The Center for Defense Information
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202)332-0600 * Fax (202)462-4559 * www.cdi.org
| October 29, 1998 |
| October 29, 1998 |
1. The CIA: If Not "A to Z" At Least "B to Y"
It may not have been "from A to Z," but last week was a good one for the Central Intelligence Agency.
On October 21 President Clinton signed the gargantuan $520 billion Omnibus Budget Bill for Fiscal Year 1999. Tucked away in the $20 billion "emergency" supplemental portion of this legislation was a $1.5 billion budgetary windfall for the nation's intelligence agencies. Most of this money seems destined for new reconnaissance satellites and associated systems. But nearly 20 percent reportedly will go to what Representative Porter Goss (R-FL) termed "a place where dollars go further, human intelligence" or HUMINT, which is the domain of the CIA.
Representative Goss, a former CIA case officer and now the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, obviously is pleased with the increase; he has been a strong advocate of strengthening both the human intelligence collection and the analytical capabilities of the intelligence community.
As it turns out, the added money for the CIA may well be needed. Two days after the signing of the budget bill, the Israeli and Palestinian conferees at Wye, Maryland, reached a new accord that, on its surface, creates a significant role for the CIA.
The CIA's role under the new accord, as described in a New York Times editorial by CIA Director George Tenet, is merely a continuation of its traditional focus on fighting terrorism in the Middle East. Mr. Tenet points out that the CIA has been working with both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority for years, trying to keep communications flowing and building confidence between the security forces.
The Wye agreement, however, seems to broaden the Agency's role. It establishes a number of bilateral (U.S.-Palestinian) and trilateral (U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian) working groups or committees that will meet regularly not only to exchange information and coordinate security measures but also to review progress on specific steps laid out in the agreement. These reportedly include monitoring the implementation of a Palestinian plan to go after terrorist cells operating in areas under their jurisdiction, the reduction of the Palestinian security forces to levels agreed in the Oslo accord, and improving "cooperation in preventing the smuggling" of explosives and weapons.
The potential problem is not with the liaison and communications activities of the Agency; these are routine functions carried out with all the security services of allies within the context of HUMINT. This is how information is obtained and key assessments made. The danger is that those doing the reporting might become too close to the process and move beyond straightforward reporting of the facts. In reporting progress (or lack thereof) on restraining terrorists and adhering to other security provisions, those in the field may inadvertently include judgments and interpretations that are the domain of policy makers. Given the deep emotional and religious currents in this part of the Middle East, the possibility of politicizing intelligence should not be lightly dismissed. Intelligence is suppose to be about facts: politicians deal with interpretations and the policies and actions flowing from these interpretations.
The Agency's success to date in dealing with the Israelis and the Palestinians undoubtedly rests on the perception that they are acting evenhandedly. In this part of the world where extremism is rampant and suspicion the rule, that is a major accomplishment. To preserve the trust and confidence achieved to date, the CIA may well have to send more people to ensure more comprehensive reporting and have more analysts interpreting and correlating information as it flows into Langley.
More people mean bigger budgets. That's how the Agency may find that its new money (the "B") has gone to Wye.
-- Chief of Research Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), dsmith@cdi.org
Targeting Pipelines: Caucasus Insurgencies (Part II.)
The Caucasus states are considering forming a joint military unit to defend vital oil facilities, and would like to enlist the North Atlantic Alliance to help them. The plans, advanced by Azerbaijan, call for a joint military battalion to be formed and trained with the help from NATO.
Last week, a mutiny in the Republic of Georgia forced the construction of a pipeline to the port of Supsa to be suspended for two days. A consortium of Georgian, Azerbaijani, and foreign companies are building or planning to construct a series of pipelines to carry oil from the Caspian Sea to Western markets. But these pipelines would cross some of the most unstable areas of the former Soviet Union with numerous ethnic conflicts and secessionist territories.
Delays in pipeline construction and interruptions in oil flow are particularly costly to the cash-strapped treasuries of the South Caucasus republics. Oil exports accounted for 75 percent of Azerbaijan's hard currency earnings in 1994. For the governments of the region, security of the pipelines is paramount. The Caucasus states are taking steps to defend vital oil facilities.
In 1997, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Moldova created a loose grouping called, confusingly, GUAM (after the initial letters of the countries' names). While it began as a means of coordinating foreign and security policies, GUAM seems poised to take on military duties in the future. A document circulated by Azerbaijan calls for a joint GUAM battalion to engage in an "exercise on oil field and pipeline protection measures with participation of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and possibly Ukraine..."
The cooperation counts on support from NATO through its Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan are members of the PfP, as are other countries in the region -- Armenia and Russia. The program focuses primarily on language training and education of military personnel. Azerbaijan, however, proposed "strengthen[ing] cooperation with NATO in the sphere of pipeline and oil-field security."
A military alliance and pipelines may sound like a mismatch but, in fact, NATO has its own fuel pipelines linking its different facilities, and a department dedicated to their management. This "Infrastructure Logistics & Civil Emergency Planning Division" has been providing advice to Azerbaijan on environmental security; i.e. handling oil spills and similar accidents. A NATO official told CDI that the alliance is considering a request from Azerbaijan to expand the cooperation to include "operational security," meaning cooperation on actually protecting or defending the Caucasus pipelines. NATO's role would consist of expert visits and consultations. Georgia is already proposing a conference, with NATO participation, on pipeline protection. The official told CDI there are no plans in NATO to offer actual physical aid to the Caucasus pipelines. NATO could, however, provide its military expertise to the planned GUAM batallion.
Cooperation among the oil-exporting Caucasus countries could force the "odd men out" in this arrangement, Armenia, Russia, and possibly Iran, into tightening their military cooperation. Armenia and Russia have already signed an agreement in August 1997 pledging "necessary assistance, including military assistance" to "oppose acts of aggression directed against them." Armenian President's Foreign Policy Advisor, Aram Sargsian, stated in Moscow in July 1998 that it was necessary to promote a "Moscow-Yerevan-Tehran axis" to counter the "Baku-Ankara-Tel Aviv one."
A creation of an axis system in the Caucasus could bring about the exact reverse of the stability the oil-exporting countries desire. The polarization could lead to renewed warfare over the disputed Nagorno Karabakh. This conflict between Azerbaijan and ethnic Armenian forces cost over 30,000 lives and ended in a cease-fire in 1994. An active war in the region would make any construction and maintenance of pipelines impossible.
As for NATO, the alliance is likely to limit itself to mere consultations on the Caucasus pipelines for the near future. The alliance's purpose in the post-Cold War era has been under discussion, with some members -- most notably the United States -- proposing an expansion of the alliance's responsibilities to include defense of Western interests even outside the members' territories. Protection of oil companies' business in the Caucasus would go beyond even the most assertive allies' plans for NATO's future. Actual military aid for pipeline protection is unlikely to be approved by NATO nations but the consultations represent the alliance's first involvement in the politically-charged Caspian oil competition.
-- Research Analyst Tomas Valasek, tvalasek@cdi.org
Editor's Note: Part I of this article appeared in the last Weekly Defense Monitor, and is available on line at: http://www.cdi.org/weekly/issue42.html#3
Coming Soon: An Arms Transfer Seminar Near You
As the world works for the peaceful resolution of many conflicts around the globe, CDI can not help but be a bit cynical at the role the United States is playing. In attempting to broker peace deals, the US neglects to mention the fact that in some conflicts participants on both sides are killing each other with US made weapons. The role of the arms trade in perpetuating conflict cannot be ignored. The United States remains the world's number one arms dealer and, even more specifically, the number one arms dealer to the developing world, where many of these conflicts are occurring.
To explore the role of the United States in these conflicts, the Center for Defense Information is co-sponsoring a seminar in Chicago this week entitled "Armaments and Human Security: Policy-Reality-Effects." The seminar will feature Nobel Laureate and Former President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, who will provide a keynote address on Globalization and the Challenges to Human Security.
At the seminar on "Weapons Production and Sales: More or Less Security?," arms trade experts will discuss the effects of US arms production and arms transfer policies. Participating in the debate are William Hartung, Senior Research Fellow at the World Policy Institute, Joel Johnson, Vice President of the International Aerospace Industries Association of America, Franklin C. Spinney, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program Analysis and Evaluation, and Gregory M. Suchan, Director of the Office of Export Control and Conventional Arms Non-proliferation Policy at the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs of the US Department of State.
The Center for Defense Information recognizes that in the post-Cold War world, the rationale for particular arms transfer policies must be re-examined. To that end, CDI is interested in holding a series of regional seminars, focusing on the arms transfer issues that affect the citizens of each areas in which a seminar is held. For example, citizens in Los Angeles may be concerned with the defense industry or gun-running from Mexico. Citizens in Minnesota may be interested in attending a seminar on landmine production issues. CDI would bring together experts on a particular topic, have them present their views, and have the audience ask questions on the US policies and programs discussed. We hope the Chicago conference is the first of these seminars.
If you are interested in having an arms transfer seminar in your region, please email Rachel Stohl, rstohl@cdi.org with your location and areas of interest.
America's Defense Monitor -- "Can We Learn to Live Without
Nuclear Weapons?"
Length: 30 minutes
Air Date in Washington DC: 10/18/98
Air Date in New York: 10/24/98
For air dates in other cities, check your local listings.
Synopsis: The case for abolishing nuclear weapons is charged with
fascinating military, legal, moral, and political dimensions. All of these
factors bear on the critical question: must the world rely on nuclear
deterrence for stability and security?
Key Interviewees:
Admiral Stansfield Turner, U.S. Navy (Ret.), director of the CIA 1977-81.
Jonathan Schell, Author, "The Gift of Time: The Case for Abolishing Nuclear
Weapons Now."
Cost: $19
How to Order:
Send check or money order to
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
by phone, with Visa or Mastercard: 1(800) CDI-3334