The Inter-American Defense Board

The Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) marked its twenty-ninth anniversary on 30 March 1971. It is the oldest international military body in the free world today, having operated continuously since its inception in 1942. IADB’S functions are principally concerned with military planning and strategic studies. The Board also provides an invaluable opportunity for exchange of professional information and maintenance of an intimate dialogue among defense institutions of the Americas, as well as among some of the most important military personalities in the western hemisphere.

As an indication of the high regard in which the Board is held by the Latin American member governments, four former Delegates are currently presidents of their countries: General Emilio Garrastazu Medici, President of Brazil; General Fidel Sanchez Hernandez, President of El Salvador; Colonel Carlos Arana Osorio, President of Guatemala; General Juan Velasco Alvarado, President of Peru.

In light of recent events in Latin America and the greatly increased urgency for an effective and viable United States foreign policy for this area, it is especially timely to examine this multinational body in some detail, for evaluation of its function as the principal military organ for coordinating defense matters in the hemisphere. The purpose of this article is to review briefly IADB’S historical development, organization, functions, and importance as an institution within the framework of the Inter-American System.

Concern for western hemisphere security in the late thirties and early forties of this century predated the formal entry of any American nations into the conflict raging in Europe. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 made security a priority consideration and triggered preparations for collective defense among the American nations. At the urging of the Chilean Foreign Minister, Juan B. Rossetti, in a cablegram to the Pan American Union on 9 December 1941, the problem was formally addressed at the Third Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Rio de Janeiro, January 1942. The Ministers created the Inter-American Defense Board by unanimous resolution and immediately called a meeting of military officers in Washington, D.C., to study and recommend measures for the common defense.¹

Born of the pressures and urgencies of the common threat from the Axis powers, which loomed large as the United States became heavily committed in World War II, the organization emerged as a dynamic force in resolving the immediate problems of coordinating the defense of the hemisphere. From its headquarters in Washington, the IADB framed the basis for coordination and cooperation among the individual national forces which proved so effective during the years of conflict.

Among the Board’s significant wartime accomplishments were projects dealing with security against sabotage, protection of sources of strategic materials, establishment of naval and air bases, exchange of air intelligence, antisubmarine defense, and standardization of organization, training, and materiel. The Board also succeeded in its efforts to introduce language training in military schools of each country, to insure effective communication among the armed forces of the American nations. Most important, the concept of hemispheric military cooperation and reciprocal assistance was firmly established.

In 1945 the Conference on Problems of War and Peace, meeting in Mexico City, reaffirmed the status of the IADB as the military organ of the Inter-American System.² In reviewing the Board’s operation up to that time, the conference concluded that the IADB had proved its value as an agency for joint study of military problems, exchange of information, and formulation of recommendations regarding the army, naval, and air forces of the American republics.

Two later conferences of the American states developed agreements that are now perhaps the most important bases of inter-American relations. These were the Rio conference of 1947,³ which produced the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (better known as the Rio Pact) and the Bogota conference of 1948, which produced the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS). These two documents and the agreements which they record have become cornerstones of the Inter-American System. Discussions of defense and security matters at other conferences in the years that followed were also appropriately noted in the progressive development of the Board. Collectively they have added, either by direction or implication, new dimensions to the mission and functions of the IADB. These aspects are treated more fully in the remainder of this discussion.

The general concept of the Inter-American System and the organization of its elements are depicted in the accompanying chart. Operations of the military organ, the IADB, are fully independent of the political organ, the OAS. Although Article 64 of the Charter of the OAS provides for establishment of an Advisory Defense Committee to advise the Organ of Consultation on problems of military cooperation that might arise in connection with the application of existing treaties on collective security, the committee has never been activated.

The only actual link between the Board and the OAS is through the General Secretariat of the OAS for budget purposes. Of course, if the Advisory Defense Committee were to be convoked, the Board would furnish both advisory and secretariat support to the committee. The authority of the Board emanates directly from the member states in precisely the same manner as that which exists for the OAS. OAS decisions flow to the American states through the OAS ambassadors. On the other hand, IADB resolutions are passed to the member governments by the military Chiefs of Delegation.⁴

By majority vote of the original IADB Council of Delegates, the location of the Board was established in Washington, D.C., and the regulations and basic organizational structure were developed. The IADB initially comprised three elements: a Council of Delegates, for directing the organization, and an International Staff and a Secretariat, which were subordinate to the Council. The current structure is identical except for the addition of another subordinate element, the Inter-American Defense College.

The location of the organization is important because this determines the nationality of key positions in the structure. Board regulations specify that the host country fill the positions of Chairman of the Board, Director of the International Staff, Director of the Inter-American Defense College, and Secretary of the Board. Since the United States is the host country, these key positions are filled by rotation among the U.S. military services. The Chairman is nominated by the service Chief of Staff to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and appointed by the President of the United States. The positions of Director of the International Staff, Director of the College, and Secretary of the Board are also filled through nomination by the chief of the service responsible, according to a predetermined schedule of rotation.

The present Chairman of the Board, Lieutenant General Eugene B. LeBailly of the United States Air Force, succeeded Lieutenant General James D. Alger of the United States Army. According to the established sequence, the next Chairman should be nominated by the United States Navy. The positions of Vice Chairman, Vice Director of the International Staff, and Vice Secretary of the Board are filled from nominations of Latin American states on a rotational basis, the sequence having been determined by a drawing of lots in the Council. Brigadier Jorge José Sartorio of the Air Force of Argentina, the current Vice Chairman, is also Chief of the Argentine Delegation. Prior to joining the Board, he was Commander of the VII Air Brigade, AAF.

Although this prescription for assignment of top posts to the host country would seem to suggest United States dominance, Board regulations strictly limit the authority of these positions and reserve all final policy determinations to the Council of Delegates for corporate decision. The Board may be relocated in any member country simply by a vote of the Council of Delegates. In that event, the positions of the Chairman, the Directors of the Staff and the College, and the Secretary would automatically revert to the new host country.

The Council of Delegates is the ultimate governing authority of the IADB. The Council, which is currently comprised of delegations from eighteen countries, deliberates topics on its agenda and produces decisions on internal matters in the form of directives, which are transmitted to the Staff, the Secretariat, and the Inter-American Defense College, as appropriate, for implementation. Matters concerned with planning the common defense or advisory aspects related directly to the primary mission of the Board are referred, after processing by the Council of Delegates, to the member governments in the form of resolutions.

All the delegations are manned entirely by military personnel, and most are headed by senior general or flag-rank officers, who normally serve for a period of at least two years. Size of the delegations is not limited by regulations, but as a practical matter participation in Council sessions is restricted to not more than four delegates from any nation. The larger countries generally maintain a strength of four participating delegates, while some of the smaller countries are represented by a single officer. Each delegation has but one vote, however. The Chairman does not have the privilege of a vote.

Regular sessions of the Council are held on alternate Thursdays. Additional special sessions and assemblies may be called by the Chairman or by the Council as deemed appropriate.

At the present time the International Staff is made up of 17 officers from seven countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, and the United States. The work program assigned by the Council generally presupposes a Staff strength of 20 officers. All member countries are authorized to assign officers to the Staff, and representatives of additional countries are expected to participate in the near future. The Staff operates under the direction of Brigadier General Charles R. Bushong, United States Army.

An impressive volume of work is handled by the Staff, not only in relation to its modest size but also in that its work is the product of parliamentary action and multinational cooperation. All Staff divisions and committees are chaired by Latin American officers. Final staff work and recommendations are arrived at by the working elements of the Staff, in much the same manner as are decisions of the Council of Delegates. For this reason the Staff is headed by a Director and Vice Director rather than the more conventional chief and vice chief of staff.

The Staff performs all tasks specifically prescribed by the Council and accomplishes all technical work required in connection with the primary mission of the IADB. This latter process is continuous and includes preparation of special studies and supporting Staff work for coordination with military elements of the member states.

These tasks are extremely complex and demand highest attention to detail and professional skill on the part of the Staff. In the majority of instances, officers detailed to the International Staff are among the most competent and promising in the armed forces of the hemisphere. Four former Staff members have been elevated to general/flag rank in the past year, during or immediately after conclusion of their tours. Other officers are now representing their countries as ambassadors after completing their tours of duty with the Board.

The Secretariat provides administrative and logistical support for the entire organization. These functions are carried out through four Deputy Secretaries—for Administration, Conference and Documents, Finance, and Liaison and Protocol. The post of Vice Secretary is rotational by country and is currently filled by an army officer from El Salvador.

Because of the obvious need for ready access to U.S. government protocol and support agencies and for an intimate familiarity with the Washington scene, most of the administrative personnel of the Secretariat are either U.S. nationals or Latin Americans who have long had assignments in this country. Among the many diversified tasks accomplished by the Secretariat is that of interpreting and translating the heavy volume of business of the Board, which is carried on in four languages. While Spanish is prescribed for everyday Staff work, all formal documentation is also prepared in French, Portuguese, and English. The Secretariat provides interpreter service for the Council sessions, which are conducted much like a miniature United Nations, with simultaneous interpretation in the four languages used by the member countries.

The academic organ of the Inter-American Defense Board, the Inter-American Defense College (IADC), was opened in 1962 at Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. It was established for the conduct of advanced studies at the strategic level, with broad involvement in areas and disciplines particularly related to this hemisphere. The overall goal and course of instruction are very similar to those of our war colleges. The course of instruction is designed to advance the professional qualifications of military and civilian government officials, to prepare them for participation in activities associated with international cooperation within the hemisphere and interaction with nations or international organizations outside the hemisphere. Significantly, less than twenty percent of the curriculum is devoted to military subjects.

The position of Director of the College is rotated among the United States military services, in the same manner as the position of Chairman of the IADB. Rear Admiral Gene LaRocque, United States Navy, is the present Director of the IADC, having succeeded Major General John B. Henry, USAF.

The College, like its parent organization, is in all respects a truly inter-American institution. The positions of Assistant Director and Chief of Studies are permanently designated by Board regulations to be filled by officers from countries other than the host country. Since 1964 civilian government officials have been admitted to the College both as students and as members of the faculty. This broadening of the student body and faculty has tended to expand the scope of interest in the College and has added a new dimension to the student viewpoint being developed during the course of study. The faculty of the College is preponderantly Latin American, and Spanish is the official language for course instruction. Senior officers and civilian officials from all member nations meeting enrollment requirements are eligible for acceptance as students. Provision is made for sixty students, each member state being assigned a normal quota of three student spaces. This quota may be augmented to accommodate the desires of member governments if nominations for any class are less than capacity. Class X, which graduated in June 1971, was comprised of military and civilian students from thirteen countries. The course lasts nine months.

The College curriculum devotes much more time to the politico-economic and social fields than it does to those of a purely military nature. Typically, the student body is addressed by Latin American ambassadors to the OAS, Cabinet officers of the United States government, and lecturers who are outstanding authorities in the humanities as well as the social sciences. Thus, the course equips students to cope with the problems of the individual countries, familiarizes them with the characteristics of international organizations, and provides a broad understanding of the dynamics of the modern world.

Since its establishment, the College has graduated 337 students. Most often, alumni return to their countries to assume more advanced positions in military service or as high-level civil government officials. Their “success stories” include promotions of some forty-four alumni to general/flag rank, a Minister of Foreign Affairs, a Minister of Labor, three Ministers of Defense, and numerous others who have been appointed to high-level dual positions having civil as well as military responsibilities, such as Director of Civil Aviation. Recent developments attest that this is a continuing trend.

Top officials of the Board and the College continually receive highly complimentary correspondence and enthusiastic personal comments about the College from government leaders of the American states. These comments laud the quality of instruction and nearly ideal atmosphere for study. Attendance at the College is considered a prestigious recognition and a positive factor in advancing the professional career of the officers selected as students.

As previously noted, the Inter-American Defense Board was initially established to study and advise member governments on matters concerning the defense of the western hemisphere. The planning function was later identified as part of the Board’s mission. At first glance the IADB, when paired with the OAS, seems to bear a functional similarity to NATO, and for this reason it is interesting to compare these institutions. Both are designed to provide military defense and security for their respective geographical areas.

The juridical basis in each instance is defined by formal treaties, which record the determination of the signatory parties to join in collective defense and establish means for collaboration in security matters. The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of 1947 may be considered the western hemisphere counterpart of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949. There are, however, some obvious differences: NATO is primarily a military defense organization, while the OAS /IADB “team” embraces political, economic, and cultural fields as well. The NATO military complex is an immense and powerful force in-being. The OAS /IADB has no ready forces at its disposal; rather, it constitutes an integrated base of expert capability to resolve problems and cope with aggression. The IADB has no established “chain of command” in the classic military sense. Coordination and liaison are maintained, however, with other elements of the inter-American military system: the Central American Defense Council (CONDECA), the conferences of the chiefs of the individual armed forces, and the bilateral or multilateral exercises conducted by military forces in the hemisphere.

Strategic plans and recommendations are developed by IADB for subsequent expansion and implementation by individual member governments, rather than by multinational action as is the case with NATO. OAS/IADB operates on a budget about one-sixth that provided for the combined NATO operation, although the mission of both is to deter aggression and provide for collective defense in event of attack.

Each of these organizations is playing an extremely important role in world affairs, and they continue to function effectively in their respective areas of concern. The OAS /IADB, however, accomplishes its missions relative to security aspects at much less cost and somewhat less formality.

Perhaps the distinction between these two great defense complexes is historically a function of the nearness of the threat of outside intervention. The closeness of the Soviet Union and its historical preoccupation with imposing a barrier between the Eastern bloc and the West, coupled with its direct interventions in the internal affairs of some of the Eastern bloc countries, have constituted a more imminent threat than any facing the Americas.

The Central American Defense Council was established 14 December 1963 in Guatemala City and is comprised of the Defense Chiefs of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Panama, although not a member, regularly sends observers to activities conducted by CONDECA. Its organization is patterned generally after the IADB and does function as a regional military organ; but it is not subordinate to the Board. IADB observer participation and reports received from CONDECA exercises provide an important element of realism to overall defense planning.

The conferences of the chiefs of the armed forces have accumulated an admirable list of accomplishments, related, of course, to the interests of their respective services. Here again, through observer participation and receipt of conference reports and special studies, the Board derives significant tangible benefits. Observers at the annual Air Force chiefs’ conferences and the reports generated by these conferences have provided timely technical ingredients for Air Force aspects of Board plans.

In those countries that have assigned airborne antisubmarine functions to their Air Forces, appropriate units are included in this essentially naval training operation.

Several combined exercises have been conducted in the hemisphere. These have often been arranged with U.S. support but under multinational auspices.

Military planning by the IADB is focused on the strategic level. Since it is the highest military organ in the Inter-American System, the Board formulates those basic elements for military planning that are not already established in existing documents of the System. For example, the Board produces “Basic Elements of Continental Policy,” “General Strategic Evaluation,” and “Continental Strategic Concept” and keeps these documents current. Board plans are designed for maximum flexibility, to provide a basic format for coordination and to permit effective operational planning by national authorities.

The first General Military Plan was developed in 1949 and 1950, was accepted by the Board in 1951, and is maintained continuously by the Staff. Subsequent revisions have been made to accommodate, as appropriate, the changing political conditions in the world. The plan is classified, of course, but it can be said that specialized aspects, such as strategic areas and logistics, are covered in a number of detailed annexes.

Of the possible war hypotheses now addressed in the plans, it is recognized that the most probable threat is that manifested in many areas in the form of rural guerrilla movements and, more recently, in urban terrorism. These movements are alleged to be supported to some degree by nations of the Communist bloc. Even though it is considered that Castro-sponsored insurgency presents an immediate, tangible threat to social progress and political stability in the Americas, Soviet and Chinese Communist inroads present a longer-term threat. Soviet policy, unlike that of Cuba, encompasses more subtle and indirect means of reaching its subversive goals. It is recognized also that, while the Communist countries publicly attempt friendly relations with American governments through intensified diplomatic intercourse and trade and cultural exchanges, they simultaneously support local Communist parties. IADB studies and planning continue to encompass all aspects of military concern. The threats of armed attack and subversion are afforded appropriate consideration in all aspects of staff work.

In general, the work of the Board is addressed to the member governments in the form of recommendations or resolutions. The final formal acceptance of this work, however, is entirely at the discretion of the individual governments.

Consistently, officers assigned to the Board have firmly supported the principle of hemispheric solidarity, and the Board has remained staunchly anti-Communist. At the same time, many members are quick to emphasize their belief that Communism cannot be neutralized by military force alone but must be preempted through vigorous effort in the economic and social fields as well. Many of the studies produced by the IADB Staff have highlighted the necessity of continuously relating defense planning to nonmilitary fields of national development. Board members recognize the need for increased effort on the part of their own military leadership toward achievement of this purpose.

While evaluation of any international organization is often difficult to express in concrete terms, the IADB has earned many credits during its long history. Not the least of these is the fact that only one relatively minor armed conflict has occurred in Latin America since the Board was established. The very existence of the Board has been a major contribution to the preservation of peace and security in the western hemisphere. The cooperation and interchange fostered by the Board do much to eliminate friction among neighboring armed forces.

The absence of official military representation on the OAS Council and the lack of regularized official coordination between the OAS and the IADB are considered by some to be weaknesses which tend to make the system less effective than it could be. When Dr. Galo Plaza, Secretary General of the OAS, addressed the Council of Delegates of the IADB in June 1968, he acknowledged the importance of coordination and liaison between the two organizations and pledged to seek ways to that end.

The most recent example of this relationship is the fact that the Board was invited to send a representative to attend the sessions of the OAS General Council and the Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The Board was represented at these sessions by the Chairman, Lieutenant General Eugene B. LeBailly.

The Board has proved to be a valuable agency for planning and for collaboration among military officials of its twenty member countries. This close affiliation embraces all branches of the armed forces, and the continuous exchange of imaginative professional military views constitutes an extremely important nucleus for mounting a rapid collective effort in defense of the hemisphere if need be.

Now, nearly thirty years after its establishment, the IADB continues to produce military plans, advice, and recommendations for the member states. This function is extremely important in maintaining a continuous strategic evaluation and a capability to respond to any threat by marshaling resources quickly for collective defense. At a time when some political pundits seem inclined to optimism regarding the cold war—in spite of the Soviet suppression of initiative among its satellites and the continuing Communist aggravation in Berlin, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East—many Latin Americans hold an opposing view. To them, the external threat is more ominous and insidious now than ever before. The need for close military collaboration, alert area surveillance, and an aggressive internal security program is well recognized.

The Inter-American Defense Board provides the active organization for accomplishing strategic-level studies and plans for just such a situation. It has even greater potential and stands ready to do more.

1. Resolution XXXIX, Third Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Rio de Janeiro, January 1942.

2. As used in this article, the term “Inter-American System” embraces all official permanent organizations and intergovernmental conferences to meet political, economic, social, and military requirements of the American states comprising the system, which are also members of the OAS.

3. The Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, Rio de Janeiro, August l5-September 2, 1947. The Rio Pact established the boundaries of the security zone of concern to the signatory states and is referenced in Article 4 of the Treaty. This zone is defined in the treaty in specific coordinates of latitude and longitude, generally as enclosing the territory of North and South America and adjacent waters, from pole to pole. Significantly, although Canada is not a member of either the OAS or the IADB and is not a participant in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, its territory is included in the security zone defined in the Treaty.

4. Originally founded with 21 countries, the IADB excluded Cuba in 1961. Of the 20 remaining members, only Costa Rica and Haiti do not presently have a delegate assigned, but this situation is temporary.

Correction

The Soviet SS-9 missile shown on page 19 of our September-October 1971 issue was incorrectly identified as an SS-l1. Both the SS-9 and the smaller SS-11 missiles have been tested with multiple re-entry vehicles.

Colonel Francis H. Weiland (B.S., University of Maryland) is Executive Officer, International Staff, Inter-American Defense Board. He has had assignments in Hq USEUCOM and Hq USAF; as a member of the first Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG), Germany; and as Chief of Logistics, Hq USSOUTHCOM. Colonel Weiland is a graduate of the Air Command and Staff College and the Inter-American Defense College and has traveled widely in Latin America.