![]() In the same period, the issues of crime and citizen security became central themes on the political agenda throughout the region. With nuances depending on the situation and history of each country, the armed forces generally began to lose relevance as political actors in the wake of democracy. War with a neigh- boring country, which had been the main hypothesis of military conflict for most Latin American countries, began to disappear from the realm of possibility. ![]() At the same time, democracy weakened the existing tensions between the countries of the region. The “national security doctrine,” pushed by the United States and adopted throughout the Americas, was also abandoned once the ghost of Communism could no longer be used to conjure internal enemies. In the 1980s and 1990s, a process of democratization put an end to the military governments that had proliferated in Latin America during the twentieth century. Why do some political actors sustain that the armed forces should intervene in aff airs other than their primary mission of defending a country from military attack? Are there security threats that can be equated with outside threats and that justify the use of military might inside borders? In order to respond to these questions, we must examine how the notion of “new threats” was constructed, who is promoting it as doctrine, and what these supposed dangers are.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |