|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| April 18, 2002 |
Supplemental Request Boosts Security Assistance
Tamar Gabelnick, Federation of American Scientists, tamarg@fas.org and Rachel Stohl, Center for Defense Information, rstohl@cdi.org
As part of the FY2002 emergency supplemental appropriations budget requested by the Administration, international security assistance received a major boost. Both the Department of Defense (DoD) and the State Department benefit enormously from the Bush proposal. As currently proposed, the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program will increase by 10%, Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) will grow by 25%, and International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INL) will receive over a 50% increase in its budget.
In addition to other specified funds, the State Department would receive: $372.5 million for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to 19 specified states; $114 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INL); $110 million in aid to Independent States of the Former Soviet Union for the Central Asian nations; $83 million in Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) including $8 million to vet, train, and equip a counter-terrorism unit in Indonesia and $25 million for counter-kidnapping training for Colombian security forces; and $28 million for Peacekeeping Operations, including $8 million to train civilian and military personnel in Indonesia.
The Department of Defense (DoD) would be allocated $100 million to "support foreign nations in furtherance of the global war on terrorism," including the provision of defense articles, services, and training (no recipient countries are named); and $30 million to give to "indigenous forces" supporting U.S. national security aims, again including the provision of arms and other military aid. DoD’s increased budget is a completely new allocation of funds, and does not come from any existing budget.
Under the current security assistance framework, the State Department has responsibility for distribution of most security assistance in order to ensure that the aid programs are integrated into overall U.S. foreign policy strategy. The proposed budget would provide military aid for DoD to distribute independently, an extension of its mandate that could interfere with State’s policy work.
While the aid listed above is supposedly designed to help countries combat international terrorism, the link between counter-terrorism and the specific countries involved or the type of aid being given is not always clear. In many cases, the aid requests do not specify recipient states, making it harder to judge whether aid will truly go to counter-terrorism or if other interests are being served. Without specifics about which countries are receiving aid and how the allocations fit into a larger counter-terrorism plan, it appears as if the supplemental is being used as a vehicle to provide arms and training to foreign forces with minimal oversight. Most disturbing is the allocation of $30 million for "indigenous forces," which gives DoD free rein to arm insurgents in unnamed countries.
In the Administration’s proposal, almost all of these allocations of new security assistance (except INL and aid to former Soviet states) allow for the funds to be spent "notwithstanding any other provision of the law." In other words, the few rules that Congress has worked hard to put in place to protect human rights, regional stability, non-proliferation, or other key foreign policy goals could be set aside by unilateral decisions of the Secretary of Defense or State. Furthermore, under such provisions, Congress would not be able to exercise oversight on the distribution of the aid since any current congressional notification requirements would be bypassed.
Afghanistan: The Need to Commit Through Peacekeeping
Reyko Huang, Research Analyst, rhuang@cdi.org
Security in Afghanistan is a prerequisite for the entire reconstruction process, including delivering humanitarian assistance, repatriating refugees, building credibility of the new government, establishing the nation’s institutions and infrastructure, enabling school attendance, reopening local businesses, and attracting foreign investment. Security, because it denies terrorists a safe haven and provides the kind of environment needed for societies to function in "normalcy," is also a prerequisite for success in America’s war against terrorism, wherever the action may take place.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the multinational peacekeeping team in Afghanistan, has maintained a visibly improved security environment in Kabul since its arrival in January, enabling reconstruction to gain momentum. With its initial success and the persistence of ethnic clashes in other parts of Afghanistan, interim Prime Minister Hamid Karzai has repeatedly urged the United States to expand the ISAF mandate to allow peacekeepers into several other cities. Washington has remained staunchly opposed to the request, however, reiterating that the United States is instead committed to Afghan security through the building of an Afghan national army.
A strong, cohesive and well-trained Afghan army will finally enable Afghanistan to become a viable state capable of ensuring its own peace and security. However, U.S. officials and experts say it will take at least two years to build a full-scale Afghan defense force. Indeed, training is already reportedly behind schedule. According to a recent U.S. assessment, only 4,000 Afghan troops will have been trained and equipped by September of this year. By the end of September 2003—almost two years since the start of training—the army is forecasted to only be 12,000 strong.
How is peace to be maintained in the meantime? Local police will remain poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly paid for many months to come. While the goal is a national army of 80,000 and police force of 74,000, experts say at least 20,000-30,000 troops would be needed just to check the country’s current unrest. In contrast, the ISAF is just less than 5,000 strong, and most participating governments are unwilling to send in more troops or dispatch the current forces to other parts of the country.
Leading this opposition against the broadening of the peacekeeping operation is the United States. Though American troops do not officially participate in the ISAF, it operates under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Central Command. This does not leave European participants with many choices. Britain, the largest contributor to the operation, holds that without the support of the United States broadening the ISAF mandate is politically and logistically unfeasible.
Reasons for expanding the Afghan peacekeeping operation are both numerous and obvious. In Kabul, competent peacekeeping has paved the way for the opening of embassies, schools and businesses. Crime rates have reportedly decreased dramatically since the troops’ arrival. And, according to the United Nations, 90 percent of Kabul residents are content with the presence of the peacekeepers -- a remarkable finding considering Afghans’ deep-seated distaste of foreigners. Meanwhile, other parts of the country are fraught with fatal struggles between armed warlords, ethnic factions and other fighters. In one recent example, a bomb attack in Jalalabad nearly killed the defense minister and left five bystanders dead. With over 70,000 armed combatants still roaming the country, further clashes and attacks can be expected if reliable security forces do not intervene.
These threats are inhibiting the speedy delivery of humanitarian aid, particularly in the northwestern region. UN officials have reported a spate of attacks on civilians, including relief personnel, one of whom was recently shot dead. In early April, warlord clashes also delayed the scheduled start of a UN effort to repatriate about two million Afghans across the border from Iran. In past peacekeeping operations -- in Kosovo, for instance -- the presence of international peacekeepers proved crucial for prompt provision of humanitarian assistance. In Afghanistan, where 700,000 people face imminent starvation and 3.8 million depend on food aid, immediate relief may be available but undeliverable if security is lacking.
These short-term consequences aside, the implications of America’s refusal to expand the peacekeeping operation go deeper and touch on the global campaign against terrorism itself. The world is evaluating Washington’s strategy in Afghanistan and beyond. While the Bush administration has received overwhelming international support to date, the durability of such cooperation is not guaranteed. A show of true commitment to Afghanistan -- where U.S. strategic interest is minor compared to, say, oil-rich Iraq -- would reassure the world coalition that the United States is determined not only to wage wars against terrorists and those who harbor them, but also to help build stable societies that do not breed terrorists in the first place.
Recently, the State Department stated that rather than expanding the ISAF, the United States would allow its troops currently fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban to also take part in quelling warlords’ infighting. American forces have in fact helped the ISAF by adopting a de facto peacekeeping role when necessary. If the ISAF maintains its current stipulations, U.S. troops may become increasingly involved in security operations alongside the ISAF. Though help from U.S. troops would certainly contribute to stabilizing the country, the legality of allowing American forces’ to deal with internal conflicts -- some critics are already labeling their blurring role a "mission creep" -- remains highly questionable.
The unified voice calling for the expansion of ISAF is growing. It comes from all the international commanders serving in Afghanistan; high-ranking U.S. State Department officials; Sen. Robert G. Torricelli, who abandoned his opposition to ISAF expansion after a visit to Afghanistan; major international humanitarian organizations; UN Special Representative for Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi; UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan; former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrook; editorials of the world’s most influential news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, International Herald Tribune, and The Economist; and, most importantly, the Afghan people themselves, including Prime Minister Karzai, the local police, civilians, and even fighting warlords.
The months ahead will be a critical phase for Afghanistan as a re-emerging state. Karzai stated that expanding the peacekeeping operation would "signal the ongoing commitment of the international community to peace and security in Afghanistan." Through peacekeeping the United States and the global coalition can show that commitment.
Chemical Discovery Halts Ft. Greely Construction -- Construction at the proposed missile defense "test bed" facility at Ft. Greely, Alaska, abruptly stopped on April 8 when workers uncovered barrels of some sort of chemicals. Up to 20 barrels were found with "US CWS," or U.S. Chemical Warfare Service (an organization that’s been defunct since 1946), stamped on them. Officials are trying to determine what the chemicals are before construction can resume. Ft. Greely has been the site of biological and chemical weapon testing, as well as the home of a nuclear reactor.
Trial of Five Linked to al Qaeda Begins in Germany -- The trial of five men believed to have links to al Qaeda began this week in Germany. The five are charged in connection with the planned Dec. 2000 bombing of a cathedral in Strasbourg. The five are among at least ten members of a suspected European al Qaeda cell believed to be operating in Britain, France and Germany. The group was apprehended after an intercepted phone call between one of its members and a suspected leader stationed in London. The group is charged with planning to commit murder, planning to cause an explosion, membership in a terrorist organization, falsifying documents, and a variety of weapons charges. The trial is expected to last a year.
NATO and Russia to Hold Summit in May -- The heads of states of Russia and the 19 NATO allies will meet on May 28 in Rome to sign a new partnership agreement making Russia a more integral part of the alliance than ever before. The proposed NATO-Russia Council will involve Russia as an equal in making decisions on a limited range of issues, including the fight against terrorism and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The final decision on the exact role and workings of the council has not been reached yet but the two sides are reported to be close to an agreement. The NATO-Russia Council would replace the Permanent Joint Council (PJC) established in 1997. Moscow has long complained about the PJC's ineffectiveness, arguing that the body's format made it impossible for Russia to have real influence on NATO deliberations.
Dutch Government Resigns over Srebrenica Report -- Prime Minister Wim Kok along with his entire cabinet resigned on Tuesday, ostensibly over a new report condemning the Dutch peacekeeping contingent for failing to prevent the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica, Bosnia. The report called the Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica morally and physically exhausted, stating that they were led by an incompetent commander (see CDI Weekly, Issue #9 April 11, 2002). The Dutch were guarding the UN-proclaimed "safe haven" of Srebrenica when Bosnian Serb forces overran it, killing thousands of Bosnian Muslims. The Amsterdam government's resignation received mix response -- critics note that coming less than a month before the general elections, the resignation has a mostly symbolic value. Kok remains in charge of a caretaker government.
Greece Blocks EU-NATO Asset-Sharing Agreement -- Greece is refusing to let the European Union consult Turkey on the use of NATO assets for EU operations, the Guardian (UK) reports. The stalemate blocks the European Union's plans to take over the Macedonia peacekeeping operation from NATO. The EU needs equipment and forces currently under NATO control to do the job. The two organizations, however, have so far failed to reach an agreement on sharing resources, mostly because of disagreements between Greece (both an EU and NATO member) and Turkey (a NATO ally but not an EU member). Greece and Turkey have long been at odds over a number of issues ranging from Cyprus to disputed islands in the Aegean to Turkey's membership in the EU. The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, is due in Athens this week to try to reach an agreement with Greece.
Quotation of the Week -- "The president asked me to travel to a region in turmoil. Recent events have taken an enormous toll, human lives lost, familes shattered, economic activity frozen and mounting humanitarian distress. Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve lives free from the fear of violence with hoe for a stable future and a chance to economic prosperity," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, April 17, 2002.
This Week on "SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV:" Oil as a Weapon?
Sunday at 12:30 pm on MHz2 (check local listings) "SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV" showcases international television coverage of world events. Host Lisa Simeone along with Mark Thompson of Time Magazine and Jefferson Morley of the washingtonpost.com, discuss current events with a regular rotation of foreign journalists, as well as other guests from the foreign military and diplomatic communities in Washington.
This week's topic is "Oil as a Weapon?" SUPERPOWER takes a critical look at the role that oil plays in international politics and what it means to us as Americans. From the recently announced embargo of Iraq to the putsch in Venezuela to Russia's relationship with OPEC, oil plays a vital role in U.S. foreign and domestic policy. How does the rest of the world see this?
Joining Lisa Simeone will be Karen Matusic of The Oil Daily and Julia Nanay of The Petroleum Finance Company.
Where to watch: http://www.mhznetworks.org/cable/listings.html