Brought to you by the Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202)332-0600 * Fax (202)462-4559 * http://www.cdi.org
| April 9,1998 |
| April 9,1998 |
Air Force to Proceed with F-22 Procurement Despite Lack of Testing
by Chris Hellman, Senior Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information
chellman@cdi.org
The Air Force has decided to award a contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation for the first two production models of the F-22 fighter. The projected date of the contract award, December 1998, is six months earlier than previously planned in spite of the fact that the aircraft has completed only two test flights to date, totaling two hours of flight time, and will have completed only 4 percent of its planned testing hours by the time the contract is awarded. (This information was revealed by the General Accounting Office during a hearing on tactical aircraft held on March 25 by the Senate Air-Land Subcommittee.)
The early award date comes despite a series of technical problems which have delayed the F-22 program. The plane's first flight, originally planned for May of last year, was delayed until September due to problems with the fuel system. There also have been a series of problems with the plane's computer software. Given the technical complexity of the aircraft, it seems reasonable to assume that additional problems will be discovered during testing.
The Air Force's decision came as a surprise to many subcommittee members, among them several supporters of the F-22 program. Senator John Glenn (D-OH), a former Marine aviator and test pilot, expressed his concerns about the projected costs of the program. He noted that it would be particularly costly and would create further delays if contractors have to correct problems discovered during testing if the production line is already running. Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), who chairs the subcommittee, has stated that "we're being asked to take a big leap of faith" by approving an acceleration in the program. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, is so concerned that the Air Force has not adequately considered the risks of its plan that he is considering legislation to delay the program.
In his testimony before the subcommittee, Louis Rodrigues of the General Accounting Office stated that the service's plan "is a recipe for disaster." The GAO has recommended that the Air Force delay awarding the production contract until October, 1999. At that time the F-22 is scheduled to have completed 601 hours of testing -- the amount the service had earlier planned to do prior to awarding the contract.
The GAO's concerns about the pace and cost of the F-22 are not new. For example, a 1995 GAO report criticized the overlap between development and production - the "concurrency" - in the program. Under current law limits are placed on the quantity of a particular system which can be purchased before initial operational testing and evaluation (IOT&E) is completed. This law is result of a congressional finding that the military was purchasing large percentages of certain programs during "low-rate initial production" (LRIP) before IOT&E was completed. Congress passed a law limiting the quantity of a program that could be purchased under LRIP to 10 percent of the total. This law does not apply to the F-22, however. Thus under the current schedule, 80 F-22s will be purchased during LRIP, or 24% of the 339 F-22s the Air Force plans to buy.
Arthur Money, the Air Force's deputy acquisition chief, stated the service's plan to speed up the program is an effort to control overall program costs. He told the subcommittee, "Stability [in funding and schedules] is the key to affordability." He further stated that additional delays would result in significant cost increases, breaking both the engineering and manufacturing development and the production cost caps set by Congress on the program last year. According to Money, the delay advocated by the GAO could result in a $4 billion increase.
In arguing for expediting the contract award, the Air Force is essentially saying that it is too expensive to determine if the F-22 will work as advertised before we buy it. This is analogous to asking someone to buy a car after taking it for a brief spin around the parking lot. While this might be sufficient (if one is a mechanic) when considering a used Chevette, it makes no sense for a $70 billion aircraft for which the taxpayers are being sent the bill.
Latvia's Achilles Heel
by Tomas Valasek, Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information
tvalasek@cdi.org
Recent events in Latvia has thrown a wrench into the relations between Riga and Moscow.
On March 3 a demonstration by Russian-speaking citizens in Riga was broken up by the police. Accounts differ on how much force was used, but some Russian leaders such as Moscow's mayor Yuri Luzhkov and former foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov decried Latvia's "flagrant violation of human rights" and "policy of genocide."
Fourteen days later, former Latvian Waffen SS members marching in Riga were joined by the chief of the Latvian armed forces and several parliamentarians. Given that SS units fought alongside the Germans against the Soviet Union, the event could not fail to attract Moscow's attention and criticism.
Political bombshells turned to real ones when an explosion damaged a synagogue in Riga on April 2. Four days later, a mine placed close to the Russian embassy in Riga blew out windows on diplomatic cars parked in front of the building.
These events further aggravated Russia-Latvia relations which long have been plagued by the status of the roughly 700,000 Russian-speaking citizens of the country who still hold Soviet-era passports. They are required to apply for Latvian citizenship before an October 1998 deadline, but a requirement to speak Latvian, a language very different from Russian, has kept most of them from applying.
To its credit, the Latvian government moved quickly to purge controversial figures from official positions and distance itself from acts of terrorism. The parade-happy armed forces commander, Juris Dalbinsh, was dismissed, as was the Latvian police chief Aldis Lieljuksis for his failure to solve the synagogue bombing. Economics minister Atis Sausnitis was also dismissed for spreading "hysterical" remarks about perceived Russian economic sanctions that had cost Latvia $300 million. But the damage to Latvia's reputation and its relations with Moscow was done.
Indeed, the response from Russia was furious. "President Yeltsin has ordered ministers to prepare economic measures against Latvia," a Kremlin spokesperson told news agencies on April 8. The Latvian port of Ventspils became the focus of possible economic sanctions. It is the second largest transit point for outbound Russian oil, handling about 11 percent of Russian exports. Moscow threatened to stop using Ventspils and to reroute its oil exports.
While Latvian leaders quickly pointed out that cutting off Ventspils would hurt Russia's economy as well, Riga stands to lose more, in economic terms, from a trade war with Moscow. Russia's oil czars have been discussing a decrease in production for some time now, mainly due to the drop in the world price of oil. If Moscow decides to cut exports by about 10 percent, it will have eliminated the need for Ventspils. In the longer term, Moscow plans to develop pipelines to its own ports on the Baltic Sea. Lack of cash needed for such massive investment, however, has prevented Moscow from building the pipelines.
Bypassing Ventspils, for any reason, could rip a hole in Latvia's economy. Latvia takes a commission of $5 on each ton of oil that passes through Ventspils, a total of 14.6 million tons in 1997. About 25 percent of Latvia's GDP income is produced by transit of Russian goods, and Ventspils handles over two-thirds of the oil transit.
This crisis brings up memories of the1993-94 "energy wars" between Russia and Ukraine. But as far as gas and oil supplies are concerned, Latvia is better positioned than Ukraine. Latvia receives 100 percent of its gas and most of its oil from Russia. But unlike Ukraine, which bought oil at discounted prices, Latvia pays world prices and can turn to other suppliers without economic loss if Russian deliveries cease. Transport should not pose big problems as most of the gas for consumption is imported (the pipeline to Ventspils is strictly for export). As far as gas is concerned, Latvia has about a years worth of reserves in underground reservoirs. Latvia's Achilles heel, therefore, is the income from transit and not its supplies of Russian gas and oil.
Fortunately, after initial talk of "sanctions," Moscow toned down its rhetoric. Economic sanctions against Latvia would be hard to justify in legal terms, so the latest euphemism for a trade war with Latvia is "targeted economic pressures."
The larger point to be noted from this crisis is that the former Soviet Republics remain dependent on Russia for their trade and/or energy supplies. As long as this dependency exists, they remain vulnerable to economic pressure from Russia. And Moscow has shown it is ready to use its economic leverage to meet its political goals.
Fighting a Culture of Guns
by Rachel Stohl, Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information
rsthol@cdi.org
On April 6, President Clinton promulgated an Executive Order which expanded the number of military-style assault rifles that would be banned from import by the United States. Clinton's ban addresses 58 types of assault rifles, such as Uzis and AK-47s, whose designs had been modified to circumvent the assault weapons ban of 1994. This month's action should help prevent 1.5 million assault rifles from entering the United States.
Clinton's ban does not address assault rifles made domestically. U.S. manufacturers now have a monopoly to supply the 600,000 pending permits for assault rifles in this country. Clinton's ban identifies the dangers of military assault rifles to the civilian population. If importing such weapons harms the United States, then logically civilians should not be permitted to purchase these military weapons from any source.
The NRA and other pro-gun groups and individuals have promised to lobby against Clinton's ban on the basis that it violates the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. However, Clinton's ban does not address handguns or hunting rifles. It only bans the import of military-style weapons, those that are inappropriate for civilian use. As Clinton himself remarked, "You don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting. You don't need an AK-47 to go skeet shooting." The weapons addressed by the executive order are simply military weapons. They were designed as instruments of war. Removing the bayonet or sight does not make them acceptable for civilian use.
Opponents of the order also argue that these weapons are necessary for personal defense. John Velleco, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America, said on Voice of America, "They are useful for self-defense....If there is ever a case where a gang or mob is attacking you, as happened in the Los Angeles riots in 1992...a single shot .22 is not really going to cut it...."
We have a culture of guns in this country. Velleco's statement shows a prevailing ideology that guns can be used to solve problems. In the United States, guns are easily accessible and inexpensive. The shock and horror of tragedies such as Jonesboro all to quickly fade into memory and children continue to bring guns to school. On April 6, an eight year old boy brought a loaded .32 caliber pistol to school and threatened another classmate. At first the gun was mistaken for a toy, and it took an extra day for school authorities to notice the real truth.
The fact is that the United States is plagued with the highest incidence of gun violence in the Western World. The weapons used in the 9,390 handgun murders each year in the United States will not be covered by this most recent gun control measure. But by removing imports of miliary assault rifles, the first step has be taken to stigmatize the prevalent use of deadly weapons in this country. The culture of guns should not be simply accepted and allowed to perpetuate a culture of violence.
Armenian Presidential Elections Herald Continued Tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan
by Jared Feinberg, Scoville Fellow, Center for Defense Information
jfeinber@cdi.org
Robert Kocharyan, former President of the Armenian enclave of Nagorno- Karabakh, was elected President of Armenia in a second round of voting March 30. With Kocharyan's election Western diplomats and journalists remain increasingly pessimistic about current prospects for a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.
These new elections were necessary when former President Ter-Petrossian was forced to resign in February after his government supported an OSCE peace plan for Nagorno-Karabakh. The OSCE plan was based upon concessions such as withdrawing Armenian forces from certain areas within Azerbaijan before discussing the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Ter-Petrossian had hoped a more lenient policy towards Azerbaijan would lead to a relaxation of Turkey's and Azerbaijan's debilitating economic blockades against Armenia. Mr. Kocharyan, Prime Minister of Armenia at the time, was head of the opposition that rejected any compromise with Azerbaijan.
In 1994, a cease fire was declared in the unofficial Armenian-Azerbaijan war over Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh emerged as the clear victors. A final peace settlement, however, has proven elusive as it hinges on the future status of the enclave. The decision has yet to be made if it is to be independent from Azerbaijan or rather an autonomous area within the Azerbaijani state.
This current conflict goes back to the principles agreed to at the 1996 OSCE Lisbon summit, which called for the respect of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity in any peace settlement. This statement implied that Nagorno-Karabakh, though autonomous, must remain part of the Azerbaijani state. Nagorno-Karabakh maintains that nothing less than full independence will end the conflict with Azerbaijan. President-elect Kocharyan now believes a final peace settlement must be negotiated directly by Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. Direct negotiations between the two parties are doubtful as Azerbaijan requires its territorial integrity be recognized by Nagorno-Karabakh as a precondition to any talks.
Although President-elect Kocharyan may wish to moderate his stance on negotiations now that he is in power, it is doubtful he will make any conciliatory gestures toward Azerbaijan. He won the election in large part because of his rigid stance on the dispute, and it seems that he will have to reinforce the intractable line of Nagorno-Karabakh or face the same fate as his predecessor, Ter-Petrossian.
On April 6, the Azerbaijani National Security Council, recognizing the adverse implications of Kocharyan's presidency, called upon the OSCE's Minsk Group to step up its efforts for a political solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Minsk Group, which has been conducting negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, is co-chaired by Russia, France and the United States.
Related to this conflict between the two Caucasus states is the role of Russia in the South Caucasus and its aspirations for a strong and unified Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Throughout the conflict, Russia supported Armenia with money and supplies to the detriment of Azerbaijan. Russia also currently maintains military installations in Armenia. President Heydar Aliev of Azerbaijan recently stated that there should be "no special relations between any two CIS countries." This statement was in response to an August 1997 Armenian and Russian mutual assistance pact which has been a further cause of irritation for the Azerbaijan government. Azerbaijan has stated that this military agreement will in no way benefit the CIS. Azerbaijan, though, also signed a Friendship Treaty with Russia in July of 1997 regarding future talks on border protection.
If ultimately a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be worked out, it will both aid the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and contribute to Russia's potentially stabilizing role in the Caucasus.
Salaam, Shalom, Peace - A Word on a Word
by Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), Associate Director, Center for Defense Information
dsmith@cdi.org
Last December the Washington Post ran an article detailing the confluence of holy days of the world's great and even not so great religions. This week sees a similar confluence among the three largest religious traditions of the western world with the culmination of the Islamic Hajj and the celebration of the Jewish Passover and Christian Easter.
It must be coincidence, but this week of high holydays also brings signs that a "new Spring," a blossoming of peace, may be at hand in some parts of the world that have long suffered from violence.
In the Persian Gulf, ten years after Iran and Iraq stopped fighting, the two countries are engaged in a massive prisoner-of-war exchange. In another very troubled part of the world, North and South Korea, in spite of public rhetoric, are set to resume discussions on April 11. One topic expected to be addressed is the reunion of families separated by the 1950-53 war, a war that has still not officially ended.
Under the chairmanship of former Senate Majority leader George Mitchell, the current round of negotiations in Northern Ireland on the future of that province are moving toward a deadline. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Irish counterpart Bertie Ahern have come to Belfast to push the eight participating factions past the last hurdles. What gives many the hope that the 30 year modern "Troubles" may at last be at an end is the determination of all those in the negotiations to press ahead even in the face of continued occasional sectarian murders.
Elsewhere, out of the limelight, there are other encouraging events. In the former Yugoslavia, the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo have selected a four-person team to meet with the Serbs (although any meeting must include international mediators). In the Far East, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto will meet April 11-13 and may explore the possibility of joint exercises for humanitarian and disaster relief - a small but significant cooperative step. And on the nuclear front, France and Britain this week ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty while the Speaker of the Russian Duma predicted that body would finally ratify the START II Treaty before it adjourns for the summer.
Other long-running conflicts, however, are more impervious to diplomacy. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson, for example, begins a five nation swing into the cauldron of South Asia on Friday. Two of the countries he will visit - Afghanistan and Sri Lanka - have long running civil wars that have killed and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. (A third country on Mr. Richardson's itinerary, Bangladesh, also has civil rebellion, but on a much less deadly scale.)
Then there are Pakistan and India, countries whose enmity, rooted in the political fracturing of the subcontinent after World War II, is reinforced by an often rabid nationalism and a religious divide. Pakistan's reported test this week of a 1,500 kilometer (900 mile) range surface-to-surface missile, coupled with India's recent declaration that it might "reevaluate" its nuclear weapons policy, feeds continuing tensions between the two neighbors.
But even this situation seems to pale when compared to the current potential for increased conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ambassador Richard Holbrook's efforts to defuse the latest crisis in Cyprus (which draws in Turkey and Greece) proved unsuccessful. In and around Israel, which observes its 50th anniversary at the end of April, tensions remain very high. Even though 25 years have passed since the last major war in 1973, only Egypt and Jordan have treaties with Israel. Efforts to secure accords with Lebanon and Syria and to advancer the Palestinian-Israeli peace process that began in Oslo have failed thus far. Compared to Northern Ireland, the Korean peninsula, and the Persian Gulf, prospects for overcoming the continuing divide in the Eastern Mediterranean seem dim indeed.
So, is peace/shalom/salaam but a noise we make, full of sound, signifying nothing?
Prime Minister Blair, in referring to the Belfast discussions, noted that the choice of words often is the key between success and failure in negotiating lasting agreements. This seems obvious, for if the principles at issue and the objectives sought are not clearly stated, then the implementing details will lack the indispensable foundation of all negotiations: trust.
Perhaps in places such as South Asia, the former Yugoslavia, and the Middle East, it is time to reemphasize the importance of the word that represents the hope and the objective of ordinary men and women everywhere: Shalom, Salaam, Peace.
CHILD SOLDIERS CONFERENCE
Video Presentation of Child Soldiers in Sierra Leone
| WHAT: | Victims of War & Armed Conflict: Future Programs for Sierra Leone's Children Conference |
|---|---|
| Organizers of Conference: | Self Help Initiative (S.E.H.I.) |
| Video Presentation by: | Center for Defense Information |
| WHO: | Honorable Flora MacDonald, Former Foreign Minister, Canada Dr. M. Fofana, Assistant Director, World Bank, Chair, S.E.H.I. Dr. Paul McCleary, President for Children, UNICEF Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret.), Dep. Dir., CDI |
| WHEN: | 9:00-5:00 PM, Friday, April 17, 1998 9:30-3:30 PM, Saturday, April 18, 1998 |
| WHERE: | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC |
ADMISSION TO THE CONFERENCE IS FREE
For more information or for a full agenda of the conference/speakers list, please contact Francyne Harrigan at fharriga@cdi.org
Last week, the WDM reported ("Nuclear Arms Race Averted in South Asia, For Now") that tensions between India and Pakistan were threatening to escalate. At that time, both New Delhi and Islamabad demonstrated some restraint in their nuclear (India) and ballistic missile (Pakistan) programs. Unfortunately, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry announced that a flight test of a new intermediate-range ballistic missile called the Ghauri (Hatf-V) was conducted on Monday, April 6. The Ghauri announcement follows the formation of a new BJP-led coalition government. BJP Pre-election statements said the party would seek to "induct" nuclear weapons and increase funding and development efforts of India's Agni 2,500 kilometer-range ballistic missile. While specifications of the Ghauri and Pakistan's motivations behind its testing are not yet know, the Monday announcement can only have a negative effect on both South Asian states' security.