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
| July 9,1998 |
| July 9,1998 |
Remembering the Draft
by Colonel Daniel M. Smith, USA (Ret.), Center for Defense Information
dsmith@cdi.org
Just over 25 years ago, on June 30, 1973, the U.S. military took in its last draftee. For many, it was an unlamented end of what had become, during the Vietnam War, a symbol of government coercion.
It was not always so. The origins of the modern draft - what became known as the Selective Service System - go back to the early years of World War I. In 1914, prominent Americans such as Teddy Roosevelt, Elihu Root, and Henry Stimson created the National Security League to promote national preparedness and the sense of a unified, disciplined America. By 1916 the National Security League and its allies were advocating universal military training on a volunteer basis or, if volunteers were too few, on a mandatory, conscripted basis.
Conscription during the Civil War had been strongly resisted, and the Wilson Administration had no desire to reenter those shoals. But events in Europe soon overtook the cautious approach to raising an Army that could contribute meaningfully to the allied cause. By March, 1917 legislation authorizing a draft of up to one million men was ready to be submitted to Congress. It called for local boards of prominent citizens to implement a national conscription policy.
On April 6, 1917, the U.S. declared war on Germany. On May 18 Congress passed the Selective Service Act which, among other provisions, called for drafting 500,000 men between the ages of nineteen and twenty-five to serve for the duration of the war. By the war's end, almost 24 million men had been registered, over 6.3 million had been called and 2.78 million inducted.
Twenty-two years later America was to repeat this experience. Neither President Roosevelt nor the Army Chief of Staff, General George Marshall, believed that Congress would approve or the public accept a new draft until America became involved in the war. But outside pressure, again from some prominent Americans, altered the equation - as did Roosevelt's appointment of Henry Stimson as Secretary of War. On September 16, 1940, Congress authorized the first peace-time draft in American history. One month later all males between ages twenty-one and thirty-five were registered - some 16.5 million. They were liable for service for twelve months. In August, 1941 Congress extended the tour of duty of those drafted earlier to eighteen months. Pearl Harbor made it duty "for the duration." Between November, 1940 and October, 1946, over 10.1 million were drafted into the military services. On March 31, 1947, the World War II draft expired. With the Soviet threat looming, a new draft was inaugurated in June, 1948, not so much to bring men into uniform but to induce them to volunteer. Only some 30,000 were inducted before draft calls fell to zero in early 1950. When the Korean War started, however, draft calls soared. In the last four months of 1950 draft calls for 210,000 men were issued and another 587,000 were drafted in 1951. By mid-1952 the one million man mark had been reached.
The Korean experience finally convinced Congress to make the Selective Service System "permanent," with draft authority running for four years. This authority was renewed in 1955, 1959, and 1963 even though annual draft calls fell to around 100,000. But inductions had started to rise in 1962, reaching 382,000 in 1966 as the Vietnam War mushroomed. Unlike earlier wars, however, the cost of the draft to the nation - politically and societally - was enormous. The 1967 renewal process went forward, but by 1968 the whole structure was in trouble. In late 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed a commission to examine the feasibility of an all-volunteer force. Congress in 1971 extended the draft for two years, the last time it would do so.
Draftee induction authority ended July 1, 1973. The last conscript was discharged in November, 1974.
I still have my Selective Service Card -- somewhere.
International Efforts Address Use of Child Soldiers
by Rachel Stohl, Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information
rstohl@cdi.org
On June 30 the International Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers was launched by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Federation of Terre des Hommes, Jesuit Refugee Service, Quaker United Nations Office, and Rädda Barnen - Swedish Save the Children (on behalf of the International Save the Children Alliance). The International Coalition is working to raise awareness of the issue of Child Soldiers - both by national governments and the general public - and to achieve a ban eliminating the use of child soldiers.
One of the Coalition’s objectives is to set up national campaigns in countries where the issue of child soldiers is virtually unknown or where a country has a particular policy detrimental to the advancement of the Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child (which raises the age of military recruitment, conscription, and participation in war to 18 years).
The United States is one such country. Not only does the U.S. recruit individuals under 18 for military service, the U.S. is blocking progress of a UN working group addressing the issue of child soldiers. In response, non- governmental organizations have established the U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers. To address strategies pertaining to the U.S. Government and to work for change in U.S. policy through the legislative branch, the Washington Coalition on Child Soldiers has been formed.
The International Coalition’s launch came on the heels of historic action at the United Nations by the UN Security Council on the issue of child soldiers. On June 29, the Security Council debated the issue of child soldiers. The discussions were initiated by the President of the Security Council, Antonio Monteiro of Portugal. Reuters reported Monteiro’s statement on behalf of the Council: "[The Security Council] strongly condemns the targeting of children in armed conflicts, including their humiliation, brutalization, sexual abuse, abduction and forced displacements, as well as their recruitment and use in hostilities in violation of international law." Furthermore, Inter Press Service reported the Council’s condemnation of "the recruitment of children in hostilities as a violation of international law and called upon all parties concerned to put an end to such activities."
The Council called upon the UN’s Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, Olara Otunnu, among others, to inform the Council of the multitude of issues concerning child soldiers. Otunnu, who previously held the post of Foreign Minister of Uganda, was appointed by UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan in 1997 in accordance with a provision in a 1996 General Assembly Resolution.
Otunnu revealed startling statistics to the Council. Currently, over 250,000 children under the age of 18 serve in government military forces or with armed rebel groups. Children are directly involved in conflicts in over 50 countries in various capacities such as cooks, spies, messengers, "comfort women," and of course, soldiers. Otunnu also illustrated the damage armed conflict perpetuates on children around the world: "In the last decade alone we have seen two million children killed, over one million orphaned, six million seriously injured or permanently disabled, 12 million made homeless and 10 million left with serious psychological trauma."
The issue of child soldiers is shocking and horrifying. Both boys and girls, some as young as eight years old, are recruited (either kidnaped or forced) to join armed groups. These children often suffer sexual abuse, are encouraged to partake in illegal drugs, and are forced to commit atrocities and egregious acts of violence.
A significant factor in the increased use of child soldiers has been the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. Because these weapons are easy to use and are lightweight, a small child can carry and operate them. A New York Times Report quotes the Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Stephen Lewis, as saying that "a booming trade in small arms was contributing to a worldwide culture of violence and indiscriminate killing at the end of the 20th century that was putting guns into the hands of children."
There is an enormous amount of work to be done to educate the world community about the issue of child soldiers. As international and national efforts take hold, they contribute to the growing momentum to eliminate the use of children as soldiers. At the press conference launching the International Coalition, Stephen Lewis summed up the need for increased efforts: "The use of children in waging war violates every existing standard of civilized human behavior. The international community can dilly-dally no longer: we must take action. The starting point is clearly a universal ban on military recruitment of any kind - voluntary or obligatory - under the age of 18."
For more information about the International Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, please see: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/child.soldiers/childsoldiers.htm or the websites of the individual organizations: http://www.amnesty.org, http://www.hrw.org, http://www.jesuit.org/refugee, http://www.quaker.org/quno, http://www.rb.se
For more information about the U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, the Washington Coalition on Child Soldiers, or general information about the issue of child soldiers, please contact rstohl@cdi.org.
British Nuclear Weapons Accidents: A Lesson for All?
by Jaya Tiwari, Research Intern, Center for Defense Information
jtiwari@cdi.org
Despite claims by the nuclear weapon states that their nuclear arsenals are
safe and reliable, an accidental nuclear catastrophe remains a distinct
possibility. To date, the size and scope of the danger has not been fully
documented because the nuclear powers have continuously swept the true
extent of these incidents under the rug. But a June 28, 1998 article in The
Daily Telegraph details several accidents involving British nuclear weapons
that had not been publicly revealed. The report clearly illustrates how
human and mechanical errors associated with handling nuclear weapons could
jeopardize the lives of countless civilians.
The Daily Telegraph report, which describes over a dozen accidents involving British nuclear weapons since1950, was based on information leaked by a senior Ministry of Defence official. At least four of these accidents resulted in the release of radioactive material; on several occasions an explosion could have occurred.
For example, in Septemebr 1973 a WE-177 gravity bomb at the Royal Air Force (RAF) base in Akrotiri, Cyprus was found to have leaked radioactive tritium. The bomb was secretly sent back to Britain after being examined by a team of scientists, but the Cyprus government was never informed that the incident occurred or that the RAF was storing nuclear weapons on the island. In another case, a hoist on the Royal Naval ship Tiger collapsed, dumping a torpedo it was carrying onto a nuclear bomb. Fortunately, the torpedo did not explode. A third accident in May, 1984 at RAF Bruggen, Germany involved a live WE-177 gravity bomb which slid off the vehicle transporting it.
Such accidents are not confined to Britain. In 1981, the U.S. Department of Defense declassified information about 32 accidents involving American nuclear weapons, a number that represents only a fraction of the total accidents that have occurred. Similar mishaps have been documented by Greenpeace and other public interest groups involving Soviet/Russian nuclear weapons.
The news report, which the British Ministry of Defence has not confirmed or denied, suggests that a serious review should be taken of the "domestic" dangers posed by nuclear weapons. The nuclear powers have long lulled the world into a false sense of security by denying public access to information about nuclear weapon accidents. The possibility of an accident involving nuclear weapons poses a danger to both their possessors and potential enemies against whom the weapons were designed to guard.
The more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal is certainly more than is needed for America’s security. A substantial reduction in this stockpile, therefore, can actually increase our security by reducing the likelihood of a nuclear catastrophe. More importantly, official acknowledgment of past nuclear weapons safety problems could serve as a warning to would-be proliferators that the threat posed by nuclear weapons is as close to home as any facility or weapons platform with a nuclear device.
GUAM: Creating Perceptions in the Caucasus
by Jared Feinberg, Scoville Fellow, Center for Defense Information
jfeinber@cdi.org
At the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (CEAP) meeting in Luxembourg on May 31, Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova met within their informal consultative mechanism referred to as GUAM.
Since its official inception at the Strasbourg Council of Europe meeting in October, 1997, these four states’ common interests of securing oil pipelines through their territories, combating secessionist movements (blamed on Russia), and expediting integration into the Euro-Atlantic security structures have been the bond holding GUAM together.
One of the most interesting political ideas that GUAM considered in Luxembourg was a "16+4" consultation between NATO and the four GUAM states as a group. The "16+4" mechanism would allow Moldova, Azerbaijan and Georgia to consult with NATO at a more exclusive level than the Partnership-for- Peace (PfP) allows. Ukraine has discussed the "16+4" formula within the NATO-Ukraine Joint Council where, as expected, it met with skepticism from the NATO staff. Ukraine’s unique relationship with NATO, however, remains an important asset for GUAM.
Secessionist movements in Moldova, Azerbaijan and Georgia have existed for years and all remain at a stalemate today. One official from a GUAM state said that they would like to see these conflicts discussed at the level of the CEAP, as are Bosnia and Kosovo. It has also been alleged that critical security issues like Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh have been kept off the agenda of CEAP in order not to offend Russia, which many states believe has a direct interest in perpetuating these conflicts. Georgia, for example, would like to internationalize the all-Russian CIS peacekeeping force currently deployed in Abkhazia.
Just as Ukraine brings to the other three states its relationship with NATO and relatively large military resources, the remaining three bring other assets to the group. In return, of course, they each expect to gain something from GUAM.
For example, Georgia brings the high international profile and respectability of its President, Eduard Shevardnadze. Allying with these three other states helps Georgia gain leverage and a wider audience for its grievances against Russia. Economically, the main export pipeline (MEP) will most likely traverse Georgia toward the Black Sea. From Georgian Black Sea ports this oil can then be transported to Ukraine and other European states.
Azerbaijan also craves the political leverage and unity that GUAM provides as added weight in its ongoing conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. In turn, Azerbaijan controls the economic spigot of much of the future Caspian oil and its associated wealth.
Moldova, a small state with a secessionist movement aided by Russian forces, also finds comfort within this perception of partnership and unity with larger neighbors. Moldova's chief contribution (which also is one of Ukraine's contributions) is the link to Europe that it provides its two Caucasian partners. As Georgian President Shevardnadze stated on Tbilisi Radio in December, 1997, "Moldova, as a developing, and in a way, developed country, may become yet another bridge linking Georgia with Europe."
At a time when these states need to feel independent of the Russian hegemon, they each bring to GUAM a strategic resource that promotes the perception of independence. GUAM provides an independent forum for these countries to discuss and act on both bilateral and multilateral issues. One real world example of this is the Ukraine peacekeeping force deployed in Moldova and the envisaged GUAM peacekeeping force.
Paradoxically, looking into the next century, GUAM itself poses acute geo- strategic challenges to its own members’ security and economic prosperity. Armenia, bordered by Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia, cannot and will not take part in consultations with GUAM because of the conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan has excluded Armenia from any role in the MEP and the associated economic wealth from this project. Yet it would be irresponsible for the region and their own security for the GUAM states to lay an economic and security framework for themselves and the region for the next century that excludes their immediate neighbor, Armenia.
Fortunately, Georgia and other states have recognized this Armenian "dilemma." Georgia has consistently engaged Armenia on a bilateral basis, specifically utilizing its Black Sea trade routes with Armenia. On July 3, President Emil Constantinescu of Romania reinforced the need for including Armenia in the economic development of the region: "Both Shevardnadze and myself insisted on Armenia’s participation in these (transport) projects." Thus it appears that Georgia-Armenian bilateral relations are crucial to the economic and military stability of the Caucasus for as long as Armenia and Azerbaijan will not work together.
Whether GUAM purports to be neutral, anti-Russian, or pro-Azerbaijani, it cannot help but find itself in opposition to Russia in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Yet just as the GUAM states must be stable, they need an economically stable and politically secure Russia to prosper. Conversely, Russia must realize that these states can not develop properly if it continues to use its military, economic, and energy leverage to extract concessions.
To date and for the foreseeable future, GUAM's major achievement in the region is that of managing perceptions. Each state’s capabilities add to the perception of stability and unity that GUAM wishes to create. The fact that Russia is not involved at the moment in the GUAM consultations, the low profile of GUAM’s formal existence, and Russia’s diminishing military role in the region all bode well for GUAM in the short-term.
Several observers have stated that no one has a clear idea of where GUAM is going. Looking at the new millennium though, wherever GUAM goes it must somehow incorporate Armenia in its consultations and accept Russia’s interests and needs as well.
The School of the Americas: What Next?
by Chris Hellman, Senior Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information
chellman@cdi.org
As is usual in an election year, this promises to be a busy summer for members of Congress as they rush to complete legislative business and return home to campaign. Highest priority will go to the annual appropriations bills which provide federal agencies with funding for the coming fiscal year that begins on October 1. As in past years, one issue that is likely to arise in the next few months is the future of the School of the Americas (SOA).
In1946 the United States started a military and language school in Panama to train American troops in jungle warfare and make them more effective when intervening in Latin America. Before long, this small school became the premier institution for training Latin American troops in sophisticated warmaking techniques. Eventually named the School of the Americas, it was relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia in 1984 as part of U.S. efforts to comply with the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, which calls for the closure of all U.S. military bases in Panama before the year 2000.
Nearly 70,000 military personnel from Latin American countries have graduated from the SOA, which currently has an annual enrollment of about 1,000. According to the official command brief of the school, SOA's mission is to "provide doctrinally sound, relevant military education and training to the nations of Latin America; promote democratic values and respect for human rights; [and] foster cooperation among multinational military forces."
Critics of the SOA state that rather than instilling in its pupils a respect for human rights and democratic values, the school has actually produced some of the greatest human rights abusers in the Western hemisphere and has helped support a number of dictatorial regimes. Graduates include leaders of death squads in several countries, including El Salvador and Guatemala, as well as Argentinian dictator Leopold Galtieri and Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega.
Public opinion and congressional criticism of the role of the SOA in contributing to human rights abuses in Latin America have continued to grow over the last decade as more of its alumni have been linked to specific human rights violations such as the killing of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador in 1989. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to close the SOA, and efforts to cut off its funding last year were narrowly defeated.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) has introduced legislation to close the SOA. He refers to the SOA as a "Cold War anachronism" which ties the United States to the worst excesses in the Western hemisphere during the past 50 years. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Representative Joseph Kennedy II (D-MA), where opposition to the school is even stronger. In fact, last year an amendment offered by Representative Esteban Torres (D-CA) to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act received broad bipartisan support and was rejected by a vote of only 210 to 217. A similar amendment is expected to be offered during this year's appropriations debate.
The Foreign Operations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 requires the Secretary of Defense to certify to Congress that instruction and training at SOA be "fully consistent with training and doctrine, particularly with respect to the observance of human rights, provided...to United States military students." While Pentagon officials maintain that changes in the SOA curriculum meet this requirement, most SOA students continue to receive only the mandatory four hours of human rights training in courses that range from 8 days to 47 weeks.
In addition to SOA's mission of fostering closer ties with Latin American militaries, supporters of the school point to its growing role in the war on drugs. This is a potent argument in Congress, where individual members are reluctant to be perceived as being "soft on drugs," particularly in an election year.
Increasing the school's role in counternarcotics work is not without risks, however. The line between counternarcotics activities and counterinsurgency is already blurred in Latin America, where civilian control of the military is often questionable and citizens lack the constitutional protections that exist in the United States that separate civilian law enforcement from military operations. The line would likely be just as blurred should a program already infamous in the region for its work in "counterinsurgency" attempt to train personnel for the war on drugs.
For additional information on this subject, see the transcript of a recent episode of CDI's television program, "America's Defense Monitor," entitled "School of the Americas: At War With Democracy" at http//www.cdi.org/adm/transcripts/804