Human rights watchdog CELS expressed concern over two decrees issued by President Javier Milei that allow the government to use the military in domestic security, a task usually reserved for police and military police. They added that the decrees change existing norms without going through Congress and are in violation of Defense and Domestic Security laws.

“The main concern is that these decrees could militarize social conflict,” CELS justice and security area head Manuel Tufró told the Herald. 

He said the new norms could be used to deploy the armed forces to stop protests, strikes, or other actions that may be “an obstacle for the operation of certain economic sectors the government considers to be strategic and vital for the country.”

The decrees were published in the Official Gazette on December 18 and 19. One of them has the goal of deploying the armed forces against “external threats,” even those that are not military-related, such as terrorism. The other allows the president to deploy the military to protect facilities or places considered “strategic” in terms that Tufró defined as “completely discretionary.”

Current legislation states that the military can only act in domestic security in two specific circumstances. The first one is when the president receives approval from Congress to declare a state of siege. This allows the armed forces to support the police in restoring order.

The second scenario involves potential violent incidents in a province. If that were to take place, the situation calls for the formation of a national crisis committee in which the interior minister and the governor and police head of the province would request the military for logistical support. In this case, their task is to make their vehicles and weaponry available but are not directly involved in the decision-making of the security operation.

The Armed Forces had been explicitly barred from domestic security duties since the 1976-1983 civic-military dictatorship ended, except in the aforementioned circumstances. 

These new decrees, Tufró said, are part of a “political project led by Security Minister Patricia Bullrich to bring the armed forces back into domestic security tasks.” Bullrich had already carried out similar reforms by decree when she was security minister during Mauricio Macri’s government (2015-2019) but were later overturned by former President Alberto Fernández. 

“The government hasn’t been able to carry out a legislative reform yet, but they can issue these decrees that go against existing laws.”

In August, Defense Minister Luis Petri filed a bill that similarly sought to allow Argentina’s military to patrol the streets and question or arrest people suspected of being involved in “terrorism.” The proposal never made it to the Congress floor.

What do the two decrees say?

One of the new decrees (number 1107/2024) established that the security ministry can now request aid from the armed forces and local police forces to protect “strategic objectives.” Previously, this could only be done during a state of siege or as a result of a crisis committee decision.

Although the defense law originally established that the military and navy police — both of which depend on the security ministry — had to protect such objectives, it did not provide a definition for them.

The new decree defines them as “any good, facility, or group of facilities” that are “of vital importance to the state,” and that their destruction could cause “serious harm” to the country and its inhabitants. It added that the president has the power to determine which assets would be included in this category.

Although not previously specified, strategic value objectives could be any national facility under a “concrete threat,” such as Casa Rosada or Congress. Now, that definition is much broader and “doesn’t give any parameter” for what that objective may be, Tufró said. 

“Anything could be considered to be a strategic value objective.”

In a post on X, CELS stated that this means that Milei, for example, can “militarize” the protection of shale oil and gas field Vaca Muerta, airports, shipping ports, and public squares, among other things, if he deems it necessary.

Milei’s other decree (number 1112/2024) overturned a 2006 decree that explicitly stated that the armed forces could only combat threats or attacks tied to military nature. This means they can now also combat international crime such as terrorism and drug trafficking. This was also done during Macri’s government.

None of the decrees specify if the military will be trained for these new tasks or how they should intervene. It also fails to provide a definition for what it considers an international crime.

“The government has said protesters, Indigenous communities who defend their land, or union members are terrorists,” Tufró said. “It is siding up with companies and won’t allow social conflict.”

Military criticism

Human rights organizations aren’t the only ones who are concerned, as top military brass have also expressed their disagreements. 

“The military isn’t fond of this,” Tufró said. He added that in countries where this happens, the military is “pressured” into changing their rules in order to apply police regulations and procedures. 

“Police are supposed to only use lethal force as a last resort. That doesn’t happen with the armed forces.”

In August, Fernando Morales, president of the Navy League (a civil association for Navy members), told the Herald that Petri’s bill did not provide the armed forces any guarantees regarding how much use of force in domestic security operations would be protected by law. 

“If they use their weapons, they could go to jail,” Morales said at the time.