MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH I S O D EPEN D EN C E A N D T H E QU EST FOR AU T ONOMY Editora Appris Ltda. 1.ª Edição - Copyright© 2023 do autor Direitos de Edição Reservados à Editora Appris Ltda. Nenhuma parte desta obra poderá ser utilizada indevidamente, sem estar de acordo com a Lei nº 9.610/98. Se incorreções forem encontradas, serão de exclusiva responsabilidade de seus organizadores. Foi realizado o Depósito Legal na Fundação Biblioteca Nacional, de acordo com as Leis nos 10.994, de 14/12/2004, e 12.192, de 14/01/2010. Catalogação na Fonte Elaborado por: Josefina A. S. Guedes Bibliotecária CRB 9/870 F387m 2023 Ferreyra, Matías Multinational military forces in the global south : isodependence and the quest for autonomy / Matías Ferreyra. – 1. ed. – Curitiba : Appris, 2023. 199 p. ; 23 cm. Inclui referências. ISBN 978-65-250-4411-8 1. Ciência militar. 2. Operações militares. 3. Dependência. 4. Autonomia. 5. Relações internacionais. I. Título. CDD – 355 Livro de acordo com a normalização técnica da ABNT Editora e Livraria Appris Ltda. Av. Manoel Ribas, 2265 – Mercês Curitiba/PR – CEP: 80810-002 Tel. (41) 3156 - 4731 www.editoraappris.com.br Printed in Brazil Impresso no Brasil M AT ÍA S F ERR EY R A MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH I S O D EPEN D EN C E A N D T H E QU EST FOR AU T ONOMY FICHA TÉCNICA EDITORIAL Augusto V. de A. Coelho Sara C. de Andrade Coelho COMITÊ EDITORIAL Marli Caetano Andréa Barbosa Gouveia (UFPR) Jacques de Lima Ferreira (UP) Marilda Aparecida Behrens (PUCPR) Ana El Achkar (UNIVERSO/RJ) Conrado Moreira Mendes (PUC-MG) Eliete Correia dos Santos (UEPB) Fabiano Santos (UERJ/IESP) Francinete Fernandes de Sousa (UEPB) Francisco Carlos Duarte (PUCPR) Francisco de Assis (Fiam-Faam, SP, Brasil) Juliana Reichert Assunção Tonelli (UEL) Maria Aparecida Barbosa (USP) Maria Helena Zamora (PUC-Rio) Maria Margarida de Andrade (Umack) Roque Ismael da Costa Güllich (UFFS) Toni Reis (UFPR) Valdomiro de Oliveira (UFPR) Valério Brusamolin (IFPR) SUPERVISOR DA PRODUÇÃO Renata Cristina Lopes Miccelli ASSESSORIA EDITORIAL Renata Miccelli REVISÃO William Rodrigues PRODUÇÃO EDITORIAL Renata Miccelli DIAGRAMAÇÃO Bruno Ferreira Nascimento CAPA João Vitor REVISÃO DE PROVA Isabela Bastos PREFACE The field of International Security studies has occupied a privileged space in International Relations since the birth of this field of knowledge. However, as in other areas, the general frameworks have been established according to the epistemic status defined by the central countries, which today can be considered as being from the Global North. And not only concepts derived from colonizing or even imperialist experiences, but epistemologies define the legitimacy of the knowledge produced. The epistemic, or colonizing, curtailment has been the predominant register that establishes the definitions of what constitutes threats, risks, and enemies, as well as the means and doctrines of using force to confront what is designated as the core of what is threatening to security. The most visible face of this picture is the technology of warlike artifacts. However, and far beyond, the organizational formats of the security forces follow the dictates established in the North. An overwhelming picture of a lack of autonomy emerges by aligning organizational designs with epistemic dependence. These very general questions are taken up, with rare brilliance, by Matías Ferreyra in his book “Multinational military forces in the Global South: Isodependence and the quest for autonomy.” The book results from detailed and very refined research based on the study of three multinational military forces: the Southern Cross Peace Force in Latin America, the Africa Standby Force in Africa, and the Peninsula Shield Force in the structures of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. To reach a sophisticated level of analysis, the author has produced a careful debate with a vast bibliography. For this, he takes up authors from dependency theories, world-system theories, sociology of organizations, and postcolonial debates, among others, and proposes a new category of analysis, Isodependence. And this is not a mere juxtaposition between organizational isomorphism and external dependence, nor a combination. Furthermore, understanding this double condition in the analysis of concrete cases allows us to establish a vigorous analytical cut. External dependence generates pressures of various kinds on the aforementioned multinational forces, deepening their dependence and amplifying the peripheral condition to which they are subjected. The research began during the doctoral phase of the San Tiago Dantas Postgraduate Program in International Relations, a partnership between the São Paulo State University, University of Campinas, and the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, when the candidate was then part of the Defense and International Security Studies Group and had a doctoral internship at Tilburg University, under the supervision of Joseph Soeters. The work provides an outstanding analysis of how multinational forces are organized and intertwined between attempts to expand autonomy, dependence on resources, means of force, and doctrines established in other centers. The research presents detailed, substantive empirical bases that provide a wealth of knowledge on how dependency operates. This work opens essential analytical horizons since, in international security dependency, world-system and postcolonial theories still need more specific research in this area. Readers will be delighted with the analytical finesse, the broad theoretical and conceptual debate, the wealth of details, and the analytical insight of curious and restless minds, as is the case of Matías Ferreyra, who was awarded the prize for best doctoral work by the Brazilian Association of Defense Studies. The book allows us to visualize the dictates of dependency. On the other hand, unveiling these processes lets us glimpse alternatives so that a determined future is not established in which only peripheral deepening becomes the insurmountable appanage for the Global South. Samuel Alves Soares Professor at São Paulo State University, and San Tiago Dantas Postgraduate Program in International Relations (Unesp, Unicamp, PUC-SP). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book would not have been possible without the combination of individuals, institutions, solidarity, and affections that have favorably forged this path. I am profoundly grateful to my Ph.D. supervisor, Samuel Alves Soares. Associate Professor at São Paulo State University and Professor of the Graduate Program in International Relations San Tiago Dantas (Unesp, Unicamp, PUC-SP). Samuel A. Soares gave me invaluable help with essential concepts and inspired core ideas in this book. I would also like to give special thanks to my former co-supervisor, Joseph Soeters, Professor Emeritus of Organizational Sociology at Tilburg University, the Netherlands. Joseph Soeters guided me through different forms and tools of analysis, being incisive on methodological aspects, and conducting interviews. Founding for this book was made possible through the Brazilian Association of Defense Studies (Abed). I am deeply grateful to the recognition of this research as the Abed Best Thesis Award in August 2022. Additional funding for this research was provided by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior — Brasil (Capes) — Finance Code 001. I want to thank Professor Héctor Saint-Pierre, São Paulo State University, for the brief but valuable opportunity in which we share a workspace on topics that have left holes in my relationship with security and defense studies. To Professor Eduardo Mei, for the support and discussions during my time as a substitute professor at Unesp/Franca. I would also like to acknowledge my former advisor, professor Vágner Camilo Alves, Fluminense Federal University, who had an important role in my orientation to the area of multinational military cooperation during my master-degree studies. To Ornella Fabani, Patricia M. Shields, Alexandre Fuccille, and Eduardo Mariutti, I thank for the opportunity to have their observations and opinions on my research. I would like to acknowledge Colonel Donald Gramkow for the support in developing contacts with African Union military advisers and officers. Thank you to my friends Raymond and Joppe, who have made my research period in Tilburg more pleasant. I want to thank my father Dugaldo, for his absolute support and complicity, my grandmother, Audelina, and my aunt, Silvia. Especially to my partner Marcela, who has been by my side planting moments, making everything more straightforward. PRESENTATION This book examines multinational military forces in the Global South and their connections with the global diffusion phenomenon of multinational military cooperation. In the 21st century, three international military organizations with standing headquarters in the Global South have emerged in the field of military operations. These are the Southern Cross Peace Force in Latin America, the Africa Standby Force in Africa, and the Peninsula Shield Force in the structures of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Yet the scholarly literature on multinational operations has given little attention to these organizations and is mostly focused on the Western hemisphere, particularly on European military organizations. So far, military organizations led by peripheral countries in the Global South have been neglected in systematic and comparative analyses. This book seeks to address this gap and use a novel comparative framework to examine inter-organizational differences and similarities in these three important cases. It aims to provide a gateway for theoretical growth now and for future studies, in the Global South and elsewhere. The book demonstrates that, in a global field of military management dominated by standards and resources from central countries, the phenomena of organizational isomorphism and external dependence tend to interweave in the formation of multinational forces in the Global South. A common condition is analyzed through case studies: Isodependence. From historical, critical, and postcolonial studies, the book explores how the epistemic autonomy to conduct such force models in the peripheries is constrained in the context of a security geoculture whereby specific attributions, knowledge, and security functions have been unevenly distributed in the modern world-system. This book will be of great interest to researchers of military studies, security studies, sociology and conflict studies, and IR in general. CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 The book setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2 CENTER-PERIPHERY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, AND ARMED FORCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Why center and periphery? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Center-periphery analysis of security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Liberal geoculture of security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Three functions in the security geoculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 International force standards: the “rapid response” model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 An analytical framework for international military organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3 AFRICA: THE EASTERN AFRICA STANDBY FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 From colonial to postcolonial times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The African Union under mimetic pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 What multinational force for Africa? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Coercive isomorphism and dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Normative pressures: training standards and exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Operational concept and operational challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Interorganizational interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Closing remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 4 SOUTH AMERICA: THE SOUTHERN CROSS COMBINED JOINT FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 Beyond the Andes: Argentina and Chile through common patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Building a Binational Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Organizational structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Isomorphic pressures: UN, Shirbrig and Nato standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Dependence perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 Interorganizational interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Operational concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Closing remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5 ARABIAN GULF: THE PENINSULA SHIELD FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 From the “Pax Britannica” to the US rule in the Gulf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 The GCC and PSF formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 Mimetic pressures: US and NATO references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133 Competitive pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 Normative pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136 External dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 Operational concept and deterrence culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Interorganizational interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 Closing remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148 6 COMPARING INTERNATIONAL MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Isomorphic pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156 Operational profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158 Intercultural strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 Multinationalism and specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 Operational partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165 Closing remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167 7 CONCLUSIONS, ISODEPENDENCE, FRACTALS, AND EPISTEMIC AUTONOMY . . . . . . . . . .169 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179 REFERENCES OF INTERVIEWEES AND CONTACT POINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219 1 INTRODUCTION The history of international relations knows numerous cases in which two or more states coordinate their armed forces to achieve common strategic objectives. However, since the end of the Cold War, multinational military cooperation has taken a new dimension. The most important fact is that the quality of military collaboration has changed (KING, 2010; SOETERS; MANIGART, 2008; TRESCH, 2007). In the past, interactions in carrying out multinational operations – like Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the Warsaw Pact – used to pertain to procedures at the strategic level of chiefs of staff and headquarters, whereas currently, national units are being integrated at the operational and tactical levels. Multinational interorganizational cooperation takes place in all segments and corners of the world with the aim to pool resources and competencies, to strengthen operational power and sustainability, and to increase legitimacy (GRAY; PURDY, 2018). Such internationalization has been an organizational phenomenon, as evidenced by the restructuring of NATO since 1990, and formulations in the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) concerning “stand-by” and “rapid deployment” concepts in multinational peace operations (GHALI, 1995; KOOPS, 2008). Internationalization also occurs as an isomorphing phenomenon. This implies that similar organizational models and concepts are diffused across the world. In this process, the US model of defense transformation has been at the basis of applying standards operating procedures, certifying processes, and combined concepts among - and beyond - NATO countries (FARRELL; TERRIFF, 2002; PRETORIUS, 2008). Nevertheless, the scholarly literature on multinational operations remains relatively scarce. The relevant studies either focus on the broader phenomenon of multinational operations or are dedicated to specific case studies, with little analysis of their ramifications with the global diffusion phenomenon (DANIEL; WILLIAMS; SMITH, 2015). Furthermore, available studies 13 MATÍAS FERREYRA mainly pertain to the western hemisphere, particularly to European military organizations where the degree of international cooperation is considered most prominent given a large number of relatively small nations and ditto forces (KING, 2011). So far, military organizations led by peripheral countries in the so-called “Global South” have been neglected in systematic and comparative analyses. This book, therefore, aims to expand the empirical data on multinational military cooperation with primary and secondary data material on understudied regions in the world; at the same time, this book attempts to broaden the theoretical dimensions of multinational military cooperation. The “Global South” most common idea refers to regions geographically located in the planet’s southern hemisphere. However, from postcolonial and critical studies, the concept can be understood as a political metaphor reflecting the interconnected histories of several peoples and regions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that have experienced the economic and epistemic subjugation to western colonialism (SANTOS, 2010). In this way, the “Global South” has followed a different trajectory in the modern world-system (WALLERSTEIN, 2005; GROSFOGUEL, 2009). These areas have adopted the structures of modern states. However, many of them would have several limitations whereby they would have “failed” as lacking some attributes compared to the western center. It justifies standards characterizations as “underdeveloped”, “developing countries”, “failing states”, “peripheral” or the “third” of the worlds (BARKAWI; LAFFEY, 2006; GROVOGUI, 2007). Among these countries, several ad-hoc military coalitions have been registered in the field of peace support operations.1 Until now, there have been only three organizations that have developed with permanent command structures or standing headquarters to prepare peace operations in the security environments of the 21st century. These are as follows: • the African Standby Force (ASF) - made up of five sub-regional African forces with headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; • the Southern Cross Combined Peace Force (Fuerza de Paz Conjunta Combinada “Cruz del Sur”) with headquarters rotations between Argentina and Chile; 1 Complex and multidisciplinary conflict resolution mechanisms are currently called peace support operations. UN interventions were generically called peace operations, which included peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations (FRIISS; JARMYR, 2008). The post-Cold War period has seen a significative increase in the number of military operations that have required UN, Nato and other organizations to contribute multinational coalitions in order to implement a variety of missions such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement, antiterrorist actions, humanitarian aid, policing etc. 14 MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH • and, the Jezira (Peninsula) Shield Force, based at Hafr al-Batin, Saudi Arabia, folded to the command structures of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. So far, in the great Asian space, it was not possible to detect any initiative with ‘combined forces’2 led by Asian countries in conflict management. According to experts that we have consulted, although regional balances prevent interstate conflict in the so-called Asian “supercomplex”, regional military cooperation without the participation of foreign powers – e.g., the US – is relatively tricky (BUZAN, 2012; CIORCIARI, 2008; PEREIRA; RIBEIRO, 2016). Thus, discovering that these types of forces are rare among countries in the Global South – there are currently only three – motivated our interest in studying these organizations. The three aforementioned cases have shown their main developments in coincident periods, significantly since the beginning of the 21st century and extending to the present. In this way, the analysis of the factors that promote and constrain the formation of multinational military forces in the regions of the Global South, particularly in the period 2000-2020, are the issues that conform to the general objective of this research proposal. The three cases are characterized by the fact that they are forces of and not just on the Global South as they are formally led by local actors, seeking greater self-reliance in international crisis management. Nonetheless, their practices with real military deployments have been very modest or even nil compared to the capabilities of US and Nato allies to intervene and influence conflict resolutions in all the world’s regions (ALBASOOS, 2018; VÁRNAGY, 2015; VREŸ; MANDRUP, 2017). As a symptom of these relative limitations, several ad hoc coalitions have prevailed as “effective” regional military mechanisms in their respective areas. In the African Union (AU), despite numerous external capacity-building programs to equip and train personnel of the ASF, so far it has several difficulties to deploy troops in stabilization and counterinsurgency operations. As an alternative, AU has tended to promote other mechanisms such 2 The word “combined operations” has one of its first formal records in World War II. The British War Office introduced it to denote multi-service activities involving air, land, or naval forces. Yet, after World War II, the US Department of Defense began to use the term “combined” to denote operations of a multinational nature in Nato. Thus, “combined” refers to operations carried out between units from two or more countries, while “joint operation” refers to activities between different branches of force (naval, air, land). See, RUSH, R; EPLEY, W. Multinational Operations, Alliances, and International Military Cooperation. Past and Future. Washington, D.C: Center of Military History United States Army, 2006. 15 MATÍAS FERREYRA as “Regional Task Forces” against armed groups in Central Africa, Nigeria, and other areas (BRUBACHER; DAMMAN; DAY, 2017). In Latin America, the Minustah in Haiti was the first joint participation project led by South American countries in a UN peacekeeping operation in the region. This mission showed strong ties and interconnection at the general staff and battalions that met there (LLENDEROZAS, 2007). However, when extreme situations occurred, such as the earthquake that struck the island in 2010, with thousands of dead and devastated structures, the US took the lead, sending more than 14,000 soldiers and technicians to reestablish some order in the country (CAVALETTO, 2012). Among the Arabian Gulf countries, given the lack of consensus to deploy the Peninsula Shield Force in the Yemen war, the operation “Decisive Storm” was led by a Saudi led-coalition since 2015 (KRYLOV, 2018). However, the procedure showed a lack of capacity to set up an infrastructure to deploy combined intervention units. So, they turned to countries such as the US and UK for logistics and the US and Israel for intelligence and targeting, search and rescue operations (ARTEAGA, 2015). Different difficulties persist in the regions of Global South in operationalizing multinational troops in missions, and their formations show indicators of dependence on resources and military know-how from central countries. Different challenges persist in assembling a body of local expertise beyond technical assistance, R&D transfer, liberal peacekeeping standards, financial support from central countries, and even force models established by them. The three standing cases mentioned seem to be different, operating in dissimilar strategic contexts, with different organizational cultures, mandates, and setups. However, a detailed observation will show that they are based on the emulation of force models such as the Standby Forces High Readiness Brigade (Shirbrig) concept or U.S./Nato models (SAMAAN, 2017; TATSCHL, 2009; VÁRNAGY, 2015). Such situations encourage stereotypes about a halo of incompetence around these organizations to self-manage mechanisms to obtain or maintain peace in their regions. Hence, the pursuit of self-reliance and, more precisely, the epistemic autonomy to conduct internal organizational changes and define ‘own’ systems of managing conflicts seems particularly challenging for peripheral military organizations. In this way, the general question of this research is: What factors constrain and promote autonomous practices with international military organizations in the Global South? From this issue arise specific questions that, until now, the academic communities have not discussed and considered fully, such as: 16 MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH • Why and how have those force models and concepts been diffused in the regions of the Global South? • How do similar force models and concepts from central countries change as they are emulated, transported, and readjusted to different strategic contexts and organizational cultures? • How does external dependence affect multinational formations in the Global South? • Which are the interorganizational differences and similarities among the Africa Standby Force, the Southern Cross Force, and the Peninsula Shield Force? As the central hypothesis of this research, we argue that, in a global field of military management dominated by standards and resources from central countries, the phenomena of “organizational isomorphism” and “external dependence” tend to interweave in the formations of multinational forces in the Global South. In some situations, the dependence on external resources (finance, equipment), can promote isomorphic pressures. In other cases, cultural identification, normative influences, or attraction to specific force models can generate other kinds of external dependence in peripheral military organizations. Several authors have analyzed patterns in the historical evolution of a “world military culture”; notably, how technocratic capitals, weapons, and the prestige attached to great-power scripts for military action have contributed to shaping in smaller and weaker countries the norms about what constitutes a “modern army”, and eventually a multinational army (BLACK, 2002; FARRELL, TERRIFF, 2002; PRETORIUS, 2008; WENDT, BARNETT, 1993). A “one-way street” trend of military norms’ diffusions would be constraining isomorphing processes. Regarding the specific literature on militarization and external dependence in peripheral states, in the analysis of some authors, the processes related to military isomorphism and emulations of central countries’ models constitute an epiphenomenon conditioned by economic processes. Emulations of modern military models are derivations explained primarily from economic dependence on advanced capitalist societies – “capital-intensive” dependence, as Wendt and Barnett stated (1993, p. 322) – in the technologies and resources necessary for militarization in areas where capital is relatively 17 MATÍAS FERREYRA scarce. These are frequently materialistic perspectives that could include authors such as Kaldor (2010, 1976), Silva (2018), Hartman and Walters (1985), Krause (1992), Ross (1988), among others. On the other hand, we can observe a reverse analogy in the literature considered relevant on military isomorphism and diffusion studies. Among referential authors near a branch called sociological neo-institutionalism, military dependence also constitutes an epiphenomenon. This is a relative consequence of other essential factors linked to the diffusion of cultural norms, the assimilation of ideas and practices, not least through professional networks, that ultimately are consequences from a “world culture”, or a “world politic” (DEMCHAK, 2002; FARRELL; TERRIFF, 2002; FARRELL, 2005; FINNEMORE, 1996, 2003; GOLDMAN, 2006; KATZENSTEIN, 1996). Thus, the two trends mentioned focus on different ontologies, “economy” or “culture”. Moreover, both tend to weigh one of these phenomena – capitals dependence or norms diffusion – as a more relevant explanatory variable. Nevertheless, in the theoretical framework of this research, we will argue that standards diffusion and capitals, isomorphism and external dependence, although analytically different in the specific literature, both tend to be consubstantiated and both condition different organizational dynamics based on the kinds of external resource, isomorphic pressures, and external models internalized in each case. As an analytical instrument, we formulated a concept that we call Isodependence. This concept refers to an attribute in some actors as well as a perspective of analysis that assumes that organizational isomorphism and external dependence can constitute a congenital process, not only epiphenomena one of the other as the literature tends to understand. As an attribute, Isodependence refers to actors in a social system who cannot develop without emulating standards coming from the center. The concept denotes peripheral emulators that mimic, not because they choose to do so, but because they need to incorporate core models to develop themselves within the system. Their agency capacity is limited to deciding “how”, “when”, and “which” standards to emulate. As their organizational autonomy is limited vis-à-vis central actors, the pressures of emulating, translating, or editing core models are unescapable in their formations. Isodependence denotes a condition and function of peripheral emulators in an asymmetrical system rather than a decision or a dogma since there are no alternatives to the internalization of attributes formalized in the core. The more fragile 18 MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH and peripheral an emulator is, the more intense that condition, the more diluted are the conventional ontological differences between norms diffusion, isomorphism, and dependence. In this way, isomorphic pressures and external dependence compose two faces of the same subordination process of actors in an asymmetrical system. As a form of analysis, Isodependence can help to understand the construction and implications of the receiver position of states and organizations in the structures of international security. In the frame of reference of the world-system, this concept can be helpful to provide a deeper understanding on the position and function of actors in the center-periphery dynamics; in particular, in what Wallerstein (2011, p. viii) explain as part of a geoculture “largely fashioned around and dominated by centrist liberalism” since the French Revolution. Taking concepts and ideas from Wallerstein (2011, 1999, 1991), we use a concept calling here liberal geoculture of security, namely a set of values that has shaped a field of axioms, norms, and devices as “security” throughout the system, both explicitly and latently. Although “security studies” have not been the axis in Wallerstein’s extensive work, it does not limit the use of the concept of geoculture as he understands it; on the contrary, it is possible to guide and expand the geoculture analysis to better comprehend the diffusion of norms, knowledge, and dominant devices that constitute a “security area” in the world-system. With this analytical perspective, the first specific objective of the research is to analyze the implications of center-periphery asymmetries in the formation of international military organizations. In this direction, we contemplate the use of relational “contrapuntal methods”. In particular, we will use those found in postcolonial and critical security studies, which examine the multiple inequalities that constitute the mutual relationships between “strong” and “weak”, “dominant” and “dominated”, “centers” and “periphery” in a historical system. These perspectives characterize different regions and societies of the Global South from common structural weaknesses in various epistemic, legal, technological, ethnocultural, socioeconomic restrictions vis-à-vis the central areas. According to authors such as Seth (2011), Wallerstein (2011), and Quijano (2005), the genesis of these asymmetries can be traced in the concatenated form in which the Westphalian system of states, the capitalist economy, and Western colonialism expanded throughout the world. These Longue durée patterns, in a sense given by Braudel (1987, 2006), 19 MATÍAS FERREYRA signal intrinsic processes to a hierarchical structure that tends to distribute different attributions according to the divergent evolution of the center and peripheries. In this historical process, modern security management has evolved and given rise to an increasingly hierarchical division of functions between actors of the security geoculture. We distinguish three kinds of functions: a. broadcasting center; b. inter-carriers; c. recipient emulators. The broadcasting center is defined by the junction of the highest order of abstraction, that is, theory, and the most concentration of capital and prestige that inspires (or leaves no alternative to) others. The broadcasting center is always made up of some actors of the capitalist center, a smaller group of states and organizations within the central production zones. By defining norms (written and unwritten) of what is appropriate and meaningful (for geoculture) and effective (given the laws of science), these actors drive macrosecuritization; that is, it shapes standards and management technologies for dispersed and fragile zones.3 These actors tend to link intermediary carriers to their broadcasts. As we will also calling here, the inter-carriers are state or non-state organizations, interagency entities, policymakers, media personnel, civilian or military “experts”, and other actors and networks located primarily in central and semi-peripheral areas. These are defined not as “norms makers” - although they can often co-participate there - nor as “recipients” - although they are also serial emulators - but essentially as transmitters of norms and devices for weaker recipient emulators. Recipient emulators consist of weaker actors of peripheral zones that tend to internalize the broadcasting center’s standards. Before performing proactive and deliberative roles in global security, these actors normally act 3 This framework reflects a synthesis of our reflections based on authors discussed in this book. For instance, the idea of a division of functions into three groups is influenced by Puig (1986). The “international regime […] like any human group - micro or macro - has a division of functions and supreme distribution criteria governing the conduct of those who make up the group” (PUIG, 1986, p. 54). These divisions led Puig, influenced by Werner Goldschmidt, to characterize actors in three groups: “supreme distributors”, “inferior distributors”, and “recipients” (RUIZ; SIMONOFF, 2017). Yet, in our proposal we created categories to explain the dynamics of the security geo-culture within the Wallerstein’s approach to the world-system. 20 MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH as transmitters and “isodependent” agents of devices, pacification doctrines and standards formalized in core areas. Their possible ‘failure’ and conflict scenarios provide inexhaustible empirical sources for collecting data, indispensable for contrasting and accumulating theories and doctrines in central regions, which can be distributed as standards and securitized “packages” circulating in global networks. These asymmetries reflect the epistemic subordination of the Global South as well as the general situation of the social sciences in terms of the intellectual division of labor that characterizes the construction of knowledge around the world (TICKNER, 2013; MIGNOLO, 1998; LATOUR, 1987, 1999). It also involves global networks that reproduce power differences within specific fields as peace studies, strategic and security studies. In these structures, the more advanced military alliances (such as Nato) constitute outstanding security devices whose command could only be in the hands of central actors. In contrast, regions in the Global South demonstrate limitations in terms of the operationalization of their own instruments of conflict resolution - such as multinational forces. This contributes not only to reproducing their dependence in central countries on military assistance but also to emulating and introducing their conceptions about the nature of peace, conflicts, and ways of managing them. However, emulating is not only about copying models but also about changing them. Diffusion of ideas does not occur in a vacuum (SAHLIN; WEDLIN, 2008, p. 219). Ideas, concepts, or models can be adapted, edited, and reshaped as they travel through different context. Force concepts, standards, and models are permanently transported and translated in the locus of other beliefs, practices, and traditions that provide indications of what needs to be done, of what is appropriate, and what is not in operations, as well as during peacetime (SOETERS, 2021). As cognitive sociologists have taught us, every social experience, whether civil or military, produces and reproduces knowledge and, in doing so, presupposes one or several epistemologies (SANTOS, 2010). It is through valid knowledge that a given social experience becomes intentional and intelligible. According to Bourdieu’s “genetic structuralism” (1987, p. 23), it is essential to understand here how certain and persistent practices validate expertise on the conditions of what counts as peace, conflict, and ways of organizing forces, but also how this expertise structure and guide these practices. 21 MATÍAS FERREYRA In Global South contexts, such possibilities put into perspective the “strategic autonomy”, i.e., the principle of “freedom of strategic action” that would guarantee the space for the autonomy of the decision in contexts of resistance to the hierarchical structures of the world (SAINT-PIERRE, 2015). In organizational studies, the “local ownership” principle is important as the ability of an organization to internally drive changes despite external constraints (PFEFFER; SALANCIK, 2003). The crucial implication is that others appear in the study of military organizations. By “others” we refer to those who are “anchored in the lower echelons” of world politics, that is, those who are not located above the hierarchies or close to them, enjoying an unequal influence in the configuration of different dynamics (BILGIN, 2016). As for studies of inter-organizational cooperation and military organizations, the first element that deserves attention, as Soeters (2019) stated, is that there is “not one way of military organization nor is there one way of conducting military operations” (p. 3). It is essential to realize that everything is in motion, including contemporary military collaboration. Reflexivity is another essential element, which opposes any dogma, and its object is the analysis of what actors are actually “doing” and what they “think” they are doing (BIGO, 2013). An approach to the phenomenon of multinational forces can indicate two broad categories. On the one hand, “coalition forces”, are temporary structures formed to achieve a specific objective at a given time (for example, under the UN flag). On the other hand, “alliance forces” are defined as having a “permanent” multinational structure, both in times of peace and in times of war (PALIN, 1995). This last category has had an important expression in the European context, often under the NATO orbit. Western military organizations have required - and often achieved - greater adaptability and mobility to carry out operations worldwide with a broad spectrum of functions (TRESCH, 2007; SOETERS; MANIGART, 2008). Yet, the Western experience has shown that it is easier to create combined units than make them work (ARTEAGA, 2015). As the degree of multinational integration increases, the challenges tend to multiply. It becomes more complex to comply with any political imperative, and the “effectiveness” of missions (the degree to which goals are achieved) exposes itself to more significant risks (SOETERS; MANIGART, 2008; KING, 2010; REIG, 1998). In the Global South, a relevant contextual category in multinational formations is ‘region’. Unlike Nato, which can operate in distant world areas, 22 MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH multinational military organizations from the Global South tend to postulate in and for their regions. Following Buzan and Wæver (2003), this trend can be explained, in part, by the effects of adjacency and territoriality in minor powers, which encourages interdependencies, and where the meaning of threats, conflicts, identities, and practices take distinct dynamics from other regions (FERREYRA, SOARES, 2018). How do these regional dynamics affect profiles and organizational forms in multinational forces? Furthermore, how do similar force models and concepts from central countries change as they are emulated, transported, and readjusted to different strategic contexts and organizational cultures? In this book, we shed some light on these questions. We examine organizational differences and similarities in the three mentioned cases in the Global South, aiming to provide a deeper understanding of their organizational forms within the global diffusion phenomenon of multinational military cooperation. Methodology Combining theoretical and case study methods, this book provides a systematic comparison. Although the cases studies could have civilian components and naval and air bodies, our focus and the data collection are on land forces units. Given that the Africa Standby Force consists of five sub-regional forces, we chose only one of them, namely the Eastern Africa Standby Force (EASF). Other experiences such as the Ecowas Standby Force have stood out in the last decades. However, EASF is currently one of the most developed forces and the one with the most available data in recent years. The research consists of a qualitative and comparative methodology based on primary and secondary data material. To collect primary data, we have developed ten contact points with officers who have worked with the selected case studies and provided us with different types of data exchange. We developed semi-structured interviews based on freely organized, predetermined, open-ended questions. We have conducted four remoted interviews (video calls) between June and July 2020 with military advisors and attachés working with the African Union; else, we had conversations in social networks with an EASF headquarter officer from Kenya. For the Southern Cross Force, we conducted remoted interviews with the current Chief of Staff of the Force, a former Chief of Staff, and a civilian officer between November 2020 and July 2021. In addition, we developed telephone conversations with two officers 23 MATÍAS FERREYRA from a training center in Chile (Cecopac) where members from the Binational Force usually carry out training courses. As to the Peninsula Shield, we used interviews with officers available on the media, reports, and official declarations from the GCC. In this case, we have not developed official contacts. After numerous attempts to contact the PSF through foreign embassies and official requests from the university, we concluded that one of the reasons for this limitation is precisely due to complex security issues in the Gulf region. The interviews were conducted online since the Covid-19 pandemic prevented traveling to do fieldwork. We obtained the official invitation to conduct fieldwork at the EASF headquarters in Addis Ababa. It was scheduled for March 2020, considering that EASF would carry out its annual combined field exercises on that date. We also received an invitation to do fieldwork at the Southern Cross Force headquarters in Buenos Aires, scheduled for October 2020 (the date of the annual field exercises). However, we had to cancel our travel plans after the irruption of the pandemic in March 2020. Even the multinational forces restricted their activities because of the pandemic EASF canceled its annual combined field exercises. Similarly, Southern Cross Force also postponed meetings and pieces of training in 2020. Hence, the research was based on literature review, remoted interviews, and desk research.4 We have also had access to official documents, notices, and communications from the study cases. As secondary data, we selected articles, books, theses, and data on the internet. For understanding the data collection in the context of a systematic comparison, we built an analytical framework on organizational variables considered relevant in the literature on organizational sociology, in particular, isomorphism, resource dependence, and interorganizational relations, as well as in writings on military social and organization studies (CROPPER et al., 2010; DIMAGGIO; POWELL, 1983; FARRELL, 2005; FARRELL; TERRIFF, 2002; PFEFFER; SALANCIK, 2003; SHALIN; WEDLIN, 2008; SOETERS, 2018, 2022; SOETERS; TRESCH, 2010). Since these can present variations between the three cases, we created a scheme with their respective ideal-typical, theoretically derived modes. As a result, a typological-comparative framework was developed (see Table 1). 4 Some officers only agreed to have informal or circumstantial conversations by telephone or on social media. Hence, we have not named these “interviews” in a strict sense but as “contacts”. In total, we spoke with 10 officers, military and civilian, and generated 460 min of audio. Information can be requested on the Group of Studies of Defense and International Security website linked to the Sao Paulo State University. Protocols of this university and ethical norms have guided this process. 24 MULTINATIONAL MILITARY FORCES IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH Table 1 – Typological-comparative framework on international military organizations Variables Modes Normative Mimetic Coercive Competitive Isomorphism Broadcasting Dependence Operational Profile Intercultural Strategy Financial Chain-imitation Mediation Technological Operational Pragmatic Assimilation Doctrinal Absolutist Separation Integration Multinationalism Vertical Horizontal Specialization Simple Advanced Operational Partnership Attached Embedded Co-deployed Composite Source: author’s elaboration The analysis method consists of a synchronous comparison on inter-organizational differences (the “most different systems”) (HOPKIN, 2010), according to the analytical framework. We have worked with “process tracing” technics to produce causal inferences from the study of empirical indicators considered relevant for the chosen variables. In the last section of the chapter “Center-periphery, international security, and armed forces” (2), we explain the theoretical foundations and the method of operationalization of the seven organizational variables. An essential part of the research was developed in the Graduate Program in International Relations “San Tiago Dantas”, in São Paulo, Brazil, under the orientation of Professor Dr. Samuel Alves Soares. The academic internationalization program within the Unesp-Capes-Print agreement in 2019 financially supported a second part of the research. The host and co-advisor, abroad, was Professor Dr. Joseph Soeters, Department of Organization Studies, Tilburg University, the Netherlands. The election of Professor Soeters was justified, in part, by the fact that he is considered an international reference in the study and research methods on international military cooperation, with an extensive production mainly in the European context. In this way, a significant part of the research was carried out in the Department of Organization Studies at Tilburg University between 2019 and 2020. 25 MATÍAS FERREYRA The book setup The book presents a structure organized in chapters and their sections. The chapter “Center-periphery, international security, and armed forces” (2) provides a theoretical and historical discussion on the interconnections between the center-periphery relations, the security geoculture, and the diffusion of forces models that constraint contemporary military collaborations. The last sections of this chapter explore the literature on military isomorphism, external dependence, and inter-organizational cooperation and provide the analytical framework for the analysis of international military organizations. It also describes the method of operationalization of the analytical variables in the study cases. The study of the three cases is developed in chapters 3, 4, and 5: the African Standby Force, Southern Cross Force, and Peninsula Shield force, respectively. These chapters are organized in a similar scheme, according to the requirements for operationalizing the relational analytical framework. In this way, the main purpose of the chapter “Comparing international military organizations” (6) is to apply the typological-comparative framework in the case studies. It synthesizes and compares the main research findings of the three cases, applying all the theoretical concepts and tools of the analytical framework. Finally, the book presents a series of final considerations, conclusions, and reflections about the research results. 26