Message from the Editor

Welcome to the second volume of Security and Defense Studies Review. As I noted in the first issue, the journal was founded at the request of many Latin American scholars who lacked a forum for publication of their research on security and defense topics and a central venue around which to focus new topics of interest in both research and education in this field in Latin America and the Caribbean. As we move into the second year of this effort, it is gratifying to see the number of submissions and variety of subjects treated increasing. While many will still lament the incipient quality of the "Community of Defense" in Latin America and the Caribbean, the growing research suggests that there may be more than meets the eye. We look forward to continuing to encourage scholarship in this field. Volume 2, Number 1 includes three research articles, three essays and one historical document, translated into Spanish "for the record." The articles and essays all touch on the evolution in thinking about defense and security issues and the transformation that is occurring in specific countries in our region. 

Ivelaw Griffith argues that in the Caribbean region security is a multidimensional phenomenon that includes traditional concerns over effective sovereignty as well as many non-traditional concerns involving drugs, crime, terrorism, natural disaster preparedness, economic security and growing preoccupation over violence against citizens. Security entails both internal and external concerns, non-state actors as well as traditional State actors, and involves political, economic and social dimensions. Providing security requires the engagement of multiple domestic and international institutions including especially traditional defense and constabulary forces as well as agents of other government departments including treasury, customs and immigration among others. While Ivelaw argues that this may be a unique situation for the Caribbean, it is worth considering that the broader definition of security applies to every country in the hemisphere, before and particularly after the events of September 11.

Jaime García Covarrubias' essay on the post-modern military in Latin America discusses the transformation of the armed forces in Latin America, especially in South American countries. Roberto Cajina and Anthony Harriott write on the ongoing transformation of security and defense forces in Nicaragua and Jamaica respectively. Harriott argues that in Jamaica the security climate has changed such that it is necessary to rethink the relationship between security policy and the criminal justice system (which includes the police force). National security policy needs to be discussed with citizens to determine where resources need to be invested. He suggests that such a reconsideration of requirements needs to take place not to lower spending on defense, but rather to make spending on security and defense more efficient and effective. Roberto Cajina describes an as-yet-incomplete transformation of the Nicaraguan Defense Force and argues for a much more profound transformation of civilian leadership in defense that must accompany the modernization and transformation of defense forces.

We wish that more economists in the region were studying the defense and security sectors. Thomas Scheetz's article in this issue is the second in a three-part series that was initially supported by the Ford Foundation to examine defense spending in Latin American countries. At the Second Meeting of Ministers of Defense in 1996, Argentina and Chile agreed to undertake a comparison of their respective defense spending as a measure of confidence building and transparency. The UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean was subsequently engaged to conduct the comparison of defense budgets and presented its report-A Standardized Methodology for the Measurement of Defence [sic] Spending (Metodología estandarizada para la medición de gastos en defensa)-, available in the ECLAC Series "Informes y estudios especiales" on the Web at http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/ . The study adopted a narrow definition of defense (defense against external threats only) and focused on three categories of spending-personnel including pensions, operations and maintenance and industrial activities not included in the above categories. Scheetz argues for a deeper analysis of defense objectives-though this is difficult when the national political leadership has not determined a specific defense policy and set of objectives. He also provides a set of suggested indicators that would permit better comparisons of defense spending across countries. The study provides useful tools and signals how much more analysis is needed to better understand the economics of defense spending and its externalities in Latin America. Moreover, many of the models need to be applied to security spending as well to achieve a better understanding of the efficiencies and effectiveness of public spending across this complex sector.

Several additional themes pervade these essays including the need for civilians familiar with the substance of defense issues and not just with questions of "civilian control"; the desirability of citizen involvement in decision making at local, parliamentary and national levels; and the need for more inter-disciplinary research. Scheetz, Cajina, and Harriott argue for civilian leadership in defense policymaking rather than just administering the status quo.

Some of these issues will be addressed in forthcoming issues of this journal. The question of civilian roles and responsibilities in defense and security policy formulation is ripe for discussion. Several scholars have begun to document the evolution in the organization of the State intelligence apparatus. We hope to be able to present several studies of the defense white paper process in the future. 

Morris Janowitz y la Sociología Militar

Many of the articles published in this journal have been generated at the CHDS annual REDES (Research and Education in Defense and Security Studies) Conferences. REDES is modeled very consciously on the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society founded by Professor Morris Janowitz in 1961. The IUS has evolved from a gathering of six or so sociologists into an international interdisciplinary organization with hundreds of members. In the winter 1993 edition of Armed Forces and Society (the IUS journal), James Burk, a student of Janowitz, wrote about his mentor's reasons for founding the IUS and how it evolved. The IUS story suggests how the "community of defense" in the hemisphere might evolve over the coming years and the commitment needed from scholars and practitioners for this to happen. Security and Defense Studies Review presents his essay translated into Spanish, so that it might serve as inspiration. We thank the publishers of Armed Forces and Society for permission to use the work.

In closing I would like to welcome Dr. Herbert C. Huser as Senior Editor of this journal. Herb has been instrumental in bringing together new articles and critical readers to this issue of the journal and is dedicated to the premise that hemispheric security and defense issues need airing and debate. His challenge is to create an active discussion forum and to prepare for publication three times a year.

I hope that you enjoy this issue and we look forward to receiving your suggestions, your commentary and your submissions for the next issue.

                        Margaret Daly Hayes
                        Director, Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies and
                        Editor, Security and Defense Studies Review

[ Back ]