Introduction to Countries Without Standing Armies

Despite the commonly held belief that national security requires a standing army, a handful of countries worldwide choose not to maintain one. This decision is not taken lightly and is based on various strategic, economic, and political factors. This article delves into why certain countries justify the absence of a standing army, analyzing the underlying costs, benefits, and security models that make these choices feasible.

Global Perspective on Countries Without an Army

According to recent data, only 15 countries can be classified as having no military force. These nations can be broadly categorized into four main types, with each having unique justifications for their decisions:

The Majority: Protection Through Collective Defense

Most of these 15 countries fall into the category of being protected by someone else's military. This can be through direct protection, indirect protection due to geographic proximity, or adopting a neutral stance. Let's explore the specifics of each category.

Very Small Countries with Police Force

Many small nations rely on a robust police force to maintain internal security. For example, Costa Rica abolished its military after a civil war but still maintains a substantial police force. Internationally, the IACHR and the UN University for Peace are headquartered there, providing a form of collective military support.

Countries Prohibited by Law or Invasion

Several countries are legally mandated to forego military forces. However, these are often regions or territories under the protection of a larger, more powerful nation. This form of protection can come in the form of international alliances or treaties that ensure regional security.

Indirect Protection through Proximity

Two notable exceptions are Liechtenstein and Tuvalu. Liechtenstein, a nation of just 61 square miles with a population of around 40,000, has abolished its military. Instead, it relies on Switzerland and Austria for security. Tuvalu, a collection of nine tiny islands, is indirectly protected by the United States, despite its membership in the Hawaiian island chain.

Regional Security Systems

Some countries participate in regional security systems, such as the RAMSI Solomon Islands Protecting Force. Vanuatu, although not completely devoid of military intervention, benefits from France, New Zealand, and Australia, making it another example of indirect protection.

Special Cases: Haiti, Iceland, Mauritius, Monaco, Panama, and Vanuatu

There is a perception that a few more countries could be included. However, these nations fall into the same categories as aforementioned countries, albeit with slightly different justifications. Haiti, for example, can be considered as part of a larger regional protection system, while Iceland and Monaco are small and united in their neutral stance.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Not Having a Standing Army

The decision to forgo a standing military comes with its share of benefits and drawbacks. Economically, maintaining a military can be costly, both in terms of direct expenses and opportunity costs. Politically, it can lead to tensions and alliances that may not be in a nation's best interest.

Benefits

Economic Efficiency: Reducing military spending can redirect funds to other sectors of the economy, such as education and healthcare. Political Neutrality: By not having a standing army, small countries can maintain a more neutral stance, reducing the risk of getting involved in larger conflicts. Security through Neutrality: Small, neutral countries often benefit from greater international support and assistance in regional security matters. Collective Defense: Countries can achieve security by relying on regional or international security arrangements, often at a lower cost than maintaining their own military.

Drawbacks

Vulnerability: The absence of a standing army can leave small or isolated nations vulnerable to external threats. Limited Sovereignty: Dependency on external protection can limit a country's ability to act independently in international affairs. Reduced Influence: Smaller nations might find it harder to negotiate on the global stage without a powerful military.

Conclusion

In summary, while countries without a standing army may seem at a disadvantage, the strategic and economic benefits often outweigh the drawbacks. By relying on collective military protection, these nations can ensure their security without incurring the high costs of maintaining their own armed forces.

The examples of Liechtenstein, Tuvalu, and others underscore the importance of regional and international cooperation in maintaining security. For countries considering this path, it is essential to evaluate the costs, benefits, and available protection mechanisms to make an informed decision.