|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| June 13, 2002 |
"Pogo" Redux -- Again and Again
Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org
When it comes to the bureaucracy, secrecy, and civil liberties, it’s easy to apply Walt Kelly’s comic strip possum’s memorable observation: "We have met the enemy -- and he is us."
Unfortunately, as the United States and the world move deeper into the anti-terror campaign, the truth of this statement becomes ever more apparent.
While many missteps contributed to the breakdown in communications between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), excessive secrecy is the root cause of the intelligence failures related to September 11. While there is no way to know whether better communications between these agencies and analysis within them would have prevented Sept. 11, multiple points of information exchange at the working level of the two agencies -- and better horizontal communications within the FBI structure itself -- might have uncovered more of the plot and the plotters than Zacarius Moussaoui. The evidence for this is the rebuke of FBI field agents who contacted the CIA when they could not get information from their own headquarters.
The basic problem is bureaucratic turf. Information translates into access to decision makers, which in turn translates into resources which again in turn translates into power. Sharing information can dilute an organization’s power, for there is always the possibility that another agency has been keeping information close-hold waiting for a key piece of data, which turns out to be what is shared. The other agency thus gets credit when it comes out with its conclusions while the sharing organization might get a footnote.
The only person with the power -- and the responsibility -- to break this bureaucratic culture is the president. But the current administration likes extreme secrecy, as was quite apparent in the period before President Bush’s June 7 announcement of the proposed creation of a new cabinet-level department for homeland security. The foundation for the plan was crafted by four aides, only one of whom, Governor Tom Ridge, dealt with security as a primary task. Of the next five who were brought in a week later, only two had security responsibilities: National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy. No cabinet heads were consulted nor was anyone in Congress; even the top Republicans in the House and Senate were only informed (not consulted) the day before the announcement.
The proposed reorganization has generated many reservations, not least of which is that the plan in no way alleviates the problem of interagency communications and intelligence sharing. Yet the president wants Congress to pass legislation creating the new department so that it can begin functioning January 1, 2003. Starting hearings from scratch on such a complicated reorganization with only some 50 legislative calendar days left (this is an election year) is a very ambitious schedule. Some in Congress are calling for no public hearings, just direct negotiations between Congress and the White House. This smacks of an secret end run around the legislative process by those making the proposal -- who would, of course, do the negotiating.
Because the proposed new department’s focus is on internal security, how it is organized, what powers it has, how it interacts with other intelligence organizations, and how it obtains, processes, and decides to retain or discard information that pertains to both citizens and non-citizens have implications for civil liberties. Given this, it would seem that the public is entitled to open, full discussion of these and related issues by the Congress. Moreover, the proposed reorganization, at first blush, looks as if it will be adding more, not simplifying, the bureaucracy, thereby exacerbating existing turf problems and further diffusing accountability and responsibility.
The domestic front is not the only place where excessive secrecy is causing problems in the fight against terrorism. Last year, allies reacted to the Bush administration’s blacklisting of organizations, businesses, and individuals suspected of financially supporting or being members of al Qaeda by freezing assets and arresting suspects. Luxembourg alone froze $200 million -- more than all other similar actions. Canada detained a man. Now, because the administration will not provide the evidence for blacklisting the organizations and individuals, these actions have been overturned.
Success in anti-terrorism actions requires collection, analysis, and the exchange and coordination of information across a wide front. At the same time, Americans must rely on their elected representatives as the first line of defense against abuses of power by intelligence agencies, as happened in the 1960s and 1970s. That is why a thorough vetting of the administration’s proposals is critical.
As is always the case, wanting something bad enough is exactly how one gets it. Balance is required, and that will take time to achieve. But in the end the United States will be stronger -- and safer -- for it.
Terror and Oil in Central Asia
Tomas Valasek, Senior Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
Is the United States fighting for oil or combating terrorism in Central Asia? A number of recent articles raise questions about the true goals behind the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. "Bush’s concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin," charged the British tabloid The Mirror. Other writers point out that Zalmay Khalizad, a member of President Bush’s National Security Council and current U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, used to work on behalf of Unocal, a U.S. oil company, which in 1998 tried to build a pipeline exporting Turkmen gas through Afghanistan. Back then Khalizad advocated engagement of the ruling Taliban regime, over whose destruction he later presided as one of the architects of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan.
The real story is, as usual, more prosaic. The actual or potential importance of oil in Central Asia is shrouded in myths and misconceptions. First of all, the Caspian is not the next Middle East, nor will the oil there significantly affect the U.S. supply/demand problem in the long run. (Caspian Sea natural gas reserves are much more promising but the exports will primarily go to Turkey, Western Europe and possibly to Asia). The Caspian countries simply do not have enough oil to seriously add to the world’s reserves in the long run, and their impact on oil prices is also limited (the one exception is Iran, but the bulk of its reserves are far from the Caspian shores). The potential contribution of the former Soviet republics to U.S. energy needs is minimal. The United States still produces about half the oil it consumes, and of the other -- imported -- half, most comes from sources in the Americas, especially from Venezuela and Canada.
The gap between what the United States produces and what it consumes is expected to grow – oil reserves on U.S. territory are increasingly scarce while consumption is expected to grow by as much as 25% over the next 20 years, necessitating the search for more foreign sources of oil. However, much of the increase in imports will come from the Middle East, which is home to a lion’s share of the world’s proven oil reserves. The Caspian, with oil reserves roughly equivalent to those of the North Sea, is simply not in a position to help make up the expected shortfall in U.S. oil needs. None of the states of the region are anywhere near the top of the list of countries holding large proven oil reserves. Saudi Arabia leads with 25 percent of the world’s proven reserves, followed by Iraq with 11 percent, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iran each with 9 percent, and Venezuela at 7 percent.
Nevertheless, it is the policy of the United States to diversify world sources of oil, not only for itself but also for other oil importers. The idea is the reduce dependency on any particular region, and thus reduce the possibility that a political upheaval in one country/region will significantly affect oil supplies and possibly bring about a global economic crisis. The switch to new exporters outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) also helps keep global oil prices down: "The addition of Caspian oil could weaken the OPEC monopoly, providing greater leverage over the pricing policies of Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries, ultimately contributing to lower world oil prices," one American expert told the U.S. House of Representatives. Moreover, American firms are among the world’s largest oil producers, and their interests in developing and exporting Caspian energy resources neatly coincide with the U.S. desire to add to the world’s sources of oil.
The task of developing Azeri or Kazakh mineral riches, however, requires a lot more than simply opening doors for U.S. oil companies to the producer countries. The Caspian is a treacherous territory for doing oil business. Most of its oil deposits are under water, and the actual legal status of the Caspian Sea has yet to be defined eleven years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, the Caspian is considered a sea by some countries and a lake by others. An April 2002 conference of the presidents of the five littoral states, which was meant to divide up the sea’s surface and bed, ended in acrimony. Ownership of a number of oil fields is being disputed -- Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan went to court over one such field, and in summer of 2001 the Iranian Navy forced a British Petroleum exploration vessel from a disputed area near the Azeri-Iranian border. Producers are understandably shy about investing millions of dollars into wells that could be expropriated or destroyed in an attack.
Exporting the region’s oil is also proving a challenge. The shortest route connecting the Caspian oil to the world’s shipping routes leads across Iran. But the U.S. embargo on trade with and investment in Iran has ruled out this option for the foreseeable future. The straight line west -- through Armenia -- is also out of the question because of Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s blockade which dates back to the 1994 Nagorno Karabakh war. A new pipeline is scheduled to connect Azeri (and possibly Kazakh) oil fields to Turkey via Georgia but the companies have yet to break ground on this expensive and somewhat controversial project. Pipelines across Russia are frowned upon by producer states, but for the time being remain the only alternative, together with a smaller pipeline running through Georgia. While potentially immensely important to Turkmenistan -- and beneficial to the companies that would build it -- the trans-Afghan gas pipeline that Unocal advocated in 1998 is just a small piece of the overall export route jumble. It was effectively abandoned in favor of another route, across the Caspian Sea, long before Sept. 11. Neither pipeline was ultimately built, not because of the Taliban or geopolitics but because of hesitation by the Turkmen government and lukewarm interest among energy companies. The interim Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, renewed calls for the trans-Afghan pipeline in May 2002.
The attraction of Caspian oil to the United States clearly has its limits. Unlike, for example, Saudi Arabia, the southern region of the former Soviet Union doesn’t hold enough mineral reserves to be considered strategic and indispensable to the United States. Other interests argue against too much involvement. Washington has long been reluctant to offer substantive military aid or to deploy troops in the Caucasus and Central Asia for fear of alienating Moscow, and it was the terrorist threat, not oil, changed that mindset after Sept. 11. Nor were the countries of the Caspian brought into NATO, despite repeated requests by Georgia and Azerbaijan for inclusion in the alliance. As the RAND Corporation concluded (before Sept. 11), "NATO and the West do not have vital interests at stake in the Caspian region … NATO’s engagement in the Caspian should not command a high priority in terms of resources, planning, or attention."
It would be wrong to view the limited U.S. involvement in the Caspian exclusively through the prism of oil and gas. Military assistance and joint training serve a number of other useful purposes. Prevention of future conflicts in the Caucasus is a goal in its own right, regardless of the region’s mineral reserves. Increasingly, U.S. policy toward the former Soviet South -- and U.S. foreign policy in general -- is dominated by a single-minded determination to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. Oil is no doubt a part of the puzzle that is the U.S. policy toward Central Asia -- but by no means the only, or even the most important part.
Lawmakers Sue Over Treaty Withdrawal -- Thirty-one members of Congress are suing the Bush Administration in federal court over its withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, saying that to do so violates the U.S. Constitution. The move follows a legislative challeng last week by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) which was defeated. While there is little case law on the role of Congress in exiting treaties, one case may provide the Administration with the necessary precedent. In 1979 Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) sued the Carter Administration over its unilateral decision to withdraw from the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. The Supreme Court ruled the president had the constitutional power to withdraw from treaties. U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty, announced in December, becomes official on June 13.
Development of Nuclear "Bunker Buster" Faces Delays -- Language in the Senate’s version of the annual defense authorization bill could delay the development of an earth-penetrating nuclear bomb. In March the Defense Department directed the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories to compete on a new warhead design. Language included in the Senate’s version of the annual defense authorization legislation halts work on the program and calls on the Pentagon to provide justification on the need for such a warhead by early next year. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), a member of the Armed Services Committee who opposes development of a nuclear bunker-buster, said "I do not believe that we should be considering other new classes of smaller and simpler…devices [for use] against non-nuclear states."
Levin Willing to Give Army More Time on Crusader -- Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wants to give delay the proposed cancellation of the Crusader artillery system in order to give the Army time to complete a study of alternative systems, which he expects can be completed by October. Sen. Levin said that the Pentagon acted "precipitously" by trying to terminate the Crusader before the Army had a chance to fully explore alternatives. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress that terminating the Crusader contract rather than waiting until after next April, when the program enters the next stage of its development program would save an additional $300 million in contract termination costs.
U.S. Spy Video Showing on Satellite TV -- Commercial satellite TV subscribers in Europe are seeing imagery from U.S. spy aircraft operating over the Balkans, according the London newspaper The Guardian. According to the paper, for more than six months live video feed from manned and unmanned spy aircraft in the region have been broadcast through a commercial satellite. The U.S. broadcasts are not encrypted, meaning that viewers in certain regions can access the feed. The discovery was made last year by a British engineer named John Locker, who specializes in tracking commercial satellites. He says he tried repeatedly to warn U.S., British and NATO officials.
Navy Returns Some F-14s to Carrier Duty -- The Navy has returned 45 of its F-14 "Tomcat" fighter aircraft to duty after suspending carrier operations for its entire fleet of 156 planes last week. Operations were suspended as the result of an investigation in to the March crash of a Tomcat that killed one member of the two-man crew. The investigation indicated that corrosion in the nose-wheel assembly contributed to the crash. The Navy found corrosion in twelve of the 56 aircraft inspected to date, and the assemblies in these aircraft will have to be replaced. Inspections of the rest of the fleet continue. Costs of replacing the assemblies are $81,500 per aircraft.
Quotation of the Week -- "The message is that there are no 'knowns.' There are thing we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing at NATO Headquarters, June 6, 2002.
Azimuth Media presents "Deadlock: Russia's Forgotten War" and FRONTLINE: "MISSILE WARS" The Inside Story of National Missile Defense
(For updates on air dates and times, visit Azimuth Media’s website at www.azimuthmedia.org)
This Week: "Deadlock: Russia's Forgotten War"
CNN/International: Saturday, June 15, 8 p.m. (ET)
CNN/U.S.: Saturday, June 22, 8 p.m. (ET) and Sunday, June 23 at 7 p.m., 11 p.m., and 2 a.m.
In "Deadlock: Russia's Forgotten War," Michael Gordon, former Moscow Bureau Chief for The New York Times, teams up with Russian filmmakers to produce a compelling documentary that takes viewers deep inside the brutal, decade-long struggle in Russia's breakaway republic of Chechnya.
Gordon's experience as a reporter in Russia afforded him unprecedented access to those caught up in this conflict. Crisscrossing Russia and Chechnya, he captured the powerful stories of ambushed Russian soldiers, war widows, Chechen rebels, refugees, and Russian conscripts. The result is an unparalleled view of Putin's war in Chechnya.
This is a war that made a president. Vladimir Putin rose to power on his claim that he would restore order and normalcy to Chechnya, but almost two years later, more than 3,800 Russian soldiers have died in the conflict, and some 14,000 have been wounded. The rebel casualties are likely higher, and nobody knows for sure how many civilians have been killed. Chechnya has degenerated into a grinding stalemate between two losing sides.
Western leaders, including President Bush, support the Russians, who say they are fighting global Islamic terrorists on Russian soil. The Chechens say they are fighting for independence. But as revealed in this film, the reality is not that simple for either side.
"A superb piece of television journalism...the ongoing carnage is one of the most serious threats to Russia's evolution as a modern state." -- Strobe Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State
"A chillingly brutal but humane portrait of war; ...raises profound questions about the nature of statehood, rebellion and civilization." -- Mark Thompson, TIME Magazine
And Coming this Fall to PBS:
FRONTLINE: "MISSILE WARS" The Inside Story of National Missile Defense
After the September 11 attacks on the United States, critics have questioned whether there is still a need for missile defense. They argue that terrorism is the primary threat - and that attack by an intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] is a far more distant danger. The Bush administration, however, contends that anti-missile technology is an essential component of any serious program of homeland security.
FRONTLINE will examine both sides of the missile defense debate in "Missile Wars," airing in Fall 2002 on PBS. Through interviews with staunch proponents, skeptical scientists, and military and intelligence experts, the one-hour documentary will investigate this multibillion dollar -- yet still unproven -- weapons system, explore the current rationale for missile defense, including the potential threat from so-called "rogue" states, and probe whether national missile defense will protect America from the greatest threats it faces. "Missile Wars" is a FRONTLINE co-production with AZIMUTH MEDIA and Washington Media Associates. The producer and writer is Sherry Jones. Philip Coyle is the technical advisor for Azimuth Media. Glenn Baker is the producer for Azimuth Media. Michael Gordon is the senior editor for Azimuth Media.
FRONTLINE is produced by WGBH Boston and is broadcast nationwide on PBS.
This Week on SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV -- "Imperial Overreach?"
"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: "Imperial Overreach?"
This week, Superpower examines the latest developments and changes in U.S. foreign policy. As military deployments continue to various parts of the world, is there a chance that the U.S. may be spreading itself too thin? Or does the modern world simply demand this level of foreign involvement from its lone Superpower?
Joining Lisa Simeone will be Anatol Lieven, a British journalist, writer and historian, and a Senior Associate for Foreign and Security Policy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Radek Sikorski, until recently the Deputy Foreign Minister of Poland and now, Executive Director of the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute.
WHERE TO SEE SUPERPOWER:
SUPERPOWER is aired in the Washington, DC area on Wednesday at 8:30pm on MHz, and again on Sunday at 12:30pm on MHz2 (check local listings at: http://www.mhznetworks.org/cable/listings.html).
SUPERPOWER is also broadcast nationwide three times daily on WorldLinkTV, Channel 9410 on Echostar Communications Corporation's DISH® Network direct broadcast satellite system. Superpower and WorldLinkTV are available on Channel 375 on DIRECTV® satellite TV service.
To see when Superpower broadcasts on WorldlinkTV and your DISH® Network direct broadcast satellite system or your DIRECTV® satellite TV service, please visit: http://www.worldlinktv.com/cgi-bin/displayProgram.cgi?code=superpower
For more information, please send an e-mail to: info@superpowertv.org. For free transcripts of past shows, go to www.superpowertv.org