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
| June 22, 2000 |
| June 22, 2000 |
Of Peacekeeping and Rogue States -- The Times They Are A'changing
Colonel Dan Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org
Sometimes interesting things slip quietly by the pundits and the media, things that can have significant repercussions later.
Three such recent events, in the form of legislative measures with implications for U.S. involvement in international peacekeeping, came to light this past week.
The first is H.R. 4453, introduced by Representatives James McGovern (D-MA), John Porter (R-IL), and Constance Morella (R-MD) and subsequently cosponsored by fourteen other House members. It would establish a United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force. The need for such a constabulary force has been evident for some time. As both the conditions requiring an international peace operation and the composition and mandates of peacekeeping missions have become more complex, the length of time between the U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing deployment of a mission and the first meaningful troop deployment has lengthened. Delays of four to six months are not uncommon. Such delays in failing states lead to an increase in lawlessness, in the severity of humanitarian disasters, and in the worst case to genocide, as in Rwanda in 1994.
The police and security force proposed under this legislation would be capped at 6,000 volunteers. They would train together to a professional standard for "heavy" policing duties -- akin to a combination of light military and civilian police functions such as those carried out by carabiniere or gendarmes or even U.S. military police organizations. Above all, the force would be rapidly deployable -- within 15 days following a deployment resolution by U.N. Security Council under whose authority the force would reside. Actual direction of activities would be the responsibility of the U.N. Secretary General acting through the U.N.'s Military Staff Committee or the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which would include personnel with military staff or police training and experience. Maximum deployment time would be 6 months.
House Concurrent Resolution 346, introduced June 6 by Representative Albert Wynn (D-MD) and cosponsored by six others, takes H.R. 4453 one step further. Representative Wynn's measure calls for congressional endorsement of a permanent standing U.N. security force of 15,000 volunteers "recruited, trained, employed, and compensated directly by the United Nations." Like the police force in H.R. 4453, this force would be rapidly deployable -- this time within three weeks of the date of a Security Council resolution. H.C.R 346 also places a six month cap on deployments, which should be enough time for U.N. member states to organize regular peacekeeping missions.
Of course, one of the anticipated benefits of a rapid deployment force is that a burgeoning crisis can be contained if not reversed, thereby making larger and more costly interventions unnecessary. Just the opposite outcome could be the result of the "American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2000" (S.2726) introduced by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) on June 14 and cosponsored by five other Republican senators. This proposal is a continuation of Senator Helms' (and the Clinton Administration's) opposition to a permanent International Criminal Court (the Rome Statute) despite the fact that originally the U.S. was a leading advocate of the Court. S.2726 would prohibit U.S. military forces from participating in "a peacekeeping operation authorized by the United Nations Security Council pursuant to Chapter VI or VII of the charter of the United Nations...unless the President has submitted...a certification...that United States military personnel are...without risk of criminal prosecution by the International Criminal Court." Furthermore, unless the country in which the operation is to be conducted has agreed beforehand that the ICC has no authority to take action against U.S. troops participating in the operation, "no military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court."
Three points of this proposed legislation stand out. Only cooperation with the ICC is banned, not with the "ad hoc" tribunals prosecuting war crimes stemming from activities in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and the tribunal being established in Cambodia. The legislation also says that "the President should use the voice and vote of the United States" in the Security Council to ensure U.S. military personnel who might be part of a U.N. peacekeeping mission are permanently exempt from ICC jurisdiction for actions connected with peacekeeping. Finally, the measure completely ignores the provision of the Rome Statute, inserted at the behest of the United States, that the ICC will have jurisdiction in any complaint only if the legal system of the nation whose soldiers might be accused of a war crime is unwilling or unable to undertake an investigation and -- if required -- prosecution of the accused.
As with other international treaties that the U.S. refuses to sign or ratify, the continuing opposition to the Rome Statute puts America in the position of standing outside the circle of nations – 120 of which have signed the treaty. This recurrence of U.S. unilateralism is beginning to erode American leadership and suggests to some other nations that the U.S. is becoming a "rogue." That America seems unconcerned about the views of even our closet allies – all the nations of the European Union will ratify the Rome Statute by the end of this month – is ironic in that the State Department has just (June 19) declared that the term "rogue" as applied to nations will be dropped and the more discriminating term "states of concern" will be used. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has used the term "rogue state" as a description of countries whose "sole purpose" is to "destroy the [international] system." As such it came to be applied to seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba, of which the first six were tied to terrorism with North Korea also being involved in proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.
The question then is, as a number of these nations shift their policies and "reenter" the world community, will that community increasingly see the U.S. as a nation intent on subverting the international system by refusing to work with other nations unless all issues are resolved according to U.S. demands?
The answer America will give remains unclear.
To see the text of the legislation discussed above, click on H.R. 4453, H.C.R. 346, or S. 2726.
NMD Debate Heats Up
Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
Earlier this week the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) announced that the third of its intercept tests of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system will be conducted on July 7. The announcement came amid growing controversy about the program, fueled in part by the two latest government reports on its status. Pressure is growing on the Clinton Administration, which faces a decision this fall on whether the NMD system under development is technically feasible.
The first report is the third issued by the NMD Independent Review Team, known as the Welch Commission, after its Chair, former head of the Air Force General Larry Welch. The Pentagon has greeted the report warmly. It says, in part "[the panel] concluded that the technical capability to develop and field [the BMDO's proposed] limited system...is available." However, as with its past two reports, the Welch Commission remained critical of the program's testing schedule and methodology and retained its earlier statements that, despite recent progress, the current development schedule "remains high risk."
The second report, issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO), is more critical, yet has gone relatively unnoticed. In a June 1998 report the GAO said the program faced "significant performance and schedule risks." This new report states that despite DoD's subsequent decision to postpone NMD deployment from 2003 to 2005 and other changes, many risks remain. Developing a hit-to-kill capability is still a "difficult technical challenge," and only three of the planned 19 intercept attempts will have been made before DoD makes its deployment recommendation to the President this summer. GAO also noted that the program's "very aggressive schedule" makes it vulnerable to delays, and that testing restrictions make it difficult for DoD to accurately evaluate the system's performance.
Developments in the international community have further complicated the situation. This week's reaffirmation by North Korea -- whose missile program has been a prime justification for development of the NMD system -- that it will stop testing long-range missiles has dulled in the minds of some experts the need for the United States to rush deployment of a defensive system. China's top arms-control official, Sha Zukang, who has said that the NMD program will effectively restart the arms race, was quoted recently in the official China Daily as saying that deployment of the system would "upset the world strategic balance and hinder the process of international nuclear disarmament." The London Times reported that statements by Foreign Office Minister Peter Hain regarding NMD's inadequate testing and vulnerability had left the British government "in disarray" over whether to allow the United States to use radar bases in Britain as part of the system.
On the domestic political front, concerns about the pace of the program and its testing regime also appear to be growing. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) plans to offer an amendment to the Defense Authorizations Act now under consideration which would require the system to undergo tests against likely countermeasures. He says the measure appears to be gaining bipartisan support. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), a long time supporter of the NMD program, says he has serious concerns about the current testing schedule. Said the Senator, "Right now, we appear to be pushing the envelope of our technical capabilities."
In the midst of all this, the Clinton Administration finds itself in a tight spot. Clearly, the President does not want abrogating the ABM treaty to be his legacy on arms control. And as this fall's decision on moving forward with the NMD program approaches, President Clinton faces a growing diplomatic problem as allies, China and Russia all signal their concerns about the U.S. course on NMD. He also faces a political problem in this election year about how the decision will effect Vice President Gore's campaign. According to press accounts, the Administration is looking for a middle ground which falls short of a decision to deploy the system but moves the program ahead, thus leaving the fate of NMD to the next administration.
For additional information, see the executive summary of the NMD Independent Review Team and the GAO's report "Status of the National Missile Defense Program," NSAID-00-131.
Child Soldiering is Worst Form of Child Labor
By Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
This week the Child Labor Conference holds its fourth biennial conference entitled Stop Child Labor: From Exploitation to Education. The conference examines the myriad dangers children face both around the world and in the United States. Labor experts estimate that there are approximately 250 million child laborers between the ages of 5 and 14 around the world. When most people think of child labor issues, they think of children working in sweatshops or on farms. While both certainly represent grave abuses of children around the world, they are not the only forms of child labor.
Children used as combatants fits the definition of child labor. Most experts agree that child labor does not constitute children working a few hours a day to earn extra spending money or to begin to learn a trade -- hild labor is something more distressing. The Youth Advocate Program International, a non-profit organization that promotes the rights and well-being of youth on a global basis, says "the term child labor is generally associated with dangerous and/or exploitative labor practices applied to children. Child labor indicates a violation of a child's basic human rights, including the right to an education, freedom from exploitation and abuse, and the right to be protected for performing any work that is likely to be harmful, to physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development." The use of child soldiers fits these criteria.
Why is child soldiering such a hazard? We know that armed conflict, in general, negatively affects children in several ways. According to the United Nations, more than 20 million children have been displaced, two million killed, one million orphaned, six million seriously injured or disabled, and 12 million have become homeless because of war during the last decade. But beyond these statistics of war, actual soldiering is an additional trauma many of these children face. Today there are approximately 300,000 children currently serving as combatants in over 30 countries around the world and over 50 countries actively recruit children into the military forces.
Child soldiers are any combatant under 18. These children serve alongside adults in government forces, rebel opposition groups, and guerrilla armies. They are used as cooks, couriers, porters, spies, and front line combatants, as well as in other combat and non-combat capacities. Consistent with other forms of child labor, both boys and girls serve as child soldiers. Girls, in particular, may face additional trauma beyond the atrocities they witness and commit as soldiers. Some girls may be raped and contract sexually transmitted diseases. Others become "wives" of their commanders, may become pregnant, and are forced to carry the child of their rapist.
As with other aspects of child labor, child soldiers are subjected to life threatening risks -- even those beyond the normal dangers of war. Sometimes they are made to walk across fields to clear the area of landmines. In addition to rape, child combatants also face other dehumanizing treatment such as torture and various forms of psychological abuse. Child soldiers may become addicted to drugs and alcohol as they are often plied with these substances to make it "easier" for them to undertake combat activities.
The international community has decided that the life-threatening labor practices, including the use of child soldiers, must be eliminated. International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 182 banning the worst forms of child labor is one step forward in this effort. The Convention includes child soldiering in its definition of the worst forms of child labor, alongside such abuses as prostitution, slavery, and drug trafficking.
The Convention, signed by President Clinton and ratified by the Senate in 1999, marks the first specific legal recognition of the use of child soldiers as a form of child labor. With regards to child soldiers, the Convention criminalizes forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.
While taking an important step, the Convention's language only covers the most egregious examples of the use of child soldiers, such as forced abductions of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone. Thousands of children who are "voluntary" recruits would not be protected by the ILO Convention. The U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, as well as other experts, maintains that using child soldiers in any context is an abusive form of child labor and should be outlawed.
A further step in eliminating the use of child soldiers took place earlier this year. In January 2000, governments from around the world agreed unanimously on a new international agreement to ban the use of children in combat. The agreement takes the form of an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Protocol establishes 18 as the minimum age for direct participation in hostilities, for compulsory recruitment, and for any recruitment or use in hostilities by non-governmental armed groups. Governments are allowed to accept voluntary recruits as young as sixteen, but only with certain safeguards, including parental permission and proof of age.
The U.S. government has agreed to the provisions of the new protocol and has said that the U.S. armed forces will end their deployment of 17 year olds into armed conflicts. How this policy change will be implemented has yet to be determined The Protocol is now open for signature and ratification. President Clinton should sign and the Senate should ratify the Protocol as soon as possible.
With coordinated efforts, the use of child soldiers can be eliminated. Recognizing the link between child labor and child soldiers is one step forward in stopping this terrible practice.
For more information on child labor see the websites of the Youth Advocate Program International or the Child Labor Coalition. For more information on child soldiers see CDI's Children and Armed Conflict Project or the U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.
Redesigning NATO at Feira
Tomas Valasek, Senior Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
Leaders of the 15 countries of the European Union (EU) wrapped up their semi-annual meeting in Feira, Portugal on Tuesday by approving a series of documents on the EU's defense role. The Union is building an autonomous military as well as a civilian force, composed of police and judges, to assist with crises on the continent. One of the key sticking points, however, is the EU's relation with NATO, the preeminent military organization in Europe. The EU's proposed responsibilities would significantly overlap with NATO's duties. Moreover, the EU's plans for a beefed-up military force and a separate intelligence apparatus also promise to profoundly change the nature of decision-making within the North Atlantic alliance.
The EU's plans include a major push to strengthen Europe's military muscle. Despite proclamations of "equal footing" at EU's Feira summit, the organization remains dependent on U.S. weapons for large-scale missions. Without the U.S. intelligence satellite system, airborne command aircraft, and all-weather ammunition, the air war against Yugoslavia would not have taken place. To make up for its military shortcomings, the EU is convening a conference this fall, at which it plans to work out arrangements on how much each member needs to contribute to the EU defense force.
The military balance-of-power between NATO and EU directly affects the relative importance of the two organizations. EU members suspect that the United States is trying to use its military dominance to relegate the EU to a secondary role. When the EU's proposals for an autonomous defense force first appeared, U.S. officials responded with calls for a "right of first refusal" for NATO. It would have restricted the EU to acting only after NATO passed on the mission. U.S. officials agreed later to tone down their demand. Recent EU resolutions call for the Union to act "when NATO as a whole is not engaged."
Since NATO holds the upper hand in negotiations about the division of responsibilities in Europe, the EU is careful and defensive about pursuing close links with its rival institution. The "Principles for Consultation with NATO on Military Issues" approved at Feira are short on actual ideas for cooperation but laced with statements staking out the EU's role. Emphasizing the "different nature" of the two organizations, the document states that all EU-NATO cooperation "must take place in full respect of the autonomy of EU decision-making," and it must "reflect the fact that each Organization will be dealing with the other on an equal footing." As long as the disparity in military strength between NATO and the EU exists, the latter organization will likely continue resisting closer institutional links.
The EU's plans have the potential to transform NATO as well. Should the European countries live up to their promises of leaner and stronger militaries, the United States will find itself unable to command NATO operations nearly single-handedly, as was the case during the Yugoslavia war. NATO headquarters in Mons, Belgium has a U.S.-only section it is here that U.S. officials sort out incoming intelligence and decide which information to pass on to their allies. The Pentagon also refused to discuss with other NATO countries the use of some weapons, such as B-2 bombers and F-117 fighters. Many allies feel that too many presumably NATO decisions are made behind doors closed to all but one NATO member. But could the European Union have its own EU-only section too one day?
It may sound like science fiction today, but Europe is moving in that direction. It set out to close the equipment gap which separates its from the U.S. military, item by item. A future large transport aircraft is at works, as well as addition of smart bombs and new air-to-surface missiles. Furthermore, the EU plans to create its own satellite intelligence network. U.S. officials profess skepticism at European plans, pointing at generally low defense spending among EU countries. But the fact is, the two countries steam rolling the initiative, France and the United Kingdom, spend nearly as much on defense as a percentage of their GDP as the United States.
Should all pieces of the puzzle fall in place, NATO headquarters may acquire a European counterpart to a U.S.-only section. The balance of influence in Europe will thus have changed on two fronts: NATO would acquire a European counterpart capable of mounting many of the same missions. Just as importantly, however, the U.S. influence over NATO itself would have been reduced.
Billions for Arms -- Only Millions for Public Safety
Oscar Lurie, Research Associate, olurie@cdi.org
Congress and the Administration are spending $310 billion for weapons and the personnel to use them at a time when no American vital interests are being threatened or can be foreseen to be threatened. Contrast this with the $230 million the Department of Health and Human Services is allowed to spend to prepare us at home for bioterrorism and for disease brought in by air travelers from all over the world.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the challenge of recognizing disease resulting from the clandestine release of an infectious agent and its spread during the incubation period is substantial. The approach to these dangers must begin with development of local and state plans for action by local health departments and health care workers, infection control practitioners, policemen and firemen, microbiologists, and federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel.
Keeping tens of thousands of such people trained and ready to control these diseases and treat citizens affected by them is a "readiness" challenge that could be more grave than the readiness of our military forces for combat in foreign places.
So unless there is a reallocation of funds from offense abroad to defense at home, America could be a superpower in the world but an endangered population at home.
F-22 Testing Delays Continue -- According to the General Accounting Office (GAO) the F-22 fighter's testing program hasn't improved since the agency last reported on it in March. In fact, the problems have gotten worse, according to Donald Springman, a senior evaluator in GAO's National Security and International Affairs Division. In testimony to the House Government Reform National Security Subcommittee, Mr. Springman stated that delays in aircraft delivery and cracks in the canopies of the test aircraft are delaying the program. "Currently, there is only one usable canopy on one test aircraft," he said.
Boeing Lands $8.9 billion Super Hornet Contract -- Boeing Corporation, the prime contractor for the Navy's F/A-18E/F 'Super Hornet" fighter program as been awarded an $8.9 billion multi-year contract to produce 222 planes. The five year contract brings to 284 the total number of Super Hornets contracted to Boeing to date. The contract, which the Navy estimates will save about $700 million, was awarded despite recommendations by the General Accounting Office that the decision be delayed until problems with the aircraft were resolved.
Senator Identifies Pork in Annual DoD Spending Bill -- Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a Pentagon supporter and well-known critic of Congressional efforts to load up spending bills with unrequested programs, has released his list of add-ons, increases and earmarks included in the Senate's Defense Appropriations Act. In all, they total nearly $4.4 billion, and include such things as $150 million for research on the Advanced Tank Armament System, $199 million for the Remotely Controlled Combat Systems Initiative, and $175 million and $100 million respectively for breast cancer and prostate cancer research.
Legislation Calls for Audit of Pentagon -- Citing similar legislation passed by the House calling for an audit of the Department of Education for fraud, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced a bill calling for an identical audit of the Defense Department. His "Dear Colleague" announcing the new legislation reads in part "I assume that the Republican leadership will bring this audit request up as promptly as they brought up the one on the Department of Education, and that it will receive similar overwhelming support from the membership, on the principle that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the much larger gander -- unless of course with regard to the Defense Department, Congress will once again choose a more politically convenient avian model -- the ostrich."
Russian General Warns of Budget Shortfalls -- The Russian military's procurement budget needs a minimum five-fold increase to stay on par with the militaries of leading NATO members, warns the Russian Defense Ministry's armament chief, Col. Gen. Anatoly Sitnov. According to General Sitnov, Russia needs to increase its procurement and research and development budgets from $2 billion to $16 billion a year. The U.S. currently spends $93 billion on procurement and R&D.
This week on America's Defense Monitor: "Fighter Jet Fix"
In April 1998, the U.S. Navy announced its decision to buy 20 Super Hornet fighter jets from the Boeing company, at a cost of $2 billion dollars.
A few weeks later, the Commander of an elite Navy fighter wing reported that if a war came, his squadron of F-14 fighter jets would not be able to fight. Just two of his 14 jets were ready for combat. His pilots were only getting half the amount of flight training they needed to stay sharp. In the Commander's words, "we no longer have the tools to do our job."
Last year, more than 1,000 pilots walked away from the Air Force. Meanwhile, the Air Force spent more than $2 billion developing another sophisticated fighter, the F-22 Raptor.
In this episode, America's Defense Monitor takes a close look at the Super Hornet and the F-22. Are decision-makers in Washington clinging to these costly programs at the expense of our fighting forces? You might be surprised at how far the US military is willing to go to get its fighter jet fix.
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, June 25 at 10:30 a.m. on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Friday, June 30 on Channel 25 at 7:30 p.m., and on Saturday,
July 1 at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
Visit our web site for transcripts, CDI resources, RealVideo, and related
links.
E-mail adminfo@cdi.org with "subscribe" in the subject line for updates on
new videos.
Regular Price: $39 each
INTERNET PRICE: $29
Order at 800-CDI-3334, or on the web.