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
| July 29, 1999 |
| July 29, 1999 |
Liberia Destroys Civil War Arms; Part of New Global Trend
By Rachel Stohl, Research Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
In a demonstration its commitment to peace, the Liberian government held a ceremony where the main purpose was the destruction of weapons collected at the end of Liberia's near decade-long civil war. At the ceremony, Liberian President Charles Taylor said, "We destroy these weapons because of our passion for peace and our undying desire to...close this dark period of national tragedy."
Liberia's civil war lasted from 1989-96. Some 200,000 people were killed and half of the country's population of 2.6 million was forced to flee their homes. Monrovia, Liberia's capital, and other cities were virtually destroyed. The country is still reeling from the effects of the war and the presence of large numbers of weapons, predominantly small arms. This vast stockpile of left over weapons led many to fear that violence would return, and as a result, foreign investment and foreign aid has not flowed into the country.
Initially, weapons collection and destruction were determined to be significant parts of Liberia's peace process. At the conclusion of Liberia's civil war, United Nations and West African peacekeepers collected weapons and ammunition from combatants as they entered disarmament and demobilization sites. Approximately 30,000 weapons and more than two million rounds of ammunition were collected from the soldiers.
After many rounds of negotiations with UN officials, Taylor agreed to hold the ceremony and to destroy thousands of weapons. (Taylor initially wanted to keep the weapons for the Liberian military, claiming that the country was too poor to purchase new weapons.) The symbolic portion of the process -- a bonfire of 1500 guns -- took place at Monrovia's main military barracks three years after the end of the Civil War and on the 152nd anniversary of Liberia's independence. The spirited celebration was attended by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, Sierra Leonean President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, and other West African leaders.
The destruction of the majority of weapons was to have occurred at an abandoned iron ore mine, 40 miles northwest of Monrovia. However, the process has been delayed because the fuses needed to destroy landmines and artillery shells have not yet arrived. As a result, West African peace-keepers have been asked to remain in Liberia until the destruction is completed.
The destruction of weapons is a positive sign that Liberia is trying to put the past behind. Many critics claim that Taylor has not done enough to reintegrate former combatants into society. In fact, during the destruction ceremony, approximately 100 ex-combatants, many with war injuries, protested the inaction of the UN and the Taylor government in aiding ex-combatants in Monrovia. Liberia has 6,000 registered ex-combatants, many of whom turned in their weapons in order to receive resettlement money as a part of their reintegration. However, many complain that they have in fact received nothing. In addition, many ex-combatants were incensed that billions are being spent on re-building Kosovo while Liberians are virtually ignored. (The head of the UN Mission in Liberia has met with the ex-combatants, assured them of the UN's support, and has said he would try to get them money.)
Destruction of surplus and collected weapons is key to any progress in moving forward after years of conflict. Destruction programs help eliminate the lingering temptation to return to violence that otherwise would be fueled by the wide availability of weapons. The United Nations and individual member states have begun to make the connection between weapons availability and continued violence and crime.
Destruction is now being viewed as an essential component of many peace-building programs. Jamaica, this week, destroyed more than 4,000 weapons that had been collected by police over the last 25 years. The weapons included pistols, revolvers, M-16s and AK-47 rifles. The Cambodian government and UN officials also destroyed over 4,000 weapons this week, the third time illegal weapons have been destroyed in Cambodia since the formation of Cambodia's coalition government in November. A total of 30,000 weapons have been collected since the government's crackdown on illegal weapons. The Cambodian government said that "disarming Cambodia is a crucial step in attracting foreign investment" and "the main purpose of the destruction is to show to the international community the Cambodian government's determination to control illegal weapons and maintain social security."
Other countries facing a post-conflict situation would do well to implement destruction programs like those seen in Liberia, Jamaica, and Cambodia. Eliminating the tools of violence can prevent violence.
Hungarian Steps and Missteps in Vojvodina
Tomas Valasek, Research Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
Vojvodina, one of Yugoslavia's two provinces along with Kosovo, has to date avoided ethnic violence despite the multitude of groups that call the northern province home. But the conflict in Kosovo and air war in Yugoslavia, besides destroying the region's bridges and industry, also upset its ethnic balance. At the summit on reconstructing the Balkans that is underway in Sarajevo. Vojvodina's Hungarians will bring up a plan for staving off possible conflicts and reforming the political system of the province. But the ambitious plan threatens to do more damage than good to Vojvodina's stability.
In some respects, Vojvodina seems to be following the slippery path that led to war in Kosovo. Its autonomy was revoked, alongside Kosovo's, in 1989. As in the beleaguered southern province, refugees are becoming a source of tension in Vojvodina. Relations among ethnic groups there have become strained since Serbian refugees fleeing Kosovo started settling in Vojvodina, much as Kosovo itself was destabilized when Serbian refugees expelled by Croats from the Krajina region settled in the predominantly ethnic Albanian province.
But here the similarities end. Unlike Kosovo where the Albanians represented a clear-cut 90 percent majority, Vojvodina itself is a patchwork of ethnic groups -- Serbs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Romanians, Croats etc. The largest non-Serbian group, the Hungarians, comprise only some 17 percent of the province's population. Any single minority's claim to control Vojvodina thus can be countered by not only the central government in Belgrade but also by other groups within Vojvodina. Efforts to declare autonomy along ethnic lines would tear Vojvodina into a number of small entities; the largest non-Serbian group (Hungarians) only have a clear majority in seven of Vojvodina's 47 communities.
Nevertheless, the province's Hungarians, backed by Hungary, have set out to claim autonomy. An agreement among Vojvodina Hungarians forged under a watchful eye of the Budapest government in early July calls for three levels of autonomy.
A "personal autonomy" would grant all Hungarians the right to make their own decisions on "issues affecting national identity" such as education, culture, the use of their language, protection of historical monuments, cross-border relations, the use of national symbols, etc. There is no provision for cases in which the Hungarians' claim to a school or a historical building or site clashes with another ethnic group's demands. Control over the Kosovo Polje, where the Turks defeated the Serbs in 1389, is a point of contention in the conflict between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo.
The personal autonomy clause contains a further sticking point: "any individual who declares himself or herself a Hungarian can be a member of the self government regardless of the location of his/her residence." This clause theoretically opens the door for Hungarians anywhere in Europe to demand control of all the above issues regardless of the legislation of those nations in which they live. If the autonomy proposal is backed by international guarantees, as demanded by Hungary, NATO and the EU may find themselves forcing legislative changes on the governments of Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and even an EU member, Austria. When asked whether guarantees mean use of military force by NATO, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban replied, "How else?" (as reported by Radio Free Europe).
Any Yugoslav government -- current or future -- would be hard-pressed to grant such far-reaching powers to a minority group. Vojvodina Hungarians claim to have found a sympathetic ear for their proposals among the Serbian opposition parties seeking to overthrow president Milosevic. But whether a new Serb-led Yugoslav government would indeed give up control over minority language and education issues is questionable. The current opposition, for whom Vojvodina serves as an important center of power, includes elements even more radically nationalist than the Milosevic government.
The "territorial autonomy" proposal would create a federation of the seven majority Hungarian communities in Vojvodina. The federation government would be in charge of regional development, social care, cross-border relations, tax collection and appointments of judicial authorities -- essentially all duties performed by national governments. Stripped of its semantic disguise, "territorial autonomy" amounts to a declaration of independence by Hungarians in Vojvodina.
The exclusion of non-Hungarian groups is guaranteed to draw protests from the rest of Vojvodina as well as outside states. After all, the air war against Yugoslavia was justified by the need to preserve equal rights for all ethnic groups. Should the autonomy for Vojvodina Hungarians also include some sort of guardianship by the Hungarian government, as is being discussed in political circles in Budapest, it is certain to be furiously opposed by Romania and Slovakia, two neighbors with large Hungarian minorities on their territories.
Hungary has undertaken to raise the Vojvodina Hungarians' demands at the Sarajevo summit on the proposed Southeastern Europe Stability Pact. If common sense prevails, most of the proposals will be shelved. The Hungarians' ambitious plans for Vojvodina have already received a cold welcome in the United States. Hungarian ambassador to the United States, Geza Jeszenszky, told the Hungarian government this week that Washington is aware of Vojvodina's demands but "if the issue was to be raised now, it would make things only more difficult for Milosevic's opposition." Jeszenszky added that it has been clear throughout the Kosovo conflict that the U.S. policy is to concentrate on one problem at one time, indicating that Vojvodina may be off the table for now.
But for the United States, non-action could be costly. Vojvodina's population -- and not just the Hungarians -- have a legitimate claim to self-government which was suspended by President Milosevic in 1989. If not addressed, Vojvodina's grievances could develop into a conflict, as it happened in Kosovo. Arguably, the atrocities in Kosovo might have been prevented if the United States and its allies had nudged Milosevic and the Kosovars more assertively into an agreement, or at least a discussion, on the province's political status.
Therefore, the third part of the Vojvodina Hungarians' plan -- restoration of Vojvodina's autonomy -- deserves a hearing. So do Prime Minister Orban's calls for demilitarization of Vojvodina. For the immediate future, these two steps could prevent Milosevic from playing the ethnic card again. In the longer term, an autonomous Vojvodina with regional government controlled by opponents of Milosevic would have the same corrosive effect on the his hold over Yugoslavia as Montenegro, which chartered an independent course under its leader, Milo Djukanovic.
Tailhook Revisited: A Question of Values
Susie Lindsay, Research Associate, slindsay@cdi.org
The recent announcement by Admiral Jay Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations, that the Navy may re-establish its official ties with the Tailhook Association has re-ignited the gender political debate. Questions as to whether the military should be formally connected with an organization whose name is synonymous with a sexual harassment scandal involving the assault of eighty-three women at its 1991 convention instinctively leads to questions about the Association's view of women and the steps taken to ensure there will be no future cases of sexual harassment and assault.
Tailhook involves more than physical assaults on women. It is directly concerned with abstract ideas about changing identity, stereotypes, and relations of power between men and women -- what is called gender politics. The military is one of America's most traditional and prized institutions, revered for its strength, discipline, and honor. Its purpose is to "defend the faith." The "faith" is democratic values of which equality is the cornerstone. As a reflection of society at large, and as a representation of the values and ideas it is sworn to protect, the military must respect the rights accorded to all civilians.
An inherent difficulty with equality is difference. Whether it be race, gender, or sexuality, difference is always a source of controversy. With the sexes, however, differences although seemingly clear, when not exaggerated are ambiguous. An attempt to define man or woman in an ideological or biological manner is limiting and often inaccurate. For example, Lt. Col. Karen Johnson USAF (Ret.), National Organization of Women (NOW) national secretary, identifies the genders as one with and one without a penis. Radio talk show host G. Gordon Liddy speaks about men and women as though they are separate species living in different stratospheres, vehemently arguing that women have no place in combat.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the military, which provides the common defense by operating within a strict role structure, is struggling to adapt to changing societal norms on gender. In the military, there are three main parts of interaction between the sexes that is of concern. One; that co-ed training affects the morale of both men and women. However, whether mixed training adversely affects unit cohesion is a matter of speculation. Two; the potential for sexual relations between men and women in the same unit. The idea that basic instincts rule and men and women cannot control their urges reflects a mind set that is at best primitive. Three; incidents of sexual misconduct. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are issues of law and discipline. They are about abuse of power and failure of leadership.
The debate as to whether the Navy should re-establish ties with Tailhook need not be conducted on the level of gender politics. Without ignoring or diminishing the severity of the assaults at the 1991 convention or the failure of the military to act forcefully in the follow-up, the proposed renewed connection between the Navy and Tailhook should not be couched as a feminist issue, but rather a humanist one. The pertinent questions are whether the ideals, values, and conduct of this organization of reserve and retired Navy and Marine Corps aviators, defense contractors, and others, reflect those of the American military. Rather than asking how the association respects and treats women, one should really question their perspective on humans. After all, allowing men to behave as many did at the 1991 convention betrays a lack of regard and esteem for the image and professionalism that Americans expect from anyone who dons a military uniform.
An organization that does not embody the particular values of the military should not be tolerated or have official recognition.
Russian Arms Exports Reach All-Time High -- Russian weapons sales since the first of the year have already set an annual record, and experts believe that sales may reach $3.2 billion by the end of the year. New markets in the Middle East -- including some highly publicized sales to Syria -- have led the way for Russia's increased exports. According to defense experts, Russia's official arms exporter Rosvooruzheniye has already seen profits of $1.3 billion, triple previous highs. The year-end total for Rosvooruzheniye is expected to reach $2.5 billion. In addition, the Russian Defense Ministry is eager to acquire new weaponry for Russia's own arsenal.
U.S. To Begin Producing More "Green" Ammunition -- According to the International Tungsten Association, the United States will manufacture and use tungsten-based bullets rather than the traditional lead slugs that are considered environmentally unfriendly. This year the Army will produce around one million "green" bullets, five to ten million in 2000, and up to 200 million in the future. Although tungsten is more expensive than lead, the Army will see real savings due to lower costs of environmental clean-up at U.S. military installations. Lead bullets get into the sediment, harming wildlife and polluting water sources.
House Cuts Funding for "School of the Americas" -- The U.S. House of Representatives voted Friday to cut funding for the "School of the Americas," striking about $2 million from the annual Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The School, located at Ft. Benning, Georgia, provides training to military personnel from countries in Latin America in an effort to improve military to military ties and foster greater cooperation. Many of the school's graduates, however, have been linked to severe human rights violations, including the 1989 murders of six Jesuit priests and two women in El Salvador. While the cut is only about 10% of the School's total $20 million budget, the rest of which is funded through the Defense Department, this represents the first time that Congress has voted to cut funds for the program, which has already survived four previous House votes since 1993.
THAAD Test Delayed -- A test of the Army's Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, scheduled for earlier this week, have been delayed due to winds at the testing range in White Sands, NM. The test is expected to be carried out next week. Meanwhile, a report this week by the General Accounting Office stated that even though the Pentagon has addressed the underlying troubles with the $3.8 billion system, "reliability...remains a concern because most components were produced when the contractors' quality assurance system was inadequate."
This week on America's Defense Monitor: "Casualty Phobia"
From Vietnam to Somalia, television images of U.S. casualties have convinced Pentagon war planners to pursue a vision of "bloodless war." Expensive aircraft and "standoff" weapons used in the Yugoslav conflict are designed to keep U.S. troops far from harm's way. But how far can technology go toward limiting U.S. war casualties? Will Americans tolerate casualties if they are convinced the cause is just? An eyeopening investigation into where technology, media, and the reality of conflict collide.
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, August 1 at 12:30 p.m. on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Friday, August 6 on Channel 25 at 8:30 p.m., and on
Saturday, August 7 at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
For air dates in other cities, check your local listings.
Visit our website for transcripts, CDI resources, RealVideo, and related
links.
E-mail adminfo@cdi.org with "subscribe" in the body of the text to receive
automatic updates on new videos.
Regular Price: $39 each
INTERNET PRICE: $29
Order at 800-CDI-3334, or on the web.