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
| February 10, 2000 |
| February 10, 2000 |
Congress Faults Administration's Pentagon Spending Plan as Inadequate
Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
The ink on the Clinton Administration's Fiscal Year 2001 budget request for the Pentagon could barely have been dry before leading members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle began to express their dissatisfaction.
The $305.4 billion request for the Pentagon and the defense functions of the Department of Energy is $12 billion higher than the current (FY'00) budget, and represents more than 1% real growth in military spending. And while last year the Administration proposed adding $112 billion to the Pentagon's multi-year spending plan, the new request goes last year's plan one better, adding another $15 billion to the original increase. The request increases funding for personnel by almost 3% and for operations and maintenance -- the so-called "readiness" account -- by more than 4%. It also includes an 11% increase for procurement, reaching the long sought goal of $60 billion.
Nevertheless, a bipartisan group of Congressional leaders have already made it clear that the Administration's plan, which calls for over $1.6 trillion in military spending for Fiscal Years 2001-2005, doesn't go far enough.
"This document is a fantasy. It is dead on arrival," said Representative John Kasich (R-OH), chairman of the House Budget Committee. "We are going to have to put more money in the military -- there is no question." Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, agreed. "Defense will go up." Neither member, who's committees set the overall spending limits for each federal agency in the annual congressional budget resolution, indicated how large an increase they would accept, nor how they planned to pay for it.
In opening remarks during hearings this week on the Defense Department's budget request, Representative Floyd Spence (R-SC), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said, "The good news is that the budget proposal is the best one to come out of the Administration in its eight years in office. The bad news is that serious mismatches between strategy, forces and resources are not getting any better."
And while procurement increases by more than 11% this year, and by nearly 31% by 2005, to $70.9 billion, members found this increase to be inadequate. "I think procurement increases are necessary," said Representative Norm Sisisky (D-VA), ranking Democrat on the Procurement Subcommittee. "The pressure is going to be on this Congress now, I believe, to increase the defense budget -- and I'm one in favor of it."
And while readiness continues to be a stated Pentagon priority, an analysis of the FY'01 spending plan conducted by the Senate Budget Committee staff concluded that the proposed increases for Operations and Maintenance -- 4% in FY'01 and more than 9% in FY'05 -- were "inadequate." According to the staff report, only "a massive infusion of funds" into readiness accounts will allow the Pentagon to address current and future readiness problems.
During his testimony Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary William Cohen agreed with committee members' concerns about the lack of available resources. "One budgetary year, one or two submissions of real growth increases, does not a military make."
Meanwhile, in making their presentations to Congress this week, the four Service Chiefs informed the House Armed Services Committee that the FY'01 budget request contained significant funding shortfalls. Unveiling their "wish lists" in what has now become an annual event, the Chiefs revealed that they had a total of $16.1 billion in unfunded requirements for FY'01.
With the Administration now clearly on board the military spending band wagon, with no significant Congressional opposition in sight, and with the prospect of major budget surpluses looming, the question about military spending increases is clearly no longer "if," but "how much?"
Details and analysis of the Defense Department's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2001 are available on the CDI website.
Helping the Israeli-Syrian Peace Process
Colonel Dan Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org
Once again, just as some progress seemed possible in Israeli-Syrian negotiations, bombs, rockets and ambushes seem the order of the day in South Lebanon and Northern Israel. Hezbollah guerrillas have killed half a dozen Israeli soldiers in the nine mile long buffer zone that Israel occupied 22 years ago. In turn Israeli jets and Apache helicopters have hit three Lebanese power plants and other targets. Foreign Minister Levy has warned that "the soil of Lebanon will burn" if Hezbollah launches Katyusha rockets at settlements in northern Israel.
Most disturbing about this new flare-up in violence is the threat it poses to the recently renewed (albeit now stalled) talks between Israel and Syria. When the talks first resumed, Hezbollah said it would take a wait and see attitude, but that pledge now seems forgotten.
This latest round of fighting also threatens the 1996 verbal agreement that precludes guerrillas and Israeli forces from targeting civilian areas or launching attacks from population centers. The agreement is monitored by Syria, Lebanon, Israel, France and the U.S., but it has no enforcement mechanism other than diplomatic pressure. Indeed, a number of observers doubt that Syria, even with some 30,000 troops in northern Lebanon, would be able to completely control the activities of the guerrillas because the latter have been able to establish monetary and supply links that by-pass Damascus.
For its part, Israel is talking and acting tough. Yet Prime Minister Barak may be faced with a difficult choice in a few months as he has pledged to withdraw from Southern Lebanon by the end of this summer with or without a peace agreement with Syria. Mr. Barak is willing to discuss returning the entire Golan Heights to Syria, as the latter demands as the price for peace, but the Israelis are seeking a $17 billion U.S. military aid package before they give back the Golan to Syria.
Considering the extensive range of U.S. commitments to Israel and the billions of dollars in military assistance the U.S. has poured into Israel over the last 50 years, $17 billion more, if it helped seal the last peace agreement between Israel and its immediate neighbors, would seem to be a bargain. But some of what Tel Aviv seeks may be more than the U.S. is willing -- or in fact would be wise -- to give.
The request reportedly can be divided into three parts: intelligence and reconnaissance, including satellite technology; mobility, both on land and airborne; and weaponry, including the most highly sophisticated U.S. cruise missiles, other precision guided munitions, and the very latest U.S. attack helicopter, the Apache Longbow. Moreover, the Israelis are said to be requesting the computer coding data that is critical to programming the weapons systems, codes that would allow the Israeli armed forces to employ the systems independently or reverse engineer the weapons to discover exactly how components work and then incorporate selected capabilities into their own weapons.
In the Middle East trust is probably the rarest commodity. One way to begin building Israel's confidence in Syria's compliance with an accord is to provide Israel with real time access to U.S. surveillance systems as compensation for the loss of Tel Aviv's current ground-based early warning array on the Golan. Similarly, increasing the mobility of the Israel armed forces by providing U.S. Blackhawk helicopters and ground vehicles would allow Israel to react to -- even preempt -- the massing of troops on or near its borders.
What neither Israel nor Syria has requested is another confidence-building measure: an independent, armed multinational force similar to the eleven nation Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai Desert that monitors the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement. Like the MFO, such a force would not be a temporary entity such as U.N. peacekeeping missions that must constantly be reauthorized by the Security Council. As an integral part of a peace treaty, such a force would exist independently of the U.N. system (but it could be given additional stature by receiving Security Council sanction).
In fact, with a sufficient mandate, such a multinational force could replace all or part of three UN peacekeeping missions that currently cost the U.N. over a quarter of a billion dollars annually: UNDOF (U.N. Disengagement Force) on the Golan Heights in the Israel-Syria sector, UNIFIL (U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon) in the Israel-Lebanon sector, and UNTSO (U.N. Truce Supervision Organization).
Together with granting Israel increased access to timely surveillance data and enhancing Israel's battlefield mobility, U.S. active participation in a multinational force in Southern Lebanon and on the Golan would bolster Israel's confidence in any agreement with Syria. Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, undertaken as part of the agreement, would also remove the pretext used by Hezbollah for its presence and its attacks.
This combination of measures would not give Israel all that it reportedly seeks. Nor should we accede to the entire request, for U.S. security interests are not identical with those of Israel or any other nation, even those of our closest NATO allies. While interoperability of weapons is an important goal, we must always assume that the technology we give to others will eventually escape to nations that are not our allies through theft, leakage into open sources, arms trades (Israel, for example, is the world's fifth largest arms exporter), or counterintelligence failures. The U.S. intelligence community has noted that U.S. allies as well as potential adversaries maintain active information collection efforts aimed at U.S. military programs.
Finally, peace in the Middle East cannot be secured if the price is a new offensive arms race. If the United States is to continue its role as a mediator and facilitator of peace, we must not appear to be equipping Israel -- or any other nation -- for offensive action. Perhaps our Middle East standard should mirror the one we apply to Taiwan: favorable consideration of requests for defensive systems. This, together with a significant U.S. component in a well-armed multinational force, might well propel the region far enough along the road toward a durable peace to make a return to war unthinkable.
NGO Conference Highlights Small Arms Issue
By Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
The Small Arms Working Group (SAWG), an alliance of U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working together to promote change in U.S. and international policies on small arms, in conjunction with the Department of Conflict Management at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), sponsored a conference entitled "Small Arms and Global Violence: Stopping the Flow of Guns" on February 4, 2000. Over 90 participants representing NGOs, the U.S. Administration and Congress, United Nations, foundations, and the media met to discuss the impact of small arms around the world and develop strategies for U.S. action on the issue.
The opening plenary featured remarks from John Holum, Senior Adviser to the President and the Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament; William Zartman, Professor of International Organizations and Conflict Resolution and Director of African Studies at SAIS; Ed Laurance, Director of the Program on Security and Development at the Monterey Institute of International Studies; and Clarissa Kayosa, Campaign Coordinator, Demilitarization for Democracy Program at the Center for International Policy.
Holum outlined U.S. government action and priorities on the small arms issue and explained why the United States has chosen to get involved in curbing the negative impact of small arms. "Small arms have the ability to wipe out whole populations a person at a time....In fact, small arms are responsible for most of the killing and injures in the increasing number of intrastate conflicts that have occurred since the end of the Cold War." Holum briefed the audience on initiatives currently underway on small arms including: building and enhancing enforcement and legal capacities; providing training on export controls and customs practices; improving transparency; strengthening sanctions against embargo violators; discouraging irresponsible exports; enhancing stockpile security; and destroying surplus stocks.
Holum told the audience that the United States "is a leader on this issue" and that "the U.S. believes strongly that the international response to small arms problems must continue to be balanced between demand and supply-side approaches, to be multidimensional, and to be pursued coherently in all appropriate venues." Holum also outlined U.S. priorities on small arms in 2000. First, the U.S. advocates completing negotiations on the Firearms Protocol to the UN International Transnational Organized Crime Convention. Second, the U.S. will support agreement through the Wassenaar Arrangement restricting transfers of Man-Portable Defense Systems (MANPADS). Third, the U.S. will work to increase transparency of transfers of small arms and light weapons. Fourth, the U.S. will "coordinate and assist efforts both to secure military stockpiles of small arms and light weapons against loss and theft, as well as to destroy surplus stocks of small arms and light weapons, particularly in areas of conflict and post-conflict."
Laurance called upon participants to join in cooperative efforts aimed at stopping the devastation caused by small arms, including joining IANSA, the International Action Network on Small Arms. "Now is the time for all those NGOs, governments, and international organizations involved in forging a solution to step up their work, starting with making it clear that these weapons are taking an intolerable toll on innocent civilians and creating huge obstacles for countries in the process of rebuilding their societies." Although many groups and governments have shown serious commitments to stopping the scourge of light weapons, Laurance recognized that "while we have come a long way toward organizing a global effort to prevent and reduce the effects from the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons, we have merely laid the groundwork."
Participants attended two sets of workshops during the conference. The first set of workshops were thematic in nature and provided an intellectual foundation on the small arms issue. These workshops defined the role of small arms in conflict, the negative impact of small arms on economic and social development, the human rights abuses associated with the use of small arms, and the problems associated with illicit weapons trafficking. The second set of workshops were action-oriented and aided the participants in developing strategies for addressing the small arms issue within various fora. The workshops examined strategies for grassroots action, media work, policy development, and multilateral cooperation.
The conference succeeded in enhancing the dialogue on small arms and developing strategies for activists to use in their work. For those unable to attend or who would like further information, the plenary speeches, workshop summaries, and suggestions for future action will be available in a final report in the early spring.
U.S. Can Fight Two Major Wars -- While members of the military have frequently expressed their concerns about the number of casualties and the timetable necessary for the United States to fight and win two Major Theater Wars (MTWs), this does not mean that the United States would not win the second war, says Edward Warner, III, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction. "The casualty issue is real...they can have real impact on the political climate," said Warner. He also noted that "major theater wars are not going to be casualty-free."
Good News for U.S. Troops in Bosnia? -- Stipe Mesic, a reformist candidate elected President of Croatia in early February, promised to reduce the extensive political and military links between the Croat community in Bosnia and Croatia proper. Currently most Bosnian officers of Croat origin receive their military education in Croatia. Mesic's efforts may reduce the Bosnian Croats' dependence on Croatia and help build a multi-ethnic government in Bosnia. This, in turn, would allow the U.S. and its NATO allies to withdraw their 20,000-odd peacekeepers from the country.
Turkish Police Deny Missing Arms -- Police in Turkey are denying reports that members of the Islamic guerrilla group, Hizbullah, have possession of an arms shipment from the mid 1990s. Hizbullah fought against the PKK during that period, and many now suspect that Hizbullah received the weapons from the government to fight the PKK. The shipment, including 1,328 Kalashnikov assault rifles and thousands of hand grenades, is believed to have been taken from weapons procured by the Batman Governorate in 1994-96. A statement from the gendarmerie headquarters stated that the weapons "were handed over legally to gendarmerie units and are still in those units' possession and use."
Defense Minister Buried -- Yugoslav authorities buried the late Defense Minister Pavle Bulatovic on Friday. Bulatovic was shot dead by unknown gunmen in a Belgrade restaurant on Monday; only three weeks after another high profile murder of paramilitary leader Zeljko Raznatovic, aka Arkan. Nationalist leaders used Bulatovic's murder to whip up anti-Western passions and accuse the independent Yugoslav media of collaboration with the enemy and responsibility for the murder.
Uganda to Host Institute of African Firearms -- Uganda has been chosen to host the Institute of African Firearms, an organization under the auspices of the United Nations African Institute for Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders. The Institute will promote cooperation, collaboration, and coordination of African governments in combating trafficking in firearms and ammunition. The United States has provided initial funding to establish the institute.
Warner Concerned About Possible JSF Program Changes -- Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA), in congressional hearings with the service chiefs this week, expressed his concerns about the possibility the Pentagon might split the contract for the Joint Strike Fighter in order to preserve the fighter aircraft industrial base. Warner warned that his committee would look very closely at any such proposal. "To see a major program like that see a major shift so early on could jeopardize it," he said.
This week on America's Defense Monitor: "In the Shadow of Landmines"
An American landmine survivor journeys to Cambodia -- one of the world's most heavily mined countries -- to meet other landmine survivors, visit rehabilitation clinics, and investigate victim assistance programs. The survivor's odyssey is a gripping personal saga and a powerful look at the magnitude of the landmine crisis in Cambodia and around the world.
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, February 13 at 10:30 am on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Friday, February 18 on Channel 25 at 7:30 p.m., and on
Saturday, February 19 at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
Visit our website for transcripts, CDI resources, RealVideo, and related
links.
E-mail adminfo@cdi.org "subscribe" in the subject line for updates on new
videos.
Available for free!
Order at 800-CDI-3334, or on the web.