|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| May 9, 2002 |
U.S. Regains Seat on Human Rights Commission
Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
On April 29, 2002, the United States regained its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission, a position it lost in a humiliating defeat a year ago. The Commission elects one-third of its 53 members each year to serve a three-year term. Countries are selected from regional groups. Other countries elected this year are Burkina Faso, Gabon, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Australia, Germany, and Ireland. The United States won its seat in an uncontested election as part of the West European and Others group.
After the U.S. victory was announced, the United States Ambassador to the Commission, Sichan Siv, was reported to have said, "Human rights is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. We have spoken, and we continue to speak on the issue, whether we are on the commission of not. But now that we are back on the commission, we look forward very much to working to continue to promote this very important issue." In the year since the United States lost its seat, it was allowed to participate as an observer in the process, but not to vote or introduce resolutions.
The United States suffered great political embarrassment after losing its spot on the Commission that it helped create in 1947. Many critics blamed the U.S. loss last year due to the unilateralist policies of the Bush Administration -- in particular the United States rejection of the Kyoto climate change accord, its plan to pursue a national missile defense program by withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and the lack of a U.S. UN Ambassador at the time. (For more information on the loss of the U.S. position on the Human Rights Commission, see "U.S. Loses Spot on Human Rights Commission," by Rachel Stohl and Michael Stohl, Weekly Defense Monitor, May 10, 2001).
The Commission’s current work plan involves providing states "with advisory services and technical assistance to overcome obstacles to securing the enjoyment of human rights by all. At the same time more emphasis has been put on the promotion of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development and the right to an adequate standard of living. Increased attention is also being given to the protection of the rights of vulnerable groups in society, including minorities and indigenous people and to the protection of the rights of the child and of women, including the eradication of violence against women and the attainment of equal rights for women." Critics have complained that the work of the Commission has been undermined by the inclusion of notorious human rights abusers as members, including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Togo, Algeria, and China.
One of the criticisms of the United States’ record of support for international human rights endeavors is the refusal of the United States to support the International Criminal Court. Indeed, one of the reasons given for lack of support for the United States in last year’s vote was the refusal to ratify the ICC statute (139 countries had signed the Treaty and 66 had ratified it by April 11 -- allowing the Court to begin operations on July 1, 2002). In what might not have been a coincidence in timing, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell announced on May 5 that the United States would renounce formal involvement in the International Criminal Court process. On the ABC news program, This Week, Powell said, "The Bush Administration will notify UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the United States has no intention of ratifying the treaty and now considers itself no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective." How this will impact U.S. relationships on the Human Rights Commission is yet unclear, but critics of the U.S. position find it dismaying. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), upon hearing the news, said, "Beyond the extremely problematic matter of casting doubt on the U.S. commitment to international justice and accountability, these steps actually call into question our country’s credibility in all multilateral endeavors."
The Death of Strategic Ambiguity?
Reyko Huang, CDI Research Analyst, rhuang@cdi.org
While China has been relegated to the sidelines of a global agenda now focused on fighting terrorism, Washington appears to be introducing major policy overhauls toward the country that has been labeled both America’s greatest future security threat and most promising economic partner.
Taiwan is central to the shifting U.S. policy towards China. The attitude of the Bush administration toward Taiwan seems to signify nothing less than an abandonment of a key U.S. policy strategy that has been in place for more than 20 years. It is also a policy that, though contentious, helped avert an all-out U.S. war with communist China both during and after the Cold War. It is the policy of so-called "strategic ambiguity."
Simply put, Washington’s strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan seeks to prevent confrontation across the Taiwan Strait by keeping China guessing about what the United States would do in a cross-strait crisis. Proponents of the strategy argue that ambiguity about the level of U.S. commitment to Taiwan deters the mainland from attacking the island, as well as prevents Taiwan from making moves toward independence that are certain to provoke the mainland.
Marking a seismic shift in views, the administration of President George W. Bush has been overtly unambiguous about its posture toward the democratic island. A year ago, Bush spelled out just how the United States would react if China attacked Taiwan: America would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself" (CNN.com, April 25, 2001). If observers had thought it was merely a shameful slip of the tongue on the part of the president, that belief was dispelled when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz repeated the president’s now-famous "whatever it took" clause at a closed-door speech in March this year.
Recent actions by the administration parallel its warming rhetoric toward Taiwan. The Bush administration last year scrapped the annual review of arms sales to Taipei, adopting in its place a more flexible approach to facilitate sales. Washington also promised to supply Taiwan with an unprecedented number of advanced weapons, including up to eight diesel-powered submarines, Kidd-class guided-missile destroyers, and 12 P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. Furthermore, in March 2002, the United States and Taiwan held their highest-level defense talks since Washington shifted diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979. The Bush administration has also promised military training and is upgrading Taiwan’s communications equipment to prepare for joint operations with the island’s military in case of a Chinese attack.
Beijing has expressed an expected degree of indignation at Washington, claiming that Bush’s China policy "will give rise to the arrogance of Taiwan forces for independence and will damage bilateral ties and cross-strait relations." For its part, China has been steadily building up missiles along the coast of the Taiwan Strait. According to the Washington Times, the Chinese missile force facing Taiwan has increased from less than 50 in 1997 to more than 350 today. In an apparent sign of discontent over increasing U.S. military and political support for Taiwan, Beijing delivered successive shipments of short-range ballistic missiles to bases within striking distance of Taiwan in March and April 2002. Adm. Dennis Blair, former commander-in-chief of U.S. Pacific Command, said if the Chinese missile buildup continues Washington would seriously consider supplying missile defenses to Taipei. Such missile defense cooperation may already have begun: Taiwan is expected to request permission to purchase the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 theater missile defense system to supplement its existing missile defenses.
Remarkably, however, U.S.-China relations have been relatively smooth since it recovered from its plunge over the EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft incident a year ago. Beijing has remained surprisingly silent about Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and its subsequent efforts toward the building of a national missile defense system. Even its resentment over the past year’s prolific arms sales to Taiwan has been relatively suppressed. This cordiality is due both to Washington’s diplomatic appeals to China to support the ongoing war against terrorism, and to China’s embroilment with domestic unrest, leadership transition and effort to be on the right side of the anti-terrorism campaign that have together maximized its desire for stability.
The durability of China’s patience is far from guaranteed, however. Some analysts argue that despite recent events strategic ambiguity is alive and well, since the underlying principles of U.S.-China relations have not changed. The United States still seeks good, stable relations with both China and Taiwan, supports a "one China" policy, and insists on peaceful settlements to cross-straight disputes. Yet Washington has taken both concrete and symbolic steps that betray its heightened commitment to protecting Taiwan. And numerous cases in the past -- from Chinese interpretations of the U.S. apology during the EP-3 crisis in 2001 to this year’s U.S. visa approval for Taiwan’s defense minister -- have shown that Washington would be wise not to underestimate China’s sensitivity to rhetoric and symbolism and their potential impact on U.S.-China relations.
V-22 Flight Test Delayed -- The first flight test in almost 18 months of the Navy’s V-22 "Osprey" tilt-rotor aircraft has been delayed indefinitely due to problems with the hydraulic system. The flight, scheduled for May 9, was to be the first time the V-22 returned to the air since December, 2000, when the second of two fatal crashes in less than a year killed the aircraft’s four crew members. The aircraft’s hydraulic system, which is a critical component of its tilt-rotor capability, has been plagued by problems. A Navy spokesperson said that flight testing, which is expected to last two years, will resume later this month.
NATO Reduces Balkan Presence -- NATO force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, known as SFOR, will be reduced from 19,000 troops to approximately 12,000 by the end of 2002, the North Atlantic Council decided on May 10. In Kosovo, NATO plans to reduce the number of brigade headquarters, with the current troop level of 38,000 cut by 4,800. The alliance has long planned to merge some of the logistical and support operations for its three Balkan missions, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. The latest decision also orders the creation of a reserve force to beef up NATO presence on the ground in emergencies.
Contractors Win Pentagon Work Despite Infractions -- A study released by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reports that major defense contractors continue to receive lucrative Pentagon work even after repeated violations of federal laws or rules. According to the POGO study, in fiscal year 1999 -- the last year for which data is available -- 43 of the largest firms won $185 billion in contracts. Of these, 30 of them paid a total of $3.4 billion in fines, settlements or restitution. Of the 43, 16 had been convicted of criminal violations, and four of the top ten had two convictions. Only one contractor, General Electric’s aviation division, had been suspended over the last 12 years -- for five days.
Rumsfeld Selects Head of New Northern Command -- On May 8 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld formally announced the appointment of U.S. Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhart as Commander-in-Chief (CINC) of Northern Command. The new unified combatant command was formed to defend North America as a result of the of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The headquarters will almost certainly be located at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. General Eberhart, who is the current commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Space Command, will retain his position as NORAD commander but will hand over his Space Command duties to an as yet unidentified officer. The unified combatant commands direct the operations of the U.S. military around the world. With the addition of Northern Command, there will be ten.
Quotation of the Week -- "Vote for the Crook, Not the Fascist," popular French political slogan urging voters to support incumbent president Jacques Chirac over National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen in this week's run-off presidential election. Chirac defeated Le Pen with 82 percent of the vote after Le Pen's surprising second place finish in the multi-candidate first round elections last month.
This Week on SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV -- "Aftermath in Afghanistan"
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 Episode: "Aftermath in Afghanistan"
This week, Superpower examines the aftermath of U.S. military action in Afghanistan. What lies ahead for the future of Afghanistan? Is the United States ready and willing to ensure that Afghanistan does not crumble into another safe haven for terrorists? Will a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan be effective? How do countries neighboring Afghanistan perceive the U.S. military presence in Central Asia? What does this mean for the United States?
Joining Lisa Simeone will be Husain Haqqani, syndicated columnist from Pakistan, and Uwe Schmitt of the German daily, Die Welt
Where to watch: http://www.mhznetworks.org/cable/listings.html
For more information, please send an e-mail to: info@superpowertv.org