opinion

In Panama the process of democratically building the rule of law is found, after a recent history marked by the end of a period of military control of the state (militarism), the US invasion, the process of national reappropriation of the nation's resources and canal areas, and the termination of the military presence of the Southern Command and its bases in Panama (militarization). It advances on the plane of strengthening the law and democratic institutions, but with weaknesses manifested in the performance of the rule of law, by the lack of democratic consolidation, corruption, and an unequal development model that's exclusionary and predatory toward the environment.

We understand militarism as that meddling of the military institution or group which implies the nullification or assumption of control over the rule of law. On the other hand militarization can be understood as the interference or tutelage of a military force from another country or other countries in the political life of the state, as an expression of a colonial, semi-colonial or enclave situation. In Panama militarization (US presence) militarism (national armed forces) appear to be imbricated and related to each other, but only to the point where the weaker (militarism) was annihilated at the moment of conflict (the 1989 US invasion) and then later constitutionally erased as the product of a national feeling in favor of making Panama a country without an army.

Militarization disappeared from the country on December 31, 1999, with the final reversion of all the canal assets to Panama, the product of the canal treaties.

The fundamental questions about militarism are about the threat to democratic processes, the interference of soldiers in social life, and about the effect of human rights.

The fundamental questions about militarization are about the inconvenience to Panama of continuing the military use of valuable reverted assets; the inconvenience of having foreign armies when it has eliminated its own; the dangerous situation implicit in continuing to be the object of attack or reprisals of third parties because of harboring bellicose installations; the environmental threats of a military presence (firing ranges and chemical weapons, for examples); and the placing in doubt of that nation's capacity for self-determination as a country.

Both expressions --- militarism and militarization --- have been sustained on so-called doctrines of national security, which put the emphasis on the use of force and uses counter-insurgency as their principal argument, setting the authorities against their own people, human rights or the right to national self-determination.

9/11 changed the concept of security in the USA and the world to total war against terrorism, and the "you're with us or against us" that George W. Bush proclaimed. The attacks provoked a profound reconsideration of the domestic and foreign policies of the United States, centered on counterterrorism, which was cataloged at that time by H. Vedrine, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, as "a simplistic statement hat reduces all of the problems of the world to the fight against terrorism."

At first, after 9/11, Latin America stopped being a priority for American foreign policy, as the axis was transferred to Afghanistan and Iraq, but later the region gradually recovered its value, since in view of a prolonged counterterrorist war the US needs to consolidate stable and secure alliances to reinforce its world leadership.

"The global character of the terror-counterterror tide occurs in indirect form and with delayed effects that are important not to minimize: the impoverishment of the economic situation augurs the sharpening of social crises that threaten the political stability of the most vulnerable new Latin American democracies...." (Medina, 2002.)

Bush's re-election, and the recent tour of the region by his secretary of defense, does nothing more than to augur the recrudescence of these policies.

The danger is in the rebirth of the national security doctrine, by way of the increase of militarization and militarism in the Latin American countries. Latin America is the most unequal continent in the world, and despite the existence of electoral democracy, the population ever more accepts the possibility of authoritarianism is this resolve their socio-economic problems.

Human security "is a holistic condition that starts from a concept of defensive security limited to the territory of military power. In this sense, human security is based on the notion of the security of the people, under the agreement that development must involve all persons (which is what gives it democratic value)... the criteria that must guarantee the human security of societies are found closely linked to the perception of insecurity and the satisfaction of basic needs. It supposes two types of freedom: a) a population free of fear; and b) a population free of unmet needs. (M. Villanueva, 2000.)

We must oppose these threats, and on the other hand affirm the concepts of human security and democratic security as fundamental aspects of a social and national project centered on democracy, development, peace and human rights.

Also in this section:
Jackson, Panama loses at roulette
Bernal, Panama's moral and institutional crisis
Gutman, Political demagoguery in religious garb
Espinosa G., Chávez and Uribe
Weisbrot, The overvalued US dollar
ICFTU, Problems loom as textile agreement expires
González M., Caribbean regional tourism strategy
PANUPS, An unethical experiment on children
Ovetz, Longlining and shark finning
Leis, Panama's national security threats

Back to top