Introduction

One of the main objections that the CPLP has been subjected to in recent years, particularly in the Defense Cooperation scope, is its organizational misadjustment, especially the lack of an operational capacity to materialize the military cooperation of the past 25 years. These criticisms arise as a paradox of an imaginary that boosts the possibility of establishing and operationalizing a “Lusophone Military Force” to be employed in the Community area to safeguard its interests.

The constitution of a Military Force (or civil-military, integrating military and civil or dual-use means) centered on the perspective of humanitarian assistance and support to populations in a post-crisis or post-disaster scenario conceives as a dual capacity, the possibility of connecting civil-military operations. On the other hand, the creation of a Military Force with operational capability (as a force of stabilization or reconstruction support), acting under CPLP’S banner in defense of its interests and with the support of the Member States, depicts a significant step towards operational consolidation and contributes to its assertion in the context of regional insertion, converging into one of the Community’s major aspirations, that is, affirming itself in the global system.

Under this logic, the potential establishment of a Lusophone Humanitarian Assistance Force (LHAF) may contribute to the operationalization and strengthening of CPLP’S Armed Forces Action Mechanism for Mutual Cooperation in Disaster Situations (henceforth MRC), passed on June 1st, 2021, at the 20th Meeting of CPLP Defense Ministers. The MRC assembles the complementary values of the countries in support of a valuable and necessary initiative in light of the reality of shortage and inequality to become self-sufficient in a catastrophe.

From Brazil’s perspective, collaboration in the creation, constitution, and operationalization of an LHAF for coordinated action in the organization’s core in humanitarian assistance in Portuguese-speaking territories may represent an opportunity to strengthen internal and regional projection in the context of humanitarian aid. Moreover, it aims to cement its position as a contributing nation in terms of international humanitarian help and assistance, along with meeting the requirements of its National Defense Policy (NDP) and the National Defense Strategy (NDS) (previous versions of 2012, 2018, and in 2020 updated minutes) as a strategic objective.

On the other hand, for Portugal, the establishment of an LHAF reinforces its stance in the Community widely through a greater engagement in Defense cooperation, which is a priority in its National Defense Policy (NDP) and lines up with the 2013 National Defense Strategic Concept (NDSC) (under revision). In addition, it provides even greater dynamism to bilateral Defense cooperation programs and the involvement of defense industries in the Member States.

In contrast to the other members, it will enable a reflection on the multiple systems involving civil protection and, particularly, humanitarian help (or assistance) in its territories, evoking further contemplation on the need for enhancements and/ or the reinforcement of possible already-existing capacities. Conversely, to the Community, it represents a critical advancement in Defense cooperation (and beyond) and the possibility of projecting itself into national and regional contexts, as well as granting more internal and external articulation with other areas affected by post-catastrophe humanitarian aid, especially in crisis or natural calamity scenarios, such as the ones concretely analyzed in this theoretical exercise.

This paper aims to verify the establishment and operationalization conditions of an LHAF as a means of participation and operationalization of the mechanism, seeking to identify some of the possible contributions of the Armed Forces based on the existing challenges and possibilities. This refers to the possible constitution of a Military Force, which may be engaged opportunely, following the needs of each Member State and in the sense of strengthening Defense cooperation in circumstances of crisis and catastrophe among countries of the Lusophone Community.

Additionally, this research intends to arouse the debate over the constitution of an LHAF and contemplate how this Force might be established, what its mission is, and how and when (and under what conditions) it should be employed to perceive the viability, capabilities, and main challenges that may influence the creation of an LHAF, in the sense of contributing to the achievement of this aspiration.

Conceptual framework

The research problem lies in analyzing the opportunities and challenges of an LHAF in the Community. The hypothesis leads to the comprehension that the Defense cooperation in the CPLP has been concretely developed through the Defense Architecture among the Member States, the main challenge being materializing this involvement into substantial results that can respond, first, to the needs of each country and of the CPLP itself, and second, to provide greater vitality and operability, under the cooperation in the organization. Based on the hypothetical and deductive methods, the research employs the qualitative protocol, as it is concerned “with deepening the comprehension of a social group, an organization, etc. [...] Researchers who apply qualitative methods seek to illustrate the reason for things” (GERHARDT & SILVEIRA, 2008, p. 32). Working with the hypothetical and deductive approaches, the study is defined as descriptive-explanatory and will use bibliographic and documentary survey procedures. While the deductive method leans toward confirming the hypothesis, the hypothetical and deductive approaches pursue empirical evidence to refute it. When the theory cannot be overturned, it is corroborated, and, as defined by Karl Popper, “[...] the hypothesis proves to be valid since it passed all tests. However, it is not definitively confirmed, as there may arise a fact that invalidates it at any moment” (GERHARDT & SILVEIRA, 2008, p. 27).

Conceptually, the research is based on the analysis of the United Nations report on disaster risk reduction by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2004), with the generic definition of the degree of risk (occurrence of a dangerous event) associated with the number of deaths concerning the population exposed to this event inferred as the probability of harmful consequences or loss of lives as a result of interactions between a natural hazard and the conjunctural vulnerability conditions in a given region or zone considered (p. 98).

According to the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), natural disaster risk is defined as “[...] the combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences. In the more technical sense, risk is characterized through a combination of three factors: threat, exposure, and vulnerability [...]” (UN, 2009a). Other sources, coincidentally, address risk as the expected result of the combined sum between vulnerability and danger, which contributes to a possible measurement, simplifying the statistical and probabilistic treatment of these phenomena. In this context, vulnerability is summarily understood as the combination of multiple interdependent variables (demographic, economic, social, technical, or environmental), that turn a populational group less skilled or capable of absorbing the impact of a dangerous event, recovering from it, or even contributing to the increase in its frequency (^{BRAGA, OLIVEIRA & GIVIES, 2006}, pp. 82-84).

According to data from the Centre of Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, natural hazards are classified into geophysical (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions), meteorological (dangers arising from storms, extreme weather, and fogs), climatic (drought and natural fires), hydrological (floods, landslides, and wave actions), and biological (epidemics, insect infestations, and accidents with animals). Thus, risk can be perceived as the intersection of probability and possibility, considering external factors in its conceptualization, in which human interference increases or decreases its incidence. It is regarded as a crucial aspect of its comprehension and analysis.

In turn, vulnerability is the condition determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors that increase the susceptibility of an individual, system, organization, or community to the impact of certain damages (UN, 2016, p. 24). Therefore, it is inferred that the structural analysis of a country (or organizations associating its Member States), not only because of its geographic conditions but also because of social, economic, and infrastructural factors, determines the accentuation of its specific vulnerability. In this sense, “[...] resilience can be described as the range of measurements of the persistence of a system and its ability to absorb changes and disturbances and still remain stable [...]” (^{HOLLING, 1973}, p. 14). Thus, a resilient organization develops several tools with diverse means, such as infrastructure, qualification, leadership, training, and gathering experiences, that will be able to, synergistically and complementarily, aid its assessment and management of the dangers and vulnerabilities that emerge from the most varied disasters (TIERNEY & BRUNEAU, 2007).

In this context, the CPLP, by developing a crm and incrementing an LHAF, aims to become an organization with a greater capacity to positively react (preferably in advance) to events such as crises and natural disasters in the Member States, effectively becoming more resilient. Likewise, risk management corresponds to the evaluation and predictive analysis of risk and the execution of specific strategies and actions to control, reduce, transfer, or mitigate the degree of risk. It is a widespread practice of several organizations to minimize risk both in investment decisions and in operational approaches, which is critical in warning and aid mechanisms in situations of natural catastrophe (UN, 2009b, p. 18).

Disaster risk management encompasses the planning, coordination, and execution of effective actions involving preventive measures that seek to reduce the risks of natural disasters and prevent the emergence of new risks (Brazil, 2017a). Therefore, risk management involves factors directly related to the threat and other accessory approaches that may contribute to measuring its management and preventing its occurrence. It is worth highlighting that underdevelopment and social vulnerabilities (among others) are fragile conditions that reinforce each other (^{SAITO, 2008}, p. 34). Thus, a poorer country tends to be more vulnerable than a richer one, and this scarcity of means and resources amplifies its propensity to risk, giving it a greater degree of risk. This fragility to risk is understood as “[...] the probability of suffering damage in the process of a natural hazard. Therefore, [...] this describes the structural characteristics and conditions of a community [...]” (^{GOMES, 2016}, p. 46). For this reason, the analysis of the Human Development Index (HDI) seems to be a reliable indicator that allows the evaluation of CPLP Member States with the prospect of an increase in the degree of risk and the consequent need for humanitarian aid, a subject this paper pays special attention to.

Paradoxically, a humanitarian crisis can be defined as a situation with a high level of human suffering in which people’s essential well-being is mainly at risk. This crisis may be caused by natural disasters or generalized conflicts, commonly implying the involvement of means (internal and external) in support of the populations (^{QUINTANILLA, HARDMAN, ABUD, CAMPBELL & ENSOR, 2014}, p. 20).

Natural disasters to be presumed as the “[...] result of the impact of an extreme or intense natural phenomenon on a given social system, causing severe damage and loss, and that exceeds the capability of those affected to live with such an impact [...]”, often obliging the reinforcement of means and the involvement of multilateral agencies in support of the population (^{SAITO, 2008}, p. 4). Moreover, humanitarian assistance is aid directed to people affected by catastrophes or disasters, whose primary purpose is to save lives and diminish the distress of the affected population. It must be provided under the basic principles of humanity, impartiality, and neutrality; it can be direct, by directly distributing goods and services; indirect, through the transportation of these goods and later distribution in the country; or infrastructure support, which involves general road reconstruction and airspace management support to mitigate damage from catastrophes.

Likewise, civil protection is associated with preventive, relief, assistance, and reconstructive measures aimed at averting or minimizing natural disasters and other calamities, preserving the population’s morale, and retrieving possible social normality. It can be handled as acts of passive defense, civil security, crisis management, and emergency services, noting that some countries are not fully organized and professionalized. Operational, consisting of volunteers and rudimentary systems run by the government, may compromise the response’s efficiency and promptitude (BRAZIL, 2019a). On the other hand, civil-military cooperation is inferred as a joint function that corresponds to crucial resources to support the achievement of mission objectives and allow military commands to effectively engage in a broad spectrum of civil-military interaction with multiple non-military parts (NATO, 2018a, pp. 1-2). Civil-military coordination is, therefore, the dialogue and interface carried out between civil and military entities on the dimension and development of military operations, mainly linked to, but not only, humanitarian assistance (^{HOLSHEK & CONING, 2017}, p. 13).

Thus, it is noted that one of the main characteristics a civil protection system must have is its capacity to adapt and respond to emergencies. This capability can be understood as the savviness of organizations, using their power and available resources to manage adverse conditions, risks, and disasters, aiming to contribute to the population’s well-being. It requires continuous monitoring, access to reliable sources of information, and good management, either in times of normality, where the purpose is to predict and take precautions, or in periods of crisis, reinforcing risk reduction in its scope (UN, 2016, p. 12). Therefore, the creation of an LHAF can serve as a factor to strengthen this capacity in the core of CPLP, assisting the well-being of populations affected by a calamity and reinforcing the feeling of cooperation and interdependence among the Member States.

Paradoxically, a Humanitarian Assistance Force can be a joint and combined Force and can be defined as a military unit that develops actions for the urgent provision of relief of a diverse nature to nationals of countries affected by the impacts of natural catastrophes or resulting from war devastation, to protect, support, and offer welfare to victimized populations, always respecting the principles of non-intervention and non-interference.

The Armed Forces promote humanitarian operations alongside efforts made by States or other entities or organizations that seek to mitigate the damage caused by such natural disasters, bringing together specific capacities and developing a way of acting adequately trained and perfectly operational to ensure the necessary support anywhere and whenever needed. It is essential to highlight that military capacity is a critical attribute a given structure requires to successfully execute a military (or civil-military) activity, guaranteeing effectiveness and freedom of movement to a determined Force (NATO, 2018b, p. F-2).

The susceptibility to the occurrence of natural disasters in the CPLP countries

The ^{CPLP was created on July 17, 1996}, in Lisbon and is currently formed by nine Member States (following the accession of Timor-Leste in 2002 and Equatorial Guinea in 2014). The Community has an expressive geographic coverage as it is represented on four continents, and it comprises over 350 million people who share Portuguese as its official language (^{CPLP, 2020a}). In the strategic dimension, it should be noted that the entry of Dili expanded the Community’s area of influence to Southeast Asia and Oceania. At the same time, the second reinforces the energy and Atlantic dimension of the organization.

The content of Brazil-Portugal relations historically constituted by proximity and distance also characterized the form and stages of implementation of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP). In this sense, the two countries, for the same reasons but in their respective contexts and local-regional-international interests (such as political influence and economic contacts based on history and culture in common), joined efforts to materialize the Community because “it became agreed that Brazil and Portugal would seek cooperation actions in the PALOP countries, as a way of testing the viability of a common work across the continent” (BRASEMB PRAIA, OF C n° 0031-00112, 1992, p. 01 apud RIZZI, 2014).

For Rizzi (2014), the point of divergence between Brazil and Portugal regarding the CPLP concerned the form in which this resulting cooperation would take: Portugal identified the Portugal-Brazil relationship in the PALOP, in the “equation 2 + 5=7” as the “ideal.” The diplomatic documentation is rich in this sense, as it clarifies Brazil’s understanding of the multilateral partnership (with the creation of the IILP and later the CPLP) as a “7=7 equation”, more “dynamic and positive.” In understanding this research, the Brazilian position prevailed, which made the Lusophone Community based on cultural content but with clear political and economic overtones.

Created in a context in which the bases of the world order of the post-Cold War period were defined, throughout its two-and-a-half decades of existence, the community demonstrates that it has extrapolated the initial rhetoric of the sociocultural ties of the common language, emerging as an experience unique among its Anglophone and Francophone peers. Furthermore, the CPLP has become a strategic element in the foreign policy of its Member States, favoring their better insertion in the international system and constituting, according to Bernardino (2011), an instrument of power and influence for the countries in their regional and global affirmation. Given its unique cultural heritage, the organization seeks to contribute to multilateral governance based on multilateralism and the security and development of each member (^{MONGIARDIM, 2014}).

In this context, the element of cooperation in the CPLP emerged as the central strategic axis of the organization to maximize the potential of the Member States and minimize their vulnerabilities through multilateral cooperation - to a large extent, taking advantage of the fact that each of the countries composes blocs of regions that tend to relate to each other (^{PALMEIRA, 2012}). Thus, appearing in the Statute as one of the three objectives, cooperation represents a fundamental instrument of the Community for the development of the States, the consolidation and projection of the same as an international organization (^{MURAR- GY; ILHARCO, 2006}). Although mostly technical, he implemented projects not restricted to that area, covering aspects that require a significant degree of trust and consolidation of relations between member states, such as security and defense.

By covering four continents and being washed by three oceans, the Community carries different geographic, political, religious, and social characteristics, which require fruitful assessment and flexibility in dealing with complex issues within it, particularly the way these questions affect inter-state cooperation in situations of calamity, crisis, or catastrophe and related to the provision of humanitarian assistance in a context of social emergency.

The CPLP countries are all coastal (some archipelagic) and mostly tropical. According to the Köppen-Geiger global climate classification, most Member States are classified as tropical, with a predominance of high temperatures, wide thermal variations, and a large volume of precipitation, making them more susceptible to global climate change. These aspects also characterize these States as more prone to climate changes emerging from the seas (oceans), such as hurricanes and tropical storms, which have occurred with greater frequency in the Indian, Pacific, and South Atlantic oceans, as was the case of the cyclone “Idai’’ in 2019 in Mozambique (ECKSTEIN, HUTFILS & WINGES, 2018).

In this context, it is relevant to highlight that, according to the 2020 Natural Disaster Risk World Report, in terms of the degree of susceptibility to occurrences and the lack of response capacity, the organization has two countries (Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau) among the fifteen most susceptible States to these events in the world. By expanding the perspective to the 50 first countries in this risk record, roughly 60% of CPLP’S Member States are included in this cosmos, which can be considered a significant number in the probability of CPLP being affected by mega catastrophes. With that, a need to respond efficiently emerges following the request for assistance by the impacted Member State in post-catastrophe humanitarian aid (^{GOMES et al., 2016}, pp. 62-64).

Thus, nearly all Community members are subjected to catastrophic natural phenomena, sparking social crises and disrupting humanitarian assistance systems. Therefore, the CPLP has conceived, in the context of Defense cooperation, a proposal for a Protocol of Response Actions to Community Disaster Situations (PARSC), which aims to address the limitations faced by the Member States and reflects the community needs in the effort of mitigating possible damage caused by catastrophic events.

Considering the aspects of each Member State, a comparative table was formulated between the Human Development Index (HDI) and the Climate Risk Index (CRI), seeking to determine which CPLP countries bear the highest degree of probability of needing post-catastrophe humanitarian assistance.

The table identifies that Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tomé and Principe are the countries in the Community with the highest degree of probability of resorting, in the event of natural catastrophes, to international humanitarian aid, notably the CPLP Disaster Response Mechanism, which justifies the significance of such an initiative and its possible implementation in the short or medium term.

CPLP’S Defense cooperation and the CPLP armed forces action mechanism for mutual cooperation in catastrophe situations

Like this, the CPLP is characterized, as stated by Adriano ^{Moreira (2000}, p. 319), as a unique social group identified in terms of everyday life, shared interests, cooperation, and interaction among its members for the accomplishment of common interests. In this context, the creation of operational mechanisms that bolster cooperation directly contributes to the deepening of strategic alliances and works as a reinforcement of their identity.

In 2002, within the scope of the IV Conference of Heads of State and Government of the CPLP (Brasilia), the revision of the Statute of the CPLP was approved (Article 4, item “b”), which expanded the areas of cooperation from five to twelve, adding defense mastery as one of those. Expanding cooperation sectors indicate consolidating and deepening exchanges between CPLP member states. Furthermore, the increase provided institutional support for initiatives already being developed but not covered by official documents.

In addition, the Community maintains an essential channel for dialogue with various organizations, including the United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU), and the European Union (EU), in addition to more than fifty Advisory Observers and eighteen Associate Observers - Mauritius (2006); Senegal (2008); Georgia, Japan, Turkiye, Namibia (2014); Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Uruguay (2016), Luxembourg, Andorra, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Chile, France, Italy, and Serbia (2018). The interest of these states in joining the CPLP reaffirms the prestige and international projection of the Community. Also noteworthy is the most recent request for Associate Membership from the United States, evidencing the strategic political relevance of the Portuguese-speaking space.

In this regard, cooperation in the scope of Defense emerged in 1998¹. It was officially regulated in 2006 by signing the Protocol for Cooperation in Defense (PCDD) in Praia. The Protocol establishes the three specific objectives of the Community’s Defense cooperation: a) the creation of a common knowledge-sharing platform in terms of military defense, b) the promotion of a cooperation policy in the Defense and Military spheres; and c) the contribution to the development of internal capacities aiming at strengthening the Armed Forces of the countries of the Community. In this case, both the creation of the MRC and the possibility of the constitution of an LHAF are encompassed by the objectives of Defense cooperation in the core of the Community.

After 1998, the so-called “CPLP Defense Architecture” was cemented ². In line with the CPLP Defense Identity (2015) and the CPLP Strategic Cooperation Document (2020-2026), it was established, on the one hand, the consolidation of the Defense organizational structure and, on the other, strategic guidelines for the reinforcement of Defense cooperation, with the possibility of creating an LHAF. In this context of consolidation and institutional growth, the scope of the operationalization of CPLP’S “New Strategic Vision” (NSV) (2016-2026), a dynamic and cooperative path was built.

The MRC’s main objective is cooperation between the Member States for coordinated response actions in catastrophe situations. Therefore, the creation of this internal humanitarian assistance device, unprecedented in the world if one considers that these organizations come from countries with a common native language, contributes to the strengthening, consolidation, and concretion not only of the defense aspect but of the organization itself as well. This perspective corroborates the research hypothesis, as it confirms that the CPLP Defense cooperation has had an actual development, consolidated in the committed Defense Architecture among states in the sense of strategic collaboration.

The MRC establishes joint and party arrangements, focusing on the responsibilities of the Defense and General Staff Ministries in the institution of a permanent communication channel for the coordination of aid and relief actions, conceiving the figure of the Coordinating Officer for (NDM), Meeting of the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces (CSAF), Meeting of the National Defense Policy Directors (NDPD), Meeting of the Military Information Services Directors (MISD), the Center for Strategic Analysis (CSA), based in Maputo and the Permanent Secretariat for Defense Affairs (PSDA), based in Lisbon, among other organizations that emerge with specific assignments determined by Internal Regulations (^{CPLP, 2020}). These are joined by other bodies that commit to the reinforcement of the Architecture, such as the FELINO Series Military Exercises, developed since 2000, the CPLP Navy Symposium, commenced in 2008, and the ^{CPLP Defense College, launched in 2017}, among others that contribute towards consolidating the Community’s Defense cooperation.

Humanitarian Assistance (COHA) in the respective staff, as a point of contact. This configuration was presented by the Brazilian Ministry of Defense on May 25, 2021, at the 22nd CSA/CPLP Political-Diplomatic Seminar, and was approved on the following June 1st, as well as the elementary principles that conduct the MRC:

At the request of the affected country, in an emergency; Delivery of voluntary assistance; Coordination from the affected party in all cases; Military personnel complement civil activities; Neutrality, impartiality, and non-interference in domestic affairs; Civil, humanitarian, and time-limited activities (^{CARVALHO SOBRINHO, 2021}, p. 21).

The MRC defines that each country must promptly respond to the request for assistance, informing the PSDA of the capabilities and means to be made available. Next, it communicates with the Ministry of Defense of the Member State that requested help to convey the final coordination between the available military and civil resources. This humanitarian aid must be carried out under the principles of humanity, neutrality, and impartiality, regardless of ethnic race, religious belief, class, age, gender, or political opinion; it mustn’t intervene in the internal affairs of the affected country nor meddle in activities unrelated to the disaster. Moreover, a minimum autonomy of seven days of operation (in the case of the shipping of troops to the affected country) is envisioned, while the donor state must bear the costs of the support provided, including possible refurnishing (unless a specific agreement is made with the affected country). It considers the gender perspective in the action of troops, as well as the adequate treatment of vulnerable groups such as children, older adults, and people with special needs, in line with the standard norms and procedures in similar forces at the service of the United Nations (PARSC, 2020).

In addition, it is established in the operationalization a system of coordination and alert, emphasizing about the first aspect that “[...] the coordination of actions will be enabled by the exploitation of resources available on the web, especially e-mail, as well as telephone and internet [...]”, and that “[...] the Chiefs of General Staff, in common agreement, will establish the necessary tools to implement the effective coordination and development of actions [...]”. In the alert system³, it is stated that:

[...] The Ministries of Defense of the State Members, through its respective General Staff, will adopt an alert system seeking to prepare for the use of military means [...] to be triggered by the action coordination system, which may be activated by any country that feels threatened or hit by an extreme natural phenomenon or subjected to the risk of a serious technological/anthropic accident [...] (PARSC, 2020, w/p).

The MRC establishes that the affected country, through the COHA, will send its request for assistance to the PSDA and the other countries concurrently with the diplomatic communication of the solicitation for international aid. The COHA of the requested nations will verify its availability of means and capacities, both in the scope of Defense and regarding other relevant national organizations, seeking to fulfill the affected country’s request and simultaneously linking up with the diplomatic instance for the necessary articulations to make the support viable. The Chiefs of General Staff may adopt additional measures by mutual agreement to simplify coordination and, via COHA, will forward to the PSDA a record of the means or capabilities to be jointly made available.

The operational concept points to providing means or capacities to form a set of CPLP capabilities. However, it cannot be named a Force or even a Humanitarian Assistance Force, a part in which it is considered that the MRC needs to be effectively improved ⁴.

Therefore, the consolidation of the participation of the military in this structural and seasonal Defense and Civil Protection system interacts with the capabilities of the Member States. This factor is relevant because some countries need to dispose of a cemented protection and civil defense policy in which their Armed Forces can participate more effectively, as seen above. Angola, Brazil, and Portugal, for having more experience, means, and more consistent legislation, can act as a backbone to the other Member States, assembling critical capacities.

The way a Force participates in humanitarian or peace missions is relevant. For this purpose, the main challenge is establishing interoperability between the Armed Forces of the CPLP countries that have previously made themselves available to include specific capabilities in a seasonal or semipermanent Force. Concurrently, interoperability is necessary for establishing joint mechanisms for using the Force. The MRC indicates that the FELINO Military Exercises will be the basis for training human resources and operationalization.

It is necessary to establish forecast scenarios for each Member State likely to be affected to increase the efficiency of responses to the catastrophes. These scenarios must be developed, and the predictability of action must be improved through a prior survey of the required capacities in the case of humanitarian assistance, which results in quick responses and agile lifesaving (UNITED NATIONS DISASTER ASSESSMENT AND COORDINATION, 2018, p. 15).

Regarding the creation of the PARSC, it is possible to infer that its establishment will depend on structural factors within the Community but also political will and structural characteristics (issues on funding, employment doctrine, operation training, and the command or direction of actions), which stand as the major challenges for the implementation of this Protocol in the future . Establishing a COHA in the emgfa of the Member States is the contact for inserting information in the PSDA in incipient response actions. With a distinctive perspective, the COHA cannot be determined solely in cases of disasters or calamities, under penalty of not being fully familiarized with the issues of the Community. In addition, the Member States have particularities, as is the case of Brazil (and most countries), in which privileged contact with the international arena is not made through the Ministry of Defense but rather through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which can provoke limitations in the development of the mechanism. In a broader outlook, creating a permanent monitoring structure for disaster situations in the CPLP seems necessary.

In this context, this initiative becomes unique in the international community, confirming the CPLP’S vanguardism and dynamics in Defense cooperation and the affirmation of solidarity among peoples.

The lusophone humanitarian assistance force

A Humanitarian Assistance Force is a temporary force (Task Force) established to execute a humanitarian aid operation, integrating, with the necessary means and under a coordinated command, the joint effort in the case of a disaster, calamity or catastrophe. An LHAF, as the main instrument of the Response Protocol to Disaster Situations, can present itself as a quick, helpful, viable, and fruitful alternative in humanitarian actions on behalf of aiding the populations, which corroborates the initial hypothesis of this research.

Coordinating these forces and identifying how each nation can contribute is a significant challenge for the CPLP. The establishment of an LHAF must consider, among other aspects, the creation of a database of capabilities and the continuous search for reasonable interoperability so that the survey of possibilities of each Member State is explicit before participating in humanitarian operations. Furthermore, the research identifies modules (or capacities) provided by a determined Member State, pre-prepared with a core base to intervene, and other powers (catalogue type) that will be granted by augmentation according to the force requirements and predicted needs for the operation.

The creation of this Force would be relevant and consistent with the organization’s purposes since it would reinforce the Member States’ demands for actions within the scope of defense and security cooperation, ratifying the high level of interaction in this component. Thus, it is believed that the establishment of this Force, in addition to acting in humanitarian activities, may evolve in the medium or long term future into peacekeeping operations, fulfilling an aspiration of the Community, as stated in paragraph 2 of Art. 4 of the ^{CPLP PCDD (2006, p. 6)}. It is noted that there are some divergences in perceptions of which model can and should be employed. The creation of the LHAF should be cemented so a catalogue of capabilities for each Member State can be constituted⁵.

It is also verified that a bi-multilateral perspective is essential in approaching the research problem. The Community must be aware of the direction each country has taken in its regional context of conjunctural insertion as a critical factor to understand its position (and needs) within the CPLP framework and evaluate the restricted frame of intervention, optimizing, in this process, its capacities as an organization.

Final considerations

This paper analysed the challenges and opportunities of establishing a haf in the Community. The hypothesis indicated that Defense cooperation in the CPLP has developed through the creation of a dynamic and committed Defense architecture among the Member States. The concrete possibility of the existence of an LHAF, thus, subdues the challenge of materializing this involvement into actual results that can respond, first, to the needs of each country and the CPLP and, second, to provide greater vitality and operationality in congruence with the cooperation in the organization, corroborating the proposed research hypothesis.

In sum, the constitution of this LHAF is desirable and possible in the short and medium term within the current CPLP Defense cooperation framework. However, other aspects must be widely discussed, not only in the scope of Defense, promoting a reflection in the Community’s political-strategic and diplomatic fields, working even as a central element of a future strategic plan for Defense Cooperation. In this context, the CPLP’s MRC is a necessary and current instrument if it involves the establishment of a Humanitarian Assistance Force in other areas of cooperation within and outside the Portuguese-speaking community.

It is noticeable that there are countries in the Community among the most vulnerable in the world to natural catastrophes, holding a high degree of susceptibility to risk, which highlights the importance of creating a mechanism of this nature and typology, particularly the constitution of an LHAF. The continuity (possibly with an adaptation) of the FELINO series exercises is relevant, as they are the best (but not the only) way to achieve the desired interoperability between the Armed Forces of the Lusophone nations. In this context, it was inferred that part of the countries of the Community are susceptible to the risk of catastrophes, along with the poorly consolidated Defense and Civil Protection structures, causing uncertainties regarding the actual capacities to react to a large-scale disaster. Therefore, it is considered necessary that Member States develop and improve their dynamics in humanitarian assistance actions, especially in the defense and civil protection of their territories by developing legislation and exploring doctrines, as this will have a positive impact on the strengthening of the existing stages of CPLP’S own MRC.

In conclusion, the LHAF must be developed from a core base and constitute a catalogue of capacities for the Community’s Member States to use in the event of catastrophes. Its association with the alert states defined in the MRC is fundamental, which could accelerate the response, especially the initial one. Likewise, bimultilateralism was judged crucial in this context, as some countries assume relevant positions in triggering this mechanism due to their national and international experiences, mainly for the leadership and role models they can provide in this process.

Therefore, we agree with ^{Palmeira (2012}) when he states that the CPLP is able to establish itself as an actor in international security, given the political will of the rulers and the financial capacity to sustain the costs of these operations. In addition, it is observed that Brasilia, Luanda, and Lisbon stand out as essential leaders with conditions to conduct cooperation in their regional surroundings that are of interest to the entire Community. Thus, these actors’ lack of effective leadership undermines the CPLP (^{BARBOSA JUNIOR, 2018}). Added to this is the financial limitations and precariousness of the resources destined for defense and security. In this sense, ^{Freitas (2018}) points to the creation of a predictable funding fund for military-technical cooperation, reducing the organization’s vulnerability concerning the financial resources of the Member States.

At last, establishing the Force can help support the MRC and may represent an essential step towards the employment of a Lusophone Peace Force under the auspices of the UN. Defense cooperation enables such advancements, further strengthening friendship and integration ties between the Portuguese-speaking countries and the Community relevant to the Member States and the regional security contexts in which they are circumstantially inserted.