As reported yesterday, there is an ongoing debate of some intensity into the various types of war crimes that are being committed by both sides in the conflict, about issues arising from use of human shields to use of white phosphorus artillery shells in heavily populated areas. However, there is a new report about the conduct of Israeli soldiers which has been underreported. The story has since been deleted from the Ha'aretz website, but is posted here for your perusal. Two of the most important aspects of the laws of war govern the uniforms worn by combatants and the targeting of civilians in urban areas. The aforementioned report bears on exactly these problems. Though it might be the case that witnesses were mistaken about the identity of soldiers wearing emblems of Hamas, however even the mere allegation that Israeli soldiers were targeting buildings known to contain civilians in order to make them evacuate goes beyond the pale. This latest report, combined with reports that one of the largest hospitals in the Gaza Strip was attacked by white phosphorus and tank shells, should necessitate a response from the Hague and the United Nations if international law is going to be effectual at all during the 21st Century. But perhaps such words are empty, and will ultimately serve to alleviate the suffering felt by both sides of the conflict.
Elsewhere, there is a lot of talk aimed at calling a halt to the ongoing operations. In Egypt, officials are reportedly getting close to hammering out a ceasefire agreement, but the fundamentally conflicting goals of both sides, centering around the ongoing embargo of commercial goods aimed at stemming the flow of weapons into the Gaza Strip, stand in the way of any lasting resolution. The United States is firmly behind the government of Israel as the foreign ministers of the two countries signed an agreement obligating the U.S. to assist in preventing smuggling into Gaza and the re-arming of the militant wing of Hamas in the event of any ceasefire, whether it is formal or informal. Elsewhere, the Arab world is split into two camps, one which supports the U.S.' position in the conflict met in Kuwait, while the other camp, which is opposed, even virulently against the campaign, met in Qatar. The latter group urged member states to diplomatic and economic ties with the state of Israel. Because of this split, neither side was able to achieve a quorum sufficient for the Arab League to issue a statement in response to the conflict, ultimately proving both gatherings to be diplomatically useless in terms of finding a solution to the intractable problem of Middle East peace.
As always, there is a firestorm of news and protest surrounding U.S. foreign arms sales. And, of course, the countries involved are potential flashpoints for future conflicts.
From Iraq comes news that the Defense Department is bolstering its foreign military sales staff in Baghdad. In a program that was already plagued with problems of corruption and mismanagement, the problems were further compounded when the program realized the ridiculous leap in funding levels, from $200 million to $3 billion in only one year. The corruption in the acquisition process already has the potential to sour relations with our NATO ally, Turkey, as weapons bound for Iraqi troops have showed up in the hands of militant fighters fighting for an independent Kurdistan. However, due to the personnel shortage that accompanied the increased workload, the Iraqi government was forced to buy weapons from other countries. Now, members of Congress reportedly want to know whether American money was used to buy Chinese weapons for the Iraqi Army.
Arms sales, in fact, also provide one of the main sticking points between the United States and China, mainly weapons sales to the island of Taiwan. The economic problems that are the most prominent in the domestic, national discourse in U.S. relations with the PRC have been "underlined by the U.S. for years." However, the issue of Taiwan and the foreign arms sales are the basis for the other point of contention between the two superpowers. In fact this year, Section 1206 in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2007, the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee establishes some pretty firm policies. Emphasis has been added by author.
More importantly, the committee believes that maintaining a balance of power across the Taiwan Strait is critical to ensuring deterrence and preserving peace, security, and stability in Asia. China’s National People’s Congress adopted an anti-secession law that essentially authorizes China’s Central Military Commission to use non-peaceful means against Taiwan if the latter declares independence. The committee is concerned that this law, in conjunction with an excessive military build-up by China, may signal a weakening of deterrence across the Taiwan Strait. The committee believes that the exchange program, by helping to strengthen Taiwan’s defenses, would help preserve and strengthen deterrence, thereby encouraging China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully.
Considering that Chinese military spending is growing to make the PLA one of, if not the, strongest land forces in the world, the logic of the policy is almost self-defeating. The amount of equipment and money necessary to maintain the vision of deterrence expounded by this doctrine is well beyond the means of the United States. Look for this policy to cause problems in the future, as the U.S. is left groping for a new tact to maintain the stability in the region that is so vital to the international shipping lanes. The real question that would help one in thinking of this problem is, what event could happen that would leap the PRC's political elite to abandon the current Nash Equilibrium enjoyed by all parties in the region, in favor of a military strike? To which, the U.S. is bound under law to look upon with "grave concern," as per the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.
There is a new arms race brewing in South Asia, although not the usual type. In this case, the developed countries of the world are falling over themselves to provide India with the next generation of military equipment. Looking at potential spending reaching $40 billion dollars, it's not hard to imagine why countries would feel interested in the competition. Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs feels so strongly about the subject of U.S.-Indian ties that he wrote an article for the current issue of Foreign Affairs. I particularly enjoy who he actually tries to make the article sound sincere in believing that ideology trumps the buying power of the Indian rupee. Again, the subtext to the entire discussion is long-term ties with India, in the fact of a emerging threat from China in Asia.
Before going onto the next topic, enjoy a little video goodness.
Now, the JDAM is going on sale to countries in the Gulf region, specifically Saudi Arabia, which has caused quite a bipartisan reaction on Capital Hill. One should consider, though, that Israel and its lobby aren't protesting the sale in and of itself, only the fact that sales of this type reduce the strategic and technological edge enjoyed that enforced deterrence and brought stability to the region. The sale is practically dead on arrival.
Finally, in Pakistan, an assassin has taken the life of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, but that shouldn't stand in the way of ever-stronger ties developing between the U.S. and Pakistan. In particular, this event will not interfere in anyway with the proposed $2.1 billion arms deal in progress. Pakistan is slated to purchase18 F-16s of the C and D variants.
The end result of all of this is that American foreign policy, especially in the case of Pakistan, is being pulled into a cycle of arming one side to counter another threat that may or may not be of its own creation. And while arms sales and military relations reach new highs, things such as civil society and rule of law tend to be left by the way side. The Military Industrial Complex isn't exactly a democratic institution, after all. Those who are in a strong position to regulate this very important facet of foreign policy are focusing on other priorities, to say the least. Instead of controlling the number of arms distributed internationally, they are worried about the transfer of sensitive information, and the ramifications of Globalization on the MIC, but more on that later.
President Bush has gone too far this time! In not returning a courtesy call from the President of one of our best partners in the NATO alliance, he has just plainly given up on being anything other than a lone and lonely superpower. The people of Iceland have every reason to be upset about this gross breach of etiquette, and not the least for the involvement of the Secret Service.
These days there's been a lot of mention of the problematic relationship between the US and China. However, in new developments, the People's Liberation Army is reportedly seeking military nuclear cooperation with the United States. Which enemy do we have in common? Here's a brief background of the latest complications between the Eagle and the Dragon. Here, a pundit from the BBC stumbles through a discussion in the economic problems that have recently surfaced in the form of toy recalls, and at the end interestingly equates it to the military problems. Here, another pundit from the Economist raises the theory that the PLA is not necessarily under direct control of the Party's political leaders. The PLA, of course, has enjoyed a rather privileged position in the hierarchy of power, given it was the proving ground for the first generation of CCP leaders, restored order after the Cultural Revolution, and suppressed the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident. Considering the anti-satellite test, it could mean that the PLA feels entitled to more of a free hand in deciding policy and weapon acquisitions.
As part of Condoleeza Rice's new push for world peace, or just not being seen as a neo-conservative lapdog who didn't do anything but exercise and get lectured by her peers, Condi got all of the leaders from Africa's various troubled places together in Addis Ababa to get a lecture in American diplomacy. Or is American diplomacy more about lecturing? I can never keep that straight. But, anyways, in the course of a day, Condi told all the leaders that would shop up (Joseph Kabila, President of the DRC chose not to make an appearance) that they had better play nice and look good and keep the windows closed... There was no "or" or "else." Thanks for clearing all that up, Condi in your whirlwind one day of talks.
