|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Foreign Military Training: A Shift in Focus
In the past, many training programs have been justified on the grounds of improving human rights conditions in foreign military institutions, strengthening democracy, and increasing U.S. military interaction with foreign governments. Military training has been a prime tool in counter-narcotics operations in countries such as Colombia and El Salvador. Counterinsurgency operations skills have also been a leading focus for U.S. military training in countries such as Uganda, Nigeria and Rwanda, in order to facilitate UN peacekeeping missions. Regardless of the circumstance, the use of military training has always been acceptable under the premise of transferring U.S. political ideals to foreign governments and military institutions.
However, the administration of George W. Bush has recently shifted the focus of U.S. foreign military training in the name of fighting terrorism. Since Sept. 11, the United States has offered military training to many countries victims of terrorist activities, or struggling with the presence of terrorist networks, including the Philippines, Indonesia, Tajikistan, Ethiopia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Georgia and Colombia. Within the next several months, the Bush administration is planning to continue expanding the reach of these military relationships in order to strengthen the U.S. led campaign against terrorism. In a speech on March 11, 2002, President Bush clearly explained the purpose of this far-reaching effort when he said, "we will not send American troops to every battle, but America will actively prepare other nations for the battles ahead."
While military training may be beneficial in the war on terrorism, using U.S. military training to curb terrorism in countries that themselves have negative human right records or are currently fighting internal wars may not be the most prudent of strategies. If the United States trains troops in countries where political institutions are corrupt and social institutions remain weak, the United States might get involved in situations where terrorism is not the only threat. For example, two countries that mark a clear shift in U.S. policy regarding military training since Sept. 11 and that are struggling with internal, as well as external threats, are Colombia and Indonesia.
In Colombia, the United States has a long history of training military personnel in an effort to combat drug trafficking. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), which were placed on the official United States list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) in 1998, rely heavily on drugs to finance their uprisings. Current U.S. law confines military aid to Colombia, including training, strictly to the war on drugs, not terrorism.
However, since Sept. 11, the fine line between counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics operations has been blurred. Even though Colombia has been embroiled in civil war for more than three decades, only now is Colombia seen as a country threatened by terrorism. Indeed, Bush highlighted this change in perspective when he recently requested $98 million in military training and helicopters for the Colombian army to protect a vital oil pipeline that has been repeatedly damaged by rebel groups.3
In addition, a $27.1 billion emergency counter-terrorism military training and aid program is currently being developed for those countries deemed by the United States as under direct terrorist threat, which will include Colombia, along with other countries such as Pakistan, Jordan, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Kenya and Ecuador.3
This proposal includes language that links drug trafficking to terrorism in Colombia, thus providing the Colombian government with funds, weapons and training to help the military and police units wipe out the guerillas. Such a shift in policy causes concerns as all parties involved in Colombia's internal war are known human rights violators, and could pose many risks to both U.S. soldiers and Colombian civilians, if U.S. military involvement were to deepen.
In Indonesia, the focus of U.S. policy and military aid has changed tremendously since Sept. 11. In 1991, Indonesian armed forces, that had been previously trained by U.S.-based military schools, opened fire, with U.S. supplied weapons, on a group of non-violent demonstrators in East Timor, killing several hundred civilians. As a result, Congress banned International Military Education and Training (IMET) to Indonesia, the main source of U.S. foreign military training, but did not prohibit any other form of military aid or other training programs. In 1999, Indonesian-trained militias and Indonesian armed forces conducted and extensive attack on the Timorese people, after they gained their independence through a UN referendum. After these attacks, the Clinton administration banned all forms of military assistance to Indonesia.
In December 2001, Congress approved a DoD-created Regional Counter-Terrorism Defense Fellowship Program, worth $17.9 million, as part of the Defense Appropriations Act, circumventing the legislative ban on training to Indonesia.4
This program is independent of the State Department's IMET program, and will be used to bring military officers from around the world, including Indonesia, to the United States for military training. Indonesia is also included in the current supplemental Appropriations Request for special funding for countries threatened by terrorism. If approved by Congress, this supplemental program will provide Indonesia with $8 million to "vet, train, and equip a counter-terrorism unit in Indonesia."
While the United States is strengthening its military relationships in an effort to widen the coalition against terrorism, mechanisms to monitor military training are becoming less transparent. In 1999, Congress passed a legislative amendment sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., prohibiting the training of foreign security forces that violate human rights. The amendment also requires the Department of Defense to prepare an annual Foreign Military Training Report (FMTR) on all military exercises and training involving foreign military troops including data from the previous year and estimates for the current year.5
While the report may contain a classified annex "if deemed necessary and appropriate," it must include an unclassified section describing the purpose and operational benefits to the United States of each training program, as well as the location of the training, the number of personnel being trained, and the cost of the training activities.
In 2000, the unclassified portion of the FMTR was placed on the Internet in order to increase transparency.6
This report can be a major tool in upholding human rights standards in foreign military training by showing Congress the purpose and extent of these training activities and allowing lawmakers to compare and evaluate the goals of foreign military training programs to U.S. foreign policy objectives. The report also increases public awareness, and allows people to monitor whether or not military training activities are complying with human rights laws. However since its first edition, more and more sections of the report have become classified, making it increasingly difficult for the public to obtain information on who is being trained, where they are being trained, and for what purpose. Without public oversight of U.S. military training programs, the U.S. military is accountable to no one but itself.
The 1999 FMTR disclosed detailed information as to where military training was taking place and what units were being trained. This data allowed researchers to discover a loophole in the Leahy law. While the Leahy law prohibits abusive military units to receive military aid, the 1998 report showed that in Colombia the "unit" meant the individual, thereby allowing individuals within known abusive regiments to receive training.7
The 2000 FMTR classified the total number of military trainees, and as a result publicly monitoring the Leahy law was nearly impossible.
If the public is aware of instances where U.S. military training is provided to units that violate human rights, then the government can be held accountable for negligence and obstruction of the Leahy law. A positive step toward the implementation of human rights standards in military training schools due to public pressure, can be see through the recent changes in the former School of the Americas (SOA), now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). The SOA is one of the largest U.S. military training facilities in the United States and is known for having trained many abusive soldiers. After years of activist pressure calling attention to this legacy of military training, eight hours of human rights instruction are now a mandatory part of WHISC training.8
However, WHISC is currently an exception, as the majority of military training programs include little or no human rights training.
At present, Congress is debating further changing or possibly eliminating reporting requirements on military training. While the Senate version of the current Security Assistance Act includes the names of U.S. trained foreign military or civilian personnel who were involved in human rights abuses in the annual State Department Human Rights Report, the House version does not. The Pentagon has also been pushing each year to reduce the amount of information disclosed on foreign military training, under the guise of minimizing paperwork. However, the Defense Department report on military training can be essential to keeping the Leahy law in place. Strengthening oversight and presenting the report more clearly will increase public and legislative awareness and help protect both troops and civilians in countries where forces are being trained.
Terrorist threats are not new in many of the countries where the United States is currently training military troops. The United States is gambling with the idea that military training will buy allies in the long run. During the Cold War era, the United States armed and trained many countries, including Afghanistan, in order to gain ground without having to involve American troops. While, military training in many instances promotes the readiness, efficiency, and effectiveness of foreign military troops, it may only worsen the situation in countries currently plagued by terror if human rights training is not implemented and economic and social aid are not concurrently offered to help strengthen and promote internal stability.
Below is a chart of selected countries where the United States currently offers International Military Education and Training (IMET) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF). IMET has always been offered to foreign militaries with the goal of making them more professional, more efficient and more reflective of U.S. values. The use of IMET for fighting terrorism is a new focus. FMF provides countries with grants and loans to purchase U.S. produced arms, defense services and military training. Military training purchased with FMF is normally granted through, but not necessarily limited to, IMET. The Bush administration has proposed an increase of 13 percent for International Military Education and Training (IMET) over this year's budget and a 27 percent increase for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) in addition to newly planned anti-terrorism programs for foreign militaries. The increased levels in current and proposed foreign military training and military financing in the countries below, demonstrate the U.S. policy interest in creating military relationships in an effort to buildup the international alliance against terrorism. The countries below have been deemed by the Bush administration as key actors in the war on terrorism and are receiving U.S. military training and aid in return.
1
Lumpe, Lora "U.S. Foreign Military Training" Foreign Policy in Focus, Special Report, February 2002 3
Emergency FY 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Request, March 21, 2002 4
Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2002, Conference Report on H.R. 3338, SEC. 8125, December 19, 2001 Congressional Record 5
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999, S.2334 Sec. 589, "Report on all United States Military Training Provided to Foreign Military Personnel" 6
Joint Report to Congress March 1, 2000, U.S. Department of Defense Foreign Military Training and Engagement Activities of Interest 7
Limitations on Assistance to Security Forces, "The Leahy Law" 8
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation,"Human Rights Instruction"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036-2109 Ph: (202) 332-0600 ยท Fax: (202) 462-4559 info@cdi.org |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
