Outlook 2006: Can the United States Rebuild Global Trust?

by Catherine Gordon

Last year's Outlook began with a discussion about the new global security report from the United Nations, and its redefinition of "collective security." The report noted the original reason for the founding of the U.N. - the prevention of war - and its most recent attempts to address the serious security challenges the world faces today. These issues include economic and social threats - poverty, infectious diseases, and environmental degradation; inter-state conflict and internal conflict, including civil war, genocide, and other large-scale atrocities.

The report describes a new vision of collective security, which could help the U.N. function more effectively and perhaps allow the United States to be more secure. It addresses many of the concerns of the U.S., including nuclear proliferation and prevention of nuclear terrorism. Unfortunately, little has happened in the last year to bring us closer to collective security.

Current U.S. policy is based on a definition of security that does not recognize the interdependence of communities around the world. It does not acknowledge that our security is tied to that of our brothers and sisters across the globe. We cannot guarantee our security in isolation from others. The traditional definitions of national security have led us to failed policies and deeper insecurity.

As defined by the United Nations, human security guarantees access to food, clean water, health care, education, and employment. People must have the right to participate in important decisions that affect their lives. Human security emerges from a solidarity that brings about global cooperation, which can preemptively manage conflicts before they turn violent.

The U.S. has continued to isolate itself by standing above inter- national law; refusing to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, undermining the International Criminal Court (ICC), repudiating the Kyoto Protocol, and refusing to sign international treaties that ban landmines, control the traffic in small arms or protect the rights of children. Most troublesome of all, the Bush Administration actively lobbied against a ban on torture and only acquiesced under intense pressure.

As we look ahead, there are many issues that we must challenge our government on. Multilateral cooperation must be strengthened. As the "war on terrorism" continues, we must remember that all human beings are children of God. We must bring criminals and murderers to justice, but violation of basic human rights dehumanizes us all.

Torture

After months of negotiations, the McCain Amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of any prisoner held by the U.S. has passed Congress and been approved by the President. Unfortunately, this legislation has been diluted by other developments:

Justice Department officials and others continue to "redefine" torture to circumvent the strictures of the McCain Amendment.

The amendments to the Army Manual that McCain counted on to limit cruel practices have been revised and may now permit what had previously been prohibited as cruel, inhuman, or degrading.

The Administration continues to advocate such policies as "extraordinary rendition," secret prisons, and preventing visits to detainees by the Red Cross.

These and other efforts by the Administration show an urgent need for an independent investigation. We must continue to advocate for vigorous oversight to prevent torture and violation of human rights.

International Criminal Court

At press time, the U.S. was attempting to delete all reference to the ICC in the U.N. Security Council's resolution on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Despite recognition (at the U.N. Security Council open debate) of the importance of the ICC in protecting civilians in armed conflict, the reference to the ICC in the draft resolution is now in jeopardy because of the objections of the United States.

In the coming year we can expect continued undermining of the ICC. This is the case particularly because of the provision attached to the FY2006 Foreign Operations spending bill, which prohibits nations supporting the ICC from receiving critical U.S. economic assistance. This policy will have negative effects on ICC member states and will be counterproductive for a U.S. foreign policy committed to battling terrorism, drug trafficking, hunger, poverty and disease abroad. In addition, the U.S. is continuing to pressure countries to sign bilateral immunity agreements with the U.S. in which it is agreed that no U.S. citizen will be sent to the ICC.

Landmines

The Pentagon was slated to decide in December whether to move forward with the production of a new class of anti-personnel mine called Spider, the result of a multi-year multimillion dollar research program on landmine alternatives. Spider is equipped with command detonation capabilities; it also contains a feature that allows it to operate autonomously. Once a soldier flips a switch it becomes a conventional victim-activated mine that cannot tell the difference between the boot of a soldier and the foot of a child.

A Senate provision (to report to Congress on the possible indiscriminate effects of the new mine system before a production decision is made) was taken out of the conference report. The production decision on the Spider system is now expected in early 2006.

Development Assistance and Trade

While momentum is building for a push for more development assistance (which will most likely increase in the coming year), the Administration is planning a major overhaul of the U.S. foreign aid system. The overhaul will be the biggest in 40 years and is an attempt by the Administration to assert more political control over international assistance. The reorganization could lead to the takeover of the U.S. Agency for International Development by the State Department. There are fears that it will lead to further politicization of foreign assistance, and aid will become subordinate to the Administration's political goals. A new position, Deputy Secretary of State for Aid and Development, is being considered.

There is little promising to look forward to in the coming year with regard to trade. As the World Trade Organization talks wind down, a diluted agreement that is far off track is coming out of the talks in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong declaration has taken off the table some of the most important priorities, such as agricultural dumping, domestic policy space for rural development, and job creation.

The implementation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement will proceed. The U.S. and Andean countries will continue negotiations on the Andean Free Trade Agreement. However, with the narrow victory for CAFTA (only two votes) there is reason to believe that future trade agreements will have a tougher time getting through Congress.

Nuclear Bunker Buster

In late October, the House-Senate conference on FY2006 energy and water appropriations denied a Bush Administration request for $4 million to study the nuclear 'bunker buster.' Lawmakers instead supported study of a conventional weapon that could be used against deeply buried and hardened targets.

Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), an opponent of the weapon, reported that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "You may win this year, but we'll be back." Rep. Hobson responded, "Well, OK, I'll still be here."

While it looks like there will be opposition to the weapon in Congress, Global Security Newswire reported Nov. 4 that a National Nuclear Security Administration letter to a Member of Congress indicated the Administration hoped to go ahead with an impact test using a mock RNEP warhead, but with a different name, and using Defense rather than Energy Department funding.

Iraq

With the elections in Iraq on December 15th bringing out 15 million Iraqis and promising a more inclusive political structure, there is some reason for hope in the coming year. Political participation in Iraq is higher than it has ever been. Thanks to changes made in Iraq's electoral laws and procedures, the outcome of the elections will likely be far more politically inclusive and will grant the government new legitimacy. But there are still many pressing matters. While most Iraqis are confident in the parliamentary elections, two-thirds are opposed to the presence of U.S. troops, according to a poll released on December 12 by ABC News and Time magazine.

With American people increasingly disillusioned with the Iraq war and many Democrats already speaking out to bring the troops home, next year may prove to be a decisive year in Iraq. There have been a number of bills introduced that call for a time frame for withdrawal, or a stated policy of withdrawal. These are still pending and will be debated in the coming year.