Demilitarization in Costa Rica
| Date | 01 December 1981 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338101800403 |
| Author | Solveig Aas,Tord Høivik |
| Published date | 01 December 1981 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Demilitarization
in
Costa
Rica:
A
Farewell
to
Arms?
TORD
HØIVIK
and
SOLVEIG
AAS
International
Peace
Research
Institute,
Oslo
Costa
Rica
is
an
apparent
exception
to
the
trend
towards
military
regimes,
violent
changes
of
power
and
local
wars
in
Third
World
countries.
In
this
Central
American
republic
with
about
2
million
inhabitants,
the
armed
forces
were
disbanded
in
1948.
For
over
30
years
Costa
Rica
has
maintained
a
stable
civilian
government
without
a
regular
army,
though
surrounded
by
dictatorships.
We
discuss
the
history
behind
the
abolition
of
the
Costa Rican
army,
consider
the
country’s
handling
of
external
and
internal
conflicts
since
1948,
present
the
growth
of
its
paramilitary
forces,
and
evaluate the
reality
of
its
public
policy
of
demilitarization.
Our
main
conclusion
is
that
Costa
Rican
demilitarization
was
a
response
to
an
internal
conflict
rather
than
a
deliberate
international
policy.
The
country
has
actually
built
up
police
forces
that
are
used
against
labor
and
peasant
unrest.
But
it
is
also
the
case
that
demilitarization
has
been
stressed
so
consistently
in
policy
declarations
that
regular
military
build
up
has
been
inhibited.
Costa
Rica
is
partly
demilitarized,
but
may
become
more
or
less
so
in
the
future.
1.
Introduction
A
distinguishing
characteristic
of
the
modem
state
is
its
monopoly
over
armed
force
within
its
territory.
This
was
not
true
in
the
past,
when
feudal
lords
and
great
urban
families
had
their
own
private
armies.
It
may
not
be
true
in
the
future.
Even
today
there
are
countries
like
Afghanistan
where
the
government
has
never
achieved
full
military
control
over
peripheral
areas.
And
many
more
countries
experience
internal
armed
conflicts,
up
to
the
level
of
civil
war.
But
the
goal
of
all
central
governments
is
full
con-
trol
of
the
national
means
of
violence.
Two
major
institutions
represent
this
con-
trol :
the
military,
traditionally
having
the
task
of
defending
the
national
territory
against
other
states,
and
the
police,
which
is
supposed
to
deal
with
individual
acts
of
violence.
In
today’s
world,
the
resources
devoted
to
these
institutions
are
growing
rapidly.
Two
types
of
conflict
underlie
this
growth.
Inter-
state
rivalry,
ranging
from
territorial
con-
flict
between
mini-states
to
the
global
com-
petition
of
the
superpowers,
motivates
arms
races.
In
many
countries,
however,
it
is
the
opposition
of national
groups
(trade
unions,
peasant
unions,
regional
movements)
that
represent
the
greater
threat
to
government
policy.
These
internal
but
collective
con-
flicts
often
involve
police
and
military
forces
outside
their
traditional
areas
of
operation.
Organizing,
training
and
equipping
such
’anti-subversion’
forces
is
becoming
the
in-
tra-national
equivalent
of
the
international
arms
race.
The
concept
of
militarization
refers
to
the
importance
of
the
military
sector
in
a
society.
This
is
indicated
by,
first
of
all,
the
size
of
the
military
establishment
relative
to
the
civilian
sector;
secondly,
by
the
amount
of
militarized
behavior:
threatening
and
using
armed
force
as
a
means
of
policy;
and
thirdly
by
the
penetration
of
non-military
institu-
tions :
government,
education,
cultural
life.
The
three
are
obviously
closely
related,
but
need
not
be
equally
developed
in
any
particular
country.
Brazil
is
run
by
generals,
but
spends
only
1
%
of
its
national
product
on
defense.
The
Soviet
Union
has
a
vast
military
establishment
that
takes
at
least
10%
of
its
entire
production,
but
political
*
This
study
was
financed
by
grants
from
the
Norwegian
Committee
for
Arms
Control
and
Disarmament
and
from
the
Norwegian
Research
Council
for
Science
and
the
Humanities.
It
may
be
identified
as
PRIO
publication
S-1/81.
334
control
is
firmly
held
by
the
Communist
Party.
The
empirical
content
of
militarization
is
military
size,
military
behavior
and
military
penetration.
Militarization
also
has
a
norm-
ative
aspect.
The
militarized
society
is
seen
as
something
to
be
avoided;
militarization
is
bad
and
demilitarization
is
good.
This
raises
a
problem.
If
a
society
in-
creases
its
military
forces
to
defend
itself
against
threats
from
the
outside,
is
that
a
case
of
militarization?
Were
Great
Britain
and
the
Soviet
Union
militarized
during
World
War
II?
What
about
Cuba
today?
We
prefer
to
regard
militarization,
in
its
strict
sense,
as
a
neutral
concept.
In
most
concrete
cases,
we
see
high
levels
of
militari-
zation
as
unnecessary
and
damaging
to
so-
ciety.
Even
when
armed
force
is
necessary
to
safeguard
social
values,
it
carries
heavy
costs.
But
our
judgement
on
the
evils
of
militarization
will
not
be
based
on
indicator
values
alone.
1
In
this
paper
we
consider
a
single
country
that
seems
an
exception
to
the
growth
of
armed
force.
In
1948
Costa
Rica
experienced
a
brief
civil
war.
The
victors
formed
a
junta
headed
by
Jose
Figueres,
who
had
been
the
leader
of
their
forces.
On
December
1,
1948,
Figueres
made
the
following
public
state-
ment :
It
is
time
for
Costa
Rica
to
return
to
her
tradi-
tional
position
of
having
more
teachers
than
sol-
diers.
Costa
Rica,
her
people
and
her
government,
always
have been
devoted
to
democracy
and
now
practice
their
belief
by
dissolving
the
army
be-
cause
we
believe
a
national
police
force
is
suf-
ficient
for
the
security
of
the
country.
We
uphold
the
idea
of
a
’new
world’
in
America.2
In
the
new
constitution,
introduced
in
1949,
the
abolition
of
the
army
was
given
a
more
permanent
status.
Article
12
of
the
constitution
declared
that:
The
army
as
a
permanent
institution
is
pro-
scribed.
For
vigilance
and
the
preservation
of
public
order,
there
will
be
the
necessary
police
forces.
Only
through
continental
agreement
for
the
national
defense
may
military
forces
be
organized;
in either
case
they
shall
always
be
subordinate
to
the
civil
power;
they
may
not
deliberate,
or
make
manifestations
or
declarations
in
individual
or
collective
form.3
The
civil
war
was
the
first
-
and
last
-
irregular
transfer
of
power
in
Costa
Rica’s
history
since
1919.
The
country
has
con-
tinued
as
a
parliamentary
democracy,
with
several
changes
of
president
and
presidential
parties.
There
has
been
no
effort
to
reintro-
duce
a
standing
army.
In
recent
years,
militarization
has
in-
creasingly
been
seen
as
a
barrier
to
develop-
ment.
In
this
light,
Costa
Rica
seems
a
unique
case:
a
developing
country
that
took
a
clear
decision
against
militarization
more
than
30
years
ago.
We
want
to
understand
this
particular
case.
Why
was
the
army
abolished?
What
consequences
did
this
have
for
Costa
Rica?
Is
demilitarization
in
Costa
Rica
real,
or
is
it
an
illusion?
2.
The
civil
war
and
its
background
Coffee
and
bananas
are
the
two
main
ex-
port
products
of
Costa
Rica.
Coffee
was
introduced
in
the
middle
of
the
last
century
and
soon
became
the central
pillar
of the
Costa
Rican
economy.
The
temperate
high-
lands
in
the
middle
of
the
country
had
a
climate
and
a
soil
that
were
very
well
suited
for
coffee
production.
Costa
Rica
had
been
an
economically
isolated
country,
with
a
subsistence
oriented
agriculture
and
small
opportunities
for
generating
profits
from
local
investments.
The
introduction
of
coffee
made
it
possible
for
a
class
of
large
scale
farmers
and
traders
to
establish
themselves
as
a
new
elite.
The
class
differences
did
not
become
as
sharp
as
in
other
Central
Amer-
ican
countries,
however.
Coffee
may
be
grown
as
an
smallholder
crop
as
well
as
on
plantations.
Costa
Rica
was
relatively
thinly
settled,
and
the
coffee
economy
did
not
lead
to
a
general
expropriation
of
smaller
peas-
ants.4
4
The
coffee
oligarchy
has
never
lost
its
power
in
Costa
Rica,
but
it
has
gradually
been
obliged
to
share
it
with
other
groups
within
the
bourgeoisie:
agriculturalists
deal-
To continue reading
Request your trial