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
| January 28, 1999 |
| January 28, 1999 |
http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/highlightsFY00.html
The U.S. and the U.N. -- Still a Case of Love-Hate
Colonel Dan Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, Center for Defense Information
dsmith@cdi.org
"America needs a strong and effective U.N. I want to work with this new Congress to pay our dues and our debts."
That was President Clinton on January 19, 1999 in the State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress.
"The United Nations needs the United States to achieve our goals, and I believe the United States needs the United Nations no less."
That was United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan also on January 19, 1999 in an address to the New York Council on Foreign Relations.
The United States cannot expect to have a "strong and effective U.N." unless the U.S. fulfills its fiscal obligations to the world body. In early November 1998 the U.S. paid $197 million to the U.N., bringing total assessed payments for the year to $586 million. According to the U.N. Under-Secretary-General, this payment meant that the U.N.'s regular budget deficit for the year would "only" be $50 million. This compares with deficits over the previous four years of $540 million, largely due to the refusal of the U.S. to pay its assessments during those years.
The other effect of this November payment is that it removed the possibility that the General Assembly would consider invoking Article 19 of the U.N. Charter against the U.S. This article calls for suspending voting privileges of member states whose funding arrears "equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two years." Even with this last payment, the U.S. still owes over $1.3 billion to the U.N.
Of course, the U.S. is not the only government that has not paid its debts. At the end of 1998 only 114 countries had paid their assessments for the U.N. regular budget. But the U.S. arrears, including arrears for peacekeeping operations (which are not part of the $1.3 billion), make it the largest debtor by far and weakens the entire structure of the U.N.
This situation was at the heart of another event on January 19, 1999: the introduction by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) of Senate Bill 90, The United Nations Reform Act. In her remarks, Senator Snowe said that the question of the hour "is not whether the United Nations can continue its growth for another 50 years, but whether it can survive as an important international institution in the short term."
Senator Snowe called for renewed bipartisanship within the Congress on the U.N. Her legislation linked a five-year repayment schedule for all arrears to a five-year reform action plan. For example, the U.N. budget would have to maintain a "zero growth." Member states should be allowed to audit U.N. accounts. The U.N. should fully fund the inspector general office.
She also calls for "full credit" from the U.N. for "in-kind" Pentagon support for U.N. peacekeeping missions -- which touches on the current disagreement about how much the U.S. owes the U.N. for peacekeeping activities. On this subject, it is an interesting development that the U.N. is now relying more on regional organizations to carry out U.N. mandated peacekeeping missions. While the number of official "blue-helmets" has dropped from its early 1990s peak of almost 80,000 to just over 14,000 today, the number of peacekeepers worldwide is well above that figure when one includes NATO, CIS, OSCE, and ECOMOG.
Two other reforms Senator Snowe wants within five years are the separation of the costs of development programs from the basic U.N. assessment structure, and further reductions in staff levels to eliminate unnecessary duplication.
In summary, Senator Snowe says she wants a United Nations that will concentrate its resources on "a few key achievable missions -- security, humanitarian relief, technical cooperation -- " rather than trying to set global norms and rebuilding nations. But is this really what is in the best interests of the U.S., let alone the world?
Unquestionably the U.N., like other large organizations, has excess bureaucracy and waste. But those who would reform its activities must be careful not to throw overboard the agencies and activities that are necessary adjuncts to the U.N.'s core missions. For example, helping to rebuild a failed state through teaching people how to become agriculturally self-sufficient, how to build a diversified economy, training them in the rudiments of free elections and democratic governance, and helping to establish and run an effective civil service are activities that will reduce the need for large and sometimes risky deployment of peacemaking/peacekeeping forces and mounting large-scale humanitarian aid efforts.
To paraphrase an old adage, a penny for prevention is worth a dollar for a cure.
Foreign Military Sales Deliveries Near $14 Billion for 1998
Rachel Stohl, Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information
rstohl@cdi.org
Last December the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DCSA), formerly the Defense Security Assistance Agency, revealed that Fiscal Year 1998 deliveries of weapons, equipment, and services to foreign governments under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program was nearly $14 billion. The Pentagon also announced that $8.5 billion in new arm sales agreements were signed during the same period.
The majority of US weapons sales, in dollar terms, are (FMS). But FMS constitute only those items bought through the Pentagon by foreign governments. The $14 billion therefore does not include sales made between industry and a foreign buyer (Direct Commercial Sales or DCS) or items that are simply given away as surplus (Excess Defense Articles or EDA).
Foreign Military sales are negotiated by the Pentagon and usually include related services, such as training, operations, and maintenance. The weapons in these sales come either from Department of Defense stocks or new production. If a sale is worth more that $14 million, Congress must be notified 15-30 days before the Pentagon can offer the weapons for sale.
The FY1998 total for deliveries is the second largest in dollar terms registered under the Pentagon's FMS program. Some deliveries are for sales originally contracted as far back as 1992. Many of these sales were negotiated after the 1991 Gulf War and reflect deliveries of highly sophisticated weapons such as fighter aircraft that Middle Eastern countries were encouraged to buy in order to protect themselves from Iraq's post-Gulf War "military threat."
Other weapons went to regional rivals, ostensibly to maintain a sometimes delicate balance of power. In Europe, for example, Turkey received $541 million worth of weapons and Greece received $414 million. In the Middle East, which again topped the world in dollar value of deliveries at $7.1 billion, Israel received $1.6 billion worth of weapons and Egypt $612 million.
More troubling is that many weapons continue to go to countries which the U.S. State Department has designated as human rights abusers. Included in this illustrious group are Colombia, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Turkey. The chart below represents the approximate dollar value of FMS weapon deliveries to these six State Department designated human rights abusers.
Country FY 1998 FMS Deliveries
Colombia $68.23 million
Indonesia $5.21 million
Morocco $7.30 million
Saudi Arabia $4.31 billion
Thailand $151.63 million
Turkey $541.20 million
TOTAL $5.1 billion
That these six countries received almost one-third of all weapons deliveries in FY 1998 is shocking. The U.S. should adopt and enforce policies that would generally ban sales or grants of U.S. weapon systems to non-democratic governments and those with records of persistent human rights violations.
Furthermore, in this time of relative peace, the United States does not need to break sales records for weapons. Rather than pumping more arms into volatile regions, the Administration and Congress should be working to eliminate world-wide stocks of weapons and reduce annually the dollar amounts of U.S. armaments sold or given to foreign governments. If we continue to arm the world's governments, the propensity for governments to rely on military strength to solve problems will never diminish.
An easy step would be a requirement for congressional approval of all U.S. arms sales or grants, not just those that meet the current $14 million threshold. All arm sales merit public and congressional scrutiny and oversight. With the Cold War ended, there is no longer any need to cajole or bribe leaders of countries to side with us against a mortal enemy. Fewer weapons eventually will mean fewer instances in which arms are used by leaders against their own citizens -- and even possibly against U.S. military and civilians. Economic gain is not worth the lives of innocent people.
For more information about U.S. arm sales to human rights abusing countries, order a copy of the America's Defense Monitor episode, "The Human Cost of America's Arm Sales." Email rstohl@cdi.org for details.
Arms Buildup or an Arms Race?
Tomas Valasek, Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information
tvalasek@cdi.org
Russia has stepped up its military assistance to Armenia, a former Soviet republic and now a part of the Moscow-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States. Russia replaced its aging Mig-23 aircraft at its 102nd base in Gyumri with five Mig-29s in December 1998. According to the Russian press, ten more Mig 29s will arrive at Gyumri in the coming days.
Russia also plans to deploy in Armenia the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system which would form a part of the joint air-defense structure of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Currently, Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan take part in the CIS air-defense cooperation.
Russian weapons supplies triggered protests from Azerbaijan, Armenia's traditional rival in the region. Armenia and Azerbaijan broke off all relations in the early 1990s during the war over the Nagorno Karabakh region, a district formerly controlled by Azerbaijan. The war ended in a cease-fire agreement in 1994, which left Armenian units in control of not only Nagorno Karabakh but large swaths of Azerbaijan as well.
Vafa Guluzade, the foreign policy advisor to Azeri president Heydar Aliyev, accused Moscow of undermining his country's security and called for U.S. and NATO assistance. "Azerbaijan faces a big threat from Russia, which is waiting to use Armenia to strike at us and to restore the Soviet Union," Guluzade said, adding that "it would not be so bad to move the U.S. military base in Turkey, at Incirlik, to the Apsheron Peninsula [in Azerbaijan]." President Aliyev has since toned down his advisor's statements, warning "not to get ahead of ourselves" and saying the U.S. base issue "is not on the agenda now."
Russia's involvement in the region is not new. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Moscow negotiated agreements with some successor republics to keep its military bases on their territory. There is one Russian base in Armenia and three in neighboring Georgia. The base in Gyumri falls under the Russian Defense Ministry, and Moscow emphasized that its recent arms deliveries are not going into Armenian hands. But such assurances are undermined by Moscow's covert support for Armenia during the Nagorno Karabakh war with Azerbaijan.
Russia's involvement cannot help but reverberate through this tense region. Azerbaijan responded to the tightening Russia-Armenian ties by pursuing an alliance with Western countries. The government of Heydar Aliyev has used the West's interest in Azeri oil reserves to call for protection -- a "special relationship," with NATO. Although Azerbaijan is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) program and took part in a number of PfP exercises, recent calls from his Administration for a NATO base are not likely to be heeded. "We don't even plan basing large conventional forces in the three invitees [Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic]...the idea of a NATO force for Azerbaijan is quite far-fetched," an alliance official told CDI.
Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Defense is legally prohibited from cooperating with Azerbaijan. Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, passed by Congress in response to the Azerbaijan-initiated blockade of Armenia during the Nagorno Karabakh war, prohibits most kinds of government-to-government assistance from the U.S. to Azerbaijan.
Talk of an arms race in the region, spawned by the Russian deliveries, may be premature. Azerbaijan cannot at present afford a large-scale military buildup, although future oil income could provide the necessary money in the long run. Any U.S. aid is hampered not only by Section 907 provisions but also by concerns in Washington about the response from Azerbaijan's neighbors, Iran and Russia. Tehran warned that an American military base in Azerbaijan "can have the most unpredictable consequences." Active U.S.-Azeri military cooperation would ruin Washington's tentative efforts for a rapprochement with Iran, made possible by the election of President Khatemi. While the U.S. has sponsored plans to expand NATO eastward in spite of Russia's opposition, the Administration has refrained from active military involvement in the Caucasus, where Russia has a strong armed presence.
The White House did not comment on the possibility of a NATO base in Azerbaijan. Privately, both the State Department and the Pentagon deny any plans for stationing troops in Azerbaijan. Commenting on the Russian aircraft delivery, a State Department spokesman said the United States "sees no military need for stationing such equipment."
Lacking a promise of substantial support from NATO and the U.S., Azerbaijan has turned to its neighbors. Last week, the defense ministers of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine met to discuss a proposal for a joint battalion. (Moldova also takes part in the so-called GUAM process but did not send a representative to the last meeting.) The GUAM battalion would protect the planned oil export pipelines and provide general security to the Caspian states. It would operate under GUAM auspices only and without authorization from the U.N. or other international organizations. GUAM was conceived during negotiations on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, when the four countries joined in an effort to curb Russian military presence in the south of the former Soviet Union. Georgia and Azerbaijan also share an interest in building oil pipelines that would export Azeri oil from Azerbaijan to Western Europe via Georgia.