Country should not take up arms again

Carlos Alberto Montaner

Panama is about to rebuild its armed forces. To do so is a dangerous blunder. In December 1989, after the U.S. invasion to end the bloody narco-dictatorship of Gen. Manuel Noriega, the Panamanians decided to renounce the possession of an army. It was a display of common sense. If any country did not need armed forces, it was Panama. Within its borders, there were no subversive forces. Its neighbor to the north is Costa Rica, a peaceful nation that disarmed itself voluntarily 60 years ago and does not represent the slightest danger.

Its neighbor to the south is Colombia, a country 15 times larger and 14 times more populated, with a sizeable military. with which Panama maintains the best possible relations.

Of course, Panama has law-and-order problems, but they are in the police department's purview: drug trafficking, corruption, money laundering, some street violence (infinitely milder than in Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador) and trafficking in undocumented migrants. True, it is necessary to protect the Canal from a hypothetical terrorist attack, but that's a task for police intelligence.

It is a fact that the Darién jungle, that intricate region that separates Panama from Colombia, is a refuge and hub for FARC and ELN narcoguerrillas. But the pursuit and control of those people are better entrusted to a good rural guard than to an ineffectual conventional army.

Although both the army and the police are armed corps, they are built around totally different visions and missions. Lamentably, in our Latin American tradition, the armed forces are invested with functions that are contrary to the republican spirit.

It is said the armed forces are the guarantors of the Constitution. They are allowed to define the purported ''national interest'' and therefore to act in its defense when the leadership decides they must save the motherland. They, the men and women in uniform, are the motherland and it is their sacred duty to prescribe the appropriate Doctrine of National Security.

In turn, the police restricts itself humbly (at least in theory) to enforcing the laws under the authority of some civilian arm of the judiciary power, in a behavior consonant with the true rule of law.

The origin of this confusion in roles goes back to Niccolo Machiavelli and precedes the establishment of democracy. It was this brilliant Florentine who coined the phrase ''reason of state'' to justify any arbitrariness that the Prince might dream up for the benefit of his subjects.

But it was against this idea that the democratic republics later emerged. The government must limit itself to creating and overseeing the smooth running of the institutions, so the individuals, through their elected representatives, may freely decide the course of action. It is not true that the states have permanent interests or ideals, any more than the armed corps are the organizations called upon to defend them. It is not true that a patriotic essence pervades the army barracks.

There is another danger. In our lands, punished by authoritarianism, the limb takes over the body. Once the state has a sizeable army at its disposal, the army ends up disposing of the state. Generals who have tanks and warplanes want to use them. It's in the nature of their vocation.

President Torrijos, who has governed reasonably so far, will commit a huge mistake at the end of his term if he revitalizes an unnecessary and counterproductive institution in Panama. Yes, the country needs to strengthen law and order, but that's a task that has several facets.
 

September 16, 2008

Print this page