States Without Armies

When The Storm Looms Over The Canal

On January 20, 2025, During His Inauguration Ceremony For A Second Presidential Term, U.S. President Donald Trump Made A Statement That Sent Shockwaves Through International Diplomatic Circles; He Explicitly Announced That The United States Was In The Process Of “Retaking” The Panama Canal, Warning That The Panamanian Government’s Management Of This Vital Waterway Was Plagued By Mismanagement And Dependency On Growing Chinese Influence, And He Did Not Rule Out The Use Of Military Force To Achieve This Goal. To The Casual Observer, The Statement Might Seem Like Just Another Outburst Of Domestic American Politics, But For Political Scientists And International Relations Scholars, This Moment Was A Dramatic Condensation Of A Deep Crisis Touching The Very Essence Of The Concept Of Sovereignty In The Contemporary World.

Panama, A Country Situated On A Strategic Isthmus Connecting Two Continents And Linking Two Oceans, Does Not Possess A Standing Army To Defend Itself. It Officially Abolished Its Armed Forces Decades Earlier, Relying On A Local Police Force To Maintain Internal Security. Facing A Superpower Brandishing The Military Option, Panama Finds Itself Completely Stripped Of Traditional Defensive Means. This Incident Not Only Highlights The Vulnerability Of A Demilitarized State, But Also Draws Red Lines Under The Post–World War II International Order, Which Originally Allowed The Emergence And Flourishing Of States Without Armies. These Nations Have Relied On A Network Of Treaties, International Institutions, Peremptory Norms Of International Law, And Guarantees From Regional Powers To Ensure Their Survival. But When Major Powers Themselves Begin Dismantling These Rules Of The Survival Game, A Stern Question Asserts Itself: How Can States Exist, Endure, And Prosper Without Armies In A World Characterized By Polarization And Escalating Armament?

This Fundamental Question Forms The Hard Core Around Which Rotates The Latest Book By Historian And Political Scientist Zoltan Barany, Published By Oxford University Press Under The Title: “States Without Armies: Why They Exist And How They Survive.” This Encyclopedic Academic Work Arrives To Fill An Immense Library Void; While The Literature Of Peace And Strategic Studies Abounds With Hundreds Of Volumes On Arms Races, Wars, Military Alliances, And Security Sector Reform, It Is Rare To Find A Single Book Studying The Opposite Phenomenon With Sufficient Depth And Detail: The Phenomenon Of A State That Decided, By Choice Or Necessity, To Embark On The Journey Of Political Modernity Without Paying The Toll Of Maintaining A Massive Military Establishment.

The Weberian Concept Of The State

The Theoretical Importance Of Barany’s Book Begins With Its Bold Confrontation Of The Settled Axiom In Modern Political Thought Since Max Weber. The Classic Weberian Definition Of The State Summarizes It As “The Social Organization That Holds The Monopoly On The Legitimate Use Of Physical Force Within Its Territory.” In The Practical Application Of Political Modernity, This Monopolist Transformed Into The Military Establishment: The Regular Army. Prevailing Wisdom Assumes That For A State To Protect Its Sovereignty, Safeguard Its Borders, Enforce Its Will Domestically, and Deter External Aggressors, It Must Possess A Permanent Armed Force.

However, Barany Takes Us On An Exploratory Journey Across The Geography Of The Political World To Reveal That This Axiom Is Neither Fated Nor Universally Applicable. There Are Currently 21 UN Member States (Out Of 193 Countries) That Lack Regular Armed Forces; This Equals Roughly One-Ninth Of The United Nations General Assembly. These States Are Distributed Across Various Continents, Though There Is A Notable Geographic Concentration In The Caribbean And Pacific (Oceania) Regions, Alongside Four Microstates In Europe, One African Nation—Mauritius—and Two Central American Countries, Costa Rica And Panama.

The Author Sorts These Countries With Methodological Precision, Moving Away From Definitions Found In the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “World Factbook,” Which Includes Non-Self-Governing Entities Such As Svalbard Or The Falkland Islands. Barany Focuses Exclusively On Fully Sovereign, Internationally Recognized States. He Categorizes Their Historical Relationship With Armed Forces Into Four Main Groups:

• States That Have Never Established An Army Since Independence: Such As Iceland, Mauritius, And The Solomon Islands.

• States That Possessed Regular Armies And Then Made A Historic Decision To Abolish Them: Such As Costa Rica And Panama.

• States That Did Not Have Armies But Decided At Some Point To Establish Them: Such As Botswana, The Gambia, And Seychelles.

• States That Abolished Their Armies And Later Reestablished Them: Represented By The Unique And Tragic Case Of The Republic Of Haiti.

The Main Focus Of The Book Rests On The First And Second Categories, Questioning The Historical, Geographic, And Economic Conditions That Rendered The Choice Of “Demilitarization” A Possible, Sustainable, And Profitable Option On Both Political And Social Levels.

Geography As Destiny: The Myth Of Islands And Small Scale

Upon Examining Barany’s List Of Unarmed Nations, An Observer Is Struck By Two Prominent Geographic Factors: “Islandness” And “Small Size.” Of The Twenty-One Nations, 15 Are Archipelagic Island States In The Oceans. The Author Argues That Geography Plays A Crucial Protective Role; The Sea Presents A Massive Natural Obstacle To Military Landings And Direct Invasions Compared To Open Land Borders. Furthermore, Most Of These States Possess Limited Natural Resources And Populations Not Exceeding A Few Thousand Or Hundreds Of Thousands (With The Exception Of Costa Rica And Panama, Whose Populations Exceed Four And Eight Million Respectively), Reducing Their Strategic Attraction To Resource-Hungry Invaders.

Yet, Contrary To Their Tiny Landmass, Geography Grants These Nations Another Tremendous Asset: Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). Under International Law Of The Sea, Each Coastal State’s Exclusive Economic Zone Extends Up To 200 Nautical Miles Into The Ocean. Combined, The Unarmed States Control Exclusive Economic Zones Exceeding 6 Million Square Miles—Surpassing The Maritime Areas Of Mexico, Brazil, And Canada Combined! For Example, Palau’s Land Area Measures Just 177 Square Miles, Yet Its Extended Maritime Zone Spans Over 230,000 Square Miles.

Here Emerges The Paradox Of Being Unarmed: How Can A Country With Only A Single Patrol Vessel And A Maritime Crew Of No More Than 18 People Protect 230,000 Square Miles Of Ocean From Control By Drug Traffickers, Illegal Fishing, And Piracy? This Question Leads Us Directly To The Book’s Second Core Hypothesis: The “Shelter Theory” Thesis.

Institutional Theory And Critical Junctures

How Does A State Make The High-Stakes Decision To Sever The Lifeline Of Its Military Establishment Or Refrain From Building One From The Very Outset? To Answer This Question, Zoltan Barany Draws Upon Historical Institutionalism, Specifically The Concepts Of “Path Dependence” And “Critical Junctures.”

Historical Institutionalism Posits That Political And Military Institutions, Once Established And Entrenched, Acquire Self-Sustaining Momentum That Makes Them Extremely Difficult To Dismantle Under Normal Conditions. Armies Create Complex Networks Of Interest, Forge National Identity, Consume Massive Shares Of Public Budgets, And Possess The Arms Necessary To Defend Their Existence Against Any Political Decision Aimed At Dissolving Them. Therefore, Abolishing An Army Cannot Occur Through A Routine Administrative Process; Rather, It Requires An Exceptional Historical Turning Point—“A Critical Juncture”—Interspersed With A Deep Political Crisis Such As Newly Gained Independence, Foreign Invasion, Resounding Military Defeat, Or Overcoming A Bloody Military Coup.

At These Critical Junctures, Political Actors Possess A Rare Opportunity To Reshape The Institutional Trajectory Of The State. If Civilian Forces Succeed In Exploiting This Short Window Of Opportunity, They Can Abolish The Army And Enforce A New Historical Trajectory That Is Difficult To Reverse, Because The Cost Of Rebuilding An Army Later Is Far Higher Than The Benefits Of Remaining Unarmed.

The Book Provides Two Detailed Case Studies Of These Critical Junctures In Latin America: The Case Of Costa Rica And The Case Of Panama.

Costa Rica: The Innovative Model For Abolishing Armed Forces

Costa Rica Stands As The Historical Stronghold And Most Famous Icon Of Armyless Nations. The History Of This Critical Juncture Dates Back To 1948. Following A Contested Presidential Election That Triggered A Short But Bloody Civil War Resulting In The Deaths Of Roughly Two Thousand People, José Figueres Ferrer—Known As “Don Pepe”—Led A Revolutionary Cell That Overthrew The Corrupt Government.

At That Time, Costa Rica Suffered From A Weak, Politicized Military Known For Disruptive Interventions In The Electoral Process On Behalf Of Powerful Elites. Instead Of Taking Power And Strengthening The Military To Consolidate His Rule—As Most Military Leaders In Latin America Did—Figueres Took A Courageous And Brilliant Decision: He Announced The Permanent Dissolution Of The Costa Rican Army.

On December 1, 1948, In An Enduring Symbolic Scene, Figueres Took A Sledgehammer And Struck One Of The Walls Of The “Cuartel Bellavista” Military Barracks In San José, Announcing The Conversion Of Those Barracks Into The National Museum And Arts Institute. In 1949, The Decision To Abolish The Army Was Embedded In Article 12 Of The New Constitution, Which Banned Armed Forces As A Permanent Institution And Replaced Them With Civilian Police Forces To Maintain Internal Order, While Retaining The Possibility Of Creating A Temporary Army Only In The Event Of External Aggression Through A Parliamentary Decision.

Figueres’s Decision Was Not Merely Moral Nobility Or Pure Pacifism; It Was A Brilliant Political And Strategic Calculation. Figueres Knew That The Greatest Threat To His Nascent Civilian Government’s Stability Did Not Come From Neighbors, But From Domestic Officers And The Army That Could Overthrow Him At Any Moment. By Dissolving The Army, Figueres Removed Weapons From The Hands Of Potential Political Rivals And Redirected Massive Financial Resources Consumed By The Military Budget Toward Education And Health. The Result? Costa Rica Transformed From An Unstable Banana Republic Into Latin America’s Most Democratic, Prosperous, And Stable Nation, Where Education And Health Rates Rose To Rival European Standards.

Panama: Emerging From Noriega’s Shadow

On The Other Side Of The Isthmus, Panama Offers A Different Model For Reaching The Same Result Through A Far More Terrifying Critical Juncture. Throughout The Middle Decades Of The Twentieth Century, Panama Was Controlled By The “National Guard” (Guardia Nacional), Which Later Evolved Into The “Panamanian Defense Forces” (PDF) Under The Rule Of Military Dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega Turned The State Into A Breeding Ground For Corruption, Drug Trafficking, And Military Dictatorship, Leading To The Major Crisis Of 1989 When The United States Militarily Invaded Panama To Overthrow Noriega And Restore Legitimacy.

Following The Military Destruction Of Panama In The Wake Of The Invasion, The New Civilian Government Headed By Guillermo Endara Found Itself Facing A Critical Juncture. Popular And Political Base Sentiment Was Disgusted And Exhausted By A Military Institution That Had Brought Dictatorship, Tyranny, And Foreign Intervention To The Country. In 1990, The Panamanian Defense Forces Were Dissolved, And In 1994, Parliament Approved A Constitutional Amendment Prohibiting The Creation Of Permanent Armed Forces.

Panama Replaced The Army With A Civilian Policing Apparatus Consisting Of The National Police, The National Border Service (Senafront), And The National Air and Naval Service (Senan). Although These Panamanian Security Services Receive Military-Style Training To Confront Drug Cartels On The Border With Colombia—Prompting Some Observers To Warn Of “Creeping Militarization”—They Remain Constitutionally And Legally Fully Subject To Civilian Leadership And The Ministry Of Public Security.

Cases Of Refraining From Establishment: Iceland, Mauritius, And The Solomon Islands

While Costa Rica And Panama Traversed The Hardships Of Dismantling The Military, Iceland, Mauritius, And The Solomon Islands Represent The Other Pattern: Nations That Never Established An Army Upon Gaining Independence.

Iceland: Gained Full Independence From Denmark In 1944. Given Its Small Population And Far-Flung Location In The North Atlantic, Icelandic Leaders Never Considered Building A Regular Army. Instead, They Relied On Their Strategic Location During The Cold War, Becoming A Founding Member Of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) In 1949 Despite Having No Army! Iceland Signed A Bilateral Defense Treaty With The United States In 1951 Under Which Washington Managed The “Keflavik” Military Base Until Its Closure In 2006.

Mauritius: Upon Gaining Independence From Britain In 1968, Founding Prime Minister Seewoosagur Ramgoolam Decided Against Creating An Army. Mauritian Society Was Ethnically And Religiously Diverse (Hindus, Muslims, Creoles, Franco-Mauritians), And Ramgoolam Recognized That Creating An Army In A Divided Society Could Turn It Into A Tool For Coups Or Ethnic Oppression. Instead, Mauritius Formed A Civilian Police Force Featuring A Highly Trained Special Mobile Force (SMF).

Solomon Islands: Achieved Independence From Britain In 1978 Without An Army, Relying On The Royal Solomon Islands Police Force To Maintain Order. Despite Violence And Ethnic Crises Experienced By The Islands Between 1998 And 2003, The Response Was Not To Form An Army, But To Invite An Australian-Led Regional Assistance Mission (RAMSI) To Restore Peace.

How Does A Demilitarized State Survive?

In The Third Chapter Of His Book, Zoltan Barany Raises The Most Urgent And Fateful Question: How Can An Armyless State Preserve Its Sovereignty And Independence In A World Unforgiving To The Weak? If Military Might Is The Primary Currency In International Relations As Structural Realists Assert, Shouldn’t These Nations Be Easy Prey For Bullying Neighbors Or Superpowers?

To Address This Problem, Barany Expands On “Shelter Theory,” A Theoretical Framework Originally Formulated By Icelandic Scholar Baldur Thorhallsson, Applying It Broadly To All Armyless States. Shelter Theory posits That Small, Demilitarized States Overcome Their Structural Military Weakness By Seeking External “Shelters” That Offer Protection Across Three Main Domains:

• Political And Military Shelter: Seeking Cover Under Bilateral Defense Treaties With A Major Regional Patron, Or Joining International Alliances.

• Economic Shelter: Securing Preferential Access To Major Power Markets, Financial Support, Loans, And Crisis Assistance.

• Societal And Knowledge Shelter: Technical Assistance, Personnel Training, And Importing Advanced Institutional Models To Compensate For Domestic Capacity Deficits.

Protection Umbrellas: Regional Patrons And Treaties

Barany’s Detailed Analysis Reveals That Every Single One Of The Twenty-Five Unarmed States Is Bound By Formal Or Informal Protection Conditions With A Superpower Or Regional Organization.

The Americas And The United States: Costa Rica And Panama Enjoy Protection Under The 1947 Inter-American Treaty Of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty/TIAR). Additionally, Panama Forms A Special Case; Given The Strategic Importance Of The Panama Canal, The United States Is Committed Under The Torrijos-Carter Treaties To Ensure The Neutrality And Continuous Security Of The Canal, Impliedly Warranting U.S. Military Intervention To Protect Panama From Foreign Aggression. As For Micro-States In Micronesia (Palau, Marshall Islands, Federated States Of Micronesia), They Are Bound To The United States Via “Compacts Of Free Association.” Under These Treaties, Washington Assumes Full Responsibility For Their Defense In Exchange For Military Use Of Land And Waters.

Europe And France/Spain/Italy/Switzerland: European Microstates Possess Solid Historical Arrangements. The Principality Of Monaco Maintains An Explicit Protection Treaty With France, Where Paris Guarantees Monégasque Sovereignty. The Principality Of Andorra Is Protected Under A 1994 Tripartite Treaty Signed With France And Spain. The Principality Of Liechtenstein Relies On Implicit Economic And Security Ties With Switzerland And Austria. As For San Marino, Italy Serves As The De Facto Guarantor Of Its Territorial Security.

The Indian Ocean And Oceania: Mauritius Relies On India As Its Primary Security Patron. India Provides Mauritius With Maritime Equipment And Senior Officers To Command Its Maritime Air Wing And Coast Guard. Meanwhile, The Solomon Islands And Other Pacific Nations Depended For Decades On The Australian And New Zealand Umbrellas.

The Chinese Challenge And The Shaking Of Traditional Umbrellas

However, This Stability Founded On Shelter Theory Has Experienced Severe Geopolitical Earthquakes In Recent Years, Which Barany Analyzes Thoroughly. The Entry Of The People’s Republic Of China As A Global Strategic Player Has Disrupting Traditional Balances Relied Upon By Armyless States.

China Attempts To Use “Checkbook Diplomacy” Strategies And Economic Pressures To Draw These Small States Into Its Strategic Orbit, Taking Advantage Of Their Lack Of Need For Traditional Military Aid To Offer Massive Infrastructure Projects Under The Belt And Road Initiative.

This Dynamic Manifested Most Clearly In The Solomon Islands. In 2019, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare Took A Dramatic Decision To Sever Diplomatic Ties With Taipei (Taiwan) And Recognize The People’s Republic Of China. Matters Did Not Stop There; In 2022, The Solomon Islands Signed A Secret Security Pact With Beijing, Allowing Chinese Warships To Dock In Its Territory And Permitting Chinese Police Deployment For Internal Order Maintenance. This Agreement Sent Shockwaves Through Canberra And Washington, As They Viewed It As A Direct Threat To The Strategic Balance In The Pacific And A Breach Of The Automatic Security Umbrella Australia Maintained For Decades.

Relatedly, Threats Emerging From Domestic Political Shifts Within Patron Nations Themselves Highlight Grave Vulnerabilities. U.S. President Trump’s Declarations Regarding The Panama Canal And His Disregard For NATO Allies Confront Demilitarized Nations With A New Nightmare: What Does A Nation Do When It Abolished Its Army And Relied On A Treaty With A Superpower, Only For That Superpower To Suddenly Abandon Its Commitments Or Threaten To Invade The Protected State Itself?

Barany Navigates From This Geopolitical Question To Emphasize That Demilitarization Grants Nations Substantial Economic And Political Prosperity, Yet Simultaneously Strips Away Their “Final Shield Of Sovereignty,” Leaving Their National Security Hostage To Electoral Shifts And Mood Swings In Major Power Capitals.

Managing Security Without Soldiers: Police As An Alternative

Zoltan Barany Insists On An Important Clarification To Prevent Misinterpretation: An “Armyless State” By No Means Implies A “Policeless State” Or A “Pacifist Utopia.” With The Exception Of Vatican City Or Microscopic Entities, All 21 Nations Maintain Civilian Security Agencies, Police Forces, Border Guards, Customs, And Coast Guards.

The Challenges Faced By A Demilitarized State Rarely Stem From Foreign Armies, But Rather From Organized Crime, Drug Trafficking, Maritime Piracy, And Internal Ethnic Unrest. In Nations Equipped With Militaries, Armed Forces Are Deployed Or States Of Emergency Declared When Police Fail To Control Events. In Unarmed States, Civilian Police Represent The First And Final Line Of Defense.

This Reality Subjects Police Agencies In Unarmed States To Extraordinary Pressure, Requiring Specialized Structure And Training. The Book Compares Security Apparatuses Across Five Pivotal States:

Iceland: Maintains A Highly Professional Small Civilian Police Force Whose Officers Do Not Carry Firearms On Routine Patrols, Keeping Them In Locked Compartments Inside Patrol Cars Instead. Iceland Features A Special Police Unit Called The “Viking Squad” To Handle Terrorist Or Armed Threats, Along With A Demilitarized Icelandic Coast Guard Operating Modern Patrol Vessels And Rescue Aircraft.

Mauritius: Lacks An Army But Operates A Police Force Exceeding 12,000 Personnel. The Force Features A Specialized Unit Named The Special Mobile Force (SMF), A Highly Trained Infantry-Style Unit Prepared To Intervene During Major Social Unrest Or Natural Disasters.

Costa Rica: Its Security Framework Is Divided Into The “Fuerza Pública” (Public Force), Comprising National Police, Coast Guard, And Border Police. Its Personnel Receive Solid Training Supported By The United States And Colombia To Confront Drug Trafficking Cartels Emanating From South America.

The Phenomenon Of “Creeping Militarization”: Has The Army Sneaked In Through The Back Door?

Barany Delivers A Critical Analysis Of A Phenomenon Worrying Experts In Civil-Military Relations: “Creeping Militarization.” This Phenomenon Occurs When Civilian Police Agencies Begin Emulating Military Establishments By:

• Arming With Heavy And Tactical Weapons (Automatic Rifles, Armored Vehicles, Drones).

• Adopting Military Rank Structures And Combat Training Methods.

• Wearing Combat Camouflage Uniforms Instead Of Traditional Civilian Police Attire.

Panama Represents The Premier Example Of This Threat. To Manage Direct Threats Posed By Colombian Drug Cartels And Rogue Armed Groups Crossing The Border “Darién Gap” Jungles, Panama Formed The “National Border Service” (Senafront). This Force Is Characterized By Intense Combat Training, Camouflage Uniforms, And Heavy Combat Weaponry.

Political Observers And Experts In Panama Raise Troubling Questions: Is Senafront Merely A Border Police Unit, Or Is It Practically A “Regular Army Masked As Police” Designed To Bypassing The Constitutional Article Prohibiting Armed Forces?

Zoltan Barany Responds To These Concerns By Establishing A Crucial Theoretical And Operational Distinction Between Mechanized Police Units And Regular Armies. The Author Argues That The Essence Lies Not In Uniforms Or Weapons, But In “Institutional Culture,” “Operational Doctrine,” And “Legal Accountability.”

A Regular Military Is Prepared And Trained To “Destroy The External Enemy” Using Overwhelming Force. Police Forces—Even The Most Heavily Armed And Trained—Have Doctrines Founded On “Law Enforcement,” “Respect For Citizens’ Constitutional Rights,” “Using Minimal Necessary Force,” And Maintaining Total Subordination To Civilian Judicial And Ministerial Oversight. As Long As These Principles Guide The Operations Of Senafront Or The SMF, They Remain Civilian Police Agencies, Not Armies.

Combating Corruption And Internal Challenges

The Absence Of An Army Does Not Mean These States Exist In A Paradise Free Of Security Problems. On The Contrary, Barany’s Field Studies Demonstrate That Unarmed Nations Suffer Severe Internal Security Challenges:

Organized Crime And Drug Trafficking: Panama And Costa Rica Serve As Major Transit Points For Cocaine Smuggled From South America Northward. The Financial And Military Capabilities Of International Drug Cartels Frequently Exceed The Budgets And Capacities Of Local Police Forces.

Political And Police Corruption: The Absence Of Military Oversight Does Not Prevent Rampant Corruption Within Civilian Police Agencies. In The Solomon Islands, Mauritius, And Panama, Bribes From Politicians And Drug Traffickers Severely Impair Security Force Efficiency.

Inability To Handle Natural Disasters: In States With Militaries, Armed Forces Act As The Primary And Most Capable Responders To Hurricanes, Earthquakes, And Floods Due To Transport Aircraft, Engineering Corps, And Field Hospitals. Unarmed Nations Lack This Inherent Capacity, Finding Themselves Forced To Rely Entirely On International And Regional Assistance During Disasters Impacting Their Territories.

Dividends Of Demilitarization: Health, Education, And Prosperity

The Final Chapter Of Zoltan Barany’s Book Presents The Most Compelling Argument Supporting Demilitarization By Conducting Comprehensive Statistical And Developmental Comparisons Between The 21 Armyless Nations And Their Regional Neighbors That Insist On Allocating Massive Portions Of Their Budgets To Military Establishments.

Data Collected By The Author Demonstrates A Direct And Strong Correlation Between Abolishing An Army And Improved Human Development And Democratic Indicators. The Military Budget In Any Nation Represents An “Opportunity Cost.” Every Dollar Spent Purchasing Tanks, Maintaining Fighter Jets, Or Paying Officer Salaries Is A Dollar Directly Cut From Budgets For Building Hospitals, Developing Schools, Improving Infrastructure, And Providing Social Safety Nets.

This Comparison Appears Most Striking In Central America When Juxtaposing Costa Rica Against Nations Like Guatemala, Honduras, And El Salvador:

Education And Health: Costa Rica Boasts The Highest Literacy Rate In Latin America (Over 98%) And A Pioneering Health System Providing Universal Coverage For All Citizens, Whereas Its Three Neighbors Suffer High Illiteracy Rates And Deteriorating Healthcare Sectors.

Political Stability And Coups: Guatemala, Honduras, And El Salvador Experienced Decades Of Bloody Civil Wars, Repeated Military Coups, And Rule By Military Juntas That Devastated Populations And Resources. In Contrast, Costa Rica Enjoyed Seven Consecutive Decades Of Complete Democratic Stability And Peaceful, Transparent Elections.

The Same Holds True For Mauritius In Sub-Saharan Africa. Today, Mauritius Is Considered One Of The Most Democratic And Prosperous Nations On The African Continent, Leading The Continent In The “Ibrahim Index Of African Governance,” With A Per Capita Income Significantly Surpassing Its Heavily Armed Neighbors. Allocating Resources Toward Economic Building, Education, And Human Development Instead Of Weapons Was The Secret Ingredient Behind The Mauritian Development Leap.

Discarded Lessons: Experiences Of Exception And Reversal

Barany Devotes A Critical Analytical Portion Of His Book To Cases That Attempted Demilitarization But Failed Or Reversed Course (Categories Three And Four In His Typology):

Botswana, The Gambia, And Seychelles: These Nations Gained Independence From Britain Without Establishing Armies. However, At Later Stages, Emerging Regional Threats Or Fear Of Coups Altered Their Trajectory. Botswana Formed An Army In 1977 (Botswana Defence Force) To Counter Threats From Apartheid Regimes In Rhodesia And South Africa. Seychelles Established An Army Following A 1977 Coup. The Gambia Built An Army In 1985 Following A Failed Coup Attempt. The Result? In All Three Cases, Creating An Army Led To Declining Democratic Standards, Increased Officer Influence In Domestic Politics, And Consumption Of Growing Shares Of The Public Budget At The Expense Of Economic Development.

The Tragic Haitian Experience: Haiti Represents The Sole Case Of A Country That Abolished Its Army And Later Reestablished It. In 1995, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide Dissolved The Corrupt Haitian Military That Had Led Dozens Of Bloody Coups. Yet In 2017, Under President Jovenel Moïse, The Armed Forces Were Reestablished. Rebuilding The Military Did Not Save Haiti From Chaos; Instead, It Heightened State Fragmentation, Culminating In The Assassination Of President Moïse Himself In 2021 And The Fall Of Capital Port-au-Prince To Armed Gangs.

Future And Prospects

Zoltan Barany’s Book “States Without Armies” Delivers A Highly Significant Philosophical And Intellectual Contribution Toward Understanding Political Modernity And Options Available To Nations In The Twenty-First Century. It Conclusively Proves Through Historical And Statistical Evidence That An Army Is Not An Essential Constitutive Element For A State’s Existence And Survival; Nations With The Courage To Forego Military Establishments Can Reap Developmental, Democratic, and Societal Security Dividends Outperforming Traditional Military Power By Far.

Nevertheless, Barany Avoids Overly Romantic Pacifism; He Clarifies That The Success Of An Armyless State Relies On A Complex Web Of Conditions: Advantageous Geographic Location, Favorable Regional Environment, An International System Committed To Sovereignty And International Law, And A Security Protection Umbrella Provided By A Superpower Or Regional Organization.

In Light Of The Reshaping Global Landscape—A World Marked By Weakening International Organizations, The Return Of Imperial Wars, Rising Threats From Washington, And Expansionist Tendencies In Beijing And Moscow—Demilitarized Nations Seem To Stand On Trembling Ground. Preserving The Experiment Of These Nations Represents Not Just An Interest For Their Small Populations, But Serves As A Crucial Moral And Political Test Of The International Community’s Capacity To Safeguard A Human Civilizational Model Proving That Prosperity, Education, And Freedom Can Serve As Real, Viable Alternatives To Weapons, Tanks, And Gunpowder.