Content uploaded by Rafa Martínez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rafa Martínez on Mar 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Rafael Martínez Martínez.
Affiliation: Barcelona University.
Adresses: Facultad de Derecho
Departament de Pret Constitucional y Ciencia Política
Avinguda Diagonal, 684
08034 Barcelona (Spain)
Email Adresses: rafa.martinez@ub.edu
Telephone number: 34 93 4024405 // 34 651972725
Antonio M. Díaz Fernández.
Affiliation: Burgos University.
Adresses: Facultad de Derecho
Área de ciencia política
Senda del Rey s/n
09001 Burgos (Spain)
Email Adresses: adiaz@ubu.es
Telephone number: 34 947 259049// 34 627386194
1
Chapter 4.
“Threat Perception: new risks, new threats and new missions”
Rafael Martínez Martínez.
Barcelona University.
Antonio M. Díaz Fernández.
Burgos University.
1. Introductioni
At this stage, it would be stating the obvious to say that drastic changes are afoot
on the international stage; but such is the situation. The threats, the potential enemies,
the risks and, logically, the strategies used in each context have all changed. At the
beginning of the century, a group of experts appointed by Koffi Annan concluded that
in the near future the main threats to world security would come from (i) economic and
social disorder – arising especially from poverty, (ii) conflicts between states, (iii) the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, (iv) terrorism and (v) transnational organised
crime. Likewise, a recent document on EU security strategy entitled ‘A secure Europe
in a better world’ ii set out the key threats facing Europe: (i) terrorism, (ii) proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, (iii) regional conflicts, (iv) State failure - the collapse
of state institutions – and (v) organised crime. The Union proposes three strategic
objectives to address these threats:
1º To take steps to tackle the threats and, at the same time, remain aware that,
unlike situations in the past, no present-day threat is a purely military one and each one
calls for a specific combination of instruments.
2
2º To build security in our neighbourhood: especially in the Mediterranean area,
the southern Caucasus and the Arab world. The quality of international society is
dependent on its governments. The best protection for European security is a world in
which democratic states practise good governance.
3º Develop an international order based on an effective multilateralism. To
achieve as much, the UN system must be strengthened along with regional
organisations, with a view to developing a stronger international society, with effective
institutions that uphold international law.
In its response to these strategic objectives the EU has to become more active,
more capable, more coherent, and more cooperative. In order to be more active, early,
rapid and where necessary robust intervention is essential. A European Defence Agency
is needed, as well as armed forces (AFs) that are more rapidly deployable, have greater
flexibility and are better equipped and more effective. The EU will require a large
volume of civil resources for any post-conflict scenario, will have to widen cooperation
and collaboration between its intelligence services in order to produce more accurate
assessments to confront the threats and broaden the range of missions in which the EU
participates. Greater coherence will ensue wherever conflicts are approached from a
regional perspective and justice and home affairs policies are coordinated to persecute
actual and potential organised crime. The Common Foreign and Security Policy and the
European Security and Defence Policy represent the most coherent ways of fighting
against common threats and creating a stronger Europe. However, collaboration must
extend across European borders since we face common threats and international
cooperation is therefore imperative. Hence, the EU asserts the right to maintain close
3
collaboration with a range of actorsiii: the USA, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin
America and Asia. However, as stated in the Barcelona Forum of Culture 2004 by the
EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana,
European society cannot adopt a hypocritical stance and must be fully aware of the
economic effort involved. We will be able to transform a clearly defensive security
policy into a security policy that seeks peace; but which is neither a less expensive, nor
a softer option. The future civil and military elites of eight countries of the ‘Europe of
the 25’ (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden),
four other European countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Switzerland and Turkey) and the
Republic of South Africa have made known their overall agreement with the need for
this budgetary increase (64% in agreement as against 29% in disagreement). France,
Romania, Poland, Germany, South Africa and Italy show the highest degree of
agreement with this need (86%, 86%, 82%, 76%, 79% and 74%, respectively), whereas
Slovenia and Turkey oppose the idea (by 58% in both cases) and Switzerland and Spain
harbour significant reservations over such an increase in the defence budget (41% and
35%, respectively).
On another note, and in total harmony with the European security strategy
approved in 2003, future civil and military elites are clear that National Security is
increasingly linked to the security of the international system. Thus, over half (54%) are
in agreement with the idea that ‘We shouldn't think so much in international terms but
concentrate more on our own national problems’ (in Italy, Holland, Spain, Sweden and
Switzerland it amounts to 70%; whereas in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and South Africa
they are more inclined to consider national problems). Likewise, 67% think that ‘the
national security of my country depends more on international trade and a strong
4
domestic economy than on our military strength’ (neither France -68%- nor Italy -56%-
support this statement).
Regarding the threats to their securityiv, the future civil and military elites consider
the principal ones to be: (i) organised crime, (ii) international drug trafficking, (iii)
terrorism in our country and (iv) an armed conflict over the control of vital raw
materials (water, oil, etc.). For the future military elites – but not for the future civil
elites – mass immigration from foreign countries is also an important threat; something
similar occurs but vice-versa with respect to environmental problems such as air and
water contamination.
2. Threats to national security
When threats to national security are analyzed from a gender perspective, the only
noteworthy variation occurs with regard to the fear of an accidental nuclear war,
considered as a very significant threat by a quarter of the women interviewed, as well as
environmental problems that also greatly concern a third of the women interviewed.
When the latter is seen in terms of global warming of the planet, it is perceived as an
almost irrelevant threat for the extreme right (very important for 18%) but its
importance progressively increases across the political spectrum until it becomes an
essential concern for 43% of those interviewed on the extreme left. On the other hand,
the importance attributed by more than half of the students on the extreme right to mass
immigration from foreign countries is also notable.
The religious factor introduces a further key analytical variable since the number
of threats perceived by Orthodox Christians and Muslims is altogether much greater
than other religious groupings. Nevertheless, the fact that the Orthodox Christians and
5
Muslims in question are in the main Bulgarians, Romanians or Turks introduces an
important geographical factor that might be as if not more explanatory than the religious
aspects themselves. As things now stand, the threats considered as very important for
Orthodox Christians, much more so than in the eyes of the other religious groups, are
‘organised crime’ (63%), ‘international drug trafficking’ (61%), ‘terrorism in our
country’ (58%), ‘a military attack by a foreign country’ (55%), ‘an accidental nuclear
war’ (48%), ‘armed conflict over the control of vital raw materials’ (42%), ‘the spread
of weapons of mass destruction’ (42%), ‘nuclear war between third-world countries
with global consequences’ (40%) and ‘nuclear blackmail by third-world countries’
(26%). The Muslim world, in comparison with the other religions in its ranking of very
important concerns, highlights: ‘terrorism’ (62%), ‘an armed conflict over the control of
vital raw materials’ (42%), ‘an armed conflict in the Middle East’ (36%) and ‘an
accidental nuclear war’ (30%).
In a study of these dimensions, an analytical approach on a country by country
basis is indispensable. In the first place, because global averages mask the
distinguishing traits of each individual country, as not all realities are necessarily
identical; but it is furthermore the case that the number of interviewees per country is
neither equal nor is the survey population subject to any logical weighting in relation to
the total population of the countryv, nor are the percentages of future civil and military
elites in the study proportionalvi. In short, a country-by-country study of the civil-
military gap is not only advisable, but also quite indispensable.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
6
As it is, the country-by-country analysis reveals how organised crime and
international drug trafficking are perceived as threats by all university students in all
countries with the exception of Spanish and Slovenian students, who do not perceive
international drug trafficking as a principal threat (table 1). In addition to these threats,
university students in Bulgaria, France, Italy, Holland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland
also consider environmental problems as a threat, as do Slovenian students without
ranking them among their first two. Furthermore, in the case of Bulgaria, France, Italy
and Holland, there is also agreement over the perception of terrorism as a threat. The
latter is also threatening for German, Romanian, South African, Spanish and Turkish
students. The Slovenians and the Swiss join the latter group insofar as they consider an
armed conflict over the control of vital raw materials as a relevant threat.
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
From the military perspective, organised crime and international drug trafficking
are considered crucial threats for all countries, with the exception of France in relation
to organised crime and Spain in relation to both threats (table 2). Alongside these
threats, terrorism is highly ranked in Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania, South Africa, Sweden
and Italy; and in the latter three there are also coincident views as to the perceived threat
of mass immigration from other countries. Leaving aside coincident views on a global
scale, terrorism and immigration are also threatening for France and Spain, as is
immigration for Holland, Slovenia and Switzerland. Finally, for Germans, Poles,
Slovenians, Turks, the Spanish, and the Swiss, an armed conflict over the control of
vital raw materials is thought to be a latent threat.
TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
7
Civil-military disaccord (table 3) warns us that there is no country in which
similar threats are perceived by the future civil and military elites, although the
Germans, the Italians, the South Africans, the Turks and the Swiss only disagree over
one point. On the other hand, the biggest rift exists among the French who register three
differences. It is also made clear that organised crime is a global threat – except for
Spanish and French military cadets – and that unanimity exists over international drug
trafficking – except among Spanish cadets and Slovenian and Spanish university
students -, and that unanimity also exists over terrorism among civil or military elites, or
both - except in the case of Poland, Slovenia and Switzerland. Finally, immigration is
fundamentally a threat for cadets and environmental problems a threat for civil elites.
3. New Missions for the Military
National security is built around three elements: the threat and the hostile agent
that causes it, the assets (material and intangible) that are to be protected and finally, the
security strategy to be put in place. In other words, the means and resources that we are
prepared to use in order to guarantee our assets. Evidently, the AFs are one of the most
appropriate instruments to implement the chosen security strategy. However, when
confronted by the new generation of threats, it is worth asking whether the AFs continue
to be the most suitable resource. For this reason, it was an opportune moment to
question the future civil and military elites over the extent to which, in their opinion, the
military was still suited to conventional roles and adaptable to new onesvii.
TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
Thus, in the global view afforded by tables 4 and 5, absolutely contiguous views
are seen to be held by civil and military elites in relation to the suitability of the military
8
to (i) ‘defend your country’, (ii) ‘provide disaster relief’, (iii) ‘participate in peace-
keeping missions’, (iv) ‘provide humanitarian aid in foreign countries’ and (v) ‘fighting
terrorism’. However, equal weighting is given to different political or military
objectives that should determine the use of military force. Nevertheless, in countries
such as Poland (73%), South Africa (64%), Turkey (58%), Sweden (57%), Germany
(56%) or France (52%), it is clearly understood that military goals should determine the
use of force; whereas in Slovenia (64%), Bulgaria (59%), Switzerland (58%), Italy
(52%) and Spain (49%) the idea given most weight is that the use of military force has
to be decided on the basis of political goals.
Both the ‘defence of the country’ and ‘the fight against terrorism’, the former
conventional and the latter of more recent origin are two missions that unambiguously
belong to the combative role of an army. Conversely, the other three missions that were
considered by a large majority as appropriate for the army correspond to new roles that
are replacing the more conventional defensive ones: ‘provision of disaster aid’,
‘humanitarian aid in foreign countries’ and ‘participation in peace-keeping missions’.
That the cadets support the use of the military apparatus for peace-keeping operations
and disaster aid indicates that they have taken on board more willingly than their
commanding officers (Martínez, 2000), the redefinition of their roles in response to the
challenges presented by the new threats, roles which will continue to be compatible with
their more conventional missionviii. It should not be forgotten that peace-keeping
operations: (i) reinforce the supremacy of civil society because the troops are dispatched
by their respective governments, in some cases even with the approval of their
parliaments, (ii) legitimizes the military because it brings with it the support of their
fellow citizens as is evident from their image in public opinion following their
9
participation in these types of missionsix and (iii) forces them to work alongside other
military personnel and citizens from other countries which creates social interaction, at
the same time as it opens new avenues for European collaboration. However, the
majority of those interviewed (78%) are quite clear that public opinion in their countries
will not tolerate large numbers of casualties in military operations (a particularly acute
perception in Bulgaria, Germany, Holland, Slovenia, Switzerland, Spain and Sweden).
Leaving aside the homogeneity of military and civil responses, it is noteworthy,
but not surprising, that the responses of the cadets on the question of their adaptability
to any role are always given much greater importance. However, there are three
exceptions to this rule: providing humanitarian aid in foreign countries, combating drug
trafficking and helping protect the environment. It is symptomatic that these three roles
are the only ones in which women attach considerably greater importance to their
responses on the adaptability of the military to such tasks than men
Ideologically speaking, the provision of humanitarian aid abroad is a role that
finds more support among interviewees on the left (appropriate for 34% on the extreme
right as against 68 % on the extreme left), and a similar situation occurs with regard to
protecting the environment. Conversely, the roles that are increasingly supported on the
right as opposed to the left of the political spectrum are the ‘defence of your country’
(95% as opposed to 60%), ‘participation in combat missions’ (41% as opposed to 13%),
‘preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction’ (57% as opposed to 36%), ‘the
fight against terrorism’ (52% as opposed to 37%) and ‘participation in peace-
enforcement missions’ (31% as opposed to 17%). There are two roles that are only
highly rated by the extreme right: ‘domestic disorder within our country’ (65%) and
‘controlling mass immigration from foreign countries’ (53%).
10
Along religious lines, Orthodox Christians lay greater emphasis on ‘Preventing
the spread of weapons of mass destruction’ (59%) and on ‘combating drug trafficking’
(54%) than any other religious grouping. Alongside the Muslims and displaying equally
strong feelings in their perception of the threat, the high ratings given to the adaptability
of the military to the fight against terrorism is also noteworthy (70% Orthodox and 74%
Muslims). On the other hand, it is notable that the Muslims do not consider the army
highly adaptable to the provision of disaster relief (35%) and humanitarian aid abroad
(32%). The radically different stance of protestant countries (Germany, Switzerland and
Sweden) rates participation in peace-keeping missions (65%) much more highly than all
of the other religious groupings.
An analysis based on the home country of university students (table 4) shows
unanimity over the appropriateness of the military for the defence of their country and
only Turkey excludes the capacity to provide disaster relief. Furthermore, France,
Germany, Spain and Sweden all display absolute agreement over the five principal roles
for which the military are adapted: (i) the ‘defence of your country’, (ii) ‘provision of
disaster relief’, (iii) ‘participation in peace-enforcement missions’, (iv) ‘provision of
humanitarian aid abroad’ and (v) ‘the fight against terrorism’. Holland, Poland, South
Africa and Switzerland agree on four of the five; neither the Dutch nor the Swiss
prioritize ‘the fight against terrorism’, nor the Polish ‘peace-keeping missions’, nor the
South Africans ‘the provision of humanitarian aid abroad’. The remaining countries
only agree on the adaptability of the army to three of the five missions.
TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
11
Among the cadets (table 5), there is overwhelming agreement for ‘the defence of
your country’, ‘participation in peace-keeping missions’, ‘provision of disaster relief’
and ‘the fight against terrorism’ – it is only the Swiss who do not consider that the army
is adapted to the latter role –. ‘The provision of humanitarian aid abroad’ is not
considered a role to which the army is well adapted by cadets from Bulgaria, France,
Italy, Holland, Sweden and Turkey. Bulgarian, Polish and South African cadets, as well
as the university students from those same countries, rank the suitability of the army for
eight and even nine of the twelve proposed roles at levels of over 50%.
TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
Divergent opinions between civil and military elites on a country-by-country basis
(table 6) show that, as a first relevant point, German and Spanish viewpoints exactly
coincide and only Holland and South Africa register two differences. That is to say,
there is a high degree of similarity in the responses of cadets and university students on
the adaptability of the armies to certain roles. It is, nonetheless, possible to point out
that ‘participation in peace-keeping missions’ finds greater support among cadets and
that ‘providing humanitarian aid abroad’, on the other hand, is supported more by
university students.
4. Assessments of Foreign Policy Goals
Understanding which threats those interviewed considered as the main threats to
the security of their respective countries will in turn help us understand the priorities
they assign to foreign policy goalsx. As is evident from table 7, prioritization of foreign
policy goals strongly correlates with the main threats to national security. Similarities
exist between the ranking of civil and military foreign policy goalsxi. Hence, ‘preserving
12
world peace’, ‘preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction’, ‘maintaining the
external security of their countries’ and ‘fighting terrorism’ are all important goals in
both worlds, although to varying degrees and in different orders. Among cadets, the
remaining goals fall below 50% importance and even their fifth priority – ‘preventing
and defending human rights in other countries’ – is attributed less importance by
university students who rank it seventh (45% among cadets and 48% among students).
For the future civil elites, the principal foreign policy goals are ‘combating world
hunger’, ‘fostering international cooperation to solve common problems, such as food
shortages, inflation and energy’, and ‘defending human rights in other countries’.
Whereas the cadets have more of a short-term agenda focusing on reactive security
issues, university students have a wider one that integrates both reactive security and
cooperation and development with other countries, involving preventive and proactive
security strategies. This wider range of options has its origin in separate visions
influenced by each particular academic background. For instance, ‘fighting terrorism’ is
a priority shared by all cadets, although it is only the third priority for economists; law
students relegate it to sixth position and, finally, students of political science place it in
seventh position. The second priority for law students is ‘fostering international
cooperation to solve common problems’, which is placed sixth by economists, who rate
it below 50%. Similarly, the fifth priority for law students, ‘promoting and defending
human rights in other countries’, is the seventh for economists, and was also rated
below 50%. Finally, the interest expressed by law students in ‘worldwide arms control’
(46%) and the weight given by students of political science to ‘strengthening the UN
system’ (40%) are both worth remarking on.
TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE
13
It is surprising that cadets and university students attach little importance to the
‘strengthening of the UN system’ in their ranking of foreign policy goals when 76%
strongly agree on the need for a stronger United Nations due to the increasing
multinational nature of military missions. Something which fits in with the idea
supported by 81% that ‘it is vital to enlist the cooperation of the U.N. in settling
international disputes’ (94% for the Swedish). What is more, 58% agree that ‘the United
Nations should have more control of the AFs of all members’ (78% of Slovenians, 72%
of the Swiss, 71% of South Africans and 67% of the Spanish); however, this last idea is
rejected by 65% of the French, 53% of the Germans, 46% of the Polish and 45% of the
Turks. Equally, 57% think that ‘the Security Council of the United Nations should be
the only power to verify military actions against sovereign status’ (only Holland and
Turkey oppose this statement; 54% and 52% respectively). A paradigm that is quite
logically associated with outright rejection of the idea that the USA (84%); the EU
(73%) or NATO (61%) should have freedom to intervene on their own initiative.
Analysis from a gender perspective shows that the values attributed by men
shadow the priorities of the cadets and those attributed by women are closer to the
priorities of the students, which suggests that there will be a very limited number of
women in future military elites (in our data, women represent 12% of cadets and 50% of
university students). It may be seen how Third World development and cooperation
incites greater interest among women. Thus, women rank ‘helping to improve the
standard of living in less developed countries’ as more important by a margin of twelve
pointsxii; ‘combating world hunger’,xiii and ‘preventing and defending human rights in
other countries’xiv by a margin of nine; ‘preserving world peace’xv by eight; and
‘fostering international cooperation to solve common problems’ by six points. On the
14
contrary, ‘strengthening the UNxvi and regional security alliances or agreements’ and
‘maintaining the external security of your country’ are given between four and ten
points less by women. When both gender and civil-military variables are considered,
differences between men and women are more acute among university students.
However, the gender variable only reveals different priorities in the ranking of foreign
policy goals among cadets and university students. Although male university students
coincide with their female classmates in their ranking of foreign policy goals, only in
three cases do they ascribe more than 50% importance to them (‘preserving world
peace’, ‘preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction’ and ‘maintaining the
external security of their countries’), whereas women ascribe an importance of over
50% to seven goalsxvii. Another interesting point is that while ‘fighting terrorism’ was
ranked fifth by male university students (below 50%) and third by cadets, women
ranked it as their second priority –cadets as well as university students-.
From a religious stance, there are no substantial variations in the ranking of
foreign policy priorities, but it is a noteworthy fact that ‘fighting terrorism’ is not in the
top five for those who ‘do not belong to any confession or who are atheist’ and is the
top priority for Muslims (75% - very important goal). If we add the civil-military
dimension, as much may also be said for students. Thus, atheist university students
relegate ‘fighting terrorism’ to tenth place and Muslim students – knowledgeable of
Islam and unsympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism – ascribe greater importance than
Muslim cadets to ‘fighting terrorism’, which is their highest priority. It is also relevant
that protestant, Christian orthodox, and atheist cadets rank the preservation of world
peace above all else, followed by maintaining the external security of their country, and
that Catholic cadets (21% Italian, 15% Polish, 14% Spanish, 12% French) and Muslims
15
(96% Turkish) prefer ‘fighting terrorism’ and maintaining the external security of their
respective countries as their principal goals. Undoubtedly, the different kinds of terrorist
attacks in the home countries of Catholic and Muslim cadets help explain their
priorities.
The ideological variable also sheds further light on the situation. For instance,
‘combating world hunger’ is a principal goal only for left-wing and extreme left-wing
interviewees. On the contrary, ‘fighting terrorism’ is not a priority for them although it
is for the rest. Equally, ‘preserving world peace’ is the first goal for all but extreme right
participants, who place ‘fighting terrorism’ in first place (78%). In a very general way,
it may be observed that, moving from left to right across the ideological continuum, all
the proposed options are allocated decreasing levels of importance (‘fighting terrorism’
and ‘maintaining the external security of your country’ are exceptions for university
students, as are ‘strengthening regional security alliances or agreements’ for the cadets).
The above goals are given greater importance than ‘combating world hunger’,
‘preventing and defending human rights in other countries’, ‘helping to improve the
standard of living in less developed countries’ or ‘helping to bring democratic forms of
government to other nations’. The ranking remains unchanged regardless of whether
those interviewed are from a civil or military background, the only difference being that
university students ascribe lower levels of importance to them. However, left-wing
cadets give great priority to hard security issues (‘maintaining the external security of
your country’ and ‘fighting terrorism’), though with percentages that are clearly lower
than cadets occupying the middle-ground and on the right-wing.
TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE
16
Broadly speaking, an analysis of tables 8 and 9 gives the impression that
university students’ ratings are always clearer than those or cadets. Nonetheless, cadets
express their preferences more intelligently and convincingly which lead us to the
conclusion that they have a clearer picture of what their priorities are and are not. As for
the university students, it seems that everything is of outstanding importance for them.
In general, the ranking of different goals is not so varied among university students.
Cadets, except German ones, attribute 70% importance to their most important goal.
With the exception of Bulgarians, Romanians, South Africans, Swedes and the Swiss,
the rest of the cadets, as from their fourth priority – as from the third for the Dutch and
Turkish – assess importance at levels below 50%. Although, university students from
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, South Africa and Spain all rank their first
foreign policy goal as “very important” at a level below 70%, at the same time, students
from Bulgaria, France, Romania, South Africa, Sweden and Switzerland have more than
five goals ranked as “very important” at over 50%.
One conclusion might be that the judgement of the Swedish and Swiss university
students is not altogether sound because they consider every item as very important, a
similar pattern being repeated in Switzerland, but by its cadets. The antithesis of
Sweden is Romania: its cadets perceive all possible goals as very important and its
university students exercise greater discernment between the goals they consider
significant and the rest.
A detailed country-by-country analysis of the university students’ responses (table
8) shows certain similarities, though the cadets’ responses show greater heterogeneity.
Thus, ‘preserving world peace’ is the priority goal for the majority (Bulgaria, Germany,
17
the second priority in South Africa, the third in Poland); ‘preventing the spread of
weapons of mass destruction’ is in the top three in Bulgaria, France, Germany,
Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Slovenia, as is ‘fighting terrorism’ in Italy, Spain
and Turkey. A traditional military function such as ‘maintaining the external security of
your country’ appears among the top three in Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Romania,
Sweden and Turkey.
Many countries place international solidarity among their first three preferences.
This is the case of France, Slovenia and South Africa, which all support ‘fostering
international cooperation to solve common problems, such as food, inflation and
energy’, or Italy that supports ‘helping to improve the standard of living in less
developed countries’, or the Netherlands and Switzerland which favour ‘preventing and
defending human rights in other countries’, or indeed Spain and Switzerland that prefer
‘combating world hunger’.
Only in five cases, alongside ‘preserving world peace’, do we find basic security
goals linked to security. These correspond to Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Sweden
which opt for ‘maintaining the external security of your country’ and ‘Preventing the
spread of weapons of mass destruction’; the fifth case is Turkey which chose
‘worldwide arms control’ and ‘fighting terrorism’. The location of these countries may
help explain the reasons behind these preferences expressed by university students.
TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE
Turning to the cadets, we find that they display greater homogeneity in their
responses (table 9). Practically all of them - except those from Germany and South
Africa - place the following in the top five: ‘preserving world peace’, ‘maintaining the
18
external security of your country’, ‘fighting terrorism’ and ‘preventing the spread of
weapons of mass destruction’. For the majority (Bulgaria, France, Poland, Slovenia,
South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey), the traditional defensive function of
their armies is decisive and they opt to ‘maintain external security’ as their main foreign
policy goal. Spanish and Italian cadets give first place to ‘fighting terrorism’, Romanian
and Dutch cadets to ‘preserving world peace’ and Germans to ‘preventing the spread of
weapons of mass destruction’; but in the rankings of cadets from Germany, Romania
and Spain the external security of their countries occupies second place. Only the
Italians and the Dutch relegate their country’s external security to fourth place and with
lower percentages than the cadets from other countries.
Grouping countries according by their three first preferences results in a majority
group with slight variations in its third goal due to a small group (Italy and Netherlands)
which does not rank the ‘external security of your country’ in the top three, and finally
South Africa – which in consonance with its geographic location – prioritizes topics that
are less relevant from a European perspective. Thus, for Bulgaria, France, Spain,
Switzerland and Turkey, ‘maintaining the external security of your country’,
‘preserving world peace’ and ‘fighting terrorism’ figure in the top three; for Germany,
Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden ‘fighting terrorism’ and ‘preventing the spread
of weapons of mass destruction’ do not figure among the top three. The latter goal, and
‘preserving world peace’ and ‘fighting terrorism’ are the principal foreign policy goals
for Italian and Dutch cadets. ‘Maintaining external security’, ‘combating world hunger’
and ‘preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction’ are the priorities for South
African cadets.
TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE
19
Comparing the data on a country-by-country basis and not only from a civil-
military perspective can provide insight into the cultural gap between both worlds. By
comparing the top five foreign policy goals for cadets and university students, on a
country-by-country basis, without considering the exact position of any goal, we can
create a typology that will help us envisage future models of civil-military harmony
(table 10). This typology has three different types: total, strong, or limited harmony.
‘Total harmony’ indicates that the civil and military elites have a tendency to consider
the same first five foreign policy goals. France, Germany, South Africa and Sweden all
fit into this group and we may conclude that the cultural gap in this area and in these
countries is inexistent. ‘Strong harmony’ refers to those countries where there is a
coincidence in four of the top five goals: Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and Turkey.
Finally, ‘limited harmony’ is characterised by a more striking civil-military cultural gap
in foreign policy goals, which arises in five countries whose goals only coincide in three
cases in the top five: Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland.
5. Conclusion
Our analysis of European data leaves us, unequivocally, on the verge of a reform
of the role of the AFs. Modernisation will lead not only to defensive armies but also to
armies working for peace. Corroboration of the coincident and divergent views
expressed by future civil and military elites (university students and cadets) in their
prioritization of the principal threats facing Europe, the foreign policy priorities that
should be set by government, and their approval of suitable roles for the army, reveals
the existence of quite a closely shared perception of the risks, the definition – in precise
terms – of the threat, a degree of approval for the army to be used in international non-
20
combat missions and an important divergence of opinion over the definition of
priorities.
In reference to threats to their security, the future civil and military elites consider
the principal ones to be: (i) organised crime, (ii) international drug trafficking, (iii)
terrorism in our country and (iv) an armed conflict over the control of vital raw
materials (water, oil, etc.). For the future military elites – but not for the future civil
elites – mass immigration from foreign countries is also an important threat; something
similar occurs but vice-versa with respect to environmental problems such as air and
water contamination.. The Muslim world, in comparison with the other religions in its
ranking of very important concerns, highlights: ‘terrorism’, ‘an armed conflict over the
control of vital raw materials’, ‘an armed conflict in the Middle East’ and ‘an accidental
nuclear war’. The country-by-country analysis reveals how organised crime and
international drug trafficking are perceived as threats by all university students in all
countries with the exception of Spanish and Slovenian students, who do not perceive
international drug trafficking as a principal threat. In addition to these threats, university
students in Bulgaria, France, Italy, Holland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland also
consider environmental problems as a threat, as do Slovenian students without ranking
them among their first two. Furthermore, Bulgaria, France, Italy and Holland, put in the
top five as a threat the terrorism. The latter is also threatening for German, Romanian,
South African, Spanish and Turkish students.
Inside the military, organised crime and international drug trafficking are
considered crucial threats for all countries, with the exception of France in relation to
organised crime and Spain in relation to both threats. Terrorism is highly ranked in
Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, France, Spain and Italy, too. And
21
immigration is a threat for Holland, Slovenia, France, Spain and Switzerland. Finally,
for Germans, Poles, Slovenians, Turks, the Spanish, and the Swiss, an armed conflict
over the control of vital raw materials is thought to be a latent threat. There is no
country in which similar threats are perceived by the future civil and military elites,
although the Germans, the Italians, the South Africans, the Turks and the Swiss only
disagree over one point. On the other hand, the biggest rift exists among the French who
register three differences.
Both the ‘defence of the country’ and ‘the fight against terrorism’ – the former
conventional and the latter of more recent origin – are two missions that unambiguously
belong to the combative role of an army. Conversely, the other three missions that were
considered by a large majority as appropriate for the army correspond to new roles that
are replacing the more conventional defensive ones: ‘provision of disaster aid’,
‘humanitarian aid in foreign countries’ and ‘participation in peace-keeping missions’.
That the cadets support the use of the military apparatus for peace-keeping operations
and disaster aid indicates that they have taken on board more willingly than their
commanding officers, the redefinition of their roles in response to the challenges
presented by the new threats, roles which will continue to be compatible with their more
conventional mission. Leaving aside the homogeneity of military and civil responses, it
is noteworthy, but not surprising, that the responses of the cadets on the question of
their adaptability to any role are always given much greater importance. That is to say,
there is a high degree of similarity in the responses of cadets and university students on
the adaptability of the armies to certain roles.
Similarities exist between the ranking of civil and military foreign policy goals.
Whereas the cadets have more of a short-term agenda focusing on reactive security
22
issues, university students have a wider one that integrates both reactive security and
cooperation and development with other countries, involving preventive and proactive
security strategies. So, ‘preserving world peace’, ‘preventing the spread of weapons of
mass destruction’, ‘maintaining the external security of their countries’ and ‘fighting
terrorism’ are all important goals in both worlds. For the future civil elites, the principal
foreign policy goals are ‘combating world hunger’, ‘fostering international cooperation
to solve common problems, such as food shortages, inflation and energy’, and
‘defending human rights in other countries’.
If we confront country by country the top five foreign policies goals, on cadets
and university students basis we can doing a cultural gap typology:
‘Total harmony’: France, Germany, South Africa and Sweden. The civil-military
cultural gap in this area and in these countries is inexistent. ‘Strong harmony’: Bulgaria,
Romania, Poland and Turkey. There is a little cultural gap in this area in these countries.
‘Limited harmony”: Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. The cultural
gap in this area is so hard.
Undoubtedly, such a redefinition and adaptation of military missions to the new
demands of a globalized world will eventually take precedence. In the short or medium
term, it will mean that the very raison d’être of the army, today orientated around the
defence of national territory, will have to adapt to new missions, the outcome of which
might very possibly be a much more dramatic re-examination of what armies are and
what they should represent. The modernization of their armies will come about, at
which time questions will arise stemming from the globalization of threats and the
23
required responses: (i) what are they for? (ii) how are they organized? In short, what
will armies be like in the 21st century?
Bibliography
Bachelet Jeria, Michelle (2002) “Los estudios comparados y las relaciones civiles
militares. Reflexiones tras una década de consolidación democrática en
Chile” Intervención de la ministra de Defensa nacional de Chile el 25 de
junio en la Primera Semana Iberoamericana sobre Paz, Seguridad y
Defensa.
Diamint, Rut (1998) “La cuestión civico-militar en las nuevas democracias de América
latina, Working Papers UTDT, 47, Universidad Torcuato di Tella,
Argentina.
Durán Ros, Manuel M. (1998) "Nuevos requerimientos de preparación en os los
estudios militares ante las nuevas misiones de las fuerzas armadas",
Cuadernos del CESEDEN, nº 24, Madrid, Ministerio de Defensa.
Faura Martín, J. (1996) El ejército español ante los desafíos del siglo XXI, ABC, 6-VI.
Feaver, Peter D. & Kohn, Richard H. (eds.) (2001) Soldiers and Civilians. The Civil-
Military Gap and American National Security Triangle Institute for
Security Studies, MIT Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1957) The Soldier and the State, Nueva Cork, Vintage Books.
We used Spanish version (1995) El soldado y el Estado. Teoría política de
las relaciones cívico-militares. Buenos Aires. Grupo Editores
Latinoamericano.
- (1985) “La mentalidad militar: el realismo conservador de la ética de los
militares profesionales” en Bañón, R. y Olmeda, J.A. (comp.) La
institución militar en el Estado contemporáneo, Madrid, Alianza.
Janowitz, Morris (1977) “From Institutional to Occupational: the need for Conceptual
Continuity” Armed Forces and Society,vol 4,nº 1, pp. 51-55.
- (1985) “La organización interna de la institución militar” en Bañón, R. y
Olmeda, J.A. (comp.) La institución militar en el Estado contemporáneo,
Madrid, Alianza.
Linz, Juan J. y Stepan, Alfred. (1994) “Relaciones civiles militares en recientes
transiciones democráticas del Cono Sur de América Latina” Síntesis: revista
documental de ciencias sociales, nº 11, pp. 77-85.
Mares, David R. (1998) Civil Military Relations. Building Democracy and Regional
Security in Latin America, Southern Asia and Central Europe. Westview
Press.
Martínez, Rafael. (2006) (forthcoming) Los mandos de las FAS españolas del siglo
XXI, Madrid, CIS.
24
Moskos, Charles. (1977) “From Institution to Occupation: Trends in Military
Organization” Armed Forces and Society, vol 4,nº 1, pp. 41-51.
- (1985) “La nueva organización militar: ¿Institucional, ocupacional o
plural?” en Bañón, R. y Olmeda, J.A. (comp.) La institución militar en el
Estado contemporáneo, Madrid, Alianza.
- (2000) “Toward a Postmodern Military: The United States as a Paradigm”
en Moskos, Ch. Williams, J. Allen, y Segal, D.R. (eds.) (2000) The
Postmodern Military. Armed Forces after the Cold War, New York, Oxford
University Press.
Moskos, Charles. y Burk, J. (1994) “The Postmodern Military” en Burk, J. (ed.) The
Military in New Times. Adapting Armed Forces to a Turbulent World,
Westview Press, Boulder, Oxford.
Moskos, Ch y Wood, F. R. - (1987) The military more than just a job? New York,
Elmsford Park, Pergamon-Brassey’s.
25
Table 1 University Students - Principal Threats to National Security (% of very important)
Possible Threats Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Mass immigration from foreign
countries
17 11 14 43 20 17 9 9 49 15 9 16 12
Terrorism in our countries 41 42 20 46 23 6 68 15 33 67 17 2 74
International drug trafficking 68 38 14 33 35 43 61 10 50 20 22 23 39
Organised crime 66 27 24 43 36 58 66 24 63 24 32 21 52
Environmental problems such as
air pollution and water
contamination
46 44 14 17 26 46 41 22 31 20 26 35 33
Possible indirect involvement in a
civil war
25 21 0 6 5 8 26 10 17 18 7 3 27
An armed conflict between
African countries with which we
maintain co-operative relations
2 19 1 5 1 6 10 2 20 7 3 4 8
An armed conflict in the Middle
East
7 25 12 14 17 20 20 4 16 19 12 10 31
Attacks on computer networks 19 13 23 14 22 17 37 16 24 11 20 19 16
Nuclear blackmail by Third
World countries
9 10 2 5 5 7 43 5 13 12 9 5 25
Nuclear war between Third World
countries with global
consequences
24 11 5 7 9 3 55 16 20 24 11 6 32
An armed conflict between Asian
countries.
9 2 2 10 6 3 11 2 10 7 3 4 16
Proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction
33 21 13 13 15 19 54 13 16 22 18 15 37
An accidental nuclear war 41 10 3 5 18 12 60 16 22 25 11 7 37
An armed conflict over the
control of vital raw materials
(water, oil, etc.)
35 21 25 10 22 16 58 20 33 29 9 24 41
Military attack by a foreign state 39 28 4 6 13 6 66 19 29 28 9 3 38
* Red squares: top five. Green squares: outside top five – considered by over 50% as “very important”. Source: Authors
26
Table 2 Cadets - Principal Threats to National Security (% of very important)
Possible threats Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Mass immigration from foreign
countries
13 48 17 42 22 18 14 14 73 28 22 48 15
Terrorism in our countries 37 43 15 42 19 15 66 9 36 76 21 1 63
International drug trafficking 57 43 21 28 44 44 69 14 55 14 32 41 32
Organised crime 52 22 29 50 28 56 73 31 64 20 46 31 51
Environmental problems such as
air pollution and water
contamination
13 33 15 10 19 29 51 26 29 15 18 16 16
Possible indirect involvement in a
civil war
14 14 2 2 4 10 35 0 32 9 3 0 17
An armed conflict between
African countries with which we
maintain co-operative relations
7 34 2 1 3 2 6 0 38 4 6 4 2
An armed conflict in the Middle
East
17 35 8 15 22 21 15 0 20 12 17 11 45
Attacks on computer networks 7 22 23 3 24 28 25 6 28 7 33 43 15
Nuclear blackmail by Third
World countries
20 5 7 2 7 10 35 0 27 11 6 1 12
Nuclear war between Third World
countries with global
consequences
30 6 5 1 13 11 61 0 21 14 10 4 17
An armed conflict between Asian
countries.
10 5 2 6 6 7 9 0 14 4 4 2 13
Proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction
33 25 24 14 12 24 57 6 15 22 11 13 18
An accidental nuclear war 27 6 4 3 12 18 57 3 24 18 9 0 18
An armed conflict over the
control of vital raw materials
(water, oil, etc.)
10 31 21 6 16 35 47 9 36 21 20 25 48
Military attack by a foreign state 33 8 6 5 8 21 72 3 26 29 9 0 28
* Red squares: top five by country. Green squares: outside top five – considered by over 50% as “very important”. Source: Authors
27
Table 3 Coincident and divergent views on the principal threats to national security held by cadets and students
Possible threats Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Mass immigration from foreign
countries
Terrorism in our countries
International drug trafficking
Organised crime
Environmental problems such as
air pollution and water
contamination
Possible indirect involvement in a
civil war
An armed conflict between
African countries with which we
maintain co-operative relations
An armed conflict in the Middle
East
Attacks on computer networks
Nuclear blackmail by Third
World countries
Nuclear war between Third World
countries with global
consequences
An armed conflict between Asian
countries.
Proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction
An accidental nuclear war
An armed conflict over the
control of vital raw materials
(water, oil, etc.)
Military attack by a foreign state
* Blue Squares: Coincident views held by both Cadets and Students. Pink Squares: Students only. Yellow Squares: Cadets only. Source: Authors
28
Table 4 Views held by university students on the suitability of the military to different types of mission (% of approve very strongly)
Possible missions Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Defence of your country 84 85 87 75 73 93 81 81 91 59 79 59 84
Peace-keeping missions 44 77 57 41 51 38 28 36 56 58 70 40 38
Peace-enforcement missions 12 28 17 15 20 15 11 6 28 13 26 10 16
Combat missions 15 36 17 7 17 17 10 4 32 10 7 3 19
Disaster relief 81 70 79 64 37 74 60 79 72 79 68 81 21
Humanitarian relief abroad 63 53 48 35 43 65 46 66 49 72 55 73 23
Domestic disorder within our country 64 43 26 45 38 53 33 30 56 28 36 21 28
Combat drug trafficking 74 32 7 52 22 58 52 34 60 26 15 16 18
Prevent spread of weapons of mass destruction 60 28 19 53 28 66 54 36 56 43 33 17 34
Control mass immigration from abroad 25 19 5 38 13 20 16 12 47 13 7 9 11
Fighting terrorism 68 51 28 66 35 71 64 34 61 53 42 17 74
Protect the environment 50 17 9 37 22 44 24 50 39 41 20 41 18
* Red squares: top five. Green squares: outside top five - considered by over 50% as “very important”. Source: Authors
Table 5 Views held by cadets on the suitability of the military for different types of missions (% of approve very strongly)
Possible missions Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Defence of your country 93 95 90 97 87 99 97 97 97 78 93 98 98
Peace-keeping missions 53 64 64 75 72 55 53 46 71 70 79 57 56
Peace-enforcement missions 10 38 28 38 50 24 27 17 66 33 56 12 25
Combat missions 10 78 27 38 37 35 19 9 71 42 34 13 37
Disaster relief 90 58 81 85 49 87 67 91 60 73 63 83 42
Humanitarian relief abroad 40 29 51 37 42 51 50 54 50 65 48 57 41
Domestic disorder within our country 70 30 17 55 31 66 39 34 49 44 59 40 49
Combat drug trafficking 60 24 9 44 22 57 44 21 47 23 27 8 10
Prevent spread of weapons of mass destruction 70 47 24 69 46 77 66 43 60 45 47 14 20
Control mass immigration from abroad 13 21 7 41 15 26 10 20 52 22 18 27 8
Fighting terrorism 60 61 32 82 52 80 82 49 66 54 62 28 75
Protect the environment 50 5 16 23 17 42 25 37 42 20 22 17 10
* Red squares: top five. Green squares: outside top five - considered by over 50% as “very important”. Source: Authors
29
Table 6 Coincident and divergent views on the adaptability of the military to different types of missions held by cadets and students
Possible missions Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Defence of your country
Peace-keeping missions
Peace-enforcement missions
Combat missions
Disaster relief
Humanitarian relief abroad
Domestic disorder within our
country
Combat drug trafficking
Prevent spread of weapons of
mass destruction
Control mass immigration from
abroad
Fighting terrorism
Protect the environment
* Blue Squares: Coincident views held by both Cadets and Students. Pink Squares: Students only. Yellow Squares: Cadets only. Source: Authors
30
Table 7. Assessment of Foreign Policy Goals (% of very important)
Goals Cadets University Students
Improving living standards in less-developed countries 28 39
Worldwide arms control 36 39
Combating world hunger 40 52
Strengthening the United Nations 34 34
Fostering international cooperation to solve common
problems, such as food, inflation, and energy
41 52
Preserving world peace 70 71
Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction 64 60
Promoting and defending human rights in other countries 45 48
Bringing democratic forms of government to other nations 21 24
Strengthening regional security alliances or agreements
(NATO, for example)
32 26
Maintaining the external security of your country 70 56
Fighting terrorism 67 55
Source: Authors
31
Table 8. University students’ ranking of foreign policy goals (% of very important)
Possible Foreign Policy Goals Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Helping to improve less-developed countries 28 30 15 51 31 17 45 21 42 43 51 87 31
Worldwide arms control 44 51 35 34 10 28 47 28 32 46 28 78 29
Combating world hunger 50 47 29 50 38 48 47 43 54 58 58 92 46
Strengthening the United Nations 22 35 31 37 23 16 20 25 36 33 50 77 10
Fostering inter. cooperation to solve common problems 58 70 35 41 43 43 56 47 68 49 47 89 44
Preserving world peace 76 70 57 60 63 63 69 79 63 68 80 93 74
Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction 70 67 62 50 43 65 64 55 50 46 65 87 51
Promoting and defending human rights in other countries 36 47 34 44 47 35 54 32 50 53 61 90 34
Bringing democratic forms of government to other nations 12 11 8 19 15 15 22 9 32 30 35 68 17
Strengthening regional security alliances or agreements 39 21 19 14 26 34 38 12 35 19 17 42 19
Maintaining the external security of your country 81 54 49 34 31 71 67 46 56 46 67 64 62
Fighting terrorism 64 57 40 58 30 55 57 30 52 66 63 67 73
* Red squares: top five. Green squares: outside top five - considered by over 50% as “very important”. Source: Authors
Table 9. Cadets’ ranking of foreign policy goals (% of very important)
Possible Foreign Policy Goals Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Helping to improve less-developed countries 23 13 22 23 26 13 51 14 50 19 27 62 19
Worldwide arms control 53 34 47 22 30 30 57 43 41 36 20 69 26
Combating world hunger 43 23 42 36 36 37 62 44 60 26 36 63 24
Strengthening the United Nations 20 24 42 29 30 23 18 46 31 29 42 67 22
Fostering inter. cooperation to solve common problems 37 41 33 47 26 38 57 40 55 29 29 83 39
Preserving world peace 93 67 50 62 71 73 91 77 55 67 78 88 59
Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction 76 51 65 59 58 61 80 77 56 64 70 82 46
Promoting and defending human rights in other countries 20 37 39 40 45 29 51 40 43 40 60 82 25
Bringing democratic forms of government to other nations 0 8 15 16 17 19 10 14 40 19 27 60 16
Strengthening regional security alliances or agreements 33 24 15 24 30 42 46 35 48 31 24 58 38
Maintaining the external security of your country 93 76 59 53 46 75 83 80 70 76 80 91 80
Fighting terrorism 80 72 46 72 50 60 76 60 53 88 69 89 76
*Red squares: top five. Green squares: outside top five - considered by over 50% as “very important”. Source: Authors
Table 10. Coincident and divergent views on foreign policy goals held by cadets and students
32
Possible foreign policy goals Bulgaria France Germany Italy Nether. Poland Romania Slovenia S. Africa Spain Sweden Switzer. Turkey
Helping to improve less-developed countries
Worldwide arms control
Combating world hunger
Strengthening the United Nations
Fostering inter. cooperation to solve common problems
Preserving world peace
Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction
Promoting and defending human rights in other countries
Bringing democratic forms of government to other nations
Strengthening regional security alliances or agreements
Maintaining the external security of your country
Fighting terrorism
* Blue Squares: Coincident views held by both Cadets and Students. Pink Squares: Students only. Yellow Squares: Cadets only. Source: Authors
33
i We would like to express our thanks to Marian Zulean and Gerhard Kümmel for their help with the analysis of the data presented in this article.
ii Document adopted by the European Council, 12th of December, 2003 (European Union Institute for Security Studies)
iii This document defends the importance of increasing bilateral relationships with Japan, China, Canada and India.
iv The actual question was: This question asks you to evaluate the likelihood of each of the following threats to the national security of your country.
Please use the scale below (Very likely, Rather likely, Not likely, Not at all likely) . The list of potential threats was made up of the following: (i) Mass
immigration from foreign countries. (ii) Terrorism in your country. (iii) International drug trafficking. (iv) Organised crime. (v) Environmental
problems such as air pollution and water contamination. (vi) A possible indirect involvement in a civil war. ( vii) An armed conflict between African
countries with which we co-operate (viii) An armed conflict in the Middle East. (ix) Attacks on computer networks. (x) Nuclear blackmail by Third
World countries. (xi) Nuclear war between Third World countries with global consequences. (x) An armed conflict between Asia countries. (xi)
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (xii) An accidental nuclear war. (xiii) An armed conflict over the control of vital raw materials (water,
oil, etc.). In the text, we only refer to responses rated as “very important”.
v The weighting of interviewees by country was as follows: Bulgaria 4%, France 5%, Germany 12%, Italy 8%, Holland 10%, Poland 7%, Romania
6%, Slovenia 5%, South Africa 6%, Spain 9%, Sweden 10%, Switzerland 10%, Turkey 8%.
vi The proportion of military and civil interviewees by country was as follows: Bulgaria 25% cadets compared to 75% students, France 65%-35%,
Germany 37%-63%, Italy 56%-44%, Holland 67%-33%, Poland 40%-60%, Romania 49%-51%, Slovenia 21%-79%, Spain 34%-66%, Sweden 64%-
36, Switzerland 36%-64%, Turkey 39%-61%.
vii The actual question was: The following are some possible uses of the military. Please indicate how much you approve of the military being used for
the each of the following missions. The list of proposed missions was: (i) To defend our country (ii) To participate in peace-keeping missions (iii) To
participate in peace-enforcement missions (missions against the will of local parties) (iv) To participate in combat missions (v) To provide disaster
relief (vi) To provide humanitarian relief abroad (vii) To deal with domestic disorder within our country (viii) To combat drug trafficking. (ix) To
prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (x) To control mass immigration from foreign countries (xi). (x) To fight terrorism (xi) To
contribute to the protection of the environment. Reference is only made in the text to “very appropriate” answers.
viii Hence, in the opinion of the Chief of Army High Command, in 1996: 'foreign operations for humanitarian aid as well as for peace-keeping
purposes or those hypothetically to re-establish peace, are not the principal objective of the AFs. The essence of our existence is the military defence
of Spain and Spanish interests' (Faura Martín, 1996). Problem such as organized crime, drug trafficking, environmental damage and humanitarian
disasters, the transformation of social, political and economic structures are problems which the military contingent will have to confront and for
which it has not received sufficient training (Durán Ros, 1998). In order to guarantee that it will be able to fulfil its duties conventional military
training has to be interrupted and temporarily replaced by another more specifically orientated towards the roles to be undertaken. The United States
army considers that peace missions distract the armed forces from its main aim to such an extent that units assigned to such missions undergo a
process of recycling to correct any theoretical and practical deviance they might have experienced (Martínez Isidoro, 1996). It is their understanding
that the units participating in peace missions have to receive a specific preparatory training that for the bulk of the army might be considered as
“contaminating”.
ix We believe that there is no room for doubt that the so-called “new missions” of the armed forces have supposed and do indeed represent the very
best opportunity to redefine armies. The successive Directives on national defence issued by Spanish governments since 1992 reiterate, one after
another, the need for Spanish society to “understand, support and feel committed to the objectives pursued” by Defence Policies; for this reason, the
government cannot overlook the beneficial effect that peace missions have had on the social acceptance of the armed forces as more than 50% of the
population says that participation in these missions has meant that their opinion of the army has improved:
Following the participation of Spain in peace missions, would you say your opinion of the Armed Forces...?
Options 1997199819992000AverageHas improved 5151525953Has worsened 33223Has remained more or less the
same3938403237Don’t know/No Comment78677Total100100100100100Source: CIS (Centro de Investigación Sociológico)
Surveys 2.234, 2.277, 2317 and 2379
x The actual question was: Here is a list of possible foreign policy goals that your country might have. Please indicate how much importance you
think should be attached to each goal. The list of proposed goals was: (i) Helping to improve the standard of living in less-developed countries (ii)
Worldwide arms control (iii) Combating world hunger (iv) Strengthening the United Nations (v) Fostering international cooperation to solve
common problems, such as food, inflation, and energy (vi) Preserve world peace (vii) Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (viii)
Promoting and defending human rights in other countries (ix) Helping to bring a democratic form of government to other nations (x) Strengthening
regional security alliances or agreements (NATO, for example) (xi) Maintaining the external security of your country (xii) Fighting terrorism.
In the text, we only make reference to responses graded as “very important”.
xi As happened in the USA with the “Project on the Gap Between Military and Civilian Society” funded by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies
(TISS) (Feaver & Kohn, 2001), the answers in both worlds show little similarity, except for the “maintaining superior military power worldwide”
option. A goal that was ranked in fourth place by the future civil elites, far removed in percentage terms from the aggregate response of both civil and
military elites and, of course, from the military response.
Both the TISS and ERGOMAS questionnaires are similar, but each one offers a different set of possible answers (eight are similar and four are
different) and the different options are those chosen by participants. Nevertheless, considerable similarities exist between European and North
American responses. Both place in first place ‘Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction’ and ‘Fostering international
cooperation to solve common problems’ –as in Europe, this goal is a more strongly felt one in civil society -. It can also be seen how military cadets
give more importance to hard security goals, whereas university students tend to support preventive goals such as ‘Cooperation with third world
countries’. For instance, half of the non-veteran civilian leaders consider that combating world hunger is very important; a view only shared by 15%
of military leaders and 20% of active reserve leaders.
xii It should be highlighted that this issue is rated 29% percentage points higher by German women than it is by German men; the same is true for
Swedish women (21%) in relation to their men folk, as it is for Swiss women (20%), Spanish women (17%) and French women (16%).
xiii By the same token, this issue is rated 25% percentage points higher by German women than it is by German men, as it is by Swedish and French
women (23%), Swiss women (18%), Bulgarian women (15%) and Polish women (14%).
xiv Once again, higher ratings by a margin of 37% are given by German women to this issue than German men, and the same is true for Romanian
women (20%), Spanish women (19%) and French women (18%).
xv Both German and French women (21% and 12% respectively) attach greater importance to this issue than their men folk.
xvi On this point, greater importance is attached by Slovenian men (28%) than by Slovenian women, and the same is true for Bulgarian men (18%)
and Turkish men (16%).
xvii ‘Preserving world peace’, 76%; ‘Fighting terrorism’, 63%; ‘Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction’, 63%; ‘Maintaining the
external security of your country’, 60%; ‘Combating world hunger’ 55%, ‘Fostering international cooperation to solve common problems, such as
food, inflation, and energy’ 54%; ‘Promoting and defending human rights in other countries’, 53%.
