By Catherine Gordon
Associate for International Issues

In last year’s “Outlook for Global Security,” it was noted that there would be tremendous forces pushing the United States down the path of militarization and war, with a goal of “security.” This indeed occurred and the U.S. now finds itself in the role of occupier of Iraq, in a situation from which extrication is very difficult, with few friends to count on.

The trend toward looking for security through military solutions continues, and as we head into 2004 those forces are stronger than ever. The occupation of Iraq will continue to top the agenda. Other issues — such as Korea, nuclear proliferation, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the construction of new nuclear weapons — will also need our attention.

In the coming year we must continually remind our government that true global security will come through peacemaking, international community building, and meeting the needs of the impoverished. The isolation caused by a foreign policy focused primarily on militarization and war, rather than the international rule of law, will not lead to a more secure world.

Iraq

On November 6, President Bush announced a new “forward strategy for freedom,” a plan to democratize the Middle East. As it becomes increasingly clear that the stated reason for the United States’ invasion — Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction — has been proven to be false, more and more the war on Iraq is being described as a war of liberty and part of the broad strategy of democratization. The repercussions of this new broad strategy will be felt in U.S.-Arab relations in the coming year (see Middle East Outlook).

As American casualties continue to mount in Iraq, and Iraqis become increasingly dissatisfied with the U.S. occupation, the Bush Administration has set up a new timeline for the coming year. This new timeline calls for placing Iraqi army and security forces under Iraqi civilian control by the end of February. However, many in the Pentagon would like to maintain U.S. control of the Iraqi military, and are trying to do so. The U.S. military will remain in Iraq under full U.S. command. The timetable also calls for the establishment of an Iraqi provisional government by the end of June, which would also entail the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The new government would be based on the regional assemblies that were chosen by the Governing Council and approved by the U.S.

The United Nations stands ready to play a role inside Iraq, but this is unlikely to occur soon because of security concerns. The U.N. is in the process of revising its security procedures and it is unlikely that it will consider sending international staffers into the country until this is complete. United Nations involvement will also depend on the actual security situation in Iraq and whether or not the Secretariat concludes that the U.N. mandate is sufficiently robust and independent to justify the security risk.

What the coming year will bring with regard to congressional involvement in Iraq is anyone’s guess, but it will largely be determined by what happens on the ground in Iraq. There has been a diffusion of opposition in the last few months, and foreign policy and Iraq are no longer at the top of the agenda for either party in Congress. While the hearings on the intelligence findings which led the U.S. into the Iraq war had momentum in Congress earlier this year, many feel the time for action has passed. However, this still could prove to be an issue in the coming year.

Some of the issues which could come up with regard to Iraq this year are:

• The need for the use of local resources and for capacity building in Iraq;
• The controversy over awarding foreign for-profit companies contracts rather than local companies and NGO’s who use local human resources;
• The issue of security and the U.S. obligation to fulfill its responsibilities as an occupying power under the Geneva convention;
• The increasing radical- ization of Iraq’s youth;
• The excessive control of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the lack of transparency;
• The Pentagon’s control of reconstruction.

Nuclear Disarmament

With the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration has solidified a new national security strategy that embraces the preemptive use of force against nations who pose a threat to the United States. This strategy includes the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, in which the preemptive use of force is mandated to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. This policy calls for responding with overwhelming force and using “all options” — including nuclear force — against those who use biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear weapons against the United States. Under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the United States pledged never to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. This new policy has dangerously lowered the threshold for use of nuclear weapons, and encourages, rather than discourages, nuclear proliferation. This is evidenced in the current crisis regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons development. This trend will continue in the coming year.

While the U.S. is increasingly concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possibility a terrorist may come into possession of one, rather than adhering to the non-proliferation treaty commitments, the U.S. Congress has instead awarded more funding to develop new nuclear weapons and taken steps to weaken controls over existing nuclear weapons. While the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP or “nuclear bunker buster”) was cut to half of what was requested this year (from $15 million to $7 million), more funding will be requested in the coming year. Congress also repealed the Spratt-Furse ban on low-yield nuclear weapons and authorized their research.

There will be several chances in the year when activists will have openings to influence Congress: by urging the elimination of funding for new nuclear weapons, the elimination of increased funding for the Nevada Test Site, and the increase of funding for the Nunn-Lugar programs (Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and other similar programs.) There will be possible votes on all three issues during:

• Committee votes on the defense authorization bill (House and Senate Armed Services Committees);
• Committee votes on the energy and water appropriations bill (House and Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittees);
• House and Senate floor votes on the defense authorization bill and energy and water appropriations bill.

Other issues of concern in the coming year are the development of a Modern Pit Facility and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Most nuclear weapons depend on a plutonium pit as the “primary” that begins the chain reaction resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. The Department of Energy claims that it needs to have a facility capable of producing 125-500 pits per year. And, the pit facility is being designed with the flexibility to produce new-design pits in spite of the stated intent of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to cut off the further advancement of nuclear weapons. There is increasing concern that the current administration will take steps to unsign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in order to proceed with testing.

Korea

The United States began six- party talks on North Korea’s atomic weapons program earlier in the year. However, talks were broken off and China and the United States have decided not to resume the talks until early in 2004. As negations begin again it is crucial for the Bush Administration to work closely and cooperatively with the Chinese, South Korean, Japanese and Russian delegations in a way that genuinely incorporates their approaches and security concerns. Confidence-building measures, security assurances for North Korea — as well as economic incentives — will be key to progress and a successful outcome in these negotiations.