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 8, 2001 |
| February 8, 2001 |
All for All -- the Musketeer Philosophy Revised
Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org
February 6-7 marked the fourth High-Level Meeting between the U.N. and an array of regional and subregional organizations to consider how best these various groups can help and be helped in the struggle to promote international security in their geographic areas.
The theme of the last such meeting in 1998 (earlier meetings were held in 1994 and 1996) was Conflict Prevention. This year's conference builds on the 1998 effort and Secretatry-General Kofi Annan's Millennium Report ("We the People") by examining ways to enhance peace-building efforts -- both those that are necessary in post-conflict societies as well as the less appreciated role of peace-building in preventing conflicts from arising in the first instance.
Many regional and subregional organizations were formed to coordinate approaches to economic and trade issues. They tended to avoid "national security" issues in the more traditional (military) sense. But more and more these groups are coming to understand that issues related to defense -- large, expensive, and at times unruly militaries; unannounced arms production and purchases that upset military balances or fuel civil wars; violence that generates cross-border refugee flows and internally displaced persons; disruption of traditional trade patterns, etc. -- cannot be neatly compartmentalized from other concerns.
A growing number of regional and subregional organizations are now including these issues in their deliberations. (See "Organizing for Peace" in Defense Monitor 1, January 2001) But whether they will succeed -- indeed whether these U.N. High Level Meetings succeed -- in improving on the wretched state of security in many parts of the world cannot depend on simply extending discussions to include security matters. Although this is the indispensable first step, success ultimately rests on what concrete, enforceable measures can be agreed among the participants to discourage or punish security breaches.
In recognition of the increasing (although still very uneven) prominence accorded security issues, the attendance at this year's U.N. sponsored meeting was expanded to 18 organizations, including for the first time representatives from the Asia-Pacific region. Invitees are:
U.N. participants include the Presidents of the General Assembly, Security Council, and the Economic and Social Council; the U.N. Secretariat (seven Departments and offices); five U.N. Regional Commissions; and nine other U.N. associated organizations and programs including the very important International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Small Arms Should Be on the Bush Agenda
Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
Last week, the Small Arms Working Group (SAWG), an alliance of U.S.-based NGOs working together to promote change in U.S. policies on small arms, sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell encouraging prudent U.S. policies on small arms.(Small arms are weapons that can be carried and used by one or two people, including handguns, assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns and light mortars. Light weapons, ammunition, grenades, landmines, and explosives are also part of this category.) SAWG members believe that small arms proliferation must be countered by more responsible policies on legal sales and international cooperation to reduce illicit trafficking. The letter asked that the United States adopt new policies addressing both the legal and illicit trade in small arms as well as place small arms high on the political agenda.
SAWG provided recommendations to implement policies that were introduced by the Clinton Administration and other policies that would further the effort to control the proliferation of small arms world wide. Drawing on Secretary Powell's interest in Africa, SAWG urged the Bush Administration "to continue the moratorium on arms sales to all regions of conflict -- especially, but not limited to, the areas of terrible devastation in Africa -- and to work with other states to adopt similar moratoria."
SAWG urged that "the criteria outlined in the EU Code of Conduct and the OSCE Document on Small Arms be rigorously applied to U.S. small arms exports and the 'International Code of Conduct' be promoted in ongoing multi-lateral negotiations." This is in line with a prior State Department pledge to honor strict criteria when licensing small arms exports and compliance with the congressionally-mandated International Code of Conduct. The United States has already endorsed the European Union's Code of Conduct in relation to small arms transfers and recently agreed to the Organization for Security and Cooperation Document on Small Arms. SAWG drew Secretary Powell's attention to the fact that "both the EU and OSCE criteria emphasize the exporting state's duty to prevent arms sales that would contribute to human rights violations and other acts of repression; exacerbate regional tensions; provoke or prolong conflicts; be at high risk of diversion into the illicit market, or otherwise threaten international peace and security."
SAWG further recommended that the "Bush Administration adopt a policy of export restraint designed to prevent diversion and dangerous weapons buildups" based on the existing U.S. policy to "audit, and if necessary, cut off" exports to a state if arms export license applications "exceed the normal, reasonable, domestic needs of a given importing country or show other abnormalities." In that same vein, SAWG encouraged the State Department "to ask for continued and increased funding for the small arms destruction program in Eastern Europe and continued cooperation with the South African Development Community on weapons destruction and stockpile management" in order to help "destroy surplus weapons that would otherwise cascade to regions of conflict."
In the past, the United States has been critical of adherence to UN arms embargoes and has recommended increased cooperation in the international community on enforcing compliance. SAWG urged the State Department "to develop an information-sharing mechanism on UN embargoes, either within the UN or in regional fora." In addition, the U.S. "should improve implementation and enforcement of the arms brokering law and encourage other countries to enact similar restrictions." Monitoring and regulating the trade in small arms and prosecuting violators of national and international control laws would make implementing arms embargoes less of a challenge than it is today.
Not only should the United States take measures to control the legal trade in small arms, but a genuine effort must be made to control the illicit trade as well. The United States signed the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials in November 1997. The Convention is intended to increase controls over and traceability of small arms as they move across borders. Given that the United States has already implemented the majority of measures outlined in the Convention, SAWG requested the State Department to "advocate immediate Senate ratification of the OAS Convention and continue its firm support for an early conclusion of the negotiations to the OAS Convention's counterpart at the global level, the Firearms Protocol to the UN Convention on Transnational Crime. The July 2001 United Nations conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects is another venue in which the United States can demonstrate its leadership on small arms issues by advocating meaningful policies that will address their devastating effects. SAWG pressed the Bush Administration "to play a constructive role in developing a final conference document that aims to eliminate the illicit trade and better regulate the legal trade in small arms."
NGOs are not the only ones raising the small arms issue. This past weekend, the Outlook Section of the Washington Post carried a full page article entitled "A Look At...The Virulence of Violence: Small Wars, Small Arms, Large Threat" (February 3, 2001). The introduction reads "The proliferation of light weapons is seriously impeding political and economic reforms in developing countries from Congo to Colombia... and the resulting downward spiral could threaten U.S. national security." What is immediately compelling about this statement is that it says what non-governmental organizations (NGOs), activists, governments from around the world, and the United Nations have been saying for years -- small arms are a significant threat to international security. The concepts in the article are not new: small arms perpetuate violent conflict, small arms last long after the wars in which they are used have ended, small arms create new cycles of violence and crime. What is new is that the small arms issue is getting mainstream media attention.
The Bush Administration has been quite vocal about national missile defense and nuclear weapons strategy. But issues concerning the conventional arms trade, and more specifically, small arms, have not been mentioned. NGOs and activists fear the silence could mean that these issues will receive little or no attention from key policy officials in the near future and will never be high priorities on the political agenda. This would be a tragic mistake, not only for the millions of people affected by small arms around the world, but for the credibility and standing of the United States among its allies for not standing up to stop this vicious scourge.
Rumsfeld Makes a Weak Case for Missile Defense in Munich
Dr Nicholas Berry
The participants from Europe and Asia at the February 3-4 Munich Conference on Security Policy heard Defense Secretary Rumsfeld make the case for national missile defense (NMD). Although he spoke on other issues, Rumsfeld tried to defuse the primary issue many NATO allies, Russia, and China oppose.
His presentation attracted no converts. His arguments appeared both vacuous and overflowing with hubris.
The key section of Rumsfeld's speech must have left his audience puzzled, or at least in a state of mild disbelief.
"No U.S. President can responsibly say that his defense policy is calculated and designed to leave the American people undefended against threats that are known to exist. And they are there, the threats. Let there by no doubt: a system of defense need not be perfect; the American people must not be left completely defenseless. It is not so much a technical question as a matter of the President's constitutional responsibility. Indeed, it is, in many respects, as Dr. Kissinger has said, a moral issue."
In a narrow sense, Rumsfeld is correct to say that the American people are undefended against known threats. Besides ballistic missiles, they are undefended against truck bombs, car bombs, suitcase bombs, merchant ship bombs, cruise missiles, subway vapor bombs, reservoir poisoning, suicide civilian aircraft bombs, crop dusters spraying anthrax, cyberterrorism, terrorist kidnaping, and perhaps other threats not yet imagined. By Rumsfeld's logic, we should have nuclear, biological, and chemical detectors in highway tunnels and underpasses to protect against truck bombs, weapons-detecting dogs on merchant vessels and aircraft that approach our territory, Aegis destroyers anchored off our coasts to shoot down cruise missiles, and a host of other defenses. If it is immoral to leave the United States defenseless, no expense should be spared.
Rumsfeld's audience might well have wondered if spending $310 billion leaves the U.S. defenseless, what is the value of offensive arms? Has deterrence vanished as a strategy, especially against a ballistic missile attack where the perpetrator can easily be identified (unlike most of the other security threats)? Does the United States believe it can create a threat-free environment?
As with all threats, intelligence agencies are in place to warn of impending hostilities. While not perfect, the alternative is a total bunker mentality. All countries live with threats. The challenge is not just to live with them and smash them when they become actual assaults, but to minimize or prevent them through intelligence, forming coalitions, deterrence, and, most directly, through detente diplomacy. Singling out this one threat, a potential ballistic missile attack, and being prepared -- alone and without allied assistance -- to devote tens, perhaps hundreds, of billions of dollars towards its neutralization carries no weight, as Rumsfeld's audience indicated by not endorsing NMD. The Defense Secretary's arguments were seen to be as vacuous as the space from which the alleged threat arises.
The hubris in Rumsfeld's talk emerged in its subtext. The United States, he suggested, needs, will develop, and use more power -- undisputed power, unencumbered power. According to the Secretary, America's current weaknesses literally invite attack.
"And we have an obligation to plan for these changing circumstances to make sure that we are arranged -- first and foremost -- to dissuade rash and reckless aggressors from taking action or threatening action. Terror weapons don't need to be fired. They just need to be in the hands of people who would threaten their use. And it alters behavior. We know that. And we know from history that weakness is provocative. That it entices people into adventures they would otherwise avoid."
NMD, therefore, is designed to take "terror weapons" out of "the hands of people who would threaten their use." In addition, Rumsfeld stated that the U.S. "has every interest in seeing that our friends and allies, as well as deployed forces, are defended from attack and are not vulnerable to threat or blackmail." As he expressed elsewhere, imagine if Saddam Hussein had a weapon of mass destruction and how it might have paralyzed our efforts to reverse his aggression against Kuwait. In effect, Rumsfeld told his audience that avoiding such a situation in the future requires that potential aggressors be disarmed. The U.S. must be free to use its weapons with impunity -- that is, without being deterred.
Of course, this is the very posture that worries China and Russia, and what they and U.S. allies believe will touch off a horrendous arms race as states seek to restore their deterrent capabilities. A "unipolar world" with the United States enjoying "absolute security" is seen as a threat by those who believe untrammeled power is inherently dangerous, no matter who wields it. When Rumsfeld repeated twice in his speech -- "These systems will be a threat to no one" -- brows must have wrinkled and eyes must have rolled upwards. What other conclusion can be drawn but that the United States wants to remain boss.
If Rumsfeld cannot muster better arguments for NMD, it will continue to be a hard sell and inflate foreign resistance to what many see as Star Wars II. The world may be forced to live with NMD, but they will not like it.
Caspian Show of Force
Tomas Valasek, Senior Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
When Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Baku, Azerbaijan, in January, he brought unusual company. Russian naval ships made an "unassisted" call on the port of Baku at the same time as the Azerbaijani and Russian presidents shook hands. The problem is, the Russian ships apparently arrived without notifying Azerbaijan. Local authorities did issue a post-facto statement claiming permission had been requested and received, but by many accounts the statement just put a brave face on a diplomatic and military slight. The Russian Navy also held unscheduled live fire exercises in the northern and central parts of the Caspian Sea, including areas that Azerbaijan considers its own. Moscow's show of force highlights the risks of oil projects in the Caspian Sea and points to the need to settle the status of the Caspian Sea.
The Caspian is a unique body of water. Its salty waters cover an area larger than the Persian Gulf. But the Caspian is not connected to any of the world's oceans so technically it might also be considered a lake. Since the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 annulled the previous Soviet-Iranian agreement on the use of the Caspian, the five current littoral states -- Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan -- have been unable to decide on the Caspian's legal status.
The legal vacuum already gave rise to several conflicting claims over the Caspian's oil-rich seabed. Russia used the limbo to effectively claim the run of all of the sea's territory, although the three other former Soviet republics -- Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan -- also inherited portions of the Soviet Caspian fleet. The uncertainty about the Caspian's status now puts in question the numerous oil and gas projects in the Caspian, many led and financed by U.S. corporations.
One project in potential danger is the U.S.-championed oil pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan to Ceyhan, Turkey. The pipeline may not be commercially viable without oil deliveries from Kazakhstan. But its oil fields lie on the Caspian's east coast, whereas the Baku pipeline would start in the west. The Kazakh supplies must be ferried across the sea, either by pipeline or, more likely, by barges and tankers. However, Russia opposes Baku-Ceyhan and wants the oil go to across its territory. If the Russian Navy can threaten the trans-Caspian supply line at will, the added risks may discourage Western investors from funding Baku-Ceyhan.
Russia is now pressing for the Caspian Sea to be declared common property of all littoral states, which would essentially rubberstamp the Russian Navy's full access to most, if not all of the sea's surface. An alternative would be to divide the surface into sovereign sectors belonging to the littoral states but so far the Russian proposal seems to be carrying the day. Azerbaijan has accepted the Russian plan, in principle, during President Putin's visit there in January. The five states will likely decide on the status of he Caspian at a conference planned for March.
Ukraine Destroys Last Tu-160 Strategic Bomber -- Ukraine's last Tu-160 strategic bomber was cut to pieces at the Pryluky air base near Kyiv on 2 February, Radio Free Europe reported. The dismantling took place under a U.S.-Ukrainian Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, with the attendance of a U.S. military delegation. In 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal, including 130 SS-19 missiles, 46 SS-24 missiles, and 44 strategic bombers. In 1994 , by ratifying the START I nuclear disarmament treaty, Ukraine agreed to destroy its Tu-160 and Tu-95 strategic bombers. Ukraine still has four Tu-95 bombers, but the Defense Ministry said it plans to destroy them all by May.
Argentina Won't Seek High-tech Arms -- Argentina will not purchase high-tech fighter aircraft even if neighboring Chile does, according to Argentine Foreign Minister Adalberto Rodriguez Giavarini. Chile is currently negotiating a $600 million deal to purchase top of the line F-16C/D fighters from Lockheed Martin. Said Mr. Giavarini, "We don't want to spend money we need for social welfare and better macroeconomic figures on such military gadgets."
Legislation Introduced to Delay V-22 -- Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) has introduced legislation that would delay production of the V-22 "Osprey" tilt-rotor aircraft program. Specifically, the legislation would withhold production funds for one year, and require the Department of the Navy and the Pentagon's Inspector General to report to Congress on the status of the program. In a prepared statement Sen. Feingold said, "We owe it to our men and women in uniform to put their safety first. They are willing to go into harm's way while serving their country. That service should not include being put into harm's way by a potentially unsafe aircraft."
Quotation of the Week -- "If we can't defend this country for $300 billion a year we ought to get some new generals," retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak, Washington Post, February 8, 2001.
This Week on America's Defense Monitor: "The Next Space Race"
Pursuing a vision of U.S. "control and dominance" in outer space, the United States military is developing the technologies to make outer space the battlefield of the future. Meanwhile, the international community is working to ensure that outer space is used only for peaceful purposes, and prevent a war in the heavens. In a race to the ultimate high ground, who will get there first?
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, February 11 at 10:30 a.m, on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Saturday, February 17 at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
Visit our web site for transcripts, CDI resources, and related links.
Regular Price: $39 each
INTERNET PRICE: $29
Order at 800-CDI-3334, or on the web.