Brought to you by the Center for Defense Information
1500 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20005
(202)862-0700 * Fax (202)862-0708 * http://www.cdi.org
| January 29,1998 |
| January 29,1998 |
Drifting Toward War In the Persian Gulf
by Colonel Daniel M. Smith, USA (Ret.), Associate Director, dsmith@cdi.org
The worst reason to start a war is to "drift into it."
Yet that, according to a White House spokesman on January 26th, is exactly what the United States is doing: we are "drifting toward the use of force" against Saddam Hussein. This is scary and irresponsible, as much if not more so than the possible chemical and biological production facilities and even weapons that Baghdad may be attempting to conceal from UN inspectors.
Drifting is aimless, undirected action, something popularly associated with irresponsible wanderers or elements such as snow and sand that indiscriminately bury all in their path. Nation- states, however, are not designed to function aimlessly. Democratic nations in particular, with their need to develop and mold consensus among many divergent groups, can ill afford undirected or misdirected activity that, in the end, amplifies the fissures that are an inherent feature of the democratic landscape.
And when a democratic nation is the dominant military power and world leader, as is the United States at the end of the 20th century, drifting becomes doubly lethal. Frustrated by their own lassitude, politicians become impatient with events that lie outside their control. Diplomacy quickly becomes the first casualty as attempts at imaginative, noncoercive responses are abandoned and easy "straight-forward" punitive measures are indiscriminately applied.
After seven years, it should be obvious to the Administration, Congress, and the Pentagon that aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, and Air Force bombers will not intimidate Saddam Hussein or deflect him from obstructing the UN weapons inspection teams. Baghdad insists that the economic embargo must be lifted, that the inspection teams looking for weapons of mass destruction must be "more balanced" (i.e., fewer Americans), and that the UN Security Council declare a definitive end point for the inspections. Further, if these conditions are not met, Saddam says he will throw all the inspectors out of Iraq.
On January 17, during a press conference in Bangkok, Secretary of Defense William Cohen said, "I think the chances for conflict are enhanced to the extent that Saddam Hussein could be successful in dividing the Security Council." He's right, of course, and the current diplomatic drift by the Administration, which is being encouraged by Congress, will be the catalyst for such a divide.
While rhetorically claiming that the dispute is between Iraq and the United Nations, the United States by its actions has made this a U.S.-Iraq dispute. China, Russia, and France oppose military action but we continue to insist that "nothing is ruled out." Yet with two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, another on the way, and over 25,000 U.S. military personnel in the area we seem to have ruled out further diplomatic activity.
There are not--and short of conquest and occupation never have been--any sure-fire alternatives to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions concerning the inspection regime. What we know for sure is that sporadic, and therefore aimless, military action will have no effect. That brings us back to a reconsideration of diplomacy.
First, the Security Council should continue to insist on unfettered access to all suspect sites by the UN weapons monitors. This was a fundamental condition to which Iraq agreed at the end of the 1990-1991 war. In the meantime, the inspection teams should continue their work to the fullest extent possible: no slack, no drift on this point.
Concurrently, the UN should remove or at least further ameliorate the severe economic sanctions on Iraq. The fact that prominent individuals such as the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and Pope John Paul II have called for these severe sanctions to be modified removes any possible opprobrium from the Administration for eliminating, for humanitarian reasons, a patently indiscriminate and therefore aimless policy wreaking havoc among ordinary Iraqis. As an adjunct to such a move, the UN could insist that the number of monitors overseeing the purchase and distribution of food and medicine be increased so that Saddam would not be able to hijack any additional revenue from increased oil sales.
Other countries are finally offering to make available more inspectors for the UN weapons inspection effort. These individuals could be rotated into the teams going into Iraq by the chief arms inspector, Ambassador Richard Butler. He, and not Baghdad, would be the judge of the qualifications of the inspectors and how the teams are put together.
The UN, having removed these Iraqi objections, would simultaneously remove the "need" for the United States to issue ultimatums, consider, or launch military strikes against Iraq. The Security Council would not be split because the concerns of China, Russia, and France would also have been assuaged. Time would be gained to rethink the situation in a less charged atmosphere.
Above all, the nation and the world would not drift into a new round of war.
A President's Uphill Battle
by Tomas Valasek, Research Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
When Michal Kovac, President of the Slovak Republic, visited Washington this week, he found himself caught in an all-to-familiar quandary. As his country's highest elected official, Kovac is associated with Slovakia's decline from being a near "sure thing" to gain admittance to the EU and NATO to a very distant and future "maybe." Yet, during his five years in office, Kovac emerged from being a political unknown to being recognized as an ardent internationalist advocating EU and NATO membership for Slovakia.
One of Kovac's problems is purely domestic: he was a compromise presidential candidate of the Movement for Democratic Slovakia (HZDS), which has dominated Slovakia's political scene since the breakup of former Czechoslovakia. He broke ranks with HZDS when its leader and the current Prime Minister, Vladimir Meciar, embarked on a campaign to solidify power through constitutionally questionable means. Meciar's attempts to control the media, the Slovak parliament's refusal to implement Constitutional Court decisions, and shady privatization deals did not escape the attention of the United States and the EU. As a result, Slovakia--so recently considered a top candidate for EU and NATO membership--was excluded from the short list of invitees for the initial enlargement rounds of both organizations.
Although Kovac opposed the internal policies that led to Slovakia's international "fall from grace," he could not stop them. And while his failure was largely beyond his control, given the distribution of power under the Slovak constitution, he finds himself at a distinct disadvantage when traveling abroad in his official capacity. Rather than being able to push Slovakia's case for inclusion in European-wide fora, Kovac more often finds himself deflecting criticism about Slovakia's failure to establish a transparent and stable democratic political system.
Today Slovakia's foreign policy appears to be at a crossroads. Increasingly isolated from the United States and the EU, the Slovakian government may be looking for an alternative association with Russia and other East European countries. Slovakia seems to have better diplomatic relations with Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia than with the United States. But this seems to be the result more of Prime Minister Meciar's policies than any popular feeling. In fact, large portions of the population support integration with Western states.
Despite his limited authority, Kovac has played an important role in maintaining what remains of Slovakia's ties to the West. The recently concluded conference of eleven Central European presidents in the Slovakian town of Levoca, hosted by the President, was a very significant and--so far, successful--effort to preserve the fragile link between the Slovak Republic and Europe.
But Kovac's term in the office ends March 2. The unknown question for Slovakia, and for the West, is whether the country will continue to turn inward on itself and, in rejecting democratic institutions, further distance itself from any hope of achieving acceptance into European economic and security institutions. In fact, as more and more of its neighbors are considered and accepted, Slovakia might find itself the new "hermit nation" of Europe.
Pentagon Budget to be Released February 2
by Chris Hellman, Senior Research Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
In an annual post-State of the Union Address ritual, the White House will roll out the Fiscal Year 1999 federal budget on February 2. In preparation for the event and for background when examining the Administration's FY99 request, the following is a brief summary of the Fiscal Year 1998 Pentagon budget as adopted by Congress.
(NOTE: The figures used are from the Defense Authorization Act. These correspond most closely with the FY99 numbers being requested, which are "Budget Authority." For additional perspective, the actual amounts appropriated for major Pentagon spending categories for FY98 are listed in the last paragraph.)
Amounts by major spending categories Congress authorized for FY98:
This totaled $256.8 billion for the Pentagon portion of the military budget (known as the "051 Account"). An additional $11.5 billion was authorized for defense related programs in the Department of Energy, bringing total military authorization (the "050 Account") to $268.3 billion.
End Strengths: For active duty personnel, Congress authorized an end strength of 1.43 million, 21,000 below FY97 levels. The end strength authorized for the Guard and Reserve was 895,000.
Army programs: Congress authorized $595 million for M-1 tank upgrades, $512 million for Apache Helicopter Longbow upgrades, and $282 to continue to develop the Comanche Helicopter.
Fixed-wing Aircraft: Congress authorized $2.1 billion for the purchase of 20 Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, $2.2 billion for work on the Air Force's F-22 fighter, and $946 million for development of the Joint Strike Fighter. Congress also approved $1.9 billion for nine C-17 cargo planes.
Navy Programs: Congress authorized $3.4 billion for four DDG-51 destroyers and $2.3 billion for the New Attack Submarine. Congress also authorized advanced funding for several programs including $100 million for the LHD-17 landing craft, $50 million for CVN-77 aircraft carrier, and $35 million for the Arsenal Ship. (The Navy subsequently canceled this program because of insufficient funds.)
Missile Defense: Congress authorized a total of $3.7 billion for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This includes $978.1 million for National Missile defense, $406.1 million for THAAD, $344.9 million for the Navy's Theater Wide program, $289.8 million for the Navy's Area Defense Program, and $555.2 million for Patriot PAC-3.
Turning to the Defense Appropriations Act, Congress approved the following sums for FY98:
This totals $247.5 billion. In separate legislation, Congress appropriated $9.2 billion for Military Construction and Family Housing and $11.5 billion for defense related programs in the Department of Energy.
Look for summary materials and an analysis of the Fiscal Year 1999 budget request on Monday morning at http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/fy99
Rush To Enlarge NATO Undercuts Debate
by Francyne Harrigan.
Washington, D.C. January 26, 1998. As Congress returns from recess with ratification of the NATO expansion protocols at the top of its foreign policy agenda, a distinguished panel of experts at a press conference today called on the Senate to delay the expansion to allow time for informed debate.
"The stage is set for a rush to ratify NATO expansion based on the decision of a few power brokers without informing or hearing from the American public," said Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret.), Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information. "It almost seems that they do not want the public to be aware of the fateful consequences of NATO expansion."
These concerns were echoed by other speakers at the press event. "Expanding NATO is a ghastly mistake," stated former Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH). "But the greatest mistake is that it risks throwing away the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring Russia into the family of civilized nations." Dr. Ivan Eland, Director of Defense Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, warned: "New alliance commitments, made empty by budget realities, will ultimately hurt the United States disproportionately."
The press conference kicked off a tour of the U.S. featuring leading European, Russian, American and Canadian policy experts who believe the NATO expansion plan is fatally flawed and inherently dangerous to U.S. and global security. Citizens groups, alarmed by the lack of debate on NATO expansion and the 'insider deal' mentality of the State Department and Congress, are determined to start the much needed national debate.
Other speakers at the press conference were General Sir Hugh Beach, British Army (Ret.), William D. Hartung, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute, and Karina Wood, Co-ordinator, "No to NATO Expansion Speakers Tour."
For more information on the speakers tour, contact Media Affairs, dsmith@cdi.org
NATO Expansion: The Tragic Blunder
by Vice Admiral John J. Shanahan USN (Ret.), Director.
I have immensely enjoyed my three years as CDI's director. There have been some successes and more than a few frustrations as we have attempted to help inform and educate Americans both inside and outside the Washington Beltway. Unfortunately, military and foreign policy issues are far from being at the top of the national agenda. Much more attention is given to far less important subjects.
In this mood of national neglectfulness there is a near complete absence of public debate on some very important issues. This means that decisions are being made by bureaucrats and special interests. Nowhere is this problem better demonstrated than in the current rush of the United States to expand the NATO military alliance into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Clinton Administration has made this one of its main foreign policy goals and the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on ratification of expansion in early March. The first three countries up for membership are Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. More are to follow.
In the absence of real public debate (whether in the media or the Congress), lobby groups and military contractors are calling the shots. U.S. weapons makers see a big new market in hawking their fighter aircraft and other wares in Eastern Europe. They fund much of the pro-expansion propaganda.
Who could have guessed a few years ago, after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, that expansion of NATO would be the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy in Europe? Despite all the honeyed words, it's clear that this military alliance continues to be directed against Russia. At a time when there is every opportunity to bring Russia into the community of Western nations, we find ourselves sending an unmistakable message to Russians: you are excluded, you are mistrusted.
Down this path lies a renewed Cold War. There is nothing more important for U.S. security than solid bilateral relations with Russia. While many Americans arrogantly call themselves the world's only superpower, we must remember that Russia continues to possess a huge, destructive arsenal of nuclear weapons. Our number one priority should be the control and reduction of this remnant of the Cold War. To threaten Russians with NATO expansion can only raise obstacles to the achievement of this goal. How shortsighted can our government officials be?
Russia's current weakness will not last forever. Russians will perhaps long remember what they must regard as the U.S. effort to take advantage of Russia while it is down. A Russia that can and must be our friend may end up as our adversary once again. And it will be our own fault.
ARMS FOR THE POOR
| Who: | Office of Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Mary Knoll Productions |
| What: | Arms for the Poor screening and photograph exhibit |
| Where: | Capitol Hill |
| When: | Wednesday February 4, 11:00-12:00 |
| Why: | "It is not about geopolitical strategy...it's simply about greed and a hustle to the developing world." |
This is how a Boston Globe journalist describes the U.S. arms trade. Revealing the murky world of our weapons-export business, Arms for the Poor builds a dramatic case against the military- industrial complex.
While the poor need housing, education, and health-care, the U.S. taxpayer supports an immense military budget. Changing the rules of the game is the goal of a bipartisan coalition of members of Congress who have introduced the Code of Conduct on Arms Transfer Bill. This law will curtail the sale of weapons to non-democratic nations.
Arms for the Poor presents an international spectrum of dignitaries and activists who share the belief of one Nobel Laureate that "The poor are crying out for schools and doctors, not guns and generals."
For more information, contact Media Affairs, dsmith@cdi.org
America's Defense Monitor: "Modern American Patriot: Sen. Dale Bumpers."
A Marine Sergeant in World War II, Dale Bumpers went on to serve 24 years in the United States Senate. As he prepares to return to private life, Sen. Bumpers reflects upon his career as a leader in international arms control and outspoken foe of wasteful military and misguided military programs.
PUBLISHERS NOTE: Vice Admiral John J. Shannahan is retiring as director of the Center for Defense Information. For the past 3 years, his leadership and wisdom have shaped this organization and created one of the finest research establishment in the field of Military Affairs. He will be sorely missed.