iraquíes durante una operación. Frustrados con los procedimientos legales que 

frecuentemente resultaban en la liberación de los sospechosos, los soldados condujeron a 

los hombres a un área alejada, los ejecutaron y arrojaron sus cuerpos por un canal. Durante 

la investigación que se realizó de este caso, uno de los altos mandos justificó sus acciones 

quejándose de las debilidades legales y las insuficiencias de la justicia que muchas veces 

resultan en que el sospechoso sea liberado: Christopher Barnes and Keith Leavitt, “Moral 

Disengagement: When Good Soldiers do Bad Things.” Military Review, 2010, 49.

79. “Explaining Support for Vigilante Justice in Mexico,” Latin American Public Opinion 

Poll (LAPOP, www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/), 2010.

80. Incluso el Alto comisionado de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas reconoce que 

estas puedan ser acciones necesarias. “Entiendo que en situaciones extraordinarias, deben 

tomarse decisiones difíciles –como el uso de los militares en funciones de orden público. 

Pero estas medidas excepcionales deben mantenerse verdaderas a su naturaleza –extraordinarias y limitadas en el tiempo–. Y deben ser llevadas a cabo bajo la supervisión civil y 

dentro de los límites de los principios y estándares de los derechos humanos”. Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Conferencia en Mexico DF, 2011. Link: 

“UN human rights chief voices concern over high level of violence in Mexico,” UN News 

Center, Link http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38990&Cr=Mexico&Cr1#.
Volume 16 / 2014 89

U0MKAbEpBdg.

81. Existen parámetros en el uso de la fuerza producidos por organizaciones internacionales. Por ejemplo en 1990 Naciones Unidas publicó “Basic Principles on the Use of Force 

and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials”. En 1998 Amnistía Internacional publicó Ten 

Basic Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement Officials. En 2004 Naciones Unidas 

publicó los Estándares y Práctica sobre DDHH para la Policía. El Comité Internacional de 

la Cruz Roja publicó: “Servir y Proteger”, un extenso resumen de las consideraciones de 

derechos humanos para la policía y las fuerzas de seguridad. El documento está disponible 

en la página web del CICR.Ver la página de United Nations Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights para una excelente guía de buenas prácticas y normas. 

82. Thomas Ricks, “Dissension Grows in Senior Ranks on War Strategy,” Washington 

Post, 9 May 2004, 1.

83. John R. Galvin, “Uncomfortable Wars: Toward a New Paradigm,” Parameters, 1986; 

2-7.

84. Discurso de Gates ante la Asociación de la Armada de los Estados Unidos. Octubre 10, 

2007. Kaplan 277.
90 Security and Defense Studies Review 

The Rise of China in the Americas

R. Evan Ellis

Abstract

This article examines the expansion of economic, political, and 

military activities by the People’s Republic of China in Latin 

America and the Caribbean. It examines how the presence is 

transforming the region, including the reformulation of the 

agenda of its leaders, businessmen, and publics, changes to its 

physical infrastructure, new patterns of trans-Pacific organized 

crime, fuel to extend the life of populist regimes, and impacts 

on how member countries relate to each other. It also analyzes 

how the new presence of China impacts U.S. interests in the 

region and globally, and how China both complements, and at 

times competes with, other external actors in the region, such as 

Russia, Iran, and India.

Introduction

The exponential expansion of Chinese trade, business, political, and military presence in the Americas since the beginning of the millennium is arguably one of the 

factors that has most transformed, and continues to transform, the economic and 

political environment of the hemisphere.

Prior to the admission of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) into the 

World Trade Organization in 2001, Chinese commercial interactions with Latin 

America and the Caribbean were minimal, albeit growing rapidly. During that 

period, PRC relationships with countries of the region were relatively low-level, 

centering on matters such as persuading countries that diplomatically recognized 

the Republic of China (ROC) to change their position, and building friendships 

around the theme of developing world solidarity and the non-aligned movement.

The inflection point for the Chinese relationship with the region was arguably 

the 2001 PRC admission into the World Trade Organization, followed by the official promulgation of the “Go Out” strategy, as part of the 10th 5-Year plan of the 

Chinese Communist Party in 2002. WTO admission allowed Chinese companies 

to more effectively exploit the country’s labor cost advantage in order to export 

to the region, as well as to developed nation markets such as the United States, 

Canada, and Europe. The “Go Out” strategy gave Chinese companies the political blessing to build the relationships with overseas markets and sources of supply 

required by China’s export-oriented growth strategy. 

In the decade following these two events, PRC trade with the region expanded almost ten-fold, from $29 billion in 2003 to $270 billion in 2012.1

 Initially, the 

relationship was confined almost entirely to trade, with Chinese companies importing a limited number of primary products from the region, and Latin America 
Volume 16 / 2014 91

importing a broad array of Chinese manufactured products. Concurrent with this 

expanding commerce, however, PRC-based companies were growing and gaining experience and sophistication, businessmen on both sides of the Pacific were 

building relationships, and governments were constructing the legal and financial 

infrastructures that would permit a dramatic expansion in Chinese companies operating in the region. The Economic Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean estimates that Chinese non-financial foreign direct investment in Latin 

America between 1990 and the end of 2012 was $38.5 billion, of which $32.2 

billion was made after 2009.2

The new wave of Chinese investment in the region dates from approximately 

2009 and is concentrated in four sectors, each with its own logic and dynamics: 

(1) petroleum, metals, minerals, and other primary products, (2) construction, (3) 

manufacturing, and (4) select services including telecommunications, banking, 

and logistics.3

In mining and petroleum, Chinese companies began a wave of acquisitions in 

2009, giving them access to proven oilfields and mineral deposits, then later started to bring in their own engineering and petroleum service companies to develop 

the territories acquired. With time, those companies have also begun to compete 

for the rights to invest in less developed fields (with greater risk but bigger potential payoffs), including the successful 2013 bid by the Chinese oil companies 

CNPC and CNOOC for the Libra block in Brazil.4

In construction, starting in approximately 2009, Chinese companies significantly expanded their presence in Latin America and the Caribbean, from building 

a modest number of stadiums, clinics, and road given as gifts for governments 

who diplomatically recognized the PRC, to much larger projects such as hydroelectric facilities, paid for by loans from Chinese banks. More recently, Chinese 

companies have begun building resorts in the Caribbean, including Baha Mar and 

Blackwood Pointe in the Bahamas, collectively worth almost $10 billion, as well 

as Bacholet Bay in Grenada.

In manufacturing, Chinese electronics, motorcycle, auto, and heavy equipment companies have begun to invest in final assembly facilities in the region, in 

conjunction with local partners. Motivations include avoidance of import taxes, 

better serving local markets like Brazil, and exporting to nearby markets like the 

U.S.5

In services, Chinese telecommunication companies such as Huawei and ZTE 

have rapidly built a presence in Latin America, both selling their telephones and 

other equipment, and building third and fourth generation communication infrastructures for both government and private sector providers. In recent years, they 

have also begun to establish footholds in the smaller telecommunications markets 

of the Caribbean, and in Central America, including in countries that do not recognize the PRC. 

In banking, PRC-based institutions have moved from partnerships and representational offices in support of Chinese partners, to branch banking on Latin 

American soil. Significant advances in this area include the November 2012 acquisition of Argentina’s Standard Bank by ICBC, and the 2013 proposed acquisi-
92 Security and Defense Studies Review 

tion of Brazil’s BicBanco by China Construction Bank.

While the expanding Chinese presence described in the preceding paragraphs 

has fueled an array of journalistic and scholarly analyses, the focus of such works 

has generally been economic, including broad accounts of what was transpiring,6

analyses of the character and impacts of Chinese trade with the region,7 and booklength compiled volumes of country-specific studies.8

 In contrast to these works, 

the focus of the present article is to build upon the descriptive works and economic analyses that have preceded it, to examine how the new Chinese engagement is 

impacting the strategic environment of the region.

Impact on the Latin American and Caribbean Security Environment

The expanding commercial activities of the PRC in Latin America and the Caribbean are transforming the political and social dynamics of the region in multiple 

ways, including:

• The Orientation of Latin American Political and Business Leaders and Publics

• The Socioeconomic Dynamics Within Latin America States

• Patterns of Commerce and Human Interaction

• The Orientation of Armed Forces in the Region

• U.S. Leverage in Areas such as Trade, Democracy, and Human Rights

• The Economic Viability of Political Blocks Hostile to the U.S.

• The Orientation of Latin American States toward Each Other

• Ideological Cleavages in the Region

• Trans-Pacific Organized Crime

Orientation of Latin American Political and Business Leaders and Publics

The emergence of the PRC as an important market and source of loans and investment has captured the attention of political and business elites across Latin 

America and the Caribbean, and has driven them to invest time and resources to 

capture a portion of such benefits. Such efforts include regular trips to the PRC 

by Latin American officials and business delegations, greater attention to Asia by 

government trade promotion organizations and private business federations, and 

the building of new business partnerships in the region. Former Costa Rican president Oscar Arias felt so strongly about the importance of the PRC to the future of 

his country that he conducted a year of secret diplomacy to change Costa Rica’s 

diplomatic position to recognize the PRC.9

 For governments such as those of the 

Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA),10 the PRC is seen as a political as 

well as an economic alternative to the West, with former Venezuelan leader Hugo 

Chávez traveling to the PRC six times during his fourteen years in office, and 
Volume 16 / 2014 93

Bolivian President Evo Morales proclaiming his admiration for Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong.11 At the popular level, China has also given rise to a 

flowering of interest among Latin American students to study the country, how to 

do business there, and Chinese languages and culture.

In general terms, the influence of the PRC is reflected in the result of a 2012 

region-wide attitudinal survey in which the average respondent perceived China 

to have “some influence” in their country, with 63 percent viewing that influence 

as “positive” or “very positive.”12

Socioeconomic Dynamics of Latin America States

Over the past decade, competition with Chinese exports has significantly affected 

the manufacturing sectors of Latin America and the Caribbean, with manufacturing as a percentage of GDP falling from 16.5 percent in 2001 to 13.5 percent in 

2012.13 At the same time, exports to the PRC and associated rises in commodity 

prices have increased the importance of sectors such as oil, mining, timber, and 

agriculture with the contribution of mining alone in the region increasing 50 percent from 4.1 percent of GDP in 2001 to 6.1 percent of GDP in 2012.14

As noted previously, Chinese companies are gradually establishing themselves as relevant domestic actors throughout the region, operating oilfields, 

mines, manufacturing and retail facilities, building transportation, power, and 

telecommunications infrastructure, performing branch banking and running logistics facilities and shipping lines in the region. 

While the PRC arguably has not yet applied its growing “soft power”15 in a 

manner commensurate with the increasing economic weight and physical presence of Chinese companies in the region,16 its impact on the socioeconomic dynamics of Latin American states can be felt in the new social and political issues 

that presence has spawned, including conflicts between Chinese companies and 

regional labor forces and subcontractors,17 relations with local communities,18

environmentalists and indigenous groups,19 and commercial competitors,20 and 

security challenges Chinese companies confront.21

Patterns of Commerce and Human Interaction

Engagement with China is transforming the physical infrastructure of Latin 

America and the Caribbean, including projects funded by Chinese banks and done 

by Chinese companies, as well as others inspired by the new trade with the PRC. 

In the process, patterns of commerce and human interactions in the region are also 

changing, with strategic implications. 

From the ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico, to Valparaiso 

and Concepcion in Chile, the region’s Pacific Coast ports are being expanded 

and modernized, while improved roads and new rail lines are being built to connect that infrastructure to the interior and Atlantic coast of the continent. Important projects include the “Bi-Oceanic” corridors being improved to connect 

the north, central and south coasts of Peru to the Brazilian Amazon, the “TransOceanic” corridor linking the interior of Brazil through Bolivia to ports on the 

northern coast of Chile, and the “Manta-Manaus” corridor from the Pacific coast 
94 Security and Defense Studies Review 

of Ecuador, through Peru to Brazil. Other key projects driven in part by the region’s growing commerce with the Pacific include the $5.2 billion expansion and 

modernization of the Panama Canal, the possible construction of a second canal 

through Nicaragua, and potential “dry canal” road and rail links proposed through 

Honduras, Guatemala, and Colombia. 

The new commerce with the PRC and Asia is also a driving factor for facilities not located on the Pacific coast, including “La Paloma,” a new deepwater port 

in Uruguay that contemplates an associated rail link to Brazil to support agricultural exports and the container trade between the Atlantic-facing countries of the 

southern cone and the PRC.22 Another example is the possible construction of a 

major container port at Goat Island, Jamaica, to support the larger ships that will 

be coming through the Panama Canal from the Pacific once the canal widening 

project is complete.

Beyond their commercial significance, such new infrastructure also impacts 

the region in other ways. New corridors across the continent bring both licit and 

illicit commerce to previously isolated parts of the interior, in the process creating 

new opportunities for narcotraffickers, illegal loggers, miners, and smugglers, and 

fomenting conflict between the new settlers and previously isolated communities 

and indigenous groups. 

The new transport infrastructure described in the previous paragraphs is also 

driving new poles of development, attracting people from the countryside and less 

vibrant urban areas to the new poles of trans-Pacific trade, in search of economic 

opportunity. In the process, the growing port cities will arguably become more 

important politically as generators of tax revenue and enablers of national and 

regional commerce, even as they also generate new requirements for port and 

urban security.

Orientation of Armed Forces in the Region

In a gradual, non-threatening, yet profoundly important way, regional militaries 

are diversifying their foreign relationships to include professional military education and tactical level training from the PLA, and in some cases, arms and equipment from Chinese vendors.

Chinese companies such as the China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO), China Electronics Technology Corporation (CETC), Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), and Poly Technologies have expanded arms sales to 

Latin America and the Caribbean, moving from gifts of non-lethal goods such as 

clothing, trucks, and busses, to fighter and transport aircraft and radar platforms, 

while also diversifying sales of major equipment from ALBA nations from Venezuela, to other ALBA nations, to the hemisphere more broadly.23 Such companies 

have also displayed increased sophistication in marketing their products in the 

region, establishing a presence at military shows in the region such as LAAD 

(Brazil), SitDef (Peru), and Fidae (Chile),24 legally contesting adverse bid decisions,25 and using offsets to win work.26

In the arena of professional military education and training, virtually every 

Latin American and Caribbean country that diplomatically recognizes the PRC 
Volume 16 / 2014 95

sends officers to the strategic-level “Defense Studies Institute” in Champing, 

while some also send officers to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Army and Navy 

command schools near Nanjing and special forces training facilities in Shijiazhuang, among other sites.27 In recent years, the PLA has also brought military 

officers and other professionals from the region to the PRC for technical training in areas such as flight school, equipment maintenance, space operations, and 

electronic warfare,28 while reciprocally sending PLA soldiers to Latin America for 

tactical training in at facilities such as Tolemaida Air Base in Colombia.29 While 

the numbers of personnel involved in such interchanges is modest, their impact 

has arguably been heightened by the 2012–2013 crisis in the U.S. over the approval of the federal budget, which forced intermittent reductions in and suspension of U.S. defense engagement programs. 

With respect to military presence in the region, the Chinese have begun to 

evolve from conducting limited deployments in a multilateral context (contributing military police to the MINUSTAH peacekeeping force in Haiti from 2004 

through 2012), to bilateral humanitarian engagements such as the November 2010 

Angel de Paz medical exercise in Peru and the December 2011 trip by the Chinese 

medical ship “Peace Ark” to the Caribbean, to more combat-oriented engagements, such as the joint training activities conducted with Chilean and Brazilian 

naval forces during the visit by a PLA naval flotilla to the Southern Cone in November 2013.30

U.S. Leverage in Areas such as Trade, Democracy, and Human Rights

U.S. efforts to advance free trade, democracy, and human rights in Latin America 

and the Caribbean31 has historically been aided by the position of the U.S. as the 

principal export market for the region, and Western companies and institutions as 

the principal source of its foreign loans and investments. The dramatic expansion 

of PRC trade with, loans to, and investment in the region in the past decade has 

changed that, and in the process, has arguably decreased the leverage of the U.S. 

government in advancing its policy agenda. Although the $814.5 billion in U.S. 

trade recorded with Latin America and the Caribbean in 2012 is still more than 

three times the region’s $270.8 billion trade with China,32 the PRC has surpassed 

the U.S. in many individual countries in terms of bilateral trade volume, including 

Brazil, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, and Panama, and is the second or third largest partner for most of the rest. In finance, from 2005–2012 alone, China lent $87 billion 

to the region, more than the Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank, and 

U.S. Export-Import Bank combined.33

Indications of diminishing U.S. influence can be seen the reduced role of 

U.S.-led institutions such as the Organization of American States in resolving 

important regional issues such as political succession in Honduras and Paraguay, 

the weakened ability of Washington to advance its position in key regional forums 

such as the Summit of the Americas,34 and the proliferation of new sub-regional 

institutions with explicitly exclude the U.S. such as UNASUR and CELAC.

While U.S. influence also depends on people in Latin America and the Caribbean who agree with the goals of U.S. initiatives and the values behind them, 
96 Security and Defense Studies Review 

the “example” of Chinese economic success has undercut U.S. arguments that 

Western-style democracy and free markets are the best routes to development and 

prosperity.

The Economic Viability of Political Blocs Hostile to the U.S. 

The majority of Chinese loans and a significant portion of PRC investments in 

Latin America and the Caribbean have gone to the countries of ALBA, making it 

financially easier for those governments to pursue courses of action independent 

from the U.S., western companies, and financial institutions including the International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American Development Bank.

In Venezuela, the PRC has provided $40 billion in loans, plus more than $40 

billion in investment commitments.35 Making the link between Chinese financing 

and the survival of the Venezuelan “socialist” regime even stronger, a portion of 

the loans were used to purchase large numbers of home appliances that were sold 

at discounted prices to the poor (the government’s core support base) during the 

run-up to 2012 national elections.36

Like Venezuela, Ecuador has received more than $9 billion in loan commitments from the PRC, supporting hydroelectric and petroleum projects and funding 

fiscal deficits,37 while China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has played 

a key role in funding the $10 billion “Refinery of the Pacific.”38 With respect to 

the political impact of such commitments, the PRC disbursed $1.4 billion in loans 

to the country in February 2013, the month of its national presidential election.39

In Bolivia, the Chinese are building and financing almost $2 billion in infrastructure projects, including the $1.4 billion Multiple Rositas hydroelectric facility,40 several hundred million dollars in railroad and highway work,41 and smaller 

projects such as paper plants,42 plus have offered to loan up to $15 billion to help 

the country exploit the El Mutún iron deposit previously worked by the Indian 

company Jindal.43

In Nicaragua, despite the absence of diplomatic relations with the PRC, Chinese banks are the most likely candidates to finance a new $40–$80 billion canal 

being proposed by the Hong Kong–based billionaire Wang Jing.44

Orientation of Latin American and Caribbean States toward Each Other

The growing importance of trade with the PRC and other Asian countries to the 

economy of the region is impacting the relationship of states with their neighbors. 

In the decade from 2003 until 2012, for example, the portion of Latin America 

and Caribbean trade going to the PRC quadrupled from 3 percent to 12 percent.45

For states on the Atlantic side of South America, including Brazil, Uruguay, 

and Argentina, the increase in trade shipped across the Pacific has made infrastructure projects beyond their borders matters of national interest, including the 

expansion of the Panama Canal, and Uruguay’s planned construction of the new 

deepwater port “La Paloma.”46 Similarly, the growing trans-Pacific trade has increased the value of Pacific Coast ports such as Iquique, Ilo, and Callao (and the 

quality of their governance), to Atlantic-facing neighbors and landlocked states 

such as Bolivia and Paraguay.
Volume 16 / 2014 97

At the “top” of South America, contemplated pipeline and rail links to the Pacific coast of Colombia arguably give Venezuela’s government an interest in both 

improved relations with its neighbor, as well as a solution to Colombia’s guerilla 

problem (factors which, to date, have prevented collaboration between the two 

nations on infrastructure projects.)

In a similar fashion, growing trade between the PRC and Central America has 

increased the stakes of the long-standing dispute between Honduras, El Salvador, 

and Nicaragua over the maritime border between the three countries in the Gulf 

of Fonseca. For the government of Honduras, a contemplated port on Tigre Island 

would be the nation’s only direct access to the Pacific, and would be the Pacific 

hub for a road and rail connection across Central America that it has discussed 

with Chinese companies.47

In the Caribbean, the new commerce with Asia has contributed to competing initiatives to build the new deepwater ports that will serve as the distribution 

hubs for the commerce passing through the newly widened Panama Canal. As 

of January 2014, one project was going forward to develop the port of Mariel in 

Cuba, while another was being discussed for Goat Island, Jamaica.48 With respect 

to the impact on regional relations, the potential value of Mariel as a hub serving 

the east coast of the United States is an incentive for normalized U.S.-Cuban relations, not only for the Cuban government, but also for Brazil, which is financing 

and building the port.49

Beyond considerations arising from trade, growing commerce with the PRC 

has even impacted the relationship between Guyana and Suriname. A portion of 

the Chinese immigrants arriving in Suriname in recent years have subsequently 

migrated to Guyana where they are causing political tension in the country by 

displacing the traditionally dominant indo-Guyanese merchants in Georgetown.50

Ideological Cleavages in the Region

As a byproduct of the previously mentioned commercial activities, engagement 

with the PRC is fueling thus far friendly, but important ideological divisions in 

the region. The question of how to do business with China and other nations of 

Asia has become one of the most important differences among governments in the 

Americas, with a group of countries including the ALBA bloc relating to the PRC 

principally through a state-to-state framework, with others, including members of 

and candidates for the “Pacific Alliance” (Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Panama, and Costa Rica), focusing a private sector–led model that emphasizes free 

and competitive markets, efficient institutions, transparent rules and transactions, 

and a strong framework of law protecting contracts and intellectual property.51

While the difference is more about economics than politics, it is likely to play 

an important role in shaping the emerging regime governing the participation of 

Latin America and the Caribbean in the economy of the Pacific.

Trans-Pacific Organized Crime

With the expansion of trans-Pacific commerce, criminal activity between the PRC 
98 Security and Defense Studies Review 

and Latin America and the Caribbean is also growing.52 Although there are no reliable statistics on the amount of Chinese-made products that enter Latin America 

and the Caribbean as contraband goods, a comparison between China’s reported 

exports to the region and the region’s reported imports from China suggests the 

extent of the problem. In 2012, the PRC reported sending $33 billion more in 

goods to Latin America and the Caribbean than its countries collectively reported 

receiving—22 percent of total PRC-Latin America trade for that year. 53

Trans-Pacific criminal ties are also appearing in the informal mining sector in 

areas such as Michoacán (Mexico) and Madre de Dios (Peru), with all parts of the 

process from extraction of ore and its sale to local buyers to the consolidation of 

cargoes and their dispatch from Pacific Coast ports to Chinese buyers taxed—if 

not managed by—criminal groups.54

With the expanding flows of goods, a trans-Pacific narcotics trade is also 

emerging, with Chinese and Indian companies becoming important suppliers of 

precursor chemicals to illegal synthetic drug laboratories in Mexico and Central 

America.55 Conversely, states such as Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru are shipping 

cocaine and possibly other narcotics to the emerging Chinese market through 

ports such as Hong Kong.56

Human trafficking from the PRC through Latin America and the Caribbean 

is also growing. Key routes are believed to involve Mexican ports such as Puerto 

Vallarta in Jalisco, Manzanillo in Colima, and Coyacan in Mazatlán, as well as 

the entry of Chinese migrants in South American countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru (who then transit overland through Central America and Mexico, 

where their passage may require the Chinese groups that smuggle them, such as 

Red Dragon,57 to collaborate with or pay Latin American criminal groups through 

which they must pass.)58 The trafficking of Chinese also involves the Caribbean, 

with the widely perceived but unexplained growth of Chinese communities in the 

principal cities of Guyana, Suriname, the Dominican Republic, and Trinidad and 

Tobago in recent years.59 Increased commerce, including the importation of Chinese workers for construction projects in countries of the Caribbean is believed to 

facilitate such movements.

Finally, with the increased flow of goods and expanded banking ties between 

the PRC the region, opportunities for money laundering involving Chinese companies and institutions have also multiplied.

Authorities in Latin America and the Caribbean are arguably poorly equipped 

to combat emerging trans-Pacific criminal ties, with few persons who can interrogate suspects and witnesses in Mandarin Chinese, let alone in Cantonese or 

Hakka. They also have few agents of an ethnic composition appropriate for penetrating Chinese communities, and lack technical contacts in the PRC to pursue 

leads regarding the persons, groups, and companies with whom they are dealing.

Impacts on the United States and the U.S. Response

Chinese engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean adversely impacts 

the U.S. strategic position in the region in multiple (albeit indirect, and probably 

unintentional) ways.
Volume 16 / 2014 99

First, as argued previously, the “example” of China as a country that apparently has prospered with limited political freedom and a state-led, predatory 

orientation toward capitalism, undercuts U.S. attempts to advance Western-style 

democracy and free market capitalism in the region. U.S. leverage in pursuing its 

policy objectives in the region is further undercut by the availability of the PRC as 

an alternative export market, source of loans, and investment undercuts.

Second, U.S. security is arguably affected by Chinese financing, investment 

in, and trade with regimes seeking independence from Western systems of criminal and contractual accountability, such as has occurred, to varying degrees, with 

the ALBA countries. To the extent that such regimes, sustained by Chinese money, become havens for organized crime and terrorist groups, the ability of the U.S. 

to combat threats from its southern approaches is undercut.

Third, Chinese commercial activities in the region, however benign currently, 

expand options for PRC planners to use against the U.S. should hostilities emerge 

between the two nations in the future. Latin American dependence on commodity sales to the PRC, credit from Chinese banks, and the increasing importance 

of Chinese companies as employers and sources of tax income for the region’s 

governments, are each sources of leverage through which the PRC could persuade 

the dependent countries to deny the U.S. access to bases, resources, intelligence, 

or political support. In a time of war, the PRC could induce Chinese owners of 

facilities in Latin America to allow their use to collect intelligence, serve as a base 

for Chinese agents, or even to shut down or otherwise operate in a way that would 

disrupt the U.S. economy or its ability to project and support forces being sent 

to Asia. As an example, Chinese-built telecommunications infrastructures, telephones, and data devices could be used for data collection and against commercial 

and government targets in the region, while port facilities operated by Chinese 

companies in countries such as Panama and Mexico could be shut down, and in a 

later stage of the conflict, made available to the PLA Navy.

While the dynamics and possibilities presented in this section may concern 

U.S. policymakers, attempts to limit engagements by the governments of Latin 

America and the Caribbean with the PRC would arguably be both ineffective and 

counterproductive, offending regional partners by seeming to impinge upon their 

sovereignty.60

Even prior to the declaration by Secretary of State John Kerry, the U.S. response to expanding Chinese activities in the hemisphere has been relatively restrained. Both the Democratic administration of Barak Obama and his Republican 

predecessor George Bush avoided characterizing those activities as a threat.61 In 

recent years, the tone has become increasingly positive, including a discussion by 

then Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Arturo Valenzuela 

on the possibility for cooperation between the PRC and the U.S. in Latin America,62 and characterization of Chinese engagement in the region by his successor, 

Roberta Jacobson as “absolutely and definitely a good thing.”63

Conclusions and Theoretical Implications

This article’s analysis of Chinese activities in Latin America and the Caribbean 
100 Security and Defense Studies Review 

provides a number of new insights into traditional theories of Latin American 

studies, international relations and international political economy. 

The evolution of the physical infrastructure and sociopolitical dynamics of 

the region in response to the PRC suggests that patterns of human, political and 

social interaction in the region are subject to change as a function of extra-Hemispheric factors. Indeed, the emerging split among Latin American countries regarding how to engage with China suggests that the primacy of the United States 

as the region’s principal point of reference may be diminishing.64

The impact of China on the region’s decision makers, businessmen, and publics noted in this article also suggests that “soft power” is not always determined 

by shared culture, political values, or the moral authority of a country’s policies,65

but may also stem from expectations of a country’s future importance, as well as 

hopes for loans, investment, and access to a country’s markets.66

With respect to theories of political economy, Chinese economic engagement 

with Latin America suggests that a “resource export—finished products import” 

trade pattern is not unique to the relationship between developing and developed 

states.67 It also suggests that trade between two developing nations can advance 

the development of one of the parties much more than the other.

With respect to international relations, the relatively benign U.S. response to 

Chinese activities in the region highlights a nuance in power transition theory,68

suggesting that the dominant state’s desire to maintain a good relationship with 

other states, in the context of international norms such as sovereignty, may prevent it from challenging the expanding power of an emerging competitor. On the 

other hand, the efforts of the Obama Administration to prevent Chinese inroads in 

Latin America from degenerating into hostility with the U.S. are a contemporary 

test of theories of realism69 in the context of globalization. It remains to be seen 

whether it is possible to speak of “appeasement” where the advances of a rival do 

not principally involve military power, and whether associated concepts such as 

the balance-of-power apply in the context of complex interdependence.

Notes

This article was originally written for the book, Reconceptualizing Security in the Western 

Hemisphere in the 21st Century, ed. Jonathan Rosen, and reprinted herein with permission 

from the publisher, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. The views expressed in this 

article do not necessarily reflect the views of the Perry Center, the National Defense University, or the U.S. Department of Defense.

1. Data reported from Western Hemisphere countries was used, rather than that reported 

by the PRC. Data for 2012 was taken from Direction of Trade Statistics Quarterly,

Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, 2013, 23. Data for 2002 was taken from 

Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook 2009, Washington DC: International Monetary 

Fund, 2009. 28.

2. China–Latin America Cross-Council Task Force, Chinese Foreign Direct Investment in 

Latin America and the Caribbean, Working Document, United Nations Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), November 2013, available at 
Volume 16 / 2014 101

http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=%20/publicaciones/xml/1/51551/P51551.

xml&xsl=/tpl-i/p9f.xsl%20&base=/tpl-i/top-bottom.xslt.

3. A good overview of the major projects is found in Ben Laidler, Qu Hongbin, Todd Dunivant, Simon Francis, Thomas Hilboldt, and Andre Loes, South-South Special, HSBC, 

November 2013.

4. Jeb Blount and Sabrina Lorenzi, “Petrobras-led Group Wins Brazil Oil Auction with 

Minimum Bid, Many Stay Away,” Reuters, October 23, 2013.

5. Chinese companies that have established manufacturing operations in the region include 

Chery, Haier, Gree, Jialing, Jincheng, XCMG, and Sany, among others.

6. See, for example, Kerry Dumbaugh and Mark P. Sullivan, “China’s Growing Interest in 

Latin America, Congressional Research Service,” Library of Congress, RS22119, 2005. 

See also Florencia Jubany and Daniel Poon, “Recent Chinese Engagement in Latin America,” Canadian Foundation for the Americas, 2006. See also R. Evan Ellis, China and Latin 

America: The Whats and Wherefores (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2009).

7. See Jorge Blázquez-Lidoy, Javier Rodríguez, and Javier Santiso, Angel or Devil? Chinese Trade Impacts on Latin America, Paris: OECD Development Center, 2006. See also 

Robert Devlin, Antoni Estevadeordal, and Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, The Emergence of 

China: Opportunities and Challenges for Latin America and the Caribbean (Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). See also China and Latin America: Economic Relations in the 21st Century, Rhys Jenkins and Enrique Dussel Peters, eds. (Bonn, Germany: 

German Development Institute, 2009). See also Kevin Gallagher and Roberto Porzecanski, 

“China Matters: China’s Economic Impact in Latin America,” Latin American Research 

Review, 43, no. 1, 2008, 185-200. See also Kevin Gallagher and Roberto Porzecanski, The 

Dragon in the Room (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010). See also Gastón Fornés 

and Alan Butt Philip, The China-Latin America Axis: Emerging Markets and the Future of 

Globalisation (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

8. See Enter the Dragon: China’s Presence in Latin America, Cynthia Arnson, Mark Mohr, 

and Riordan Roett, eds., (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for 

Scholars, 2008). See also China’s Expansion into the Western Hemisphere, Riordan Roett 

and Guadalupe Paz, eds., (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2008). See also 

Latin America Facing China: South-South Relations beyond the Washington Consensus,

A.E. Fernandez Jilberto and B. Hogenboom, eds, (New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 2010). 

See also China Engages Latin America: Tracing the Trajectory, A. H. Hearn and José 

Luis León Marquez, eds., (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2011). See also From 

the Great Wall to the New World: China and Latin America in the 21st Century, Julia C. 

Strauss and Ariel C. Armony, eds. (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2012). 

See also China and the New Triangular Relationship in the Americas, Enrique Dussel 

Peters, Adrian H. Hearn, and Harley Shaiken, eds. (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional 

Autonoma de Mexico, 2013). See also “Los hermanos González, juzgados en Malasia por 

‘narcotráfico,’” La Prensa, Mexico City, April 24, 2011.

9. See R. Evan Ellis, China in Latin America: The Whats and Wherefores (Boulder, CO: 

Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2009).

10. ALBA was originally established by the Venezuelan regime of Hugo Chávez in 2004 

as an alternative to the U.S.-backed proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas. In 

practical terms, the organization is the principal bloc of states in Latin America and the 

Caribbean actively opposed to U.S. influence and leadership in the region. It is composed 

of nine states, of which Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, and Nicaragua have the highest 

profile politically. Other members include Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Saint Lucia, 

and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
102 Security and Defense Studies Review 

11. Joe Macdonald, “Bolivian Leader Names China Ideological Ally,” Washington Times,

January 10, 2006.

12. Brian M. Faughnan and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, “What Do Citizens of the Americas 

Think of China?” Americas Barometer Project, June 3, 2013.

13. CEPAL, “Annual National Account in Dollars, Share in Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Activity at Current Prices,” December 12, 2013. See also Jenkins and Dussel. 

See also Gallagher and Porzecanski, “China Matters.” See also Gallagher and Porzecanski, 

The Dragon in the Room.

14. CEPAL, 2013.

15. See Joseph S. Nye Jr., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New 

York: Basic Books, 1990). See also Joseph S. Nye Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success 

in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).

16. See R. Evan Ellis, “The United States and China in Latin America: Cooperation and 

Competition,” Security and Defense Studies Review, vol. 12, no. 1 & 2, Fall–Winter 2011, 

37–44. See also R. Evan Ellis, The Strategic Dimension of China’s Engagement with Latin 

America, (Washington, DC: William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, 

October 2013).

17. Kimmo Matthews, “Angry Protesters Demand Jobs on Palisadoes Project,” Jamaica 

Observer. Kingston, Jamaica, September 22, 2010. See also Henry Balford, “China Harbour/union Dispute Brewing,” Jamaica Observer, Kingston, Jamaica, December 16, 2012.

18. One example is that of members of the town of Morococha, relocated by the Toromocho mining project. See “Huancayo: pobladores protestaron contra reubicación de 

Morococha,” El Comercio, November 17, 2012. Another example would be the conflict 

between the Chinese mining company Shougang, and the community of Marcona, Peru. 

See “Ica: Mineros de Marcona exigen aumentos salariales,” RPP, October 15, 2012. Yet 

another example is that of the protests against the Shanghai Construction Group in Guyana 

for not hiring local workers. See “Opposition Pickets Marriott over Hiring Practices,” Stabroek News, Georgetown, Guyana, February 14, 2013.

19. An example is the protest against the Rio Blanco mining project in Peru. See “Piura: 

pobladores agredidos en protesta antiminera exigen justicia,” El Comercio, Lima, Peru, 

November 16, 2011. Another example is that of the protests against a proposed $1.6 billion 

open pit mining project in Ecuador by the Chinese-owned firm Ecuacorriente. See “Marcha 

avanzó a Latacunga y está a 75 kilómetros de Quito,” El Universo, Guayaquil, Ecuador, 

March 20, 2012. One more example can be found in the protests against the exploitation of 

the Lupe Mine in Puebla, Mexico by the Chinese firm JDC Minerals, and attempts to block 

the Famatina Mine in La Rioja, Argentina, because of concern over arsenic poisoning. See 

Orlando Andrada and Mariela Arias, “Al wok. China saltó al tercer puesto en la inversión 

extranjera en la Argentina,” La Nación, March 6, 2014.

20. An example is that of the protests against DragonMart, a proposed wholesale-retail 

complex near Cancun. See Amy Guthrie, “China Plan Raises Ire in Mexico,” Wall Street 

Journal, January 17, 2013.

21. In June 2011, for example, three members of the Chinese petroleum services firm 

Great Wall Drilling were kidnapped in Caquetá, Colombia. See “Emerald Energy Suspends 

Operations in Southern Colombia Following Rebel Attacks,” Colombia Reports, March 6, 

2012. In 2007 in Orellana, Ecuador, violent protests against the Chinese petroleum firm 

Petroriental caused more than 20 deaths and forced the declaration of a state of emergency 

in the province. See “Heridos 24 militares en incidentes en protestas en Orellana,” El Universo, Guayaquil, Ecuador, July 5, 2007.

In Honduras, threats against the Chinese builders of the Patuca III dam forced a 
Volume 16 / 2014 103

temporary suspension of the project in 2013. See “Estancadas las obras en la represa hidroeléctrica Patuca III en Honduras,” La Prensa, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, June 9, 2013. 

Protesters have also overrun and occupied a Chinese-operated oilfield in Tarapoa, Ecuador. See “Petrolera china desestima que protesta en Tarapoa haya afectado sus intereses,” 

El Universo, Guayaquil, Ecuador, November 14, 2006. There was also an attack on the 

Chinese-run Colquiri mine in Bolivia. See “Colquiri aún dialoga y denuncian más tomas,” 

Los Tiempos, Cochabamba, Bolivia, June 9, 2012.

22. “Uruguay Sees Deepwater Port as Regional Master Plan,” UPI, October 22, 2013.

23. R. Evan Ellis, “Rivalidades Emergentes de Múltiples Potencias en Latinoamérica,” Air 

& Space Power Journal en Espanol, vol. 3, no. 1, 1st Trimester 2011, 16–25.

24. “Expositores chinos en el SITDEF 2013,” Poder Militar, 2013.

25. Kelly Hearn, “China-Peru Military Ties Growing Stronger,” Washington Times, May 27, 2013.

26. This included a Chinese offer to co-develop and produce part of their FC-1 fighter in 

Cordoba, Argentina, in order to sell the aircraft to the Argentine Air Force. See Richard D. 

Fisher, “Argentine Officials Confirm Joint-Production Talks over China’s FC-1 Fighter,” 

HIS Jane’s 360, June 23, 2013.

27. R. Evan Ellis, “China – Involucramiento Militar en América Latina: Buena Voluntad, 

Buen Negocio, y Posición Estrategica?” Air & Space Power Journal en Español, 2nd Trimester 2012, 47.

28. Ellis, “China – Involucramiento Militar,” 49.

29. Author’s conversation with personnel who had observed the PLA soldiers at Tolemaida 

Air Base in Colombia, 2012

30. “PLAN’s Taskforce Conducts Maritime Joint Exercise with Chilean Navy,” People’s 

Daily Online, October 14, 2013. See also “China, Brazil Holds Joint Naval Drill,” Global 

Times, October 29, 2013. 

31. This support is reflected in the U.S. National Security Strategy and the policies and programs of the U.S. Department of State and other U.S. government entities. See National 

Security Strategy, The White House.

32. Direction of Trade Statistics Quarterly, 23.

33. Kevin P. Gallagher, Amos Irwin, and Katherine Koleski, The New Banks in Town: Chinese Finance in Latin America, Inter-American Dialogue, 2012.

34. Brian Ellsworth, “Despite Obama Charm, Americas Summit Boosts U.S. Isolation,” 

Reuters, April 16, 2012.

35. R. Evan Ellis, “China, Russia, India and the Venezuelan Petroleum Industry,” Latin 

Business Chronicle, December 11, 2013.

36. “Programa Mi Casa Bien Equipada ha vendido 850 mil equipos,” El Universal, Caracas, Venezuela, February 7, 2012.

37. Joshua Schneyer and Nicholas Medina Mora Perez, “How China Took Control of an 

OPEC Country’s Oil,” Reuters, November 26, 2013.See also Nathan Gill, “Ecuador Receives $1.2 Billion Loan From China for Budget,” Bloomberg, August 26, 2013. See 

also Fernando Villavicencio, Fernando, Ecuador Made in China, Quito, Ecuador: Artes 

Gráficas SILVA, 2013.

38. Simon Hall, “China’s CNPC Nears Ecuador Refinery Deal,” Wall Street Journal, June 

10, 2013.

39. “Ecuador Receives $1.4 Billion Disbursement from China Loan,” The Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2013.

40. Hilton Heredia Garcia, “Hidroeléctrica Rositas pende de la cementera de Yacuses,” El 

Deber, September 29, 2013.

41. “Empresa china pavimentará carretera Trinidad-San Ignacio de Moxos,” Los Tiempos, 
104 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Cochabamba, Bolivia, October 21, 2013.

42. A. D. Hans Soria O., “Alcanzan 90% de avance en reactivación de Papelbol,” Los 

Tiempos, Cochabamba, Bolivia, October 14, 2012.

43. Dorothy Kosich, “China May Help Bolivia Finance El Mutún,” MineWeb, May 28, 

2010.

44. Patrick Boehler, “Nicaraguan Canal Team Quietly Visit Mainland,” South China Morning Post, October 29, 2013.

45. Calculated from Direction of Trade Statistics Quarterly, 22–23 and Direction of Trade 

Statistics Yearbook 2009, 27–28.

46. The port would provide an outlet for Brazilian soy, which is increasingly shipped to 

Asia, but would also compete with Argentine facilities. See “Uruguay Sees Deepwater port 

as Regional Master Plan,” UPI, October 22, 2013.

47. “Honduras firmará con empresa china construcción de ferrocarril interoceánico,” Radio 

América, June 21, 2013.

48. Richard Browne, “History Suggests US in Control of Jamaican Property Sought by 

China - Goat Islands, Vernamfield Foreign Policy Conundrum,” The Jamaica Gleaner, 

Kingston, Jamaica, September 13, 2013.

49. Andrea Rodriguez, “Puerto de Mariel en Cuba, nuevo bastión de la economía cubana,” 

El Universal, Cartagena, Colombia, November 12, 2013.

50. R. Evan Ellis, “Chinese Commercial Engagement with Guyana: The Challenges of 

Physical Presence and Political Change,” China Brief, vol. 13, no. 19, September 27, 2013.

51. Jorge Rosenblut Ratinoff, “Una alianza de oportunidades,” El País, July 6, 2013. See 

also Carl Mecham and R. Evan Ellis, “La Alianza del Pacífico y los éxitos que los países 

pueden alcanzar individualmente,” El País, July 4, 2013.

52. For detailed, albeit anecdotal evidence, see R. Evan Ellis, “Chinese Organized Crime 

in Latin America,” Prism, vol. 4, no. 1, December 1, 2012, 67–77.

53. Direction of Trade Statistics Quarterly, 23.

54. Hugo Ruvalcaba, “Asian mafias in Baja California,” Insight Crime, August 20, 2013. 

See also Ellis, “Chinese Organized Crime in Latin America.” 

55. Geoffrey Ramsey, “Mexico Seizes 32 Tons of Chinese Precursor Chemicals,” InsightCrime, May 8, 2012. See also Ellis, “Chinese Organized Crime in Latin America.”

56. “Los hermanos González, juzgados en Malasia por ‘narcotráfico,’” La Prensa, Mexico 

City, April 24, 2011.

57. There is some dispute whether “Red Dragon” is actually the name of a single group, or 

an umbrella reference for multiple Chinese groups smuggling persons.

58. Ellis, “Chinese Organized Crime in Latin America.”

59. Based on conversations by the author with security and defense officials in these countries.

60. Indeed, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to rule out such an approach when, 

in a November 2013 speech to the Organization of American States, he declared that the 

administration was officially abandoning the “Monroe Doctrine,” implying that it would no 

longer seek to act as a guardian against the activities of foreign powers in the Hemisphere. 

See John Kerry, “Remarks on U.S. Policy in the Western Hemisphere,” Organization of 

American States, Washington DC, November 18, 2013.

61. See, for example, Roger Noriega, Prepared Statement before the Subcommittee on the 

Western Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House Of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, Serial No. 109–63, April 6, 2005. 

The current administration has, however, expressed concerns about Chinese intentions 

and the lack of transparency regarding Chinese activities in the hemisphere. See Frank 

O. Mora, “Strategic Implications of China’s Evolving Relationship with Latin America,” 
Volume 16 / 2014 105

presentation to the Conference on China in Latin America, Washington, D.C., November 

6, 2009.

62. Zhang Ting, “China ‘not a threat’ in Latin America,” China Daily, August 19, 2011.

63. Roberta S. Jacobson, “The Americas: Our Shared Challenges,” Remarks at the University of Miami Center for Hemispheric Policy, Miami, Florida, December 13, 2013.

64. See Hal Weitzman, Latin Lessons: How South America Stopped Listening to the United 

States and Started Prospering (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2012).

65. Joseph S. Nye Jr., “What China and Russia Don’t Get About Soft Power,” Foreign 

Policy. April 29, 2013. See also Nye, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American 

Power. See also Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.

66. See Ellis, “Chinese Soft Power.”

67. This is contrary to the emphasis of authors such as Cardoso, Frank, and Wallerstein. 

See, for example, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “Dependent Capitalist Development in 

Latin America,” New Left Review, vol. 74, July–August 1972, 83–95. See also Andre 

Gunder Frank, “The Development of Underdevelopment,” in James D. Cockcroft, et. al., 

Dependence and Underdevelopment: Latin Americas Political Economy (New York: Anchor Books, 1972). See also Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Rise and Future Demise of the 

World Capitalist System,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. XVI, September 1974, 387–415.

68. See, for example, A.F.K. Organski, A., World Politics, 2d ed. (New York: Knopf, 1968). 

See also A.F.K. Organsky and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). See also Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger, 

Jaeck Kugler and Douglas Lemke, eds. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996). 

See also Ronald Tammen, Jacek Kugler, and Douglas Lemke, Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century (New York: Chatham House, 2000).

69. Core works ascribed to the “realist” school include Hans Morgenthau, Politics among 

Nations (New York: Knopf, 1948); Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–

1939 (London: MacMillan & Co., 1940); and, for “structural” realism, Kenneth Waltz, 

Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 

1979). For a contemporary application of realism to the rise of the PRC in the current 

international system, see John J. Mearshimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New 

York: Norton, 2001).
106 Security and Defense Studies Review 

NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM Posture Statements 

to the U.S. Congress

As part of the commands’ annual posture statements to Congress, General John 

Kelly of SOUTHCOM and General Charles Jacoby, Jr. of NORTHCOM presented their goals and concerns in testimony before the House and Senate Armed 

Service Committees on February 26, 2014 and March 13, 2014, respectively. The 

Perry Center, as one of the Hemisphere’s premier venues for security and defense 

education and outreach, plays a pivotal role in carrying out both NORTHCOM 

and SOUTHCOM’s priorities throughout the year. The following summaries of 

Gen. Kelly’s and Gen. Jacoby’s 2014 posture statements provide insight into the 

key concerns and objectives for the Western Hemisphere regional commands over 

the course of the year.

Posture Statement of General John F. Kelly, USMC, 

SOUTHCOM Commander 

Distinguished Members of the [House Armed Services] Committee: I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss U.S. Southern Command’s 

efforts in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. Even our significantly reduced engagement continues to yield dividends in a region of increasing 

importance to our national interests. While other global concerns dominate the 

headlines, we should not lose sight of either the challenges or opportunities closer 

to home. In terms of geographic proximity, trade, culture, immigration, and the 

environment, no other part of the world has greater impact on daily life in our 

country than Latin America and the Caribbean. 

During my first year in command, I established four priorities for U.S. Southern Command—continuing humane and dignified detention operations at Joint 

Task Force Guantanamo, countering transnational organized crime, building partner capacity, and planning for contingencies. I thank the Congress for recognizing 

U.S. Southern Command’s vital role in defending our southern approaches and 

building enduring partnerships with the Americas. I remain concerned, however, 

by the impact of budget cuts on our ability to support national security interests 

and contribute to regional security. 

Over the next ten years, the Services are reducing deployments of personnel, 

ships, and aircraft in the context of tightening fiscal constraints. As an economy 

of force Combatant Command, these reductions have a disproportionately large 

impact on our operations, exercises, and engagement activities. Insufficient maritime surface vessels and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms 

impair our primary mission to detect threats and defend the southern approaches 

to the U.S. homeland. Similarly, reductions in force allocation severely limit our 

security cooperation activities, the primary way we engage with and influence the 
Volume 16 / 2014 107

region. Sequestration only exacerbated these challenges, and while its near-term 

effects may have been mitigated, this reprieve is temporary. As the lowest priority 

Geographic Combatant Command, U.S. Southern Command will likely receive 

little, if any, “trickle down” of restored funding. Ultimately, the cumulative impact of our reduced engagement will be measured in terms of U.S. influence, leadership, and relationships in the Western Hemisphere. Severe budget constraints 

have serious implications for all three, at a time in which regional security issues 

warrant greater attention. 

Overview of Regional Security Issues 

Transnational Organized Crime. Transnational organized crime is a national security concern for three primary reasons. First, the spread of criminal networks is 

having a corrosive effect on the integrity of democratic institutions and the stability of several of our partner nations. Transnational criminal organizations threaten 

citizen security, undermine basic human rights, cripple rule of law through corruption, erode good governance, and hinder economic development.1

 Second, 

illicit trafficking poses a direct threat to our nation’s public health, safety, and 

border security. Criminal elements make use of the multitude of illicit pathways 

in our hemisphere to smuggle drugs, contraband, and even humans directly into 

the United States. Illegal drugs are an epidemic in our country, wasting lives and 

fueling violence between rival gangs in most of our nation’s cities. The third concern is a potential one, and highlights the vulnerability to our homeland rather 

than an imminent threat: that terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those 

same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our 

citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the United 

States. I would like to briefly talk about each concern in greater detail to underscore the magnitude of the threat posed by transnational organized crime. 

Destabilizing Effects in the Region. The unprecedented expansion of criminal 

networks and violent gangs is impacting citizen security and stability in the region. Skyrocketing criminal violence exacerbates existing challenges like weak 

governance; as a United Nations report recently noted, despite improvements, 

Latin America remains the most unequal and insecure region in the world.2 In 

some countries, homicides are approaching crisis levels. High levels of violence 

are driving Central American citizens to seek refuge in other countries, including 

the United States. Driven by economic pressures and rising criminal violence, 

the number of Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans attempting to cross the 

U.S. Southwest border increased 60 percent in 2013.3

This challenge, however, extends far beyond a threat to public safety; some 

areas of Central America are under the direct influence of drug trafficking organizations. These groups use their illegally gained wealth to buy off border agents, 

judges, police officers, and even entire villages. This criminal power and the 

enormous flow of crime-generated profits are serious threats to the stability of 

democratic institutions, rule of law, and the international financial system. Corruption also poses an indirect threat to U.S. national security interests, as corrupt 
108 Security and Defense Studies Review 

government officials in the region can be bribed to procure official documents 

such as visas or citizenship papers and facilitate travel of special interest aliens. 

In my view, this vulnerability could be exploited by any number of actors seeking 

to do us harm.

Illicit Trafficking to the United States. The U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility is the distribution hub for drug trafficking destined for the United 

States. The majority of heroin sold in the United States comes from either Colombia or Mexico, and we are seeing a significant increase in heroin-related 

overdoses and deaths in our country.4 Additionally, opium poppy production now 

appears to be increasing in Guatemala. Thousands of tons of precursor chemicals 

are trafficked into our hemisphere from China, aiding Mexican-based drug cartels 

that are extending production of U.S.-bound methamphetamine into Guatemala, 

Nicaragua, and potentially other Central American countries. With an estimated 

$84 billion in annual global sales,5 cocaine trafficking remains the most profitable 

activity for criminal networks operating in the region, as the Andean Ridge is the 

source of every single ounce of cocaine consumed on the planet. Upon landfall in 

Central America, bulk cocaine is broken down into multiple smaller shipments for 

transit into Mexico and the United States, making large interdictions at the U.S. 

border extremely difficult, despite the heroic efforts of local law enforcement, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. If bulk shipments are not interdicted before making landfall, there is almost 

no stopping the majority of this cocaine as it moves through Central America and 

Mexico and eventually lands on street corners across America, placing significant 

strain on our nation’s health care and criminal justice systems and costing American taxpayers an estimated $193 billion in 2007 alone, the most recent year for 

which data is available.6

Cocaine trafficking remains the predominant security challenge throughout 

the entire region, and I am growing increasingly concerned by the situation in the 

Caribbean. Due in part to counterdrug asset reductions, some old routes appear 

to be reviving, including ones that lead directly into Florida. According to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, there was a 483% increase in cocaine washing up 

on Florida’s shores in 2013 compared to 2012. In 2013, U.S.-bound cocaine flow 

through the Caribbean corridor increased to 14% of the overall estimated flow; 

this number is likely higher and will continue to grow, but we lack a clear picture 

of cocaine flow due to asset shortfalls. The discovery of cocaine processing lab 

equipment in the Dominican Republic suggests criminal organizations may be 

seeking to broaden production in the Caribbean. This may be an indication of an 

emerging trend, similar to what we saw in Central America in 2012. Additionally, the Caribbean is particularly vulnerable to the violence and insecurity that 

often comes with illicit trafficking and organized crime. As trafficking from the 

Dominican Republic into Puerto Rico has increased, so too have violence, crime, 

and corruption. Once cocaine successfully reaches Puerto Rico, it has reached 

the U.S. homeland; most of the cocaine arriving in Puerto Rico is successfully 

transported into the continental United States. According to the DEA, traffickers 
Volume 16 / 2014 109

are also transporting Colombian heroin, often via Venezuela, to Puerto Rico for 

onward shipment to Miami, New York, and Houston.

Gone are the days of the “cocaine cowboys.” Instead, we and our partners 

are confronted with cocaine corporations that have franchises all over the world, 

including 1,200 American cities,7 as well as criminal enterprises like the violent 

transnational gang Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, that specialize in extortion and 

human trafficking. The FBI has warned that MS-13 has a significant presence in 

California, North Carolina, New York, and northern Virginia, and is expanding 

into new areas of the United States, including Indian reservations in South Dakota.

Additionally, migrant smuggling organizations are increasingly active in the 

Caribbean, as new laws in Cuba and erroneous perceptions in Haiti of changes in 

U.S. immigration policy have led to increased migration flows. Smuggling networks are expanding in the Eastern Caribbean, as Cubans and Haitians attempt to 

reach the United States via Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. These networks 

are opportunistic and easily expand into other illicit activities, such as the drug 

trade, special interest alien smuggling, and human trafficking, including exploiting vulnerable migrants by subjecting them to forced labor, a form of modern-day 

slavery. In 2012, the International Labor Organization estimated that 20.9 million 

people are victims of forced labor worldwide.8 Foreign nationals are trafficked 

for sex and labor, as well as for commercial sex acts, into the United States from 

many countries around the world, including Central America, South America, and 

the Caribbean.9

It has been many years since U.S. Southern Command supported a response 

to a mass migration event, but I am concerned by the trends we are seeing, especially in Haiti, where we have witnessed a 44-fold increase in Haitian migrants 

in the Mona Passage. As of February 2013, more than 2,000 Haitians had been 

documented trying to use this narrow passage as a migration vector, compared 

to less than 200 in the past eight years combined. Smuggling operations have a 

high human toll; rough seas endanger the lives of rescuers and migrants and have 

resulted in the death of more than 50 Haitians to date. Thankfully, the Dominican Republic is an important partner in stemming migration flows, and they are 

working hard to reach a solution on the issue of the roughly 200,000 Haitians 

residing in the Dominican Republic. However, additional increases in migration 

would place additional burdens on already over-stretched U.S. Coast Guard and 

Dominican Republic assets. Absent resource adjustments, stemming these smuggling operations and preventing future loss-of-life will pose major challenges to 

the United States and our Caribbean partners.

Crime-Terror Convergence. Clearly, criminal networks can move just about anything on these smuggling pipelines. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that many of 

these pipelines lead directly into the United States, representing a potential vulnerability that could be exploited by terrorist groups seeking to do us harm. Supporters and sympathizers of Lebanese Hezbollah are involved in both licit and 

illicit activities in the region, including drug trafficking. Additionally, money, like 

drugs and people, has become mobile; it is easier to move than ever before, and 
110 Security and Defense Studies Review 

the vast global illicit economy benefits both criminal and terrorist networks alike. 

Clan-based, Lebanese Hezbollah-associated criminal networks exploit free trade 

zones and permissive areas in places like Venezuela, and the Argentina, Brazil, 

and Paraguay Tri-Border to engage in money laundering and other illegal endeavors, as well as recruitment and radicalization efforts. The exact amount of profits 

generated by these illicit activities in the region is unclear, but it is likely—and at 

least—in the tens of millions of dollars.

External Actors: Iran and Islamic Extremist Groups. Lebanese Hezbollah has long 

considered the region a potential attack venue against Israeli and other Western 

targets, and I remain concerned that the group maintains an operational presence 

there. Lebanese Hezbollah’s partner and sponsor, Iran, has sought closer ties with 

regional governments, largely to circumvent sanctions and counter U.S. influence. 

As a state-sponsor of terrorism, Iran’s involvement in the Western Hemisphere is 

a matter for concern. Additionally, members, supporters, and adherents of Islamic 

extremist groups are present in Latin America. Islamic extremists visit the region 

to proselytize, recruit, establish business venues to generate funds, and expand 

their radical networks. Some Muslim communities in the Caribbean and South 

America are exhibiting increasingly extremist ideology and activities, mostly as a 

result from ideologues’ activities and external influence from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Mr. Chairman, we take all these activities seriously, and we 

and our partners remain vigilant against an evolution in capability of any group 

with the intent to attack the United States, our interests, or our allies. I remain concerned, however, that U.S. Southern Command’s limited intelligence assets may 

prevent full awareness of the activities of Iranian and terrorist support networks 

in the region.

Other External Actors. Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of attention on 

the increased regional influence of so-called “external actors” such as China and 

Russia. Ultimately, we should remember that engagement is not a zero-sum game. 

Russia and China’s expanding relationships are not necessarily at our expense. 

However, if we want to maintain our partnerships in this hemisphere and maintain 

even minimal influence, we must remain engaged with this hemisphere. Budget 

cuts are having a direct and detrimental effect on our security cooperation activities, the principal way we engage and promote defense cooperation in the region. 

The cumulative effect of our reduced engagement is a relative but accelerated 

decline of trust in our reliability and commitment to the region. Our relationships, 

our leadership, and our influence in the Western Hemisphere are paying the price.

Russia continues to build on its existing strategic partnerships in Latin America, pursuing an increased regional presence through arm sales, counterdrug cooperation, and bilateral trade agreements. Last year marked a noticeable uptick in 

Russian power projection and security force personnel in the region. It has been 

over three decades since we last saw this type of high-profile Russian military 

presence: a visit by a Russian Navy Interfleet Surface Action Group to Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and the deployment of two Russian long-range strategic 
Volume 16 / 2014 111

bombers to Venezuela and Nicaragua as part of a training exercise.

As part of its long-term strategy for the region, China is also expanding relationships in Latin America, especially in the Caribbean. In contrast to the Russians, Chinese engagement is focused primarily on economics, but it uses all 

elements of national power to achieve its goals. Major investments include potentially $40 billion to construct an alternative to the Panama Canal in Nicaragua 

and $3 billion to Costa Rica and Caribbean nations for myriad infrastructure and 

social development projects. China is the single biggest source of financing to 

Venezuela and Ecuador, due to China’s thirst for natural resources and contracts 

for Chinese state-owned companies. Chinese companies hold notable investments 

in at least five major ports and are major vendors of telecommunications services 

to 18 nations in the region. In the defense realm, Chinese technology companies 

are partnering with Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia to launch imagery and communications satellites, and China is gradually increasing its military outreach, offering educational exchanges with many regional militaries. In 2013, the Chinese 

Navy conducted a goodwill visit in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina and conducted its 

first-ever naval exercise with the Argentine Navy.

I am often asked if I view engagement by these “external actors” as a direct 

threat to the United States. Generally speaking, I see potential for greater partnership with China in areas such as humanitarian assistance and disaster response. 

However, I would like to see the Chinese place greater emphasis on respecting human rights—like we do—as part of their overall engagement efforts in the region. 

The U.S. government continues to encourage China to address shared security 

challenges in a positive way, such as taking concrete steps to address the massive 

illicit trafficking of counterfeit pharmaceuticals and precursor chemicals used for 

methamphetamine and heroin production in Central America and Mexico. While 

Russian counterdrug cooperation could potentially contribute to regional security, 

the sudden increase in its military outreach merits closer attention, as Russia’s 

motives are unclear. Given its history, the region is sensitive to any appearance 

of increased militarization, which is why it is important that Russia and China 

promote their defense cooperation in a responsible, transparent manner that helps 

maintain hemispheric stability and hard-won democratic gains.

Command Priorities

The U.S. military plays an integral role in a whole-of-government approach to address many of these regional security issues. To advance the President’s vision and 

the Department of Defense’s policy for the Americas in a resource-constrained 

environment, U.S. Southern Command focuses our efforts on four priorities. We 

can accomplish quite a lot with relatively modest investment, but continued budget limitations imperil our ability to build on this progress.

Priority: Detention Operations. I want to speak for a moment about the most 

important people at Guantanamo: the outstanding men and women that are part 

of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay. First, I want to make clear—we who 

wear the uniform are responsible for one thing at Joint Task Force Guantanamo: 
112 Security and Defense Studies Review 

detention operations, a mission of enormous complexity and sensitivity. We do 

not make policy; we follow the orders of the President and Secretary of Defense 

with the utmost professionalism and integrity.

I have never been prouder of any troops under my command than I am of 

the young military professionals who stand duty day and night at Guantanamo, 

serving under a microscope of public scrutiny in one of the toughest and most 

unforgiving military missions on the planet. These young men and women are 

charged with caring for detainees that can often be defiant and violent. Our guard 

and medical forces endure constant insults, taunts, physical assaults, and splashing of bodily fluids by detainees intent on eliciting a reaction.

And in response, each and every military member at Guantanamo exhibits 

professionalism, patience, and restraint. This is the story that never gets written: that our service members treat every detainee—even the most disruptive and 

violent among them—with respect, humanity, and dignity, in accordance with 

all applicable international and U.S. law. Our troops take very seriously their responsibility to provide for the detainees’ safe and humane care. In my opinion, 

this story is worth telling, because our country needs to understand that the young 

Americans sent by the President and the Congress to do this mission are exceptional; they live and work by an unbreakable code of honor and courage and are 

among the best one percent of their generation.

I am responsible not just for the welfare of my troops, but also for the welfare 

of every detainee under my care at Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Over the past 

year, we implemented improvements to enhance the well-being of the detainees. 

To adequately address the complex medical issues of the aging detainee population, we expanded and emphasized detailed reporting within our comprehensive 

system to monitor the health, nutrition, and wellness of every detainee. Last year, 

some detainees went on self-proclaimed “hunger strikes,” although many of these 

detainees continued to consume meals—maintaining or even gaining weight 

throughout the “strike”—and were at no medical risk. As you know, we have 

transitioned away from publicly releasing tallies of such hunger strike claims, 

which in our experience had served to encourage detainee non-compliance and 

had left the public with a very distorted picture of the overall health of the detainee population.

We continue to support ongoing military commissions, habeas corpus proceedings, periodic review boards, and visits by Congressional and foreign government delegations and non-governmental organizations like the International 

Committee of the Red Cross. We have taken steps to reduce costs and expenses 

wherever possible, while continuing to maintain the level of humane care that 

makes Joint Task Force Guantanamo a model for detention operations worldwide. 

We reduced the cost of the program supporting the detainee library by 45 percent, 

and reduced contract requirements and expenses in the Intelligence and Security 

Program, saving an estimated $6.1 million per year. We also worked with the 

International Committee of the Red Cross to provide expanded Skype capability 

to improve detainees’ regular communication with family members, at no cost to 

U.S. taxpayers.
Volume 16 / 2014 113

Concerns. Although detention operations have not been adversely affected by 

budget cuts, I remain concerned by two issues at Guantanamo: advanced medical 

care and deteriorating infrastructure. Although Naval Station Guantanamo and 

detainee hospitals are capable of providing adequate care for most detainee conditions, we lack certain specialty medical capabilities necessary to treat potentially 

complex emergencies and various chronic diseases. In the event a detainee is in 

need of emergency medical treatment that exceeds on-island capacity, I cannot 

evacuate him to the United States, as I would a service member.

As a former commander once remarked, we have not been doing detention 

operations at Guantanamo for twelve years, we have been doing them for one 

year, twelve times. The expeditionary infrastructure put in place was intended to 

be temporary, and numerous facilities are showing signs of deterioration and require frequent repair. First and most urgently, some facilities are critical to ensuring the safety and welfare of our troops stationed at Joint Task Force Guantanamo 

and for the continued humane treatment and health of the detainees. For example, 

the mess hall—a temporary structure built in the 1990s to support mass migration 

operations—is at significant risk of structural failure and is corroding after eleven 

years of continuous use, with holes in the roof and structural support beams. This 

facility must provide food services to all detainees and over 2,000 assigned personnel on a daily basis. As another example, the High Value Detention Facility is 

increasingly unsustainable due to drainage and foundation issues. Additionally, 

I am concerned over inadequate housing for our troops. This housing has other 

long-term requirements even after detention operations at Guantanamo end; it 

will be utilized by Naval Station Guantanamo to support a full range of Title 10 

missions and nationally-directed contingency requirements for disaster response 

or mass migration. I am working within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 

find solutions to these ongoing facility issues.

Priority: Countering Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC). In response to 

the challenges posed by the spread of transnational organized crime, U.S. Southern Command is working with our interagency partners to counter the threats 

posed by criminal networks and illicit trafficking, focusing on those networks 

that threaten citizen safety in the region and the security of the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, our contribution to this effort is relatively small but important, 

and comes with real sacrifice. In 2013, the crash of a counternarcotics flight in 

Colombia led to the tragic death of Air Force Master Sergeant Martin Gonzales, 

two other dedicated American contractors, and a Panamanian officer, and the serious injury of the two pilots, highlighting the true human cost of this fight. The 

individuals who died will be remembered for their service and their commitment 

to fighting drug trafficking and criminal networks whose products are killing so 

many of our countrymen and women every year.

Support to CTOC Efforts in Central America. Last year, we redirected our 

focus to Central American security institutions involved in appropriate defense 

missions like border and maritime security. This refinement capitalizes on minimal Department of Defense resources, while also being sensitive to perceptions 
114 Security and Defense Studies Review 

of militarization of the region. We are prioritizing our support to interagency 

counter-threat finance efforts and expanding our focus on converging threats, 

including illicit trafficking via commercial shipping containers, which could be 

exploited to move weapons of mass destruction into the United States. By supporting the targeting of key illicit financial nodes and commercial linkages, we 

aim to help degrade the capacities of both criminal and terrorist groups.

Now entering its third year, Operation Martillo continues to demonstrate 

commitment by the United States, our partner nations and European allies to 

counter the spread of transnational criminal organizations and protect citizens in 

Central America from the violence, harm, and exploitation wrought by criminal 

networks. However, force allocation cuts by the services are taking their toll on 

operational results; in 2013, Operation Martillo disrupted 132 metric tons of cocaine, compared with 152 metric tons of cocaine in 2012, due to limited assets.

On a positive note, the operation has led to improved interoperability and 

increased partner nation contributions. Our partners helped prevent 66 metric 

tons of cocaine from reaching the United States last year; 50 percent of Joint 

Interagency Task Force South’s successes would not have occurred without the 

participation of partner nations. Limited and declining Department of Defense 

assets will influence the next phase of the operation, as Operation Martillo’s original objectives may no longer be achievable. In the year ahead, we will seek to 

employ non-traditional solutions, within our current authorities, to partially mitigate detection and monitoring shortfalls. However, lack of assets will continue to 

constrain the operation’s full effectiveness, and has the potential to be perceived 

as lack of political will on the part of the U.S. government to continue this fight.

Interagency Partnerships. Our CTOC efforts focus on providing support to our 

law enforcement partners. U.S. Southern Command has 34 representatives from 

15 different federal agencies assigned and embedded in our headquarters staff. 

These partnerships ensure a whole of government approach to both operations 

and capacity building efforts. To mitigate asset shortfalls, we rely heavily on the 

U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection, which now provide the 

bulk of the ships and aircraft available to disrupt drugs bound for the United 

States. The heroic men and women of DEA’s Foreign Deployed Advisory and 

Support Team (FAST) provide critical support to partner nation interdiction operations, and we are fortunate to have nine DEA Special Investigative Units working to improve regional law enforcement capacity. In my view, DEA is a known, 

essential partner, and their focus on building the investigative and intelligence 

capacities of vetted law enforcement units complements our own efforts to professionalize regional defense and security forces.

In late 2013, U.S. Southern Command and the Treasury Department created 

a Counter-Threat Finance Branch, an analytical unit that will map illicit networks, 

combat the financial underpinnings of national security threats in the region, and 

support the development of targeted financial measures and U.S. law enforcement 

actions. As one example, we provided analytic support to the Treasury Department’s financial sanctions against Los Cachiros in Honduras. We also work with 
Volume 16 / 2014 115

Immigration and Customs Enforcement to aggressively target criminal networks 

that traffic in special interest aliens and contraband throughout the region. Additionally, U.S. Southern Command and the FBI expanded their analytic partnership 

to include the FBI’s International Operations and Criminal Investigative Divisions. This enhanced partnership helps both agencies further develop partner nation capacity in countering transnational organized crime. We also partnered with 

the Department of Homeland Security to provide network analysis in support of 

Operation CITADEL, which targeted the movements of illicit proceeds in Central America. In Colombia, we are working with the Joint Improvised Explosive 

Device Defeat Organization to assist our Colombian partners in countering the 

threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used by terrorist groups like the 

FARC. Finally, we are also coordinating with the Department of State’s Bureaus 

of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement and Western Hemisphere Affairs 

to explore the possibility of providing logistical support to regional law enforcement operations.

Impact of Budget Cuts—CTOC. Severe budget constraints are significantly degrading our ability defend the southern approaches to the United States. Sequestration merely compounds the ongoing challenge of limited and declining U.S. 

government maritime and air assets required for detection, monitoring, and “endgame” interdiction missions. Irrespective of sequestration cuts, we face a sharp 

downtown in availability of large surface assets such as U.S. Navy frigates and 

U.S. Coast Guard High Endurance Cutters, which face decommissioning or are 

approaching the end of their expected lifespan. The eighth and final U.S. Coast 

Guard National Security Cutter, which will be delivered in the next few years, will 

be a critical asset to U.S. government efforts to protect our southern approaches.

The impact of diminishing asset allocation will continue to impede our mission even if sequestration is reversed; our operational effectiveness is directly 

proportional to the number of assets we can put against detection, monitoring, and 

interdiction operations. In 2013, Joint Interagency Task Force South was unable 

to take action on 74% of actionable illicit trafficking events due to lack of assets. 

When better resourced several years ago, we were able to disrupt a significant 

amount—more than 240 metric tons—of cocaine heading towards the United 

States. Last year, 20 more metric tons of cocaine reached the United States due to 

reduced asset availability, a number that will increase inversely as the availability 

of U.S. government assets decreases. 

Other Issues. Additionally, I remain concerned over the planned construction of 

wind farm sites in North Carolina that will interfere with our Relocatable OverThe-Horizon Radar (ROTHR) radar system in Virginia. I am also concerned over 

wind projects in Texas that will impact ROTHR systems in that state. These wind 

farms could and likely will adversely impact our ROTHR systems, the only persistent wide-area surveillance radars capable of tracking illicit aircraft in Latin 

America and the Caribbean. We are working within the Department of Defense 

and with developers and stakeholders to develop potential mitigation solutions, 

but I have little confidence we will succeed.
116 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Priority: Building Partner Capacity. Having strong partners is the cornerstone of 

U.S. Southern Command’s engagement strategy and is essential for our national 

security. Capable and effective partners respect human rights, share in the costs 

and responsibilities of ensuring regional security, and help us detect, deter, and 

interdict threats before they reach the U.S. homeland. Our persistent human rights 

engagement also helps encourage defense cooperation, trust, and confidence, 

which cannot be surged when a crisis hits, and cannot be achieved through episodic deployments or chance contacts. Trust must be built, nurtured, and sustained 

through regular contact.

Engagement with Colombia. Our partner Colombia has paid the ultimate price 

in terms of their blood and national treasure to bring the FARC—who have been 

serial human rights violators for decades—to the negotiating table. The Colombians have fought heroically for a peaceful, democratic Colombia, which will be a 

powerful symbol of hope and prosperity, but it is far too soon to declare victory. 

It is absolutely imperative we remain engaged as one of our strongest allies works 

to consolidate its hard-won success. To that end, U.S. Southern Command is providing advice and assistance to the Colombian military’s transformation efforts, 

as it works to improve interoperability and transition to an appropriate role in 

post-conflict Colombia. With Colombia increasingly taking on the role of security 

exporter, we are facilitating the deployment of Colombian-led training teams and 

subject matter experts and attendance of Central American personnel to law enforcement and military academies in Colombia as part of the U.S.-Colombia Action Plan on Regional Security Cooperation. This is a clear example of a sizeable 

return on our relatively modest investment and sustained engagement.

Engagement in South America. In Peru, U.S. Southern Command and the DEA 

are working together to support Peru’s ongoing efforts against the Shining Path, 

which are beginning to yield significant operational successes. An investment 

of 6 U.S. personnel, who trained combat medical instructors from Peru and El 

Salvador, resulted in the training of over 2,000 members of the Peruvian and 

Salvadoran military, including Salvadoran soldiers destined for stability operations in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Haiti. We are working with Chile on capacitybuilding efforts in Central America and exploring possible future engagements in 

the Pacific. In Brazil, broader bilateral challenges have affected our defense relations. Our military-to-military cooperation at the operational and tactical levels, 

however, remains strong, and we are committed to supporting the United States’ 

growing global partnership with Brazil. We continue to engage with Brazilian 

security forces in the run-up to the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics. Brazil 

participated in several of our multinational exercises last year, including playing 

a leading role in PANAMAX, which focuses on the defense of the Panama Canal.

Engagement in Central America. In 2013, U.S. Southern Command provided 

critical infrastructure and operational support to the new Guatemalan Interagency 
Volume 16 / 2014 117

Task Force, which has contributed to significant disruption of illicit trafficking 

along the Guatemalan-Mexican border and is now viewed by the Government of 

Guatemala as a model for future units. In collaboration with U.S. Northern Command, we are planning initiatives in Guatemala and Belize to support Mexico’s 

new southern border strategy. I recently visited Guatemala and was struck by the 

government’s strong commitment to work with human rights groups and strengthen its democratic institutions, while also doing its part to stem the massive flow of 

illicit trafficking heading to our country. Unfortunately, current legislative restrictions on provisions such as Foreign Military Financing and International Military 

Education and Training, found in the FY14 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

limit the United States’ ability to fully engage with the Guatemalan military and 

security forces. In another example of successful interagency partnerships, Joint 

Task Force Bravo supported the Belizean Defense Force and DEA in the eradication of 100,446 marijuana plants and the seizure of 330 pounds of marijuana.

Along Panama’s Pacific Coast, we constructed three key maritime facilities 

and are providing counternarcotics raining to Panamanian coast guard and maritime security forces. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Government of Panama in their 

handling of last year’s smuggling incident involving Cuban military equipment 

aboard a North Korean vessel. We are fortunate to have partners like Panama that 

are committed to ensuring international security. Finally, I am particularly proud 

of our support to the third deployment of members of the El Salvador Armed 

Forces to Afghanistan. Augmented by the New Hampshire National Guard, the 

Salvadoran unit returned this past December from serving as a Police Advisory 

Team that provided training to Afghan security forces. Like Panama, El Salvador 

is just one example of the outstanding partners we have in this part of the world—

partners that are doing their part to ensure peace and security within and beyond 

their borders.

Engagement in the Caribbean. Throughout Central America and the Caribbean, 

U.S. Southern Command has constructed or improved partner nation naval and 

coast guard operating bases and facilities and delivered more than $3 million in 

counternarcotics training and non-lethal equipment, including a total of 42 highspeed interceptor boats provided since 2008 that have supported Joint Inter-Agency Task Force (JIATF) South interdiction operations. In support of the Caribbean 

Basin Security Initiative (CBSI), we are working to improve maritime patrol and 

intercept capabilities of our Caribbean partners. Through CBSI, a maritime Technical Assistance Field Team—comprised of joint Coast Guard and Department 

of Defense personnel—provides hands-on technical assistance, in-country mentoring, and training to 13 CBSI partner nations, with the goal of helping these 

countries develop accountable and sustainable engineering, maintenance, and 

logistics and procurement systems. The TAFT program is a collaborative interagency effort funded by the U.S. Department of State, using Foreign Military Financing and INCLE funding. In Haiti, the government is committed to improving 

its disaster response capabilities. Haiti continues to make gradual social and economic progress after 2010’s devastating earthquake, and the Government of Haiti 
118 Security and Defense Studies Review 

is committed to improving its disaster response capabilities. Led by Brazil and 

comprised of a multinational force that includes personnel from Uruguay, Chile, 

and Guatemala, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) 

has played a critical role in Haiti’s efforts to rebuild, working with the Haitian 

National Police to ensure security. As MINUSTAH draws down, I see a continued 

need for international engagement in Haiti to guarantee lasting stability.

Cooperation on Counterterrorism. We also work with the interagency, U.S. Embassy Country Teams, and our partner nations to counter the encroachment of both 

Sunni and Shi’a Islamic extremism, recruitment, and radicalization efforts that 

support terrorism activities. We conduct multiple engagement efforts—including 

Joint Combined Exchange Training, subject matter expert and intelligence exchanges, counterterrorism-focused exercises, and key leader engagements—here 

in the United States and in countries throughout the region. Sustained engagement 

helps build relationships, an essential tool in the fight against terrorism. Through 

intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation, our partners are better able to mitigate terrorist threats before they can cause mass destruction, destabilize a country, 

or reach the U.S. homeland.

Human Rights and Defense Professionalization. Everything we do at U.S. Southern Command begins and ends with human rights. Mr. Chairman, a lot of people 

talk about human rights, but the U.S. military does human rights. We live it. We 

teach it. We enforce it. U.S. Southern Command’s Human Rights Initiative continued to break new ground in 2013, promoting dialogue and cooperation between 

regional military forces and human rights groups and strengthening institutional 

capacity in Guatemala and Honduras. Since its inception, our Human Rights Initiative has helped promote reform throughout the region, and the results speak for 

themselves. Military forces serving democratic governments in the region understand, and take seriously, their responsibility to respect and protect human rights. 

Ten partner nations have formally committed to implementing the Human Rights 

Initiative, building an institutional culture of respect for human rights within their 

militaries.

U.S. Southern Command also promotes human rights through law of armed 

conflict programs led by the Defense Institute of Legal Studies and through academic institutions like the Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, the 

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, and the Inter-American 

Air Forces Academy. Additionally, the entire premise of the International Military 

Education and Training (IMET) program promotes an environment conducive 

to students learning and sharing U.S. values and democracy, with human rights 

portions embedded in nearly every course. Mr. Chairman, IMET is one of our 

most valuable engagement tools; professional military education improves how 

our partners work with us in a joint, interoperable world. Participants not only 

better understand our culture; they share our perspective, and want to work with 

us to advance U.S. and regional interests.
Volume 16 / 2014 119

Cyber Security and Information Operations. In the region, U.S. Southern Command works to ensure the continued security of Department of Defense networks and communication infrastructure. We are also slowly making progress in 

strengthening regional cyber defense and information operations capabilities. In 

2013, U.S. Southern Command, working with the Perry Center, brought together 

strategy and policy officers from the region to share information on current cyber 

security threats. Colombia, Chile, and Brazil have each expressed interest in sharing “lessons learned” on building effective cyber security institutions. Through 

Operation SOUTHERN VOICE, 50 information operation practitioners from 11 

Western Hemisphere countries shared capabilities and best practices. In the year 

ahead, we are partnering with Colombia to build information-related capabilities 

in Guatemala and Panama, and with U.S. Northern Command to do the same in 

Mexico.

Multinational Exercises and Humanitarian Assistance. U.S. Southern Command’s multinational exercise and humanitarian and civic assistance programs 

encourage collective action and demonstrate our values and commitment to the 

region. Last year’s UNITAS and TRADEWINDS exercises helped improve interoperability among our hemisphere’s maritime forces. In 2013, we executed 140 

minimal cost projects and worked with local populations and non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) to construct and supply schools, community shelters, clinics, and hospitals. During our annual humanitarian and civic assistance exercises 

NEW HORIZONS and BEYOND THE HORIZONS, U.S. forces improved their 

readiness and provided medical care to 34,677 patients in El Salvador, Panama, 

and Belize. These humanitarian missions are one of the most effective tools in 

our national security toolkit, and one that I believe warrants greater employment. 

In any given year, we are able to send around 700 medical professionals to the 

region; Cuba, in contrast, sends around 30,000, mostly to Venezuela. In 2013, our 

collaboration with the private sector and non-governmental organizations resulted 

in contributions of $4.3 million in gifts-in-kind and services to our humanitarian 

activities. I cannot overstate the importance of these types of activities by the U.S. 

military, especially in terms of influence and access. As Secretary Hagel noted, 

our humanitarian engagement offers the next generation of global citizens direct 

experience with the positive impact of American values and ideals.

Perceptions of “Militarization.” I want to close this section by responding to 

the perception by some that our engagement is “militarizing” the region. In my 

view, these concerns reflect a misunderstanding of the actual role the U.S. military 

plays in this part of the world. As an example, our Special Operations Forces are 

among the most qualified, culturally sensitive, and linguistically capable trainers 

in the U.S. military, and above all, they excel at building trust and forging personal relationships that are essential to supporting our national interests. Whether 

it’s a small team at the tactical level or an official engagement at my level, all 

our efforts are focused on professionalizing military and security forces, to help 

our partners become more accountable to civilian authority, more capable, and 
120 Security and Defense Studies Review 

to above all respect the human rights of the citizens they are charged to protect. 

Our efforts are part of a whole-of-government approach—involving DEA, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and 

many others—to strengthen governance and foster accountable, transparent, and 

effective institutions throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Engagement by the U.S. military can make a real and lasting difference, especially in terms of promoting respect for human rights. Ultimately, if we want 

regional militaries to honor, respect, and accept civilian control and demonstrate 

an institutional culture of respect for human rights, that message must come from 

a military that lives by that code. For the U.S. military, our own training begins 

and ends with human rights; it is at the center of everything we do and an integral 

part of every interaction with partner nations. I regularly meet with human rights 

groups in Washington and throughout the region, and human rights is a major 

theme in every engagement with my counterparts in regional militaries.

Throughout the world, the U.S. military has a unique network of alliances 

and partnerships, and our regional approach can provide a framework for engagement by the broader U.S. interagency. Thanks in part to our efforts, Colombia 

is now a beacon of hope and stability with one of the most highly professionalized militaries in the region; Central America is now the focus for numerous interagency initiatives; the Caribbean now routinely shares information in support 

of international counterdrug operations; and perhaps most importantly, today the 

hemisphere is characterized by militaries under civilian control that recognize 

their fundamental responsibility to respect human rights. In my mind, there is no 

more valuable return on engagement than that.

Impact of Budget Cuts—BPC. In FY 13, we began seeing the initial effects of 

sequestration, which resulted in drastic force allocation cuts by all the services. 

In turn, reduced availability of forces adversely impacted our execution of plans 

and engagement activities. Severe budget constraints are affecting our established 

military-to-military relationships that took decades to establish, limiting our ability to build on the progress I just described. Let me be frank: reduced engagement 

risks the deterioration of U.S. leadership and influence in Central America, South 

America, and the Caribbean.

In FY 13, budget uncertainty caused the cancellation of four major exercises, including FUERZAS COMANDO—one of only two exercises focused 

on counterterrorism—and 225 engagement activities that are critical to building 

capable and effective defense and security forces in the region. The Navy’s cancelled deployment of CONTINUING PROMISE was felt throughout the region; 

it is our single most impactful humanitarian mission, demonstrating U.S. values 

and creating goodwill and positive views towards our country. We rely heavily 

on the National Guard’s State Partnership Program to conduct our activities, and 

the cancellation of 69 events was detrimental to our efforts to maintain long-term 

security relationships. Reductions in force allocation also created significant gaps 

in persistent Civil Affairs coverage. The cancellation of Civil Affairs deployments 

has created a loss of credibility with our partner nations and our partners in U.S. 
Volume 16 / 2014 121

Embassies in the region, who have questioned U.S. Southern Command’s ability 

to fulfill our commitments. Finally, the Perry Center, which helps build capacity at 

the ministerial level, is facing a severe 50 percent cut in funding over the several 

upcoming fiscal years.

Priority: Planning for Contingencies. Lastly, planning and preparing for possible 

contingencies is one of U.S. Southern Command’s core missions. Every year, 

we regularly exercise our rapid response capabilities in a variety of scenarios, 

including responding to a natural disaster, mass migration event, an attack on 

the Panama Canal, or evacuating American citizens. In 2013, we conducted our 

INTEGRATED ADVANCE exercise, which focuses on improving coordination 

with interagency partners in response to a mass migration event in the Caribbean. 

On this issue, we are fortunate to have an excellent exercise, operational, and 

planning relationship with Homeland Security Task Force Southeast, and together 

we work to defend the southern approaches to the United States. That mission, 

however, continues to be significantly impacted by force allocation cuts.

Impact of Budget Cuts—Contingency Response. Our ability to respond to regional 

contingencies such as a mass migration event or natural disaster was impaired 

in 2013, a trend that could continue in 2014. U.S. Southern Command has minimal assigned and allocated forces, and we rely on the services—especially the 

Navy—to “surge” forces and assets when a crisis hits. As the services absorb large 

reductions to their budgets, this will affect U.S. Southern Command’s ability to 

immediately respond to crises and disasters, which could lead to preventable human suffering and loss-of-life. As I mentioned earlier, I am deeply concerned by 

the uptick in Haitian migration in the Mona Passage and the continued scarcity 

of U.S. government assets in the Caribbean. As currently resourced, U.S. Southern Command faces considerable challenges to rapidly support a mass migration 

response.

Conclusion 

In closing I would like to offer a personal observation from my first year in command. This region does not ask for much. Most nations in this part of the world 

want our partnership, our friendship, and our support. They want to work with 

us, because they recognize that we share many of the same values and interests, 

many of the same challenges and concerns. Some of my counterparts perceive 

that the United States is disengaging from the region and from the world in general. We should remember that our friends and allies are not the only ones watching 

our actions closely. Reduced engagement could itself become a national security 

problem, with long-term, detrimental effects on U.S. leadership, access, and interests in a part of the world where our engagement has made a real and lasting 

difference. And in the meantime, drug traffickers, criminal networks, and other 

actors, unburdened by budget cuts, cancelled activities, and employee furloughs, 

will have the opportunity to exploit the partnership vacuum left by reduced U.S. 

military engagement. Thank you.
122 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Posture Statement of General Charles H. Jacoby Jr., USA, 

NORTHCOM Commander 

Thank you for the opportunity to report on the posture and future direction of 

United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Our integrated staffs carry on a legacy of 

over 55 years of continental defense under NORAD, and USNORTHCOM’s 11 

years of safeguarding the homeland through innovative programs, robust partnerships, and continual improvement. The nation is well served by the Commands’ 

professionals who are focused on deterring, preventing, and if necessary, defeating threats to our security.

Introduction

This is a time of dynamic unpredictability for the Department of Defense (DOD). 

As the world grows increasingly volatile and complex, threats to our national 

security are becoming more diffuse and less attributable. This evolution demands 

continuous innovation and transformation within the armed forces and the national security architecture. Meanwhile, fiscal constraints have further compelled us 

to rethink our strategies, reorient the force, rebalance risk across competing missions, and take uncommon actions to achieve spending reductions. Particularly 

troubling, in dealing with sequestration last year, we broke faith with our civilian workforce. Implementing furloughs as a cost-cutting measure compromised 

morale, unsettled families, and understandably caused many DOD civilians to 

reevaluate their commitment to civil service by undermining one of the most significant competitive advantages the DOD offers its civilian workforce, stability.

While we must deal realistically with limited budgets, the homeland must be 

appropriately resourced to protect our sovereignty, secure critical infrastructure, 

offer sanctuary to our citizens, and provide a secure base from which we project 

our national power. 

As a desired target of our adversaries, the homeland is increasingly vulnerable to an array of evolving threats. Thus, we should not give ground when it 

comes to defense of the nation and the protection of North America. USNORTHCOM and NORAD are priority investments in national security that should not 

be compromised as a consequence of the budget environment. When Canada was 

confronted with similar fiscal pressures to those encountered here, they fully resourced NORAD. Holding up our end of shared defense through NORAD honors 

Canada’s commitment, and is a key element of our nation’s competitive advantage across an uncertain global landscape.

Homeland defense depends on readiness and preparedness. The dedicated 

professionals from the intelligence community, including the National Security 

Agency (NSA) and other organizations, provide vital indications and warnings 

enabling the continued security and defense of our nation. The recent and potential future compromises of intelligence information, including the capabilities 

of the NSA, an agency with which NORAD/USNORTHCOM relies on with an 

effective operational partnership, profoundly disrupts and impacts how we deter 
Volume 16 / 2014 123

terrorists and defend the homeland. Further, although I am encouraged by the 

short-term stability obtained by recent passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 

2013, the shadow of sequestration still looms over key strategic decisions concerning how we defend the nation over the next two decades. Should sequestration 

return in 2016, it would lead to a situation where combat readiness and modernization could not fully support current and projected requirements to defend the 

homeland. Underinvestment in capabilities which sustain readiness increases our 

vulnerability and risk. The nation deserves better than a hollow force lacking the 

capability or capacity to confront threats.

Distinct from other geographic combatant commands, we must observe and 

comply with domestic legal and policy requirements as a condition of operating in 

the homeland. Under the direction of the President and Secretary of Defense, USNORTHCOM and NORAD deliver effective, timely DOD support to a wide variety of tasks in the homeland and ultimately defend our citizens and property from 

attack. Our commands work in an environment governed by domestic laws, and 

guided by the policies, traditions, and customs our country has developed over 

centuries in the use and roles of armed forces at home. We also hold the obligation 

of serving citizens with deservedly high expectations for decisive action from the 

military in times of need. In this environment, it is imperative we retain the ability 

to outpace threats and maintain all-domain situational awareness to allow greater 

decision space for strategic leaders. The commands’ approach is to defend the 

homeland “forward” and in-depth through trusted partnerships with fellow combatant commands, our hemispheric neighbors, and the interagency community. 

We carry out our primary missions of homeland defense, security cooperation, 

and civil support with a focus on preparation, partnerships, and vigilance.

Homeland Defense

USNORTHCOM and NORAD are part of a layered defense of the homeland designed to respond to threats before they reach our shores. Our national security 

architecture must be capable of deterring and defeating traditional and asymmetric threats including aircraft, ballistic missiles, terrorism, and cyber-attacks on 

economic systems and critical infrastructure. In the maritime domain, advances 

in submarine-launched cruise missiles and submarine technologies challenge our 

homeland defense efforts, as does our aging undersea surveillance infrastructure. 

Additionally, we recognize the Arctic as an approach to the homeland and must 

account for emerging concerns and opportunities related to greater accessibility 

and human activity in the region. We support the federal response to many threats 

facing the nation which are primarily security or law enforcement related, while 

ultimate responsibility for defending against and defeating direct attacks by state 

and non-state actors rests with DOD.

Aerospace Warning and Control

In the performance of our aerospace missions, including Operation NOBLE 

EAGLE, NORAD defends North American airspace and safeguards key national 
124 Security and Defense Studies Review 

terrain by employing a combination of armed fighters, aerial refueling, Airborne 

Warning and Control System (AWACS) surveillance platforms, the National Capital Region Integrated Air Defense System, and ground-based Air Defense Sector 

surveillance detection capabilities. We regularly exercise our three NORAD Regions and USNORTHCOM Components through Exercise VIGILANT SHIELD.

Over the past year, we launched fighters, AWACS, and tankers from the Alaskan and Canadian NORAD Regions in response to Russian long-range aviation. 

These sorties, as in the past, were not identified on international flight plans and 

penetrated the North American Air Defense Identification Zone. Detect and intercept operations demonstrated our ability and intent to defend the northern reaches 

of our homelands and contribute to our strategic deterrence of aerospace threats 

to the homeland.

NORAD regions are an integral part of our homeland defense mission. Their 

capability to provide mission-ready aircraft and pilots across all platforms plays 

a critical role in our common defense with Canada. The ability of NORAD to 

execute our primary mission is placed at significant risk given the degradation of 

U.S. Combat Air Force readiness, which hovers at 50 percent. The lack of ready 

forces is directly attributable to the fiscal pressure placed on readiness accounts 

and the subsequent challenges our Air Force service provider faces to execute 

modernization and recapitalization programs.

We are partnering with the Air Force to take decisive steps to restructure 

forces and regain readiness by innovatively making every training sortie count. 

However, I am concerned about our mid- and long-term capability to deliver the 

deterrent effects required of NORAD. If the Budget Control Act persists beyond 

fiscal year 2015, the extraordinary measures being undertaken by the Air Force 

to preserve readiness may not be enough to assure that combat forces can satisfy 

NORAD requirements. Reversing current negative readiness trends will require 

considerable time and expense to return squadrons to mission-ready status. For 

example, one of only two annual Air Force Weapons Instructor Courses, and two 

RED FLAG exercises, were cancelled this past year which will have an enduring 

impact on the readiness, training, and preparedness of our Air Force. Now more than 

ever, the Air Force’s efforts to seek an appropriate balance between readiness today 

and tomorrow will have a key impact on NORAD’s current and future success.

Missile Defense

We remain vigilant to nations developing the capability to threaten our homeland 

with ballistic missiles. While tensions have subsided for the time being, North Korea continues to ignore United Nations resolutions and seeks international recognition as a nuclear-armed state, which we oppose. North Korea again showcased 

its new road-mobile Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) during a military 

parade this past July. Similarly, while Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon 

and professes not to seek one, it is developing advanced missile capabilities faster 

than previously assessed. Iran has successfully orbited satellites, demonstrating 

technologies directly relevant to the development of an ICBM. Tangible evidence 

of North Korean and Iranian ambitions reinforces our understanding of how the 
Volume 16 / 2014 125

ballistic missile threat to the homeland has matured from a theoretical to a practical consideration. Moreover, we are concerned about the potential for these lethal 

technologies to proliferate to other actors. I remain confident in our current ability to defend the United States against ballistic missile threats from North Korea 

or Iran. However, advancing missile technologies demand improvement to the 

Ballistic Missile Defense System architecture in order to maintain our strategic 

advantage. We are working with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on a holistic approach to programmatically invest in tailored solutions. A steady-testing 

schedule and continued investment are needed to increase reliability and resilience across the missile defense enterprise. We are pursuing a more robust sensor 

architecture capable of providing kill assessment information and more reliable 

Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs). Additionally, we are deliberately assessing 

improvements to the nation’s intelligence collection and surveillance capability 

in order to improve our understanding of adversary capability and intent. Finally, 

we recognize the proliferation of threats that will challenge BMD inventories. 

Over time, missile defense must become an integral part of new deterrence strategies towards rogue states that balance offensive as well as defensive capabilities.

In March 2013, the Secretary of Defense announced plans to strengthen 

homeland ballistic missile defense by increasing the number of GBIs from 30 to 

44, and deploying a second TPY-2 radar to Japan. USNORTHCOM is actively 

working with our mission partners to see that these activities are completed as 

soon as possible. We are supporting MDA’s study evaluating possible locations in 

the U.S., should we require an additional missile defense interceptor site. When 

required based upon maturity of the threat, a third site will enable greater weapons 

access, increased GBI inventory, and increased battlespace against threats, such as 

those from North Korea and Iran. Choosing a third site is dependent on numerous 

factors including battlespace geometry, sensors, command and control, and interceptor improvements. Finally, with the support of Congress, we are making plans 

for deployment of a new long-range discriminating radar and assessing options 

for future sensor architecture. Our ability to detect, track and engage airborne 

threats, including emerging cruise missile technology, was the principal focus of 

our recently completed Defense Design for the National Capital Region. Next 

winter we will begin a three-year Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) operational exercise at Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

establishing a new capability to detect and engage cruise missiles at range before 

they threaten the Washington D.C. area. NORAD will combine JLENS capabilities with the Stateside Affordable Radar System into the existing air defense structure. These capabilities can point to a next generation air surveillance capability 

for homeland cruise missile defense.

Maritime Defense

NORAD conducts its maritime warning mission on a global scale through an extensive network of information sharing on potential maritime threats to the U.S. 

and Canada. Our execution of this mission continues to mature—we issued 14 

maritime warnings or advisories in 2013, six more than the previous year. Through 
126 Security and Defense Studies Review 

USNORTHCOM’s cooperative maritime defense, we gain and maintain situational awareness to detect, warn of, deter, and defeat threats within the domain.

In 2013, to improve capability and enhance homeland command and control 

relationships in the maritime domain, U.S. Fleet Forces Command was designated U.S. Naval Forces North, providing USNORTHCOM with an assigned naval 

component on the East Coast. We are also working in parallel with U.S. Pacific 

Command to close seams for command and control on the West Coast. These 

initiatives support DOD’s strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific and account for the 

increased pace of Russian and Chinese maritime activity in our Area of Responsibility (AOR), including their forays into the Arctic.

NORAD Strategic Review

Consistent with my priority to advance and sustain the bi-national military command, at the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Canada’s 

Chief of the Defense Staff, we recently initiated a NORAD Strategic Review. The 

Review intends to capitalize on existing synergies and identify opportunities to 

evolve NORAD into an agile, modernized command capable of outpacing the full 

spectrum of threats. The review identified promising opportunities to improve 

operational effectiveness, several of which can be implemented immediately. For 

example, we can realize benefits from aligning the U.S. and Canadian readiness 

reporting processes and by collaborating closely on continental threat assessment 

and capability development processes.

The Arctic

The Arctic, part of the NORAD area of operations and USNORTHCOM AOR, 

is historic key terrain for DOD in defense of North America. With decreasing 

seasonal ice, the Arctic is evolving into a true strategic approach to the homeland. 

Arctic and non-Arctic nations are updating their strategies and positions on the 

future of the region through a variety of international forums and observable activities. Russia, after decades of limited surface activity, significantly increased 

its naval operations in the high north. This activity included multi-ship exercises 

as well as an unprecedented amphibious landing and reestablishment of a longclosed airbase in the New Siberian Islands. Also, China recently achieved formal 

observer status on the Arctic Council; continues diplomatic, scientific, and trade 

initiatives with Nordic nations; and is making progress on a second polar icebreaker. While potential for friction exists, the opening of the Arctic presents an 

historic opportunity to solidify and expand strategic partnerships and cooperation.

We fulfill our responsibilities as the DOD’s advocate for Arctic capabilities 

by working with stakeholders to develop military capabilities to protect U.S. economic interests, maritime safety, and freedom of maneuver. We prepare for attendant security and defense considerations should countries and commercial entities 

disagree over sea-transit routes and lucrative natural resources. Secretary Hagel’s 

comments on this subject are pertinent, “Throughout human history, mankind has 

raced to discover the next frontier. And time after time, discovery was swiftly 

followed by conflict. We cannot erase this history. But we can assure that history 
Volume 16 / 2014 127

does not repeat itself in the Arctic.” To this end, we are pursuing advancements in 

communications, domain awareness, infrastructure, and presence to outpace the 

potential challenges that accompany increased human activity.

The Department’s desired end state for the Arctic is a secure and stable region 

where U.S. national interests are safeguarded, the U.S. homeland is protected, 

and nations work cooperatively. With Canada as our premier partner in the Arctic, NORAD and USNORTHCOM seek to improve our bi-national and bi-lateral 

abilities to provide for defense, safety, security, and cooperative partnerships in 

the Arctic. To enhance these endeavors, I continue to support accession to the Law 

of the Sea Convention, which would give the U.S. a legitimate voice within the 

Convention’s framework.

Exercises/Lessons Learned

To ensure our readiness for homeland defense missions, we rely on a robust joint 

training and exercise program to develop and refine key capabilities. In the last 

two years, we incorporated other combatant command and multinational participation in our major exercises like VIGILANT SHIELD, which more closely approximates how we expect to respond to realworld contingencies or crises. An 

integrated approach also ensures we work in unison with our domestic and international partners to reinforce mutual response capabilities and sustain our ability 

to project power. 

Additionally, USNORTHCOM and NORAD, while postured to respond to 

unwanted Russian aerospace activity, conducted a successful annual Air Control 

exercise with the armed forces of the Russian Federation. Known as VIGILANT 

EAGLE, this exercise simulated fighter aircraft from the U.S., Canada, and Russia 

working cooperatively to intercept a hijacked passenger aircraft traveling between 

the three nations. Once intercepted, we transferred control of the aircraft to Russia 

to escort the plane as it landed in their territory. This combined exercise expanded 

dialogue and cooperation, sustained defense contacts, and fostered understanding 

among our governments and militaries.

Security Cooperation

Defending the homeland in depth requires partnership with our neighbors—Canada, Mexico, and The Bahamas—to confront shared security concerns and guard 

the approaches to the continent and the region. The U.S.-Canada NORAD Agreement is the gold standard for cooperation between nations on common defense. 

Our security partnership with Canada has pushed out the protected perimeter of 

our homelands to the furthest extents of the continent. Their meaningful contributions to the defense of North America through NORAD, and globally through the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, make Canada an indispensable ally. Defending together is the principal competitive advantage we enjoy in defending our 

homelands. 

In the rest of our AOR, theater security cooperation activities focus on being 

the defense partner of choice in working on common regional security issues. The 

proliferation and influence of Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) pose 
128 Security and Defense Studies Review 

social, economic, and security challenges for the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and The 

Bahamas. A related threat is the potential for Middle Eastern and other terrorist 

organizations to exploit pathways into the U.S. by using their increased presence 

in Latin America and exploiting the destabilizing influence of organized crime 

networks. Our efforts to counter transnational organized crime focus on providing 

support to our U.S. law enforcement partners, other U.S. government agencies, 

and our military partners in the AOR. Theater security cooperation activities involve detailed and collaborative planning with our partners’ militaries and federal 

agencies. Throughout the process, we remain respectful of our partners’ national 

sovereignty and frame our initiatives with that in mind.

Canada

In addition to ongoing activities in NORAD, our security cooperation with Canada includes all-domain awareness; regional partner engagement; cross-border 

mitigation support of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents; 

and combined training and exercises. Over the past year, we began discussing 

cooperative efforts in cyber and concluded an action plan for further cooperation 

in the Arctic.

Last June, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hosted Canada’s Chief of 

the Defence Staff in a first-ever Defense Chiefs Strategic Dialogue. The Chairman 

and Chief agreed to pursue several initiatives over the next year, including the 

NORAD Strategic Review, ongoing USNORTHCOM and NORAD cooperative 

efforts on regional engagement, cyber, and combined training; our relationship 

has never been stronger.

Mexico

A strong security relationship with Mexico is a critical strategic imperative reflecting the power of our shared economic, demographic, geographic, and democratic 

interests. An enduring partnership with a secure and prosperous Mexico is a necessary precondition to the long-term security and prosperity of the U.S. and the 

Western Hemisphere. Our nations share responsibility for disabling and dismantling the illicit criminal networks that traffic narcotics and other contraband into 

the U.S., and illegal weapons and illicit revenues into Mexico. TCOs continue to 

establish support zones, distribute narcotics, and conduct a wide variety of illicit 

activities within the U.S., corrupting our institutions, threatening our economic 

system, and compromising our security. International and interagency pressure on 

these networks is essential to reduce the threat posed to our citizens and allow for 

the strengthening of rule of law institutions for hemispheric partners.

At the request of the Government of Mexico, while being mindful of Mexican 

sovereignty, we partner with the Mexican Army (SEDENA) and Navy (SEMAR) 

on security issues of mutual interest. USNORTHCOM provides focused engagements, professional exchanges, military equipment, and related support that 

advance common goals. Our engagements further mutual trust, enhance collaboration, and increase mutual capability to counter transnational threats and meet 

our many common security concerns. Recent successes include QUICKDRAW, 
Volume 16 / 2014 129

a tactical-level exercise that tested the capabilities of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican maritime forces in joint response to illicit activities; subject matter expert 

exchanges enabling participants to learn and refine best military practices; and 

bilateral and multilateral conferences achieving broader coordination on issues 

such as natural disasters, pandemics, and search and rescue.

USNORTHCOM continues to grow our relationship with SEDENA and 

SEMAR with their participation in exercises. Mexico is a partner in Exercise 

ARDENT SENTRY, our joint field exercise focused on civil support and disaster 

assistance. Additionally, Exercise AMALGAM EAGLE was conceived around a 

coordinated U.S.-Mexico response to a simulated hijacking situation—similar to 

exercise VIGILANT EAGLE mentioned earlier.

The Bahamas

The Royal Bahamas Defence Force is a trusted partner on our “third border” and 

our cooperative engagement with them continues to grow. The Bahamas provides 

a historic route for human smuggling and the smuggling of drugs and contraband 

into the U.S. due to its extensive size, small population, inadequate surveillance 

capability, and limited defense and police forces. This presents a pointed vulnerability to U.S. security and defense.

Our security cooperation efforts in The Bahamas are aimed specifically at 

better detection of human smuggling and the smuggling of drugs and contraband, 

improved communications interoperability, and increased disaster response capabilities. We recently completed air and maritime sensor deployments to the 

southern islands. These deployments confirmed the presence of illegal traffic flow 

through the Windward Passage. We secured funding for a permanent radar to assist with detection and tracking of suspect platforms in an effort to stem the flow 

of drugs, illegal migrants, and illicit materials. Our challenge is to prevent The 

Bahamas from returning to the TCO corridor it was in the 1980s and 1990s. 

Due to the susceptibility of The Bahamas to natural disasters such as hurricanes and flooding, USNORTHCOM is collaborating with the National 

Emergency Management Agency of The Bahamas to enhance targeted disaster 

preparedness and response capacities. In December 2013, we completed construction and transferred possession of an Emergency Relief Warehouse to augment 

the warehouse previously donated by U.S. Southern Command. Additionally, we 

provided training and equipment to outfit the warehouses and enhance operational 

capacities. These facilities serve not only to assist our partner nation, but also to 

support the safety and security of the 35,000 American residents and more than 

five million U.S. tourists who visit The Bahamas annually.

Human Rights

USNORTHCOM is committed to promoting an institutional culture of respect 

throughout the command and the AOR. Human rights considerations are factored 

into all our policies, plans, and activities and are an important component in our 

strategic engagement with partner nations and interagency relationships. The USNORTHCOM human rights program is working with partner nations to develop 
130 Security and Defense Studies Review 

new programs of instruction on human rights, both in-country and at U.S.-based 

military education centers.

Cyber

Malicious cyber activity continues to be a serious and rapidly maturing threat 

to our national security. Over the past year, various actors targeted U.S. critical 

infrastructure, information systems, telecommunications systems, and financial 

institutions. As malicious cyber activities grow in sophistication and frequency, 

we believe an attack in the physical domain will be preceded by or coincident with 

cyber events. Of particular concern is the recent release of classified information. 

The security breach of NSA intelligence not only created risk and enabled 

our adversaries in environments where forces are actively engaged in combat, it 

diverted attention to threat analysis and mitigation efforts which would otherwise 

be focused on protecting the homeland, which is ultimately the confluence and 

aim point of threat networks. This act informed our adversaries about risks and 

vulnerabilities in the U.S., and will almost certainly lead some of our most sophisticated and elusive adversaries to change their practices against us, minimizing 

our competitive advantage, and reducing the defense of not only the nation but 

also the approaches to the homeland. It also enabled the potential compromise of 

military capabilities and operations, further reducing the advantage held by our 

country. These breaches require us to acknowledge a potential vulnerability in the 

homeland, and question our operational security that underpins our planning and 

posture.

To integrate cyberspace operations for our commands and to foster an integrated operational cyberspace planning environment, we stood up a Joint Cyberspace Center. Within a year, we will begin receiving additional defensive 

capabilities to better protect our enterprise and missions. We are integrating defensive cyberspace operations into our concept plans, which will improve operational effectiveness and continue to increase the scope and scale of cyber play in 

our national-level exercises. We remain committed to strengthening our partnerships with key stakeholders—such as DHS, U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. Cyber 

Command, NSA, and the National Guard—demonstrated by our January 2014 

Cyber TAG Conference.

Conclusion

Our nation depends on NORAD and USNORTHCOM to defend our homeland 

and cooperate with our partners to secure global interests. The security of our 

homeland is continually challenged by symmetric and asymmetric threats across 

all domains. Despite fiscal challenges, we must maintain our advantages and resiliency through enhancing international partnerships, providing Defense Support of 

Civil Authorities, and ensuring the defense of the nation and North America. The 

security of our citizens cannot be compromised. As the military reorganizes and 

reduces capacity and capability while confronting existing and emerging threats, 

I believe we must not “break” the things that give the military its competitive 

advantage: “jointness” to include training and exercises; the all-volunteer force; 
Volume 16 / 2014 131

our national industrial capability; our time-trusted concept of defending the nation 

forward; and lastly our critical alliances and partnerships.

Threats facing our homeland are more diverse and less attributable than 

ever. Crises that originate as regional considerations elsewhere in the world can 

rapidly manifest themselves here at home. No combatant command operates in 

isolation; events outside the homeland have cascading effects on the security of 

North America and its approaches. The men and women of USNORTHCOM and 

NORAD remain diligent and undeterred as we stand watch over North America 

and deliver an extraordinary return on investment to the taxpayer. I am honored to 

serve as their commander and thank the committee for your support of this necessary investment in our national security. I look forward to your questions.

Notes

1. Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper. Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Senate Select Committee on 

Intelligence, March 12, 2013. 4.

2. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report for 

Latin America 2013-2014. 

3. Information provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

4. U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration. 2013 National Drug 

Threat Assessment.

5. United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Estimating Illicit Financial 

Flows Resulting from Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Organized Crime, 2011.

6. Upon landfall in Central America, bulk cocaine is broken down into multiple smaller 

shipments for transit into Mexico and the United States, making large interdictions extremely difficult. National Drug Intelligence Center (2011). The Economic Impact of Illicit 

Drug Use on American Society. Department of Justice.

7. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. 2011 National Drug 

Threat Assessment.

8. ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour, ILO. See: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/

public/---ed_norm/---declaration/documents/publication/wcms_182004.pdf.

9. U.S. Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. 2013 

Trafficking in Persons Report.
132 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Perry Center Discusses Women in Peace and Security

Patricia Kehoe, Assistant Editor, Perry Center Publications

On March 12, 2014, the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies hosted a Hemispheric Forum on U.S. engagement related to women in peace 

and security issues at Abraham Lincoln Hall Auditorium at the National Defense 

University on Ft. McNair.

The Forum was a collaborative effort between the Perry Center, USNORTHCOM, USSOUTHCOM, the National Defense University (NDU), and the NDU 

Foundation. The event focused on the theme of Defense, Diplomacy, Development & the Way Ahead, and highlighted the DOD implementation of the 2011 

U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. The event was scheduled to commemorate the observance of International Women’s Day, which was 

March 8, 2014. 

NDU President MG Gregg Martin kicked off the event affirming that there 

is no better venue than the University for an open dialogue on such an important 

and timely topic as the increasing roles women are playing in shaping national 

security strategy. SOUTHCOM Commander General John F. Kelly followed with 

remarks underscoring the importance of ensuring the security and empowerment 

of women in the pursuit of and respect for of human rights. Reflecting on his 

time in Afghanistan, he related examples of the positive impact of female Marine 

engagement teams under his command who connected with local women in way 

prohibited to male soldiers; these interactions vastly improved communication 

and trust between the local Afghans and the soldiers. He acknowledged that although major hurdles remain, there have been promising developments in recent 

years in promoting women in peace and security, thanks to an increased focus on 

those goals by the U.S. and other governments. 

Prior to the panel discussion, the event featured a short video of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech at the 2013 NDU Foundation 

Patriot Award Gala, in which she called for more focus and initiatives promoting 

women in peace and security and stated there was no better place than NDU for 

dialogue and advancement on the important global issue of women in peace and 

security.

The prestigious panel of discussants was moderated by Perry Center Professor Celina Realuyo and included representatives of the diplomacy, defense, 

and development pillars of U.S. national security strategy. The panelists were 

U.S. Ambassador Wanda Nesbitt, NDU Senior Vice President; Dr. Rebecca Bill 

Chavez, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs 

(DASD-WHA); Dr. Johanna Mendelson Forman, President of the Board of Visitors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation; and Mr. Robert Kravinsky, Director of International Humanitarian Policy at the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD).
Volume 16 / 2014 133

Ambassador Nesbitt, whose career in the U.S. Foreign Service has taken her 

all over the world, including 12 years of service in Africa, spoke about the power 

of diplomatic engagement for furthering women’s rights around the world. She 

outlined several of the key components of the State Department’s initiatives supporting women, many of which have been active foreign policy objectives for 

decades. In addition to USAID-funded maternal/child health education programs, 

which contribute significantly to the decline of global infant and maternal mortality rates, the State Department also promotes dialogues and initiatives targeting 

gender-based violence. The Ambassador also mentioned the Secretary of State International Women of Courage Award, established in 2007, which honors women 

around the globe who have exemplified exceptional courage and leadership in 

advocating for human rights, women’s equality, and social progress, often at great 

personal risk. This is the only Department of State award that pays tribute to 

emerging women leaders worldwide.

One of this year’s Women of Courage Award recipients is Judge Iris Yassmin Barrios Aguilar from Guatemala, who is recognized for her work as the 

president of one of Guatemala’s two High Risk Court Tribunals. For more on her 

and the other winners, see http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/programs/iwoc/2014/bio/

index.htm. 

Ambassador Nesbitt informed the audience that State Department’s initiatives were designed to support the four pillars of UN Security Council Resolution 

1325: participation, protection, prevention, and relief and recovery. She stressed 

that one of the foundational principles of any female empowerment is education. 

Women who are confident in their knowledge and skills are more likely to advocate for their own rights and those of others, thus acting as agents of peace and 

change in even the most unstable environments.

Dr. Rebecca Bill Chavez, the newly appointed DASD-WHA, shared her 

views on U.S. Defense Department programs for women in peace and security 

and the opportunities for enhancing them in the future. Moved by the example of 

demobilization and reintegration experts in Colombia working with former female 

FARC insurgents, she expressed how surprising it is to still hear stories of women 

as agents rather than just victims. Dr. Chavez underscored the need for a paradigm 

shift with regard to the role of women in defense and security, from solely victims 

of insecurity or consumers of security to active contributors to peace. Promoting 

participation of women in local and national security institutions and focusing on 

getting women into leadership roles will ensure that their important perspectives 

and skills will become part of the security and defense conversation rather than 

one point in a meeting agenda. She offered statistics that are both promising and 

disheartening, overall showing a great deal of room for improvement: while 8 of 

the world’s 29 standing female presidents are from Latin American countries and 

25 percent of legislators in Latin America are women, they comprise only 4–7 

percent of the military members in the region, and only 3 percent of the UN global 

forces dedicated to the MINUSTAH peacekeeping operation in Haiti.

Dr. Chavez drew attention to the programs of both NORTHCOM and 

SOUTHCOM that highlight the vital role of women and support integration of 
134 Security and Defense Studies Review 

women into the defense and security establishments in the region. Both Combatant Commands have instituted training modules for their service members and 

regional counterparts on the importance of protecting human rights and female 

empowerment, and they actively support the inclusion of women in defense. Despite these initiatives, Dr. Chavez still sees room for improvement in the Defense 

Department’s approach to women in peace and security. The statistics on violence 

against women and female participation in defense and security decision making are still appalling around the world, including in the Western Hemisphere. 

Through a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach that mandates 

the protection and integration of women, the U.S. can lead by example in championing women in peace and security.

Dr. Mendelson Forman, whose career in international affairs includes senior 

positions at the State Department and USAID, think tanks, and academic institutions, spoke on the important role development plays in bolstering women in 

peace and security and the positive correlation between development, female empowerment, and economic competitiveness. According to Dr. Mendelson Forman, 

data indicate that the best predictor of the level of stability and peacefulness in a 

country correlates directly with how that society treats its women. This suggests 

that gender equality is not only a women’s issue but also a national economic 

and security issue. She also pointed to the fact that women are both consumers 

and producers of security in their environments. Programs like Alianza Joven Regional in Honduras provide resources for mothers and grandmothers struggling to 

protect their families from widespread violence and insecurity in that country. By 

giving women tools to prevent conflict, programs like these allow women to become more active agents for peace in their communities. Women are an important 

component of public security, and program models that champion gender inclusion lead to more information sharing, conflict prevention, and positive interaction between families and security institutions.

Dr. Mendelson Forman concluded by reaffirming the continued need for 

more programs focused on women and development assistance. By establishing 

knowledge-based communities of practice, developing approaches that leverage 

civil society in support of security goals, and continuing to educate policymakers 

on the importance of eradicating the gender gap in security and defense decision 

making, leaders in the region will see the results as a decrease in crime and insecurity, which affect all citizens.

Mr. Kravinsky, Director of International Humanitarian Policy at OSD, currently guides the Defense Department implementation of the National Action Plan 

(NAP) on Women, Peace, and Security and provided details on those initiatives. 

He outlined the five objectives of the NAP: national integration and institutionalization, participation in peace processes and decision making, protection from 

violence, conflict prevention, and access to relief and recovery.

Mr. Kravinsky shared examples of how the NAP has already been implemented, including the groundbreaking decision in 2013 to open combat positions 

to U.S. female service members. He explained the Department’s desire to lead 

by example, building an inclusive and powerful fighting force that actively le-
Volume 16 / 2014 135

verages the contributions and skills of all members of the military. The NAP is 

being implemented through education initiatives (at the regional centers including the Africa Center, the Asia-Pacific Center, and the Perry Center, and directly 

through military training programs), assisting partner nations in the integration 

of women into decision-making roles in defense issues and assisting in partner 

capacity building that reinforces gender equality as a foundation of sound defense 

institutions. He recounted the story of a woman from Afghanistan who had told 

him that the U.S. capacity-building programs in that country were especially helpful to women, who still face many challenges as the country searches for stability. 

Such examples point out how women have the most to lose when governments 

disintegrate. He affirmed that female empowerment and women’s rights are not 

only important to women, but are a strategic necessity for establishing peace and 

security throughout the world.

The panel concluded with a robust question-and-answer session. Acting Director Ken LaPlante provided closing remarks and reiterated the Perry Center’s 

support for the NAP, the initiatives of SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM, and bolstering the role of women in peace and security. The panel was live streamed 

through the Perry Center website (http://chds.dodlive.mil) in both English and 

simultaneously translated Spanish to an international audience.

At the reception, NDU Foundation President Cathleen Pearl presented the 

newly established Women, Peace, and Security Writing Award to Ms. Charito 

Kruvant, President and CEO of Creative Associates International, Inc. The Award 

is part of NDU’s implementation of the NAP and serves to highlight important 

research on various issues related to female empowerment and protection in the 

security and defense arena. Ms. Kruvant’s organization is a minority, womenowned and managed professional and technical services firm based in Washington, DC, that works in partnership with networks of governments, organizations, 

and universities to further the development, economic, security, and humanitarian 

assistance goals of the United States. For example, Creative played an integral 

role in lowering insecurity and violence in Honduras through a community-based 

crime prevention plan that leveraged both local governments and organizations. 

Creative, with ongoing projects in more than 20 countries, is a force for female 

empowerment and security not only in the Western Hemisphere, but throughout 

the developing world.
136 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Book Review

Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords 

and Their Godfathers

By Anabel Hernández (Translated by Iain Bruce)

Reviewed by Patricia Kehoe 

Assistant Editor, Perry Center Publications

Narcoland is the English translation of Anabel Hernández’s Los Señores del 

Narco (originally published in Spanish in March 2011), a history of Mexican 

drug cartels and government corruption told through the stories of many of the 

notorious individuals involved. Weighing in at 314 pages, with an additional 31 

pages of notes and definitions, Narcoland is a dense, difficult read that is inundated with names, aliases, dates, places, and organizations. Nonetheless, it is well 

worth the effort for those seeking a view of the expansive and interconnected 

web of organized crime in Mexico, and the book at least includes an index for 

quick reference. Hernández’s accusations against government officials and powerful businessmen are controversial and categorically denied by those individuals 

and her many powerful critics, but she backs up her assertions with serious and 

thorough research and interviews, drawing a very compelling portrait that is hard 

to contradict.

The most compelling figure in Hernández’s book is Joaquín “El Chapo” 

Guzmán Loera, the charismatic and ruthless leader of the Sinaloa cartel and possibly the most powerful drug lord of all time with a net worth of roughly $1 

billion. One of the most captivating accounts in the book is that of El Chapo’s 

2001 escape from a Mexican federal maximum-security prison where he had been 

incarcerated since 1993. Hernández’s version of events, which conflicts with previously accepted theories of his escape that included laundry baskets and secret 

tunnels, calls out the names of many individuals both inside and out of the government who were involved in El Chapo’s escape. Narcoland is an especially 

relevant read today, in light of El Chapo’s recent (February 22, 2014) recapture 

and re-imprisonment in Mexico. While the book was written before this milestone 

moment, it will be interesting to see how his imprisonment and trial unfolds given 

the depth of corruption that Hernández identifies in the Mexican justice system 

and law enforcement organizations.

The author, a journalist who continues to live and report in Mexico on organized crime, has faced violence and death threats since she began her crusade 

against criminal organizations and the corrupt officials who support them. As recently as December 2013, her home was invaded by an armed group associated 

with one of the cartels she named in this book. It has yet to be investigated by 

the Mexican police. She has achieved international acclaim for her reporting, in-
Volume 16 / 2014 137

cluding the Golden Pen of Freedom Award in 2012, and personal tragedy is what 

spurred her interest in exposing criminals and corruption. In 2000 her father was 

kidnapped and murdered in Mexico City, and she alleges that the police refused to 

investigate unless she provided payment. Mexico remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists, with at least 100 media workers having 

been killed or disappeared since the war against cartels began in earnest in 2000, 

and most of those crimes remain unsolved or improperly investigated. 

More about Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords and their Godfathers

Publisher: Verso

Year of Publication: 2013

ISBN: 978-1-78168-073-5

304 Pages

Language: English
138 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Book Review

Balancing Liberty and Security: An Ethical Study of 

U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: 2001–2009

By Michelle Louise Atkin

Reviewed by Kevin Newmeyer

Assistant Professor, Perry Center

In Balancing Liberty and Security, Dr. Michelle Louise Atkin presents her dissertation research in book form in an interesting discussion of the challenge of 

balancing the need for security in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks with the enduring rights to liberty articulated in the U.S. Constitution. Dr 

Atkin approaches the research as a study in information ethics. Using a case study 

approach, she examines three elements of the Bush Administration’s response to 

9/11 and the policies that were implemented. Finally, Dr. Atkin presents a new 

test for governments to apply to balance the need for security when it impacts on 

individual liberty that is based on the approach Canada employs for evaluating 

similar issues involving its Charter. 

Acknowledging the unprecedented nature of the 9/11 attacks and the impact 

they had on both the U.S. government and its citizens, Dr. Atkin examines the 

USA PATRIOT Act, the warrantless surveillance program, and the modernization 

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as case studies in applied ethics. She includes a brief but useful examination of the various philosophical approaches to information ethics she defines as the “application of normative ethical 

theories to issues regarding information and its use.” She is most concerned with 

the ethics underlying the development and implementation of public policy, and 

this is where the study is most useful.

Dr. Atkin frames the ethical choice in terms of the classical ethical schools of 

utilitarianism versus contractarianism. Utilitarianism draws from the writings of 

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and in its simplest form may be expressed 

as “the ends justify the means.” The theory is focused on achieving a desirable 

end without regard to moral principles. Contractarianism, however, focuses on the 

idea of a social contract between citizens and their government. Drawing from the 

ideas of John Rawls and John Locke, the ideals of contractarianism can be seen 

in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The three cases examined in the 

book focus on the struggle between the utilitarian desire of the administration to 

pursue the “good” of preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. citizens and interests with the potential violation of the social contract of the Constitution’s fourth 

amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure in the 21st century world 
Volume 16 / 2014 139

of a globalized internet and instant electronic communications. 

The book concludes with Dr. Atkin’s recommendation on a test that policy 

makers could use in evaluating the balance between security and liberty. Based on 

the Canadian Charter case R. v Oakes, which is used to evaluate the lawfulness of 

an infringement of constitutional rights, Atkin’s test requires the government to 

demonstrate that the purpose of the law must be to enable a response to a pressing and significant enough threat that a reduction of constitutional protections for 

warrants and probable cause is reduced to a reasonable suspicion standard. For the 

lowered standard to be considered justified, the process must be (1) rational and 

nonarbitrary, (2) the right minimally impaired, and (3) the good achieved must 

outweigh the damage to the constitutional right against unreasonable search. The 

book concludes with an application of the author’s test to three additional cases: 

enhanced image screening at airports, behavioral profiling at airports, and inspection of internet traffic for malware. 

In conclusion, the book presents a well-reasoned application of ethical theory 

to a pressing problem of policymaking. It is increasingly difficult to balance security and privacy as technology outstrips policy. A useful follow-up study would 

apply Atkin’s work to more recent revelations arising from the disclosures by 

Edward Snowden regarding the National Security Agency. 

Note

1. R. v. Oakes [1986] 1. S.C.R. 103, 1986 SCC 7.

More about Balancing Liberty and Security: An Ethical Study of U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: 2001–2009

Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Year of Publication: 2013

ISBN: 978-1-4422-1909-0

156 pages

Language: English
140 Security and Defense Studies Review 

Contributors

Ricardo Luis Alessandrini is Rear Admiral (ret.) of the Argentine Navy.

Cristina Blain was a fall 2013 research intern at the Perry Center. 

Tiago Delgado is a sophomore law student at the Universidade Federal da Paraíba.

Silvana Elizondo is a researcher at the Headquarters for Research and Strategic 

Naval Studies of the Argentine Navy, and an analyst for the Joint Chiefs of the 

Argentine Armed Forces.

R. Evan Ellis is Associate Professor of National Security Affairs at the Perry Center.

Lucas Fonseca is in the third year of his International Relations course at the 

Universidade Federal da Paraíba.

Virginia Iribarne is a researcher at the Manuel Belgrano Center for Strategic 

Studies of the Argentine Ministry of Defense.

Patricia Kehoe is Assistant Editor of Perry Center Publications.

Kevin Newmeyer is Assistant Professor for National Security Affairs at the Perry 

Center.

Silvana Pascucci is a researcher at the Manuel Belgrano Center for Strategic Studies 

of the Argentine Ministry of Defense.

Patrick Paterson is Professor of Practice of National Security Affairs at the Perry 

Center and Editor-in-Chief of the Publications Program.

Peterson Silva is a Ph.D. candidate for International Relations at the Universidade 

de São Paulo.