|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| August 8, 2002 |
Israel seeks to sell Arrow missile defense system to India
Jillian Hayes, Research Assistant, jhayes@cdi.org, and Victoria Samson, Research Associate, vsamson@cdi.org
Israel’s recent proposal to sell part of the Arrow missile defense system to India has raised concerns both about the consequence ballistic missile defenses will have on South Asian relations and the ripple effects proliferating missile technology might have on the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
The technology at the heart of the dispute -- the Arrow II missile interceptor -- is part of the Arrow Weapon System (AWS) being jointly developed by the United States and Israel. This program is designed to provide terminal phase defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, both for Israel as a whole and forward-deployed U.S. forces. The AWS is to have semi-permanent batteries composed of the Arrow II interceptor (which has a blast-fragmentation warhead), six-canister launchers, "Green Pines" radar, "Citron Tree" fire control, and "Hazel Nut Tree" launch center. The first Arrow battery was deployed in central Israel in 2000 but community activists’ concerns about radiation from the Green Pines radar delayed the deployment of a second battery in the north for a year and a half. Plans call for a third battery to be sent to the southern part of the country.
The United States and Israel co-developed the warhead and its launcher, while Israel developed the rest of the system by itself. Because of the U.S.’ involvement, Israel needs its permission before selling the Arrow II to India. India already has purchased and deployed the Green Pines radar along the disputed Line of Control (LOC) with Pakistan in Kashmir. There are concerns that India will use this radar and the interceptor to develop its own ballistic missile defense system. Even with an interceptor (like the Arrow II) that cannot defend against warheads with submunitions or fast-moving medium-range ballistic missiles, the presence of a ballistic missile system may further destabilize already-shaky South Asian relations. Because of this, and concerns related to the MTCR, a debate is taking place within the U.S. government about whether to allow the sale of the Arrow II to proceed.
The MTCR, presently the only multilateral effort dealing with missile nonproliferation, focuses on ballistic and cruise missiles capable of delivering a 500 kilogram payload to a range of 300 kilometers. The 33-member regime consists of a Guidelines List and an Equipment and Technology Annex. Missiles and their delivery systems fall into one of two categories -- Category I and Category II -- with differing levels of protection regarding sales.
Category I items include ballistic and cruise missiles and space launch vehicles. Even amongst MTCR-member states themselves, the export of Category I items is subject to "strong presumption of denial" -- in other words, exporters err on the side of caution when determining whether to let a transaction occur. U.S. law places an additional restraint by banning the export of production equipment for Category I items. Category II items include missile-related components; these can be exported with the approval of the individual MTCR-member government who is acting as supplier. These supplier states agree to restrict transfers for "acceptable end uses," provided end-use guarantees can be secured from the recipient state, or, in some cases, under government-to-government assurances. End-use guarantees are not required, however. Israel, along with Romania and Slovakia, are non-member states that have agreed to abide by MTCR guidelines.
Already MTCR constraints have affected the Arrow program. Israel has wanted for some time to increase the number of interceptors in its arsenal, but its domestic industry cannot afford to meet the demand. So Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), producer of the interceptor, negotiated with Boeing for nearly a year to bring the defense contractor on-board, hoping that its cooperation would increase production and reduce costs. Because the Arrow was (and still is) considered a Category I item under the MTCR, a deal was finally struck in January 2002. Boeing would produce 50% of the Arrow components but they would be assembled in Israel. This would make Boeing’s exports fall instead under the MTCR’s Category II list, and thus could be exported without violating the agreement or U.S. law. Boeing had to submit a Technical Assistance Agreement for the State Department’s approval, which was granted last month.
Israel’s sale of the Arrow system to India would have very serious consequences for the MTCR and missile nonproliferation efforts as a whole. U.S.-Israeli cooperation on Arrow has already brushed up against MTCR restrictions, and this latest Israeli-Indian venture would violate Israel’s commitment to the regime. The Arrow sale to India would risk setting a precedent used when considering sales of this nature in the future. This very well could lead to a weakening of restrictions on missile technology transfers and severely undermine the MTCR.
Given its declining effectiveness and the influx of new technology in the defense market, the MTCR is, in simplest terms, in need of a revamp. Many experts have argued that the MTCR must adapt in some manner to deal with the problematic controls on cruise missiles and UAVs, and also to garner the participation of non-supplier states in missile nonproliferation. Initiatives to these ends are in the works, and as such, missile nonproliferation as a whole remains in a transitory stage. The way the United States handles the proposed Arrow sale will clearly impact these efforts.
America and Indonesia: Good Friends or Bad Company?
Mark Burgess, Research Analyst, mburgess@cdi.org
Post-Sept. 11, Indonesia has gained particular salience within the revised priorities of U.S. national security policy, with Secretary of State Colin Powell recently announcing that America will give $50 million to help the Southeast Asian country fight terrorism. This announcement, along with Powell’s expressed support for restoring military ties between Jakarta and Washington, has proved controversial due to allegations of human rights abuses by the Indonesian armed forces.
The largest majority-Muslim state, Indonesia is also the world’s fourth most populous country, underpinning the importance Washington attaches to enlisting it as a partner in the war against terrorism. Thus far, Indonesia’s contribution to this war has been promising, if limited, with the leader of the radical Islamic group Laskar Jihad arrested in May, and at least two al Qaeda suspects reportedly handed over to American authorities.
Almost all the aid announced by Powell is to be given to Indonesia’s police force, and consists of $31 million for police training and $16 million for building a counterterrorism unit. Some $4 million is also being given for army counterterrorism training. The decision to supply such aid follows last month’s passing, by the U.S. Senate’s appropriations committee, of an amendment to lift restrictions on Indonesian participation in the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. (A ban remains, however, on direct military assistance and weapons sales to Indonesia, and it still has wide Congressional support.) The U.S. first began training Indonesia’s military under this program in 1952, but was suspended in 1999 amid allegations of human rights abuses by the Indonesians, especially in East Timor. Such concern over the human rights record of the Indonesian military has led some to question the decision to renew ties between them and their American counterparts.
Those opposed to such a renewal include U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who claims the Indonesian army "is involved in drug smuggling, prostitution, human trafficking, illegal logging and many other illicit enterprises." Leahy had sponsored the suspension of Indonesian from IMET until those guilty of human rights abuses in East Timor were prosecuted, and claims not enough has been done within Indonesia’s military to warrant the program’s resumption. Human rights groups agree, with Kontras, the most prominent such organization in Indonesia, claiming the country’s military "badly needs this endorsement from the United States in order to further legitimize its meddling in politics [and] human rights violations." Meanwhile the New York-based Human Rights Watch has appealed for America to make it clear that military aid for Indonesia will be linked to an improving human rights record on the part of the latter’s military.
By contrast, there is an opposing viewpoint that agrees with Secretary Powell that closer links with the Indonesian military are conducive to improving the conduct of Indonesia’s armed forces with regards to human rights. Indeed, a recent study by the RAND Corporation goes even further, claiming that enhanced relations between the U.S. and Indonesian militaries is key in promoting Indonesia’s emergence as a balanced democracy capable of assisting in the maintenance of stability and security within the Asia-Pacific region. The suspension of Indonesia from the IMET program means many of the country’s senior army officers have no experience with U.S. military values, slowing the reform which had gathered pace in the Indonesian army in recent years, powered by U.S.-trained officers.
Angel M. Rabasa, a RAND Indonesia specialist, wrote in the International Herald Tribune on August 2, 2002, that the Indonesian military is one of the few institutions to be drawn from across the country’s diverse society. As such any dissemination of American values and practices through military ties would be broadcast throughout Indonesian society. Rabasa admits that a short period of training in America is unlikely to change ingrained habits and values overnight. However, he argues that the value of the personal relationships and trust built by such interactions is "real," citing U.S. military influence with their counterparts in Thailand and the Philippines during political crises in each of these countries.
The strategy of attempting to imbue respect for human rights within a country’s armed forces by establishing closer relations with those forces is a risky one. However, so is the continued isolation of that country’s military. Being well-trained, educated and disciplined is much more of a pre-requisite for a modern army’s respect of human rights that for its violation of them. Closer relations between the U.S. and Indonesian militaries could promote human rights in Indonesia. However, any tightening of ties between the two countries must be carefully monitored. What may have began as a marriage of convenience can, properly managed, work as a catalyst for change within the Indonesian military, curbing their demonstrated proclivity for human rights abuse, while empowering them to act as a stabilizing agent within Indonesia and regionally.
Americans on Defense Spending and the War on Terrorism -- A majority of American citizens support increased spending to fight terrorism, but not an across-the-board increase for the Pentagon, according to a poll released last week. The poll, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attituds (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks found that a strong majority of Americans believe that fighting terrorism can be safely funded by redirecting funds within the existing budget. A large majority also rejected the argument, made by some Pentagon officials, that virtually all the defense budget is relevant to the war on terrorism. Click here to see the full results of the poll.
Foundation Poured for N. Korean Reactor -- Concrete was poured this week for the foundation of the first of two nuclear light-water reactors being built by the United States for North Korea. The United States pledged to build the reactors with international support primarily from Japan and South Korea as part of a 1994 agreement under which Pyongyang agreed to scrap its nuclear weapons program. U.S. approval of the start of construction came despite North Korea’s continued unwillingness to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection -- also part of the 1994 agreement. The $4.6 billion program is currently scheduled for completion in 2008.
Canceling Crusader Will Increase Costs -- According to the Army canceling the Crusader artillery system, replacing it with a lighter mobile cannon and developing special precision munitions will cost between $18 billion and $24 billion more than continuing the original program. According to the Wall Street Journal (Aug. 6) the results of a congressionally-mandated study of alternatives to the Crusader is coming under criticism from the Pentagon. The Wall Street Journal quotes an unnamed member of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s staff as saying "we don’t understand how [replacing the Crusader] costs so much. There have been some pretty sharp disagreements on the subject." Meanwhile, the official Defense Department order terminating the program was signed on July 26.
Two Computers Missing From Central Command -- Two computers are missing from the Florida headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, which is running the military operation against Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. While military spokesperson Lt. Col. Martin Compton confirmed that the computers were missing, he would not say what they were used for or how long they had been missing. But Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said one of the machines was believed to hold classified material.
Sikorsky Helicopter Leading Candidate for Air Force SAR -- Sikorsky’s S-92 medium-lift helicopter is the leading candidate to replace the Air Force’s current fleet of HH-60 search and rescue (SAR) aircraft, according to Maj. Gen. Randall Schmidt, the assistant deputy chief of staff for air and space operations. Other options being considered include two other Sikorsky variants; the CH-53E or an upgraded H-60, the EH-101 built by a European consortium, or a variant of the troubled Bell-Boeing V-22 "Osprey" tilt-rotor. Current Pentagon plans for production of the V-22 include procuring 50 Ospreys for the Air Force to fulfill the SAR role.
Quotation of the Week -- "It would have been foolish to have gone in [to Afghanistan] and done all we’ve done and kick out the Taliban and the al Qaeda and then pull out precipitously and have the interim Afghan, transitional Afghan government fall and Taliban come back in and take over and turn it back into a terrorist training camp," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Washington Post, August 8, 2002.
This Week on SUPERPOWER: Global Affairs TV -- "Iraq Attack?"
NOTE: Superpower is taking a break the next two weeks, and will be re-airing shows from previous weeks. We will be back with a new episode on Wednesday, August 14th.
SUPERPOWER, together with foreign experts from around the world, examines the timely issues that affect the United States. Superpower explains the foreign take on world events and their relationship to the world's only superpower.
This week, Superpower examines the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike by the U.S. on Iraq. Will countries in the Middle East support a U.S. invasion of Iraq? How about the rest of the world?
This week's episode will feature a discussion of Bush administration's plan to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Guests Janine Zacharia, Washington Bureau Chief for the Jerusalem Post; Umit Enginsoy, of NTV (Turkish Television); Jurek Martin, The Financial Times; and Charles Duelfer, Visiting Resident Scholar, at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
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 broadcast nationwide:
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.
Broadcast times for Superpower: Global Affairs TV on WorldLinkTV
Saturdays: 6:30 p.m. EDT
Sundays: 2:30 a.m., 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. EDT
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