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 6, 2000 |
| July 6, 2000 |
Update: The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century and
Preventive Diplomacy
Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org
All the hoopla of this Fourth of July -- from the warships in New York Harbor to the "rockets' red glare" from the numerous grand fireworks displays across the nation -- recalled the fact that a small group of men and women comprising The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century are quietly laboring to produce a blueprint to help guide America's international relations for the century we have just entered.
Also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission after its two co-chairs, former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, the Commission is scheduled to release its third and final document in February or March of 2001. While its deliberations are not publicized, they are not classified, permitting occasional previews of the overall thrust of the Commission's work.
While there has been criticism of the first two products issued by the Commission, what is encouraging is the pronounced shift in the approach towards national security that seems to be emerging. For most of our history, we have tended to react to events affecting our national security. The early forays of our Navy and Marines along the Barbary Coast (as North Africa was then called) was prompted by acts of piracy against American merchantmen. The War of 1812 (during which the "rockets' red glare" was memorialized in our national anthem) stemmed in part from the British practice of impressing Americans to serve in the British fleet (although there were other reasons related to free commerce by neutrals on the high seas). U.S. involvement in World War I stemmed from the deaths of American citizens traveling on vessels sunk by German U-boats. Just as America's formal entry into World War II was a direct reaction to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, so too was our involvement in Korea precipitated by the North's invasion of the South 50 years ago. Our perception that success by North Vietnam in undermining South Vietnam would be the first "domino" of an unending string of communist victories in South Asia propelled us into Vietnam. U.S. military forces were also committed in Granada, Panama, and Kuwait to roll back purported Cuban inspired communism, international drug trafficking, and threats to oil sources, respectively.
One might argue that it is in the nature of democracy not to precipitate military action but to be always prepared to react strongly to armed attacks or to imminent threats to vital national interests. But it is even more appropriate -- and this seems to be the direction the Hart-Rudman Commission is taking -- for democracies to emphasize preventive national security measures that can mitigate if not eliminate the need to employ military forces to sustain national interests.
For example, prevention is the focus of the U.S. Comprehensive Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) program initiated in 1992 to help control, safeguard, and eliminate Russian fissile materials. This effort is now under the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, formed in October 1998, with a current budget of $1.8 billion.
Prevention was extended to biological and chemical weapons in 1994, although to date only some $19.6 million and $7.6 million, respectively, have been devoted to keeping Russian experts in these fields gainfully employed in non-military work. But the Henry L. Stimson Center estimates that $18.6 million per year is needed to "mitigate the temptation" of Russian biological and chemical experts to sell their services to states trying to develop these types of weapons.
Russia and the U.S. also have recently agreed to establish a joint missile launch early warning facility that would act as a central clearing house of information on planned missile launches by any nation as well as to track unreported firings. And the Russians have even gone so far as to propose joint development of a missile defense system to guard against unauthorized and accidental launches as well as missiles fired from "rogue" nations.
But when one contrasts the amount of money dedicated to these and similar initiatives with the amount spent on offensive weapons systems, it is clear that the mind set and the priorities of U.S. policy makers still overwhelmingly favors the application of reactive force rather than prevention. Considering that more people are needed for an effective deterrent and that fashioning swords (weapons) is more expensive than making pens, a significant disparity is to be expected. What should not be expected, however, is that Pentagon spending should be rising so rapidly when the U.S. has no military rival in the world and the funding for preventive diplomacy is virtually static. While the military's Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 budget will come to about $310 billion and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are proposing a $30 billion per year increase over this amount for the next six years, the State Department's requested base budget over the last three fiscal years (averaging $19.67 billion per year) has suffered increasing cuts on a percentage basis in the Congress. The President's request for FY2001 is headed for a cut of over 10 percent.
More specifically, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, overseas development investment by the U.S. government has declined by half over the last 10 years and, since the days of Truman and Marshall, by more than 90 percent. Today the State Department gets less than one penny of every dollar spent by the government while the Pentagon gets some 16 cents.
With this kind of decrease, it's little wonder that the U.S. is dragging its feet on such programs as debt forgiveness for the poorest of the poor nations -- this in spite of the fact that poverty is a significant cause of wars which in turn magnify humanitarian crises. And it costs far more to alleviate the resulting suffering and rebuild shattered societies. We also fail to fully support the United Nations where we remain the organization's biggest debtor nation. Moreover, in June the AIDS epidemic was classified as a national security threat, one against which all the Pentagon's weaponry is powerless.
In the end, we must somehow overcome the reactive mentality and modus operandi in both the executive and legislative branches that rely on the military simply because it is the only organization that is our elected officials are willing to fund. If the nation is to enlarge its view of what constitutes national security, as the Hart-Rudman Commission seems set to do, we must recognize that the new century demands a fundamental change in how the U.S. attempts to influence events. Preventive diplomacy is the first line of defense. It's a better bargain because it saves money and protects the lives of American service men and women around the world.
The bottom line is simple: if in the future we want to avoid the angry "rockets' red glare," we must put meaningful resources -- people and money -- into preventive diplomacy.
NMD 2005: Where's the Fire?
Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
With the critical third intercept test of the national missile defense (NMD) system just hours away, it is not surprising to find that the event is generating a considerable amount of media interest. Later this month the Pentagon is scheduled to recommend to the Clinton Administration whether to move forward with deployment by 2005 of a limited NMD system, based largely on the results of this test, since of the two previous, one was a "hit" and the other a "miss." The Administration's decision is expected sometime in November in order to meet the 2005 deployment deadline.
But why 2005? In it's 1998 report, the Welch Commission -- named for its Chairman, former Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welch -- described the NMD program schedule, which at that point called for deployment in 2003, as a "rush to failure." Based on that report, the Clinton Administration delayed deployment until 2005. This would lead one to the conclusion that the current schedule is based not on potential threats but on technology.
This week's Defense News quoting former CIA director James Woolsey reinforces that conclusion. "It is important to move out promptly, but it is less important whether a system is deployed in 2005 or 2007," said Mr. Woolsey, who was a member of the Rumsfeld Commission, which studied potential ballistic missile threats to the United States. The Commission's are widely used to justify development of an NMD system.
The same article also quotes Richard Garwin, a physicist and another member of the Rumsfeld Commission, saying "[The 2005 deadline] seems to have sprung from nowhere. It is not in the unclassified summary of the 1999 National Intelligence Estimate. And it is certainly not in the classified portion of the Rumsfeld Commission report." What the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) does say is that a ballistic missile threat to the United States could develop "during the next 15 years."
Another Defense News article discusses the transition of the Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program to its engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase. THAAD is one of a number of systems under development to defend U.S. troops in the field and our allies from shorter range "theater" ballistic missiles. In fact, in the early 1990's, the U.S. changed the emphasis of its ballistic missile defense program from President Reagan's "Star Wars" program to one focused on theater missile defense (TMD). A 1994 DoD fact sheet on missile defenses said, "To meet the immediate and growing threat from shorter range theater ballistic missiles, the highest priority is assigned to the development and deployment of TMD." Simpler to design and build, and much more prevalent than ICBM's, these missiles pose a much more immediate threat, as demonstrated during the Persian Gulf war.
According to the Defense News article, beginning EMD of the THAAD program "would allow the first configuration of the THAAD system to be deployed by 2008. Army officials say this will meet immediate threats."
A TMD system which will not be deployed until 2008 will meet the "immediate threats" posed by short range missiles, a threat that DoD once considered to be deserving of "the highest priority." And yet the United States stands poised, basically on the strength of one test, to commit itself to the deployment of an NMD system that is technologically immature, will undermine 30 years of nuclear arms negotiations, have an optimistic cost of $60 billion, and will do so in order to meet an arbitrary deadline.
State Department Classifies Foreign States: "States of Concern" Only
One of the Categories
Dr Nicholas Berry
On June 19, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright dropped the label "rogue state" when interviewed on Washington's WAMU-FM's Diane Rehm Show. When Rehm asked if Kim Jong Il of North Korea was a rogue leader, Secretary Albright made news with her response. "Well, first of all, we are now calling these states 'states of concern' because we are concerned about their support for terrorist activity, their development of missiles, their desire to disrupt the international system."
Sources in the State Department now indicate that all the world's 190 states have been placed in new categories. The Center for Defense Information has obtained a list of the new categories, which, for the first time, are reprinted below.
"States of Unconcern" These states do not support international terrorism, have no missiles, and are totally irrelevant to the international system. If other countries want to deal with these states, the State Department has no objection. The United States, however, chooses to totally ignore them. Examples cited include Paraguay, Nepal, and Mauritius.
"States Leaving Concern" In the past, these states supported terrorism, developed missiles, and disrupted the international system, but now have discovered virtue and are beginning to reform. South Africa was once in this category. Iran is now prominent on this list. Once on this list, "states leaving concern" will be encouraged to continue reforms by the partial removal of U.S. sanctions.
"States of Uncertain Concern" These states may or may not have employed terrorism in the past or have developed weapons of mass destruction, but they currently do not disrupt the international system. However, they are likely candidates to disrupt the system someday and need to be watched carefully. China and Russia head the list, with Zimbabwe at the bottom.
"States of Disrepair" These states occupy space on maps but have no government capable of any action whatsoever. Somalia is the sole state listed in this category, although the Congo is under consideration.
"States of Pseudo Concern" These states are terrorism free, have no missiles, and do not disrupt the international system. The only reason they are on the list is for domestic political reasons. Exiles, refugees, and dissidents from these states constitute powerful American voting blocs and demand that their former homeland be sanctioned. Cuba, of course, tops the list.
"Just Plain States" These states are allies or extremely friendly to the United States. It is irrelevant whether they sponsor terrorism or not, have missiles, or disrupt the system. Their friendship is all that matters. Prominent on the list are Britain, Canada, Israel, and Japan.
In order to keep the list up to date, the State Department has established the Bureau of States (B/S). Its task will be to evaluate the behavior of all states and report to Congress annually on April 1 with its new listings.
Navy's Describes "Ideal" Fleet -- According to an assessment of the Navy's long-range shipbuilding needs released last week by the Pentagon, the "ideal" fleet would consist of 360 ships, up from the current 315. Among other things, it would increase the current fleet of 12 aircraft carriers to 15. The report places the construction cost of the 360 ship fleet at between $18 and $19 billion annually. Currently the Navy spends roughly $10 billion on ship construction. The report, which is five months late, drew Congressional criticism because while calling for a 360 ship fleet, it only contains funding requirements and construction schedules to maintain a 305 ship fleet.
Americans in South Korea Warned -- American citizens have been issued warnings about possible anti-American attacks. The warnings, issued by the U.S. South Korean military command, come in the wake of the stabbing death late last month of an Army major and an assault on the wife of a U.S. serviceman. While South Korean political leaders have made it clear that they want a continued U.S. military presence in the country, anti-American sentiment has existed virtually since the end of the war. Last month's North Korea-South Korea summit has apparently caused a significant increase in anti-American incidents.
Tensions Rising in Kosovo -- The UN Administration in Kosovo came under attack from both ethnic communities in Kosovo this week. On Wednesday, the UN suspended aid to the Serbian community in Strpce in retaliation for attacks on the UN compound there. The next day unidentified assailants threw rocks on several buses carrying Strpce Serbs, this time without the customary UN escort, slightly injuring two. On Thursday, the former head of the Kosovo Liberation Army and one of the most prominent leaders of Kosovo Albanians, Hashim Thaci, withdrew from the UN-led Administration. Thaci accused the UN of violating the territorial sovereignty of Kosovo by tolerating the existence of exclusively Serbian communities in Kosovo. The remaining Serbs in Kosovo have congregated in several large communities to defend themselves from repeated attacks by the Albanian majority there.
Milosevic Strengthening Hold on Power -- President Slobodan Milosevic may serve another term in office after the upper house of the Yugoslav parliament passed a constitutional amendment on Thursday legalizing re-election of a sitting president. The amendment has yet to clear the lower house. Milosevic would have been forced to leave office next year under the old constitution. The fairness of the planned elections is increasingly dubious -- the Yugoslav parliament is preparing a law on terrorism which, critics fear, may be used to muzzle dissent and opposition to President Milosevic.
This week on America's Defense Monitor: "The Thinning Threat"
Over the past ten years, the enemies of the United States have become poorer, weaker, and more isolated. With America's growing military advantage, and its eagerness to demonstrate its destructive power anywhere and anytime, today it is America's potential enemies who feel threatened.
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, July 9 at 10:30 a.m. on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Friday, July 14 on Channel 25 at 7:30 p.m., and on Saturday,
July 15 at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
Visit our web site for transcripts, CDI resources, RealVideo, and related links.
Regular Price: $39 each
INTERNET PRICE: $29
Order at 800-CDI-3334, or on the web.