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
| December 3, 1998 |
| December 3, 1998 |
The Ottawa Treaty: One Year Later
One year ago the world celebrated the signing by 122 nations of the Ottawa Landmines Treaty. The Treaty calls for an end to the development, production, use, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. In addition, ratifying countries agree to destroy stockpiles of mines within four years and remove deployed mines within ten years.
Today the treaty has been signed by 133 nations and has been ratified by 55. In accordance with Treaty guidelines, the ban will enter into force in March 1999, as a result of the ratification by the 40th country, Burkina Faso, on September 16, 1998.
Even though more and more countries are signing the Landmines Treaty, and the number of ratifications continues to grow, the United States has not shifted its policy in the past year. The United States refuses to sign the treaty because it believes that landmines are "crucial to stopping any 'human wave attacks' of North Koreans into South Korea." Further, the Treaty would ban "mixed-use systems" where anti-tank weapons are triggered with anti-personnel landmines. The Pentagon claims that finding alternatives to anti-personnel and anti-tank landmines are their first priorities, not ridding their arsenals of landmines altogether.
Although the United States has refused to sign the treaty, there have been some developments in US action on landmines. In November, the Pentagon pledged that the development of alternatives to replace landmines would be completed by 2006 following President Clinton's announcement in May that the US would sign the treaty by 2006 if these alternatives are found. Additionally, the US has budgeted $100 million for demining, an increase from the 1998 budget of $82 million.
A controversial new development has also taken place since the signing of the Ottawa Treaty. The estimates of the numbers of landmines actually remaining around the world have been revised by some demining groups and the United Nations, as the tedious work of removing landmines from the ground has begun. While the world's stockpiles continue to hold more mines than would ever be necessary, the numbers actually left in the ground could be much smaller than originally thought. For example, the number of landmines in Afghanistan, has been revised from 30 million to ten million mines by the United Nations. However, some demining groups estimate the number is actually 450-550,000.
Regardless of if there are 2 million mines, as a recent study by the demining group Pro-Victims has claimed, or 110 million mines, as the United Nations believes, the devastation these mines cause cannot be underestimated. According to the Red Cross, "Every 20 minutes someone somewhere is injured by a landmine." The victims of these weapons of war should not be forgotten.
In May, the ratifying nations will meet to discuss progress on the treaty and begin to develop next steps in solving the landmine crisis. One issue to be discussed will be the fact that the treaty only effects ratifying countries, while so many significant countries are not part of the Ottawa process. In addition to the United States, countries that have not yet signed the Treaty include Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Israel, Egypt, Finland, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Libya. Another major problem that needs to be addressed is that new landmines are being laid daily in countries such as Angola, Cambodia, and Yugoslavia.
One opportunity for influencing the United States to change its current landmines policy is the NATO Summit commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Alliance to be held in Washington, DC in April 1999. Currently all NATO countries, with the exception of the United States and Turkey, have signed the Ottawa Treaty. The Conference would be an excellent forum for countries to pressure the United States to change its stance on landmines.
Although there have been some major successes by the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the United States Campaign to Ban Landmines (USCBL), there are still many more initiatives left to achieve. Joe Volk, a Co-Chair of the Steering Committee for the USCBL, feels that a grassroots effort that "pushes the US administration to realize that landmines are not a military issue, they are a humanitarian problem" is now needed. "Decades ago the military believed that chemical weapons were a military issue and not a humanitarian concern. But they were convinced otherwise. The landmines situation is an analogous situation," according to Volk.
-- Research Analyst Rachel Stohl, rstohl@cdi.org
Pentagon Releases Asian Security Review
Last week the Pentagon completed a review of security arrangements in Asia and the Pacific. Among other things, "The United States Security Strategy for the East Asia-Pacific Region" calls for the United States to continue to station 100,000 military personnel in the region. These forces will remain stationed overseas even if hostilities between North and South Korea are resolved.
Currently the United States has 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea, and more than 47,000 in Japan. The U.S. has stationed forces in South Korea since the Korean War, while our presence in Japan dates back to the end of World War II. In addition to these, there are also still 100,000 U.S. troops permanently stationed in Europe, even though the Cold War is over. All told, it costs American taxpayers about $10 billion each year to keep these troops and their families abroad.
The review states that "our military presence in Asia serves as an important deterrent to aggression, often lessening the need for a more substantial and costly U.S. response later." According to the Pentagon, it is the ability to provide a timely response to possible aggression coupled with the commitment on the part of the United States demonstrated by our physical presence that acts as a deterrent.
While no one questions the superior quality of U.S. personnel, their training and their equipment, it is hard to imagine that the presence of 37,000 troops in South Korea deters an invasion by North Korea. More likely, it is prospect of a later, massive U.S. response, coupled with the improving capabilities of the South Korean military, which serves as a deterrent. Through measures such as regional military exercises and access agreements, the United States can demonstrate its commitment to preserving the security and stability of the region without maintaining a massive physical presence.
Having large numbers of U.S. troops stationed overseas can create serious problems for host nations. For instance, while the Japanese government continues to support having U.S. forces based in its country, many of the residents of Okinawa, where most of the U.S. troops are stationed, strongly oppose the U.S. presence. As a result, the United States and Japan are considering a range of proposals which will reduce the U.S. military's "footprint" without requiring a reduction in the number of troops. These proposals include spending billions of dollars to construct a floating base that will be positioned off the coast of the island.
The Pentagon's own Inspector General recently discovered another problem with having U.S. forces stationed overseas. Communications equipment used by the military can disrupt civilian communications networks in host countries. In some instances this includes the country's emergency "911" network. As a result, U.S. forces do not operate some military systems. This means that troops cannot train fully, and that tens of billions of dollars worth of U.S. military equipment sits idle.
There was a time when having U.S. troops stationed overseas made sense, but that time has passed. We should bring our troops home before we are invited to leave, as we were in the Philippines and in Panama. With our ability to project military power when needed anywhere in the world, the U.S. doesn't need the ill will, aggravation, and costs that are part of foreign basing.
DoD's report "The United States Security Strategy for the East Asia-Pacific Region" is available on the Internet at: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/easr98/index.html
-- Senior Analyst Chris Hellman, chellman@cdi.org
Adding Fuel to the Fire: US Arms Sales to Greece and Turkey
U.S. weapons are fueling an arms race in the Aegean even as U.S. diplomats try to stop Greek-Turkish tensions from escalating into war. This week, the U.S. Department of Defense announced plans to sell to Greece four guided missile destroyers, armed with HARPOON surface-to-surface missiles. Last month, the Department of Defense notified Congress of its plans to sell to Turkey eleven frigates and ammunition.
At the same time, U.S. and European diplomats are trying to diffuse tensions over a planned deployment of S-300 surface-to-air missiles in Cyprus. Turkey threatened a military strike to prevent the delivery of the Russian-made missiles to the Cypriot government. US negotiator Richard Holbrooke is due in the region soon and will seek to persuade the Greek Cypriots to cancel the S-300 delivery and the Turks to stop military flights over Cyprus.
Cyprus has been divided into a Greek and a Turkish part since 1974. The Greek government in Nicosia rules the internationally-recognized Republic of Cyprus, while the Turkish Cypriot republic has been recognized only by Turkey. For decades, the international community left Cyprus to its fate, preferring the status quo to seeking solutions to the island's division. The UN mission guarding the inter-communal line in Cyprus, originally launched in 1964, is the third longest running UN operation. However, a series of recent events have set Greece and Turkey on a collision course over Cyprus.
In December 1997, the European Union (EU) refused to extend membership to Turkey due to concerns about the nation's economy, democracy and human rights. At the same time, it named Cyprus among the first-tier candidates. The invitation for Cyprus was intended to foster reintegration of the island -- the EU hoped that the promise of membership will inspire the Turkish community to improve its relations with the Republic of Cyprus. By all counts, the effort backfired. Turkey responded by taking steps towards annexing Turkish-controlled territories of Cyprus into the mainland. The divisions between the island's communities hardened.
Seeking to break the stalemate, the Greek Cypriot ordered Russian-made S-300 surface-to-air missiles. The missiles were certain to be viewed as provocation by Turkey as they threatened Ankara's dominance over the island's airspace. Cyprus hoped to use the missiles as a bargaining chip with Turkey. "We don't want to deploy the system, even if we accept the delivery. This entire effort is a way to pressure Turkey to resolve the Cyprus issue. But so far that's not happening," a Greek official told "Defense News." Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides offered to cancel the purchase if Turkey withdraws its troops from the island and stops military aircraft overflights.
But instead of starting a dialogue between the Greeks and the Turks, this effort only brought both nations closer to war. Turkey warned that it would use military force to prevent the S-300 deployment. The U.S. and the European Union asked Cyprus to cancel the contract. Greece sought to diffuse tensions by offering to deploy the missiles on its island of Crete instead of Cyprus, but was rebuffed by President Clerides of Cyprus. In the meantime, the missiles are sitting in a warehouse in Russia after their delivery was postponed twice, and Cyprus is facing stiff financial penalties for reneging on its contract with Russia.
The latest crisis comes among indications that the Greeks and Turks on Cyprus are preparing for a possible war. The government of the Republic of Cyprus opened a new airbase at Paphos. The country's parliament passed a 1 percent defense tax hike in August to pay for new weapons buys. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) built an airfield at Lefkoniko and upgraded its ports for possible military use.
Both the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus maintain close military ties with Greece and Turkey respectively. Greece and the Republic of Cyprus have a common defense doctrine. Turkey and the TRNC signed an agreement in January 1998 which would incorporate the TRNC into Turkey proper. Any conflict on Cyprus would thus inevitably drew in Greece and Turkey. Both countries demonstrated their commitment to fight for Cyprus earlier this year when each deployed fighter aircraft to bases on the island.
Defying the post-Cold War trend in Europe, both Turkey and Greece have embarked on ambitious military modernization programs. Greece plans to spend $16 billion modernizing its army while Turkey intends to buy $12 billion worth of tanks, vessels, helicopters and aircraft over the next 10 years. Many of these purchases were made with an eye on Cyprus. The U.S. embassy in Cyprus is investigating alleged transfers of US weapons from Turkey to the TRNC, which would violate a 1988 law prohibiting US weapons to be used in activities furthering the division of Cyprus. Greek sources say hundreds of tanks, armored personnel carriers and self-propelled artillery were shipped to TRNC from Turkey.
U.S. weapons -- including the 15 vessels offered to Turkey and Greece this year -- could become the instruments of war between these two NATO allies. In the light of these tensions, the obligatory phrase "this proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States," which accompanies all notifications of US arms sales abroad, has an increasingly false ring in the Aegean.
For a CDI fact sheet on the proposed U.S. arms sales to Greece from August to December, 1998, see: http://www.cdi.org/issues/europe/gree.html
-- Research Analyst Tomas Valasek, tvalasek@cdi.org
For Immediate Release: December 2, 1998
Contact: Rear Admiral Gene R. La Rocque
Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr.
(202) 332-0600
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Center for Defense Information announced today that U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR), who is retiring from the U.S. Senate at the end of the year, has agreed to become the director of the Center, a Washington-based watchdog group that monitors military spending.
"In his valedictory as President, Dwight Eisenhower warned against the growing threat to our democratic values and our spending priorities posed by the military-industrial complex," Bumpers said. "Eisenhower's advice is just as appropriate today as it was 40 years ago and I can think of no better forum in which to combat the threat of which Eisenhower spoke than the Center for Defense Information, a highly respected organization. I welcome this challenge."
Founded in 1972, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) serves as an independent monitor of military spending and activities. Its credo is that strong social, economic, political and military components and a healthy environment contribute equally to the nation's security. The Center for Defense information opposes both excessive spending for weapons and policies that increase the danger of war.
The founder of the Center for Defense Information, Rear Admiral Gene R. La Rocque, stated: "I welcome Senator Dale Bumpers' decision to assume the responsibilities of Director of CDI. His distinguished record as a U.S. Senator for 24 years clearly established his reputation as a patriotic supporter of sound, effective defense forces at the same time he actively opposed excesses in military spending. At a time when military spending consumes more than half of the entire discretionary portion of the Federal budget, his long experience in the Senate will add a new dimension to CDI's efforts to ensure that the United States maintains a strong national defense program at a cost which American taxpayers can afford and will support."
A champion of the taxpayer and a foe of government waste, Senator Bumpers has consistently supported a strong but not bloated defense posture, championing proven, cost-effective weapons instead of "gold-plated," impractical defense systems. He is a strong advocate of procurement reform, supporting mandatory competitive bidding and strengthened internal auditing programs.
As a member of the defense subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Bumpers has waged high-profile struggles in the Senate to eliminate Star Wars, a pipe dream that would make the heavens a battlefield and cost citizens hundreds of billions of dollars for an illusion of security; and the F-22, an unneeded fighter plane that sports a price tag of $180 million each.
Senator Bumpers is widely regarded as a leader on arms control issues, and was instrumental in forcing the Reagan Administration to take steps to comply with the SALT II strategic arms treaty in 1987. He supported the INF treaty negotiated by President Reagan and Secretary Gorbachev, and worked for its ratification by the Senate.
Senator Bumpers is a member of the Arms Control Observer Group, the Senate's primary arms control review organization, which is charged with monitoring arms negotiations and providing information on Senate concerns to the executive branch.
In addition to becoming director of the Center for Defense Information, Senator Bumpers plans a lecture series at both The University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and Hendrix College in Arkansas.