Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Targeted killing of U.S. citizens lawful, says Holder, but critics pounce


Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that U.S. citizens are not exempt from being targeted by the government. (Office of the Attorney General)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government has the right to kill terrorists overseas if they pose an imminent threat and can’t be captured – even if they are American citizens, Attorney General Eric Holder said last week in a major address in Chicago.

Leading civil liberties groups say the administration should involve courts in setting standards for when it is legal to kill terrorists before decisions are made to use lethal force, but other legal scholars assert that providing due process, especially to U.S. citizens, does not necessarily mean providing a judicial process.

Holder’s assertion was the Obama administration’s most weighty justification for armed drone strikes against a terrorist target, specifically a “senior operational leader of al-Qaida or associated forces.” Though Holder didn’t mention anyone by name, the statement comes just months after the government targeted Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior al-Qaida operative in Yemen and an American citizen. Al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in an unmanned drone strike in September.

“It’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted,” Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law. “But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans.”

Holder’s speech is a welcome step toward transparency, said Nathan Wessler, the national security fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. But, he added, it’s nowhere near sufficient in opening up the targeted killing program to public scrutiny.

“When we’re talking about killing U.S. citizens, there’s no chance to make it better after they’re dead,” Wessler said. “So it’s very important that courts are involved to help set the standards under which the government can use lethal force, and to evaluate whether they’ve observed the constitution after they carry out a strike.”

Targeted killings are constitutional, Holder said, because they afford targets the due process mandated in the Fifth Amendment, which says that the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.

Holder argued that the “thorough and careful review” that the government engages in to determine whether a U.S. citizen is a lawful target amounts to due process. He made a distinction between due process and “judicial process,” maintaining that “where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat.”

Examples of due process without judicial involvement can be found throughout U.S. law, said Charles Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. If the military wants to discharge a soldier, for instance, judge advocate generals, the military justice system’s judiciary, have to review the facts in the case. Though the soldier isn’t tried through the court system, Stimson said the offender has been afforded due process that is “fully consistent with” the constitution.

The Geneva Conventions stipulate that targeted killings are only legal in the context of “armed conflict.” Because the U.S. is engaged in armed conflict with terrorists, Holder said, the government’s targeted killing program complies with international law.

Holder acknowledged that the war the U.S. is waging on terrorists isn’t a conventional one with a set battlefield. Al-Qaida operates out of Afghanistan, he said, but the U.S. can’t afford to limit its self-defense to that battlefield. Holder alluded to al-Alwaki’s Yemeni group, noting that “al-Qaida and its associates have directed several attacks – fortunately, unsuccessful – against us from countries other than Afghanistan.”

“We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country,” he said. “Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats.”

As a lawyer in the Israel Defense Forces, Amos Guiora sat at the table during counterterrorism discussions, helping make decisions in targeted killing cases. Now a law professor at the University of Utah, Guiora said Holder should have done a better job of defining exactly what constitutes a legitimate target. Without a “criteria-based approach” to targeted killing, he said, the government could apply the policy far too broadly.

“We need to have narrow, as in precise, articulations of these definitions in order to ensure that we’re not engaging in, for lack of a better term, overkill,” Guiora said. “And if you have loosey-goosey standards devoid of strictness, then what you ultimately have is a policy of obtuseness which lends itself to abuse.”

Wessler also worries that, devoid of public debate and judicial scrutiny, targeting American citizens will give the government too much power.

“The administration is asking the public just to trust it when it comes to protecting the rights of U.S. citizens who are targeted with lethal force,” Wessler said. “But that can’t be enough.”

Because terrorists who can be lawfully targeted pose an “imminent threat” to national security, Holder said capture can be a “time-sensitive” issue.

“It is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible — among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them — but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority — and, I would argue, the responsibility — to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force,” Holder said.

The legal authority to capture and detain is the same legal authority to target and kill, Stimson said. Once the government determines a terrorist is a lawful target, it’s up to the president to make a policy decision: capture or kill.

“This administration, because detention has proven, at least in their minds, to be difficult, has chosen to kill rather than capture,” Stimson said. “They prefer justice from 30,000 feet instead of capturing them, lawfully detaining them, lawfully taking them to Guantanamo, giving them an attorney and giving them access to our federal courts through habeas. And that’s a policy decision.”

It’s a decision, Stimson said, that the next administration can easily reverse – or enhance. With an ever-evolving terrorist threat, Holder is adamant that the power to target U.S. citizens is indispensable.

“This is an indicator of our times – not a departure from our laws and our values,” Holder said. “For this administration – and for this nation – our values are clear.”

 

Tagged , , , , , ,

Critics call Obama’s Libya response weak

President Barack Obama came under heavy fire this week for remarks on Libya, which critics on all sides said amounted to little more than wishful thinking.

Indeed, the Lawyer replaced the Orator Wednesday afternoon. Obama said, “This violence must stop,” but offered limited ideas about how his administration will go about coordinating its end.

“The American people extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of all who’ve been killed or injured. The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya. These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency.”

The New Republic called the president out Friday for empty words.

“This ‘must’ denotes an order, or a permission, or an obligation, or a wish, or a will. It does not denote a plan. It includes no implication, no expectation, of action. It is the rhetoric of futility: this infection must stop, this blizzard must stop, this madness must stop…. Must the murder of his own people by this madman stop, Mr. President? Then stop it.”

So far, the U.S. has focused on pursuing sanctions and resolutions geared at pressuring longtime Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi into ceasing the attacks he has launched against the opposition, his own citizens.

The United Nations Security Council issued a statement Tuesday denouncing Libya’s abusive crackdown, and asking the dictator to act with restraint and respect for human rights.

Politico reported Thursday that the Obama administration also plans to support a Security Council sanctions resolution, expected to be introduced by the United Kingdom Friday.

Meanwhile, as the politicians and diplomats have gone about officially decrying the bloodshed, the situation has continued to escalate. Clashes between pro-government forces and the opposition moved into Tripoli Friday, with more reports of security forces firing indiscriminately into crowds of protesters.

Reports from inside the country indicate the resulting casualties could now number in the thousands, said Navi Pillay, UN high commissioner for human rights.

Speaking at an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council Friday in Geneva, she said: “We owe [the Libyan people] our solidarity and protection from violence.

Obama said in his speech Wednesday that human rights are not negotiable, but has not presented specific consequences if the Libyan leader, who has vowed to fight to his “last drop of blood,” doesn’t stop.

Such repercussions need to be made clear and soon, a New York Times editorial said Thursday. Otherwise, the newspaper said, Qadhafi will kill hundreds or even thousands more of his own citizens in his struggle to keep power.

“There is not a lot of time. Colonel Qaddafi and his henchmen have to be told in credible and very specific terms the price they will pay for any more killing,” the Times editorialized. “They need to start paying right now.”

Tagged , , , ,

The recent evolution of the 'enemy combatant'

Since 2001, the term “enemy combatant” has been primarily applied to terror suspects associated with al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Largely on the basis of its own executive orders, the Bush administration applied the term “enemy combatant” to former Chicago gang member Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was a U.S. citizen when he was captured in Afghanistan, reportedly fighting American forces with the Taliban.

In its 2003 World Report, advocacy group Human Rights Watch said, “The use of the ‘enemy combatant’ designation appeared to be intended to circumvent the U.S. criminal justice system and its safeguard of basic rights.”

Civil rights groups often cite the cases of Padilla, who was detained for more than three years without a trial for suspected connections with al-Qaida, and Hamdi. After Hamdi was detained without being charged, he became the subject of the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The court ruled that while the government could detain unlawful combatants, detainees with U.S. citizenship have a right to challenge their detention.

In 2005, Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, introduced the Detention of Enemy Combatants Act, which would permit the president to detain U.S. citizens with connections to al-Qaida but would also “guarantee [detainees] timely access to judicial review.” The bill never left committee, but it made the following statement about enemy combatants:

“The term ‘enemy combatant’ has historically referred to all of the citizens of a state with which the Nation is at war, and who are members of the armed force of that enemy state. Enemy combatants in the present conflict, however, come from many nations, wear no uniforms, and use unconventional weapons. Enemy combatants in the war on terrorism are not defined by simple, readily apparent criteria, such as citizenship or military uniform. And the power to name a citizen as an ‘enemy combatant’ is therefore extraordinarily broad.”

In 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, which distinguished between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants. According to the law, lawful enemy combatants are those associated with an opposing government or other organized force who identify themselves in appearance and behavior. In short, unlawful enemy combatants are those who aren’t lawful enemy combatants.

Matthew Lippmann, a professor of criminology, law and justice at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said Bush broadly defined enemy combatants as “people who fall outside the Geneva Conventions who are at war with the United States.”

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 also specified that unlawful enemy combatants could be tried in military courts and thus were not subject to rights including habeas corpus.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have a right to habeas corpus, making that provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional.

The Obama administration officially abandoned the term “enemy combatant” last year, though it has continued holding some individuals without trial at Guantanamo Bay. It attributed continued detentions to Congressional and international law, including the Geneva Conventions.

“President Obama said no, I’m not really going to buy into the notion that this is a war,” Lippmann said. “We’re going to prosecute [detainees] in a civilian court and treat them as criminals.”

For a timeline of the history of the term “enemy combatant” in the United States, click here.

Tagged , , , , , ,

One idea: Hold terror trials at Thomson Prison

In November, a poll found that 41 percent of New York City residents thought it was a bad idea to try suspects with alleged ties to 9/11 in New York City.

The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion poll also found that 45 percent of residents thought it was a good idea. But many politicians including former Mayor Rudy Giuliani seized on the sentiment of the 41 percent and pushed the Obama administration to come up with another location.

In December, President Barack Obama authorized taking the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., into federal control and making it a U.S. penitentiary for the purpose of relocating some Guantanamo Bay detainees there. Charles E. Tucker Jr., who is executive director of the International Human Rights Institute at DePaul University, said the facility could solve more than the problem of what to do with detainees.

“If you close Guantanamo Bay and move people out to the Thomson facility in Illinois, I could easily imagine a federal courtroom set up there where you wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel but could solve the court issue,” Tucker said.

The fact that federal courts are located in populous areas is one concern many have about using civilian courts to try suspected terrorists. According to the Marist poll, 34 percent said they thought holding the trial in New York City would compromise their personal safety. (Fifty-two percent disagreed.)

Tucker cited the example of the federal court building in Chicago, which is located in a densely developed and populated area. Thomson is a rural area of Illinois with a population of about 550 people.

Tucker said he thinks federal law is more than adequate to try suspected terrorists in federal court. But he acknowledged that security is a concern for not only the general population but also those involved in the trial.

“There’s no way to keep a judge’s identity a secret during a trial,” Tucker said. “They could become a lifetime target.”

Matthew Lippmann, a professor of criminology, law and justice at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said it remains to be seen whether suspects will be tried in civilian courts and, if so, where.

“Obama appeared that he would not use these [military courts] at all, would abolish them, but right now it’s unclear where these 9/11 individuals are going to be prosecuted.”

For an interactive map and more information about the sites considered for the relocation of Guantanamo Bay detainees, click here.

Tagged , , , , ,

Clapper nominated for Director of National Intelligence

President Obama in the Rose Garden Saturday nominated Lt. General James R. Clapper Jr. (Ret.) for the post of director of national intelligence. Clapper would replace retired Adm. Dennis Blair, who resigned from the position last month.

The President lauded Clapper as “one of our nation’s most experienced and most respected intelligence professionals” during his address, and hopes the former Air Force general’s extensive military and intelligence community background will yield a successful confirmation process.

Clapper is currently the under secretary of defense for intelligence and previously headed up both the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Clapper thanked Obama for the nomination and noted that he was “honored, and daunted by the magnitude of the responsibilities of the position of DNI,” according to the White House Web site.

Previous directors have also been daunted, and confounded by the DNI role. Since its inception via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, three different people have occupied the post. If confirmed, Clapper would be the fourth in five years, and beyond his normal duties would be burdened with proving that the role is even worthwhile.

The director of national intelligence is responsible for briefing and advising the President, National Security Council and Homeland Security Council on pivotal matters relating to intelligence and national security. The DNI is also the head of the 16-member intelligence community, a role previously carried out by the director of central intelligence.

But former DNI’s, like Blair, struggled to maintain authority over the labyrinthine network of agencies that comprise the intelligence community. Dr. Jay Williams, a professor of political science at Loyola University and retired Captain in the U.S. Naval Reserve, believes that organizational shortfalls may undermine the DNI’s ability to operate effectively.

“The problem is organizational,” Williams said. “The DNI doesn’t have authority over the others no matter what it says in the legislation. Unless he controls the budget, unless he can force decisions at the human level, at the organizational level, it just isn’t that effective.”

The director position was created after the September 11 terrorist attacks in response to perceived intelligence lapses, and was recommended in a report issued by the 9/11 Commission.

Tagged , , ,

Some point to abuses in Mexican drug war

WASHINGTON–Mexican President Felipe Calderon and U.S. President Barack Obama used Calderon’s recent trip to Washington to reaffirm their mutual support for the fight against drug cartels on both sides of the border.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called the fight a priority, and both Democrats and Republicans have proposed beefed-up security measures on the U.S. side of the border. Most recently, Obama announced plans to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwest border.

Congress has appropriated about $1.3 billion in anti-crime and drug funding for Mexico through the Merida Initiative, a multi-year program launched in 2007 that also targets criminal organizations in Central America and the Caribbean.

But the militarization of the fight against drug cartels on the Mexican side of the border, and U.S. support of the effort, has raised red flags in some quarters over escalating violence as well as human rights violations and corruption in the Mexican military and justice system.

At a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing on drug enforcement and the rule of law May 18, Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch, criticized the human rights record of the Mexican military and the lack of accountability for human rights violators. Calderon has relied heavily on the military in his effort to quell the drug cartels.

“Too often local leaders respond to public demands to get tough on crime by condoning abusive practices that not only undermine the rule of law by violating basic rights but also fail to curb crime,” Vivanco said.

In the three years since Calderon launched a military crackdown on drug cartels, about 22,700 people have been killed in drug-related violence.

Beyond the violence, Vivanco’s testimony pointed to alleged abuses by the military, including rape and killings, as well as at least 100 people who claimed to have been arbitrarily detained and then tortured to obtain false confessions since 2009.

Vivanco said that last year Congress should not have given Mexico the 15% of its funding under the Merida legislation that is conditional on fulfillment of human rights requirements. A State Department report to Congress highlighted some issues, including lack of transparency in the military justice system, but found that Mexico had met the four human rights conditions.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairmen of the subcommittee, was also the sole senator in attendance at the hearing, as his colleagues were occupied with debating Wall Street reform. Durbin called the fight against drug cartels a priority but said the United States has a responsibility to see that its aid does not fuel human rights abuses.

“The military in Mexico in many instances operates with virtual impunity, resulting in limited success in stemming drug violence and human rights abuses that rival and surpass often the corruption of the law enforcement system they were sent to replace,” he said.

Officials from the State Department and Department of Justice testified that Mexico has made significant reforms. The Calderon administration has taken steps to remove suspect law enforcement officials, customs officials and judges and to reform and modernize its judicial system, with U.S. assistance.

David T. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, wrote in his testimony that institutional reforms in Mexico are a work in progress.

“The strategy that the U.S. Government is pursuing with the Government of Mexico is an effective, long-term program, not a temporary ‘quick fix’,” he wrote.

As the drug war continues in Mexico, it’s a debate that will likely be played out many times.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

In tension between military and federal justice, the potential for terrorism court

As the debate drags on over whether to try alleged terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay in military commissions or federal courts, the pressure to find a politically palatable option is building. And the government’s solution may be the creation of a terrorism court, experts say.

“I think it’s going to probably happen because they’re going to have to deal with somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 really tough cases where they’re not going to be able to prosecute these cases in the traditional methods,” said Charles E. Tucker Jr., who is executive director of the International Human Rights Institute at DePaul University.

Tucker said current federal law is sufficient to try terror suspects, referencing Attorney General Eric Holder’s testimony that hundreds of terror-related crimes have already been prosecuted in federal court.

“In my opinion, you don’t have a legal necessity for a terrorism court, and we don’t have an evidentiary necessity for a terrorism court,” Tucker said. “So that leaves political necessity.”

And Tucker said that necessity is primarily safety, which is a legitimate concern. He said trying terror suspects in federal court could pose a threat to judges, witnesses and other actors, not to mention the public.

Richard Friedman, president of the National Strategy Forum, said military commissions have looser rules to accommodate the difficulties of trying more sensitive cases, including allowing prosecutors to present evidence without divulging their sources. The Obama administration wants to avoid using them to try the alleged 9/11 plotters, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, though many conservatives are pushing back.

“[President Barack Obama] doesn’t use the word ‘war on terror’ deliberately because he does not want to indicate that they should be sent before a military commission, so he’s used every other word imaginable,” said Matthew Lippmann, who is a professor of criminology, law and justice at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

But Tucker said creating a terrorism court would give at least the appearance of false justice, which he said contradicts American values.

“You’re dealing with the perception that you’re meeting with a special judge that’s designed just for you. There’s a perception that you’re not getting the same kind of justice.”

Tucker said the government could look to the British appellate courts in Northern Ireland or the Israeli military tribunals to see what an American terrorism court system might look like. He said he visited the Israeli tribunals last year and described the prosecutors as “pretty demoralized.”

Tagged , , , ,

U.S. can't delay signing Law of Sea treaty, officials say

WASHINGTON — Despite the support of dozens of well-placed politicians and a majority of voters, Congress appears intent on keeping the United States out of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international treaty on seafaring considered crucial to maintaining order in the changing Arctic.

The agreement would give the United States a seat at the negotiating table with the 157 global signatories, and many lawmakers say the international rules are crucial to representing U.S. interests in a melting and increasingly navigable High North.

“I believe we are at a critical time in the Arctic,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowsi (R-Alaska) in an April 28 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies . “It has been identified that there are two paths that we can go down in regards to international relations– one is a path of competition and conflict, and the other is one of cooperation and diplomacy. I believe the decision on which path we ultimately take will require dynamic leadership.”  

As major Arctic nations and stakeholders begin laying claim to the opening sea lanes and newly accessible resources in the region, the Law of the Sea Treaty offers a way to maintain international order in the budding frontier.

The Law of the Sea, established in 1982, “lays down a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. It enshrines the notion that all problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be addressed as a whole,” according to the U.N.

The Obama administration is an outspoken supporter of the treaty, as have been the previous two presidents. In fact, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended the U.S. ratify the treaty with a 17-4 vote in 2007.

But opponents, beginning with President Ronald Reagan, have blocked its passage, saying it gives the U.N. too much control of the world’s oceans—up to 70 percent— and that it ­threatens U.S. sovereignty on oceans and coastlines.

Today, despite claims by supporters like Murkowski that its passage is urgently needed, the treaty is still waiting for Senate floor time.

The Senate calendar is only one piece of the troubled puzzle. Murkowski said she believes that once the treaty actually receives the floor time, it will take up at least one full week. With only 45 Senate legislative days left this year, and other congressional priorities, there isn’t time for the treaty this year.

“The United States must ratify the treaty but we remain at a stalemate: the White House looks to the Senate to lead and the Senate waits for stronger support from the Administration,” said Murkowski.

The treaty has taken a back seat to immigration and climate change bills and other debates in the House and Senate. To further complicate the political struggle, lawmakers have received hundreds of faxes from grassroots opponents threatening a campaign against anyone who works toward  supporting it, said Arne Fuglvog, a legislative assistant to Murkowski.

­ The Council on Foreign Relations, in a 2009 report, said Washington would be the biggest loser if it fails to ratify the treaty.

“By being the last significant maritime nation in the world to formally join the treaty, the United States is forgoing an opportunity to extend its national jurisdiction over a vast amount of ocean area on its Arctic, Atlantic, and Gulf Coasts–equal to almost half the size of the Louisiana Purchase–while simultaneously abdicating an opportunity to have a say in deliberations over other nation’s claims elsewhere.”

U.S. ­leaders, including Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg of the continental shelf and related data collection has been cooperative, and that conflict does not seem imminent.

“The Arctic is kind of a test case of the ability of international community to beat the transnational challenges of the 21st century,” Steinberg said at the CSIS event.

However, climate change is heightening the urgency to adopt international protocols on the Arctic seas, Steinberg said.

“If we do not act in common,” he said. “Opportunity will become increasingly scarce for all of us.”

Tagged , , , ,

Georgian NATO membership in permanent holding pattern?

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili meets with Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala. and Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md. of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe U.S. Helsinki Commission May 14 on Capitol Hill.
Justine Jablonska/MEDILL

WASHINGTON – When Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili attended the Nuclear Summit in Washington DC in April, there’s a few things he didn’t do. He didn’t meet with President Barack Obama or Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Saakashvili also didn’t discuss Georgia’s membership in NATO with members of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, with whom he met on Capitol Hill.

Georgia wants to be in NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – an intergovernmental military alliance whose member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

NATO has said that it wants Georgia to be in NATO. It’s even released a statement proclaiming that Georgia will be in NATO.

But although both sides agree, that’s not enough – and, according to Aaron Linderman, the Florence and Bookman Peters Excellence Fellow at Texas A&M University, NATO membership may be on indefinite hold for Georgia for numerous reasons.

Linderman says that two very important considerations exist for Georgian membership in NATO.

Will that membership be enough to “deter aggression against Georgia, or will we actually have to fight to protect it?” Linderman asks. He’s not sure, and says that NATO’s commitment to Article 5 regarding the Baltic republics “in the face of open aggression is not 100% certain.”

The mutual defense provision of NATO’s charter has never truly been tested, Linderman says. And the United States would like to keep it that way: “Deterrence is relatively cheap,” Linderman says. “Actually driving the Russians out of Estonia or Poland would be a real mess.”

Mark Chodakiewicz of the Institute of World Politics agrees. “I doubt that we would back Georgia with U.S. troops on the ground if the Russian Federation invaded once again,” he says.

Aggression against Georgia is one consideration, while aggression from Georgia is another: What happens if, once awarded NATO membership, Georgia behaves in a way that “invite[s] intervention from Russia?” asks Linderman.

Some have said that that’s exactly what happened during the 2008 Georgia-Russian conflict, but Linderman says he thinks Saakhashvili’s actions were justified. “He was trying to assert sovereignty over his own territory,” he says, while Russia was waiting for an excuse.

“Intercepted phone messages from the Roki Tunnel suggest that Russian troops were in motion even before the Georgians began their attack on the South Ossetian separatists,” Linderman says.

Those Russian troops that remain in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a huge obstacle in the way of NATO membership for Georgia, according to Linderman, since some of Georgia’s territory is currently under foreign – read: Russian – occupation. If Georgia is admitted to NATO, then what does NATO do with those Russian forces? Linderman asks.

Thus, as long as those Russian troops remain in Georgia, Linderman says, “it is unlikely that membership will move forward.”

What, then, can move that membership forward?

Russian troops leaving Georgia, says Linderman – but that probably won’t happen.

“Having a few thousand troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a relatively cheap way for Russia to prove that it still controls its neighborhood and can block NATO expansion at will,” Linderman says.

Another way would be “some kind of recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” meaning a renunciation of Georgian sovereignty, he says. That move would anger Georgians and affirm Russian aggression in the region – but then Georgia would fully possess the territory it claims, says Linderman, and thus give Georgia a fresh start at a NATO guarantee.

Linderman doesn’t think either of these options will happen anytime soon: “I think we have to conclude that Georgian NATO membership is on ice indefinitely.”

Beyond if Georgia will obtain NATO membership is the question of why it wants it, Linderman says. Is it because Georgia wants assistance, or a guarantee of assistance? Is Georgia “ideologically committed to democracy, civilian control of the military, and independent media and the other things for which NATO members stand?”

According to Chodakiewicz, Georgia is continuing to show “some sophistication in its propaganda, stressing the human right’s side of the issue, which flies very well in the West.”

Linderman says that while Georgia’s record isn’t perfect, it does have a real commitment to democratic values. Commitment alone isn’t enough, however: “Saakashvili and other Georgian leaders have to realize that it is not enough to have a pretty good democracy,” Linderman says. “They need to work tirelessly to ensure the rule of law and democratic governance.”

Although Saakhashvili didn’t meet with Obama or Medvedev during his Washington DC trip, he did meet with U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden, who thanked Saakhashvili for Georgia’s troop contribution to Afghanistan. Georgia also has troops in Iraq, for a total of 3,000 troops fighting alongside U.S. troops. According to Richard Holbrooke, Special U.S. Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Georgia appears to have the highest per capita troop contribution of any country in the world.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Nuclear weapons past, Nuclear energy future

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s recent vow that ­the United States will have an atomic arsenal as long as nuclear weapons exist casts a historical shadow over this season of nonproliferation and disarmament agreements. While some find the promise reassuring, others believe it is in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Obama’s pledge during the recent Nuclear Summit in Washington that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states has been hailed by his Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a milestone in U.S. national security policy. But others think that the vow, and other aspects of Obama’s broader ­nuclear agenda, do little to solve ­age-old challenges and contradictions, and may even exacerbate them.

With New START, an arms reduction treaty just signed by ­Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev­, paired with the release of the Nuclear Posture Review and progress with the Nuclear Summit, steps toward a future without nuclear weapon­s have been taken, albeit they’re baby-sized, some experts say. ­This reflects ­the political leanings of Washington at the moment and the Obama administration’s desire to keep any hope of real progress alive more than it does any substantive progress, according to Leonard Spector, deputy director of the non-partisan James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington.

“The real tricky detail is how to keep the deterrent viable,” Spector said in an interview. “Republicans say we need a new or refurbished nuclear weapon; Obama wants to refurbish facilities, but probably doesn’t want to see a new weapon. The politics are such that to get the START treaty ratified, they need Republicans and they don’t want to do something that would antagonize them.”

Obama’s comments are aimed not only at getting ­Republicans on board, but also at reassuring U.S. citizens, allies and partners that Washington will protect them from ­the threat of nuclear warfare. “A reliable deterrent is needed for politics, but it’s also just sound policy,” Spector said.

However, critics say the Obama administration’s actions expose the White House to charges of hypocrisy. They ask: how can the United States try and persuade other countries to dismantle or not pursue unapproved nuclear programs at a time when it refuses to take similar steps on its own? ­­Some point to ­Article­ F­our ­of the ­ Non-Proliferation Treaty, which ­offers the “inalienable right … to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” Others cite ­Article Six, which requires treaty parties to pursue disarmament “in good faith.”

“Nuclear newcomers take Article Six more seriously than Washington,” ­Steven Miller, director of Harvard’s International Security Program, said during a forum on the “Global Nuclear Future’’ at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February.  Such conflicting interpretations become particularly heated when nuclear energy capabilities are restricted on the grounds of nonproliferation, Miller said. In a time characterized by climate change and terrorism – two concepts that will surely grow to be more and more intertwined – determining how to move the world toward green nuclear energy and away from nuclear weapons capabilities is truly the challenge of this nuclear era, nuclear experts say.

The recently released Nuclear Posture Review ­, the Congressionally-mandated blueprint for long-term U.S. nuclear policy and strategy—dovetails with Obama’s stated desire to change the framework of the international nuclear energy debate. Suggestions include reducing incentives for countries to have their own uranium enriching abilities, establishing international fuel banks and pursuing an agreement of fuel suppliers to take back waste. There’s no hinting at allowing nuclear plant technology into countries where enriched uranium might be used for weapons, even if it is ostensibly for nuclear power.

“These ideas don’t work or they are infeasible,” said Sharon Squassoni, director of the Proliferation Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Ultimately, I think this is a shortsighted policy that has its roots in the conundrum that we face under the non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Ellen Tauscher, secretary of state for arms control and international security, acknowledged in a recent speech prior to the unveiling of the new nuclear agenda that U.S. policy has created the feeling of a “chokehold” on other countries’ nuclear energy abilities, denying their NPT rights.

With the ambitious Nuclear Summit in Washington now closed, having served as the signing ground for several unprecedented promises, monitoring the actual implementation of these treaties will be the true test of whether a nuclear weaponless, green energy future is achievable, experts say. They note that signers of the NPT promised disarmament and access to nuclear energy 40 years ago, but the need for further disarmament and nuclear energy agreements continues today.

Tagged , , ,


© 2010 – 2013 All Rights Reserved | Coraline theme by WordPress