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
| February 19,1998 |
| February 19,1998 |
Following are the nine conditions identified by Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, as contributing to global turmoil and instability. Each is followed by a short commentary. Lt. Gen. Hughes was testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Excerpt from "Global Threats and Challenges: The Decades Ahead"
Statement for The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, January 28, 1998
"The objective global conditions that have driven the turmoil and instability of the post-Cold War era remain largely in effect. The most important include:
COMMENT: This is an excellent example of conditions that are not amenable to any conceivable military remedy--except for the countries involved to stop spending huge amounts of scare monetary resources on armaments. Preventive diplomacy in the form of U.S. support for the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other relevant U.N. agencies will do more to relieve the strains of population, urbanization, and economic development than guns and rockets.
COMMENT: To mitigate the humanitarian disasters lying in wait, the U.S. should move immediately to shape U.N. rapid, preventive diplomacy responses that can head off an outbreak of violence. The U.N. should then initiate building necessary indigenous infrastructures for the long-term, while providing humanitarian relief in the near-term.
COMMENT: The U.S. should lead in strengthening the ability of regional security organizations to mediate disputes and, when necessary, to respond with combined civil-paramilitary and military forces trained for peace-intervention/peace maintenance.
COMMENT: As the world’s largest arms trader, the U.S. has an obligation to lead in developing a multinational set of standards that restrict arms trading and to lobby for the adoption of such a system by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and other major European arms dealers. This standard should incorporate the principles of the pending Code of Conduct for Arms Transfers legislation in the U.S. Congress, including the prevention of regional arms races at any level ( from small arms to high technology aircraft) and keeping weapons from reaching regimes that threaten or engage in aggression or ignore the basic human rights of their citizens.
COMMENT: The U.S. should press for eliminating regional common defense pacts that divide states into competing military camps. To ensure collective security arrangements, such pacts could be broadened and come under the aegis of comprehensive regional political fora empowered to apply conflict resolution mechanisms in the diplomatic and economic spheres. In regard to NATO, expansion of the alliance as currently envisioned does not meet the criterion.
COMMENT: The U.S. should encourage and participate in improving international law enforcement cooperation, initiate intelligence exchanges, and develop better domestic emergency response capabilities to combat terrorism.
COMMENT: Through intensive diplomacy in concert with close allies, the U.S. should develop non-military measures that can be selectively employed to discourage "rogue activities" by states or sub-national actors that violate international norms. Such measures must be crafted to avoid giving leaders of such states or organizations an excuse to rally support from their people against the U.S.
COMMENT: This, in part, is a non-governmental consideration dealing with the attitudes and views of American citizens. However, the U.S. government should require its official representatives to be well-schooled in the culture, language, and traditions of states to which they may be assigned, and the government should be careful not to denigrate any nation or culture in official and non-official utterances.
COMMENT: This non-military concern can be mitigated by U.S. government support of U.N. relief and non-governmental organizations working to address these issues. Where emergency help is needed, the military might be called on to help initiate world responses and provide logistical support.
Comment: Turmoil is a fact of international life. The U.S. should be prepared to support regional security organizations and the U.N. in preventing or mitigating the effects of turmoil that become violent. We should not, however, attempt to or feel it is our obligation to respond to all instances or violence everywhere in the world.
"These factors bring great stress to the international order. No condition, circumstance, or power is likely to emerge over the next 10-20 years, which will somehow transcend them and lead to a more stable global order. The international security environment will remain dynamic, complex, and challenging for US security policy planners and operators."
A Season for Nonviolence
by Emily E. Skor, Research Intern, intern@mail.cdi.org
"One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that
we seek but a means by which we arrive at the goal. We must pursue peaceful
ends through peaceful means."
- M.L. King
This year marks the 50th and 30th anniversaries of the assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., respectively. Through lifelong dedication to promoting nonviolence, human tolerance, and social responsibility, each man led his fellow citizens to a higher level of mutual respect and human decency. They have become the world’s peacemaking mentors, and for some, lifelong heros. Both are gone, and while we celebrate their lives and accomplishments, one must ask whether we still celebrate their cause.
Many Americans stayed home from work on January 17, but how many used that day to sleep in, go shopping, or catch up on overdue projects? January 30 came and went, but who knew that it was the international Gandhi memorial date? Perhaps seeing King’s "I Have a Dream Speech" on television evoked memories of peace marches and civil activism. And maybe that image triggered a candid discussion on race relations in the U.S. More likely than not, however, the brief discussion and fleeting thoughts on human rights and nonviolent conflict resolutions disappeared as the next morning’s headlines relayed news of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs.
Nearing an impasse in diplomatic relations with Iraq, heads of state and foreign ministers frantically search for a peaceful accord. However, without a vocabulary that includes international cooperation, collaboration, or compromise, neither Russia’s wheeling and dealing, America’s military might, nor Iraq’s steadfast resolve will produce an understanding one could call "mutual."
With a prospective new air campaign against Iraq in the offing, January 30 came, marking the start of an entirely different campaign, the "Gandhi/King: A Season for Nonviolence." In honor of the 50th and 30th Memorial Anniversaries of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence and the Association for Global New Thought have coordinated a 64-day grass roots effort to promote the "philosophy and practice of nonviolence." The Season, January 30-April 4, covers the 64 days between the Gandhi and King memorial anniversaries. Over 200 organizations and institutions have joined the coalition which sponsors local dialogues and educational programs on nonviolence in 14 major U.S. cities.
The "Season for Nonviolence" emphasizes individual decision-making and communal action. The objective is to empower individuals and encourage communities to embrace social and political responsibility. Furthermore, it actively encourages nonviolence as a "powerful alternative for creating respect, justice, equity, and understanding among all people." But this is not just a local effort; the activities are part of a national campaign with an international message. At a time when local communities are struggling to prevent crime and manage social and economic tensions, the international community also is struggling to prevent crime and promote tolerance in places such as Ireland and the Middle East. The world is growing weary of the stalemate with Iraq and stagnant peace negotiations in South Asia, North East Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The solution is not, however, to beat the war drum with one hand and salute our past peacemaking leaders with the other.
If the "season for nonviolence" can accomplish anything, perhaps it will inspire our current leaders to consider the visions of two of this century’s greatest leaders as they formulate our foreign policies.
Democracy a la NATO Part I: Double-edged Sword
by Tomas Valasek, Research Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
The NATO debate in Central and Eastern Europe rarely mentions one very important fact: NATO guarantees as articulated in Article V of the Washington Treaty, work both ways - just as the U.S. would have to come to the defense of Budapest, Hungary will become embroiled in Washington’s conflicts. Although the actual wording of Article V leaves room for interpretation as it calls for "such actions as [the party] deems necessary," recent events leave little doubt that new NATO allies will be under pressure to commit troops to U.S. military interventions.
For example, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put the foreign ministers of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic on the spot during their recent visit to Washington, D.C. She pleaded with the ministers to support a U.S. military strike against Iraq, to which they consented - in some cases without consulting with their parliaments. The reasons for the new members’ eagerness to commit their blood and treasure was best summed up in the words of an advisor to Czech president Havel, who said, "we have to be ready to support our allies, especially because we are trying to get in NATO."
While the United States can be satisfied that it has allies so ready to fall in line when necessary, the message to the people of the three countries is disturbing: NATO accession, as understood by Central European leaders, represents an automatic involvement in the conflicts of the West. And, as one Hungarian expert pointed out, "in view of the recent crises in the Middle East, it is much more likely that [Central Europeans] will be summoned to protect Western oil interests than, for example, the British would be called upon to defend Warsaw or Budapest."
Compare that to the reaction of countries rejected from the first round of NATO expansion. While Romania promises to support "any means, involving those of military nature" in Iraq, the Slovenian government is keeping its options open, and Slovakia’s position has varied from emphasizing diplomatic solutions to an outright rejection of the use of force.
The recent developments also have an important political dimension. Imagine a U.S. leader deciding to join another country’s military operation without first consulting the Congress, if not securing its outright approval. Yet that is precisely what happened in the Czech Republic. A prominent supporter of Czech participation in a Gulf coalition was quoted in the Czech press as saying, "it is in our national interest [to join a U.S.-led coalition] but I am slightly nervous that the minister made a promise without consultations with the Parliament." And nervous he should be. The events in Washington set a disturbing precedence: it is apparently permissible for a government official to unilaterally promise to involve his country in a war, provided it is in the name of "national security" - or, in this case, in the name of a short-term political goal, NATO membership. The alliance, which calls itself a "vehicle for democracy," is being hypocritical by sanctioning a blatantly undemocratic development in an aspiring member state.
Can Bombing Remove Saddam’s Chemical and Biological Weapons?
by Andrew Koch, Senior Research Analyst, akoch@cdi.org
The United States military is gearing up to strike Iraq in order to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring or retaining weapons of mass destruction. In particular, the Pentagon is concerned about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapon (chem/bio) programs. Given these objectives, it is highly unlikely that a bombing campaign will be anything more than a temporary thorn in Saddam’s side.
While the exact size and scope of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapon programs is not known, most analysts agree with U.S. government and United Nations Special Commission in Iraq (UNSCOM) declarations that these programs exist and are being actively pursued. That, however, is where agreement ends. The Pentagon has released numerous statements claiming that it could effectively and safely strike Iraqi chem/bio sites, only to later qualify these statements by saying that collateral damage is to be expected, and that they could never be sure whether all of Saddam’s gas and germ warfare centers were destroyed.
At the heart of the problem is the ability of an intelligence agency to accurately predict where and when Iraq will be hiding prohibited equipment the U.S. seeks to destroy. Chemical and biological weapons facilities are small, mobile, and easily concealed within legitimate civilian facilities such as hospitals, universities, and fertilizer plants. American inability to accurately identify all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction-related facilities during the 1991 Gulf War demonstrated the difficulties of such a task. Furthermore, because much of the equipment needed to produce chemical and especially biological weapons is readily available from civilian facilities, as long as Iraq retains the scientific know-how and political will to produce weapons of mass destruction, Baghdad will be able to do so.
Even if Baghdad’s chem/bio production and storage sites are found, the U.S. military’s ability to destroy them without releasing their deadly contents into the air is questionable at best. Pentagon sources have said they could use inert (non-explosive), laser-guided, 2,000 lb. bombs, which have reportedly been tested for such a contingency. Another option would be to use precision guided munitions armed with a hard target smart fuze that would explode after penetrating a designated part of a facility. According to the Pentagon, the bombs would create sufficiently high levels of heat to destroy any chemical or biological agents present inside. However, bombing a chemical or biological weapon site has never been tested under real-life conditions, and the possibility that toxic agents would be released into the atmosphere can not be ignored. The alleged connection between American bombing of an Iraqi ammunition depot at Khamisiyah which held chemical weapons, and causes of the Gulf War Illness, punctuates the perils of such actions.
In the end, the U.S. is confronted with the dilemma of whether temporarily inconveniencing Iraq’s military machine is worth leaving Saddam Hussein politically more powerful than ever, aggravating allies, and possibly endangering the health of U.S. military personnel in the region.
For more information, see CDI’s map on possible U.S. targets in Iraq http://www.cdi.org/issues/iraq/
The D.C. Coalition To Stop the U.S. War On Iraq is sponsoring a RALLY and MARCH to protest the possible use of U.S. military force in the Persian Gulf on SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21st.
Schedule:
12:00pm -- Rally/Speak Out in Dupont Circle
1:00pm -- March to the White House
2:00pm -- Rally at Lafayette Park
For information or to volunteer, call: (202) 544-9355
AND, look for "Standoff with Iraq: Diplomacy or Smart Bombs?", a Special Episode of CDI's weekly television program "America's Defense Monitor" airing the week of February 22. CDI President Rear Admiral Gene R. La Rocque, (USN, Ret.) presents a diplomatic alternative to U.S. military action in Iraq. (Check local listings for a time and channel in your area.)