Tag Archives: United Nations

Navigating new naval threats

Terrorist’s threats against the U.S. Navy are nothing new. The latest threat declared on Dec. 31 that al Qaeda plans to target areas of naval interests, including ship movements and logistic support services by other countries. Data on possible weapons aboard as well as information on crews and their families does add a new dimension. As a result, the U.S. Navy stated that the Naval Criminal Investigation Service is aware of the threat and has heightened its alert posture in the Middle East. However, let’s be clear: This is not a law enforcement issue. It requires all the elements of our national intelligence agencies working with those of our allies to defeat the threats.

With known al Qaeda "sleeper cells" here in the United States, we need to broaden our area of concern to include not only our domestic naval facilities but our broader maritime environment. This should include our liquified natural gas terminals, major commercial ports and facilities. The closure of a major seaport shipping channel such as at Long Beach due to a terrorist attack could have a devastating impact.

The guided missile destroyer USS Cole was subjected to a terrorist attack in October 2000, during a brief fuel stop in Aden, Yemen. Part of the problem was that the Cole has fallen into a predictable pattern of operations for fueling our ships in Aden once they had transited the Suez Canal. Approximately, 25 routine naval fueling stops had been made to Aden over the previous few years. Further, 12 days advanced notice was required by the government of Yemen for these brief fuel stops. It is clear that all local port authorities, including the terrorists, had precise information on the Cole’s movements.

This was despite a heightened security alert in Yemen at the time of the Cole’s scheduled stop. The alert was sufficiently serious to cause the U.S. Embassy to be closed, but the Cole was never alerted. The brief fuel stop was looked upon as "business as usual," resulting in the tragic loss of 17 American sailors.

Clearly, we must assume that al Qaeda and their U.S. based "sleeper cells" have been studying our port and facilities. This is more than an issue for the Naval Criminal Investigation Service. We need to review our current pattern of operations both here in the United States and for our deployed forces. For example, how are we rotating our ships to carry out their anti-piracy patrols; and where and how these ships are being provided logistic support?

When our ships are in a foreign port, no local barges should be permitted to approach a ship, whether at anchor or alongside a pier without first being inspected. In effect, an "exclusion zone" must be established around our ships. To enforce such a zone, our ships or the host country will have to provide a well-armed boat in the water to prevent any unauthorized craft from approaching our ships. We know this is a firm requirement established as a result of one of the first "Red Cell" exercises we conducted after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983.

In the Cole bombing, after the second fuel stop, our ships were prevented from putting their boats in the water by the government of Yemen because they claimed it was in infringement on their sovereignty, and our Embassy agreed. What nonsense.

Our Rules of Engagement (ROEs) should also be reviewed. "Don’t shoot until shot at" is the terrorist formula for success. We must assume that al Qaeda has information on our current ROEs and how we react to high-speed craft – for example, Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval boats aggressively maneuvering in the direction of our ships with their guns unmasked. The Iranians paid no attention to warnings issued by our ships. These aggressive actions cannot be accepted. The decision on whether actions by an approaching craft or boat are threatening must be left with the on-the-scene commander. He must not be bound by a rigid set of rules that he must go through before he can open fire. It must be his call and he must be confident that he will have the backing of his superiors in the chain of command.

For our domestic ports and facilities, the U.S. Coast Guard is charged with the responsibility for the security of our ports. With their limited resources, they do an excellent job; however, they are stretched thin and additional resources to counter a serious terrorist threat are required. In the near term, consideration should be given to augmenting existing U.S. Coast Guard resources with civilian professional security assistance personnel (former SEAL and Special Forces personnel) and additional armed patrol craft. We must remain proactive if we are to be successful in defeating the al Qaeda threat.

 

Retired Navy Adm. James A. "Ace" Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. He is also the Chairman of the Center’s Military Committee.

“; document.write(tcdasource);

Little to celebrate

Although President Obama spent much of his first year in office trying to revolutionize the U.S. health care system, the external world often inconveniently intruded. As the attempted Christmas mass murder of passengers flying from Amsterdam to Detroit demonstrates, our adversaries have not been idle. Nor will they be idle in 2010.

A critical question, therefore, is whether the president has learned anything during his first year, or whether he will continue pursuing national security policies that leave us at greater risk. The outlook is not promising. Too often, Mr. Obama seems either uninterested in the global threats we face, unpersuaded that they constitute dangers to the country, or content simply to blame his predecessors.

When he does see international threats, his instinct is to negotiate with them rather than defeat them. Facing totalitarian menaces in 1939, British politician Harold Nicolson said of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his closest aide that they "stepped into diplomacy with the bright faithfulness of two curates entering a pub for the first time; they did not observe the differences between a social gathering and a rough-house; nor did they realize that the tough guys assembled did not speak or understand their language."

Nicolson could be writing today about Mr. Obama. Consider some of the issues lying ahead:

(1) The global war on terror: Despite the administration’s verbal about-face on the effectiveness of our antiterrorism efforts within days of the unsuccessful Christmas attack, its fundamental approach remains flawed. Mr. Obama himself has led the charge in shifting from a "Global War on Terror" toward a law-enforcement paradigm, continuing, for example, to press for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Even today, the administration is treating would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a criminal rather than an enemy combatant, thus losing the chance to gain enormously valuable information on al Qaeda activities and plans.

Al Qaeda-style terrorism has never been susceptible to law-enforcement methods. It is not simply a crime like bank robbery, which is why military and intelligence agencies have undertaken much of our antiterrorist activity since Sept. 11, 2001. And it is why sidelining them now can have potentially catastrophic consequences for the United States and our allies.

Mr. Obama should articulate some grand strategy for countering terrorism. Withdrawing from Iraq, mixed signals in Afghanistan (surge troops in 2010, but begin withdrawing in 2011), and public defenders for airplane bombers is a prescription for failure. Indeed, the Christmas near miss demonstrates that more, not less, attention must be devoted to al Qaeda in Yemen and elsewhere, such as Somalia.

(2) Nuclear proliferation: Iran and North Korea, the two gravest nuclear proliferation threats, have so far spurned Mr. Obama’s "open hand." This is truly remarkable, since both rogue states have skillfully used prior negotiations to their advantage, buying time to advance their nuclear and ballistic missile efforts, and extracting tangible economic and political benefits from America and others. Accordingly, their current unwillingness to talk shows they think they can extract an even higher price from Mr. Obama before even sitting down, a truly discouraging sign.

In fact, neither Iran nor North Korea will be negotiated out of the nuclear weapons programs (or their chemical or biological weapons, which are not even on the horizon for discussion). Moreover, we cannot be content merely trying to "contain" nuclear rogue states, since so doing simply leaves the initiative entirely with them, given their asymmetric advantage of threatening or actually using their weapons. These countries, each for its own peculiar reasons, are not subject to the Cold War deterrence principals. Still worse, the risks of further proliferation are both palpable and threatening if Pyongyang and Tehran keep their nuclear capabilities. There is simply no sign Mr. Obama understands these ever-growing risks.

Instead, Mr. Obama is negotiating drastic nuclear weapons reductions with Russia, even as he eviscerates our missile defense capabilities, apparently believing unilateral strategic arms cutbacks will entrance Moscow and persuade rogue proliferators to dismantle their programs. This is naive and dangerous.

(3) Global governance. Although the Copenhagen Conference on climate change failed to achieve anything like its sponsors’ objectives, their under lying push for greater international control over the economies of the world’s nations, and their tax and regulatory systems, continues unabated. In fact, as the president’s speeches – especially those given at the United Nations in September – demonstrate, he entirely buys into the notion of "global governance," with the United States in time subordinating elements of its sovereignty to international authority.

This worrisome predilection has only been whetted by the failure at Copenhagen, and we can anticipate far more activity in 2010 and beyond, not only on climate change but in a host of areas traditionally considered "domestic" policy (such as abortion, firearms control and the death penalty).

Frustrated by their failures in the United States, the American left has increasingly resorted to international treaties and conferences to advance its agenda. Mr. Obama’s administration is filled with people who share that worldview, including the president himself.

In short, if you were concerned in 2009 about America’s increasing international vulnerability and its decreasing global influence, you will find little to celebrate in the coming year. Our adversaries sense weakness across the board in Washington, and they will not hesitate to take advantage of it.

Importantly, whatever national security decisions Mr. Obama makes in 2010 will undeniably be his, as the passage of time diminishes his ability to blame President Bush and the situation he inherited. Happy New Year, Mr. President.

John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Countering Beijing’s new weapon

According to the incoming commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Robert F. Willard, "In the past decade or so, China has exceeded most of our intelligence estimates of their military capability and capacity every year. They’ve grown at an unprecedented rate in those capabilities."

Nowhere is this more evident than in China’s development of an anti-ship ballistic missile capability, specifically designed to target U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups that are the principle obstacle to China’s expansion goals in the Western Pacific.

On Nov. 19, Bloomberg News reported that the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) has disclosed that China is close to fielding a new anti-ship ballistic missile. Some experts say this weapon system could be a game-changer by creating "no-go zones" for U.S. aircraft carriers.

This missile system, when operational and combined with China’s developing over-the-horizon radar network and its new constellation of imaging and radar satellites designed to locate U.S. ships at great distances, will make for a potent weapon system.

It should be noted that China has accomplished this capability in just over a decade. Further, according to ONI’s Scott Bray, who wrote the report on China’s navy, China since 2000 has tripled to 36 the number of ships carrying anti-ship cruise missiles. Not to be overlooked is the fact that Russia also has developed advanced systems that have been sold to Iran, including the supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit/Sunburn anti-ship missile, specifically designed to strike ships with the Aegis Command and Control missile system.

However, all is not lost. The U.S. Navy has in its arsenal today, the capability "to pre-empt" China’s anti-ship ballistic missile system before it becomes operational.

This capability rests in the Zumwalt DDG 1000 destroyer that was designed over the last decade from the keel up to be stealthy, (thereby, enhancing survivability), and to prevail in any future war-fighting environment. The Zumwalt has the power, cooling, space and weight margin designed to meet the full spectrum of future threats, both known and unknown.

When completed, more than $14 billion in research and development will have been spent to gain at least a 10-year advantage in capability over our most likely foes – including China and Russia.

So what’s the problem? The Navy, driven to meet a near-term requirement contained in a dramatically changing national ballistic missile defense (BMD) strategy, has, without any supporting analysis, chosen to back-fit and concurrently build more of the 30-year-old-design Aegis Arleigh Burke class DDG51 destroyers with only the most basic BMD capability.

The Zumwalt class DDG 1000 destroyers designed from the keel up to handle this and future threats, now will be limited to three ships without a ballistic missile defense capability. I am sure both China and Russia are pleased with that decision.

The facts show that while the Aegis DDGs are adequate to the task today, these "new" Arleigh Burke DDGs and the radars they can physically support will quickly become obsolete against emerging high-end threats, e.g. anti-ship ballistic missiles. In short, they will have a threat-driven operational service life half that of a normal combatant ship. This means the Navy will incur a huge fiscal liability with the true cost of these DDG 51 ships, effectively doubling their initial cost on paper. Clearly, as a result, the Navy will be unable to achieve its needed force structure.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, acknowledged that China’s investment in anti-ship weaponry and ballistic missiles could prove a significant threat to the way we project power in the Pacific and help our allies, particularly from our forward bases and carrier strike groups. If left uncountered, the principal of deterrence will be significantly undermined. Further, critical options in a future contingency could be denied to the president.

On balance, a reasonable best option available to the Navy and the country today is acceleration of the Zumwalt class with full BMD capability. Designed from the keel up to deliver unsurpassed BMD war-fighting power, the DDG 1000 class destroyer combines huge electrical power margins (more than 20 times that available on even the newest DDG 51s) with designed-in open space for cooling, and with weight margins well in excess of what is needed to deploy highly powerful sensors, along with future weapons, that will put sea-based BMD well ahead of known BMD threats. Further, these ships are at least 50 times stealthier than the DDG 51s.

The Zumwalt DDG with relatively minor modifications will be able to pace the BMD threat for the next four decades. It is understood that firm low-risk plans and costs have been provided to the Navy to upgrade the three Zumwalt-class ships to full BMD capability. This can be achieved five years ahead of an Aegis BMD capability with a level of performance no DDG 51 can match now or in the future.

The Navy clearly must reverse course on its flawed decision to limit the Zumwalt-class DDG to three ships with no BMD capability. If the Navy fails to act, the defense secretary and Congress must make this decision in order to preserve future critical contingency options for the commander in chief.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters. He is also the Chairman of the Center’s Military Committee.

Confronting Nidal Malik Hassans erstwhile Martyrdom

From this AP story about the devout Muslim, execution-style murderer of US soldiers and civilian personnel at Fort Hood, Nidal Malik Hassan, surviving erstwhile “martyr”:

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades. They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case. One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan’s computer. Retired Army Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan, told Fox News that Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment.

It is likely that the full Nidal Malik Hasan comments alluded to in the AP story are these:

There was a grenade thrown among a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.

Dan Greenfield has a fine post about Hasan’s local Silver Springs, MD imam, Faizul Khan, who is at minimum a cultural jihadist. Regardless, Hasan’s own apparent views on jihad martyrdom are entirely consistent with mainstream, orthodox Islamic dogma on this sacralized killing of the enemies of Islam, which should not be conflated with “suicide” resulting from melancholia, or depression.

Franz Rosenthal, the late (d. 2002) Yale University scholar of Islam, who, 50 years ago, translated Ibn Khaldun’s classic Introduction To History, also wrote a seminal essay entitled “On Suicide in Islam” in 1946. Rosenthal’s research confirmed how Islam extolled “suicidal” martyrdom attacks:

While the Qur’anic attitude toward suicide remains uncertain, the great authorities of the hadith leave no doubt as to the official attitude of Islam. In their opinion suicide is an unlawful act…. On the other hand, death as the result of “suicidal” missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. However, such cases are no[t] suicides in the proper sense of the term. (Emphasis added.)

These orthodox Islamic views have been reiterated by Yusuf Al Qaradawi—“spiritual”  leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, head of the European Fatwa Council, and immensely popular Al-Jazeera television personality, as well as Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam. Sheikh Qaradawi openly endorsed murderous Palestinian homicide bomber “martyrdom” operations against innocent Israeli citizens (all of whom are considered “combatants” who obstruct the “call to Islam”) during a fatwa council convened in the heart of Europe (in Stockholm, July, 2003). For the past decade, Sheikh Tantawi, who is the nearest equivalent to a Muslim Pope, has also confirmed the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews, characterizing these grisly attacks as

… the highest form of Jihad operations… the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all…every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land

On July 25, 2005, historian David Littman attempted to deliver a prepared text in the joint names of three international NGOs, but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Islamic members of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights. Following repeated interruptions he was unable to complete his speech. Littman was simply trying to support the argument that those who issue fatwas to kill innocent people in the name of Islam are not real Muslims and should be treated as apostates. But as he noted, just before the 7/7/05 London bombings a major conference of 170 Muslim scholars from 40 countries meeting in Amman, Jordan gave an opinion in a Final Communiqué, dated July 6, 2005:

It is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion.

This unfortunate communiqué clearly provides immutable protection to authentic Islamic advocates of homicide bombing—like the “esteemed” clerics Yusuf Qaradawi and Al-Azhar Grand Imam Tantawi.

And the contemporary advocacy of such “martyrdom” operations by Islam’s most esteemed mainstream clerics is what ultimately gives legitimacy to the mass murderous actions of pious Muslims such as Nidal Malik Hassan. This is the unspoken, but irrefragable truth our craven “elites” in the military, government, and media must be forced to acknowledge, and confront.

 

Copyright © 2007-2009 Dr. Andrew Bostom

Why we need to test nuclear weapons

President Barack Obama made history last month when he presided over the nuclear nonproliferation summit at the United Nations Security Council. Since nuclear proliferation is among the most pressing threats facing the world, one would have thought that the president would use the Sept. 24 summit to condemn the newly discovered uranium enrichment facility in Qom, Iran.

He did not. Instead he asked the Security Council to pass a nonbinding resolution stressing the urgency of global disarmament and arms-control treaties among the five permanent Security Council members. The resolution never mentioned Iran or North Korea.

Mr. Obama also said, on behalf of the U.S., that "We will move forward with the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty" (CTBT). This is a profound mistake, as a ban on testing nuclear weapons would jeopardize American national security. Ten years ago this month the U.S. Senate rejected the treaty, and the reasons for doing so are even stronger today.

The CTBT then, as now, does not define what it purports to ban, which is nuclear-weapons testing. This ambiguity leaves countries free to interpret the treaty (and act) as they see fit. Thus, if the U.S. ratified the treaty, it would be held to a different standard than other nations.

Another concern in 1999 was that clandestine nuclear tests could not be verified. That, too, is still the case. While the treaty has not entered into force, the world still uses the treaty’s monitoring system (the CTBT Organizations International Monitoring System) to detect nuclear-weapons tests. But even when Pyongyang declared that it would conduct a nuclear-weapons test and announced where and when it would occur, this monitoring system failed to collect necessary radioactive gases and particulates to prove that a test had occurred.

The CTBT relies on 30 of 51 nations on its executive council—most of whom are not friendly to the U.S.—to agree that an illegal test has been conducted, and then to agree to inspect the facilities of the offending country (which can still be declared off-limits by that country). This enforcement mechanism is obviously unworkable.

But there’s another defect in the CTBT. There were concerns a decade ago that the U.S. might be unable to safely and reliably maintain its own nuclear deterrent—and the nuclear umbrella that protects our allies such as Japan, Australia and South Korea —if it forever surrendered the right to test its weapons. Those concerns over aging and reliability have only grown. Last year, Paul Robinson, chairman emeritus of Sandia National Laboratory, testified before Congress that the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons still cannot be guaranteed without testing them, despite more than a decade of investments in technological advancements.

Treaty proponents, nevertheless, believe the prospective benefit of ratification outweigh its risks and problems. And what, exactly, is the benefit of ratification?

Mr. Obama has said that if the U.S. ratifies the test ban treaty the world would finally get serious about the problem of proliferation, in other words, the nuclear-weapons programs of Iran and North Korea. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it at the Sept. 24 nuclear nonproliferation summit at the U.N., "CTBT ratification would also encourage the international community to move forward with other essential nonproliferation steps."

There is some evidence to test that claim. Iran and North Korea are already in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires that they do not develop nuclear weapons. Yet for years the world has been unable to agree that these nations’ NPT obligations must be enforced. If the world can’t or won’t enforce the NPT there is no reason to believe it would be any more effective in enforcing the CTBT.

Our allies have the same incentive to prevent Iran from going nuclear today as they would if the U.S. ratified the CTBT. There is nothing in the test ban treaty that enhances their incentive to stop Iran.

There’s a related theory, which is that the U.S. has to ratify the CTBT if it wants to have any credibility or leadership on nonproliferation. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller spoke for many in the arms-control community when she said at a nonproliferation conference in Virginia in August, "There is no step that we could take that would more effectively restore our moral leadership."

Aside from the fact that countries will act in their best interest whether or not the U.S. "leads" them, no one can legitimately question U.S. commitment on proliferation issues. No nation has worked harder than the U.S. to pressure North Korea and Iran, and there is no evidence that Russia and China would suddenly help us if we ratified the test-ban treaty.

Moreover, unlike other nations, the U.S. has not conducted a nuclear-weapons test since 1992; it has not designed a new warhead since the 1980s or built one since the 1990s. It has reduced its nuclear-weapons stockpile by 75% since the end of the Cold War and 90% since the height of the Cold War. Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent more than $7 billion on the Nunn-Lugar program, which deals with the "loose nukes" threat, and it will spend more than $2 billion on nonproliferation measures such as securing loose nuclear material this year alone. There is again no evidence one more symbolic gesture is going to change anything.

The immediate challenge we face is the threat posed by nuclear proliferation in the hands of rogue regimes. That, and not a flawed, irrelevant test ban treaty, is what the administration should focus on.

 

Originally published in the Wall Street Journal

 

UN Report: Counterterrorism ‘Unduly Penalizing Transgender Persons’

A report by U.N. Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin that is awaiting approval by the United Nations General Assembly says that security measures taken to detect terrorists "risk unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change.”

The report, which was issued August 3, places emphasis on "persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identities" and recommends that counterterrorism operations be more sensitive to gender issues.
 
On page 19 the report says: “Enhanced immigration controls that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny make transgender persons susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion.”
 
Just a few sentences later, Scheinin writes that “counter-terrorism measures that involve increased travel document security, such as stricter procedures for issuing, changing and verifying identity documents, risk unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change.”

“This,” he claims, “jeopardizes the right of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities to recognition before the law” 

Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, blasted the report in an interview with CNSNews.com

“It strikes me as a parody of U.N. political correctness and sexual universality,” Gaffney said, “and it’s just hard for me to believe that anybody thinks that these notions actually should trump security concerns – as I think it’s only too clear that … the people who are trying to blow us up have absolutely no use for any of these sexual proclivities.”

Gaffney also pointed out that terrorists “would be only too delighted to take advantage – indeed we’ve seen them taking advantage – of burqas and other subterfuges to disguise their malign intents.”

The report also takes aim at perceived gender roles, suggesting that counter-terror practices involving both sexes be reevaluated due to their basis in traditional perceptions of gender. 
 
One passage, beginning on page 13, says that “the United Kingdom anti-radicalization initiatives seeking to include Muslim women as counter-terrorism agents on the basis of their position ‘at the heart not only of their communities but also of their families,’ may reinforce stereotypical gender norms about roles of women within the family.”

“Instead,” Scheinin writes, “participation should be grounded on principles of gender equality, recognizing the unique gendered impacts of both terrorism and counter-terrorism measures.”

 

Continue Reading…

 

Peace in our time

Give President Obama this much.  He came to office promising climate change and, according to the committee that awards the annual Nobel Peace Prize, in nine short months in office he has achieved it. 

Barack Obama, of course, has not lowered global temperatures, carbon emissions or rising sea-levels.  Instead, the Norwegian Nobel Committee believes Mr. Obama deserves this distinction because he has given the world "hope for a better future."  This arises from his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." 

The Committee also enthused about Obama’s ensuring that "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."  And, thanks to the President, "dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."

In short, the Committee credited the President with having "created a new climate in international politics."  For that achievement, he has just earned $1.4 million.  (Fortunately for Mr. Obama, the Prize is actually given in Swedish crowns, a currency that may hold its value better than his own between now and the award ceremony in December.)

Sadly, these accolades ignore a natty reality:  Just as President Obama has not changed the planet’s atmospheric conditions, he has nothing to show for his climate change in other areas, either.  For example, none of the world’s other nuclear powers – not one – has promised to follow his lead in disarming their nations.  Neither, needless to say, have states like North Korea and Iran, whose nuclear ambitions are the most troubling.

Claiming that "dialogue and negotiations" are now "preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts" is not the same thing as saying that these instruments have actually resolved any international conflicts, let alone the most difficult ones.  Nor is it possible to credit Mr. Obama with using these instruments thus far particularly effectively.

Perhaps the most revealing of the justifications offered by the Nobel Committee for its rewarding with its Peace Prize a man whose accomplishments are principally oratorical rather than substantive is its claim that "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population." 

Now, President Obama’s diplomacy may be aligned with the values and attitudes of the majority of the world’s governments – comprised as that majority is of repressive regimes that see diplomacy as a way to legitimate and perpetuate their rule, not advance the well being of their populations, let alone that of "the majority" of the world.  Far from being worthy of the Committee’s high praise, such an alignment is a blight on America’s reputation.  It disserves this country’s interests and those of people worldwide who aspire to freedom (surely a majority of the globe’s population).

The panel summarized the ethereal (not to say surreal) nature of the justification for its award by declaring that "For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’"

In other words, the Nobel Committee really, really likes Barack Obama and what he stands for.  After all, he epitomizes the transnationalist nostrums and wooly-headed prescriptions the Committee has endorsed for decades.  Never mind that there is no more prospect they will conduce to peace in our time than they have in the past, let alone that Mr. Obama has to date proven otherwise.

The true justification of this exercise seems to be once again an effort by the folks in Oslo to demonstrate how much they really, really do not like George W. Bush.  Having given Jimmy Carter its Peace Prize in 2002 as an acknowledged slap at the then-incumbent U.S. President, having slammed the latter’s approach to "global warming" by awarding the Peace Prize in 2007 to Al Gore and a gaggle of like-minded UN scientists, conferring this tribute on Mr. Bush’s as-yet-unaccomplished successor is evidence not just of the far-left ideological orientation of the Norwegian panel, but of its pettiness.

If, against all odds, President Obama actually produces genuine peace in our time, he would certainly deserve international recognition and thanks from all of us.  Until then, neither the Nobel Committee nor the affinity many in the press and public feel for his rhetoric and agenda should mislead the rest of us into thinking he has actually earned the Peace Prize.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and host of the nationally syndicated talk show, Secure Freedom Radio. 

 

Brazil’s tilt towards Chavez and Iran

For those of us concerned with hemispheric security, the big question has always been how do we contain Chavez‘s expansionist ambitions. 

Under the Bush Administration, the answer, in the words of a Republican Senator was, "containment of Hugo Chavez should be undertaken by Latin American countries". This conception was consistent with the idea of a non-interventionist policy in Latin America. Indeed, even under the hawkish Bush Administration the policy was one of good neighborhood plus trying to develop trade relations. In terms of Hugo Chavez, the policy was basically to ignore his hostile anti-Americanism and even his interventions in neighboring countries. The hope was that Latin Americans would eventually realize that Chavez was the bad guy and thus try to isolate him. This never happened.

Apparently, the country the Bush Administration had in mind when suggesting the policy of containment was Brazil. Led by President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva (Lula), a pragmatist socialist, Brazil did not depend on Chavez’s largesse for their economic well-being. To the contrary Brazil has the largest and most dynamic economy in Latin America.  Therefore, their economic and industrial power would prevail over the ambitions of a mad man like Chavez whose power depends solely on the production of oil. 

The Workers’ Party (PT)

Lula’s party, the Workers’ party (PT) was founded in 1980 by trade unions that emerged in Brazil as a result of increasing urbanization. The PT, contrary to many party elites in Latin America, included grassroots organizations with permanent participation in decisions at every level. The PT includes a whole scope of socialist and popular movements such as unions, human rights groups, liberation theology groups within the Catholic Church (a Christian group that tries to reconcile between Christian theology and Marxism), environmentalists, women’s groups, indigenous, Afro-Brazilians groups and the powerful landless movement (MST). 

The radical component of the PT was clear. Lula was in sympathy with the ideas of Fidel Castro and together they founded the "Foro of Sao Paulo". The Foro" promised to provide an alternative against the Washington consensus and its neo-liberal policies as well as to the Third Way policies of the European left. The "Foro" was built as a Latin American network of solidarity between socialist, communists, and various groups, including some guerillas, to strengthen themselves in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet empire. "Foro" leaders include individuals such as Daniel Ortega from the Sandinistas as well as leaders from guerilla movements such as the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), the Union Revolucionaria de Guatemala (URNG), Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberación Nacional (FMLN) of El Salvador and the Partido de La Revolución Democrática de Mexico (PRD).  Liberation theology is also part of the "Foro". Hugo Chavez joined the Foro in 1995 when he was not yet president of Venezuela. The "Foro" holds an ardent anti-globalization and anti-American posture and also speaks for the rights of indigenous populations and promotes Indian separatism from the Latin American national states.

Thus, it was no wonder that the Bush Administration looked with skepticism at Lula’s election to the presidency in 2002. Initially, those suspicions were justified as Brazil moved to implement some of its pro-third world ideology.

As an example, Brazil hosted a South American/Arab summit in May 2005 where the Brasília Resolution was adopted. The resolution commends the Government of Sudan for its assistance in trying to solve the problem in the Darfur region without mentioning their   responsibility in leading the genocide taking place there.  The resolution also called for combating terrorism by having an international conference to study and define terrorism, but in such a way as to avoid a clear and unequivocal condemnation of terrorism. Similarly, it condemned the "Syria Accountability Act", a law passed by the U.S. Government to impose sanctions on Syria amid its support for terrorism. In addition, participants wanted an International Court of Justice to require Israel to tear down the security fence, which Israel built to prevent terrorist attacks.

Pragmatism vs. Ideology

Despite Lula’s socialism and third world anti-imperialism, he quickly transformed himself as a pragmatist in domestic and foreign policy. Once in power the PT built a broad coalition with parties from the center and from the right including the appointment of conservatives in the cabinet. Cooperation with entrepreneurs and with supporters of neo-liberal policies was pursued and implemented.

In foreign affairs, despite the traditional anti-imperialist approach of the PT, the party has not sought confrontation with the United States or with the International Monetary Fund. Likewise, he kept a distance from his former "Foro" peers, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, by refusing to adopt their anti-American dogmatisms. Similarly, Lula signed bi-lateral agreements of cooperation with the U.S. to develop alternative energy for the region.  Recently, he also distanced himself from all those in Latin America that objected to the establishment of more military bases in Colombia.

Lula’s attitude led U.S. policy makers to believe that Lula had the legitimacy and the pragmatism that would eclipse Chavez. However, a huge and very dangerous disappointment is emerging from Brasília in the last few months.

Lula’s Reversal: Embracing Iran and Enabler of Chavez 

Last summer, after Iran’s June 12th presidential elections, President Lula was the first western leader to recognize hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the legitimate winner in spite of wide spread indications of fraud.  The fact that those who protested the theocratic regime were courageous individuals fighting for freedom meant nothing to Lula. In fact, Lula ridiculously compared post-election protests in Teheran with a fight between fans of two rival soccer teams in Rio de Janeiro. No other country in the West except Venezuela recognized the legitimacy of the result of the Iranian elections.

Lula went further. During the last United Nations General Assembly, he defended Brazil’s relationship with Iran basically saying he cannot judge Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the way the June 12 elections were handled.  He also pointed out that he is "not ashamed of having relations with Iran".  Likewise, referring to Iran’s anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial Lula defended Ahmadinejad’s right "to think differently". Then, Lula announced that Brazil will send a trade mission to Iran in the coming months to explore areas of joint investment. Trade between the two countries quadrupled in the last five years.

It now seems that Lula Da Silva after years of remarkable pragmatism and centrism is returning to the days of radicalism. What is worse, Lula has moved from mere rhetoric into dangerous policy. He has provided Brazils’ embassy in Tegucigalpa to Mel Zelaya, the ousted president of Honduras, who was deposed late in June. Zelaya was deposed because he called for a constitutional reform following Chavez’ model, disobeying the will of the Honduran Congress and the Supreme Court. Zelaya did that after developing close relations with Hugo Chavez. Zelaya’s restoration to power has not only been on the agenda of his patron, Hugo Chavez, but also on the agenda of the Organization of American States and the U.S. Government. Negotiations to restore Zelaya led nowhere and then Brazil stepped in offering its embassy in Tegucigalpa to host Zelaya while he organizes to come back to power. Though we do not know how the situation in Honduras will evolve, it is clear that Zelaya’s presence in the country exacerbates violence and intensifies the possibility of a civil war. In other words, Brazil has been actively promoting violence in Honduras to serve the interests of no other than Hugo Chavez.

Interestingly enough, tensions between factions in the PT and Lula have been registered for years. Most of these tensions emanate from complaints from radical factions in the PT that claim that Lula has not carried social reforms far enough. One such movement is the Landless Movement or Movement of the Landless Workers (MST), which was an integral part of the foundation of the PT. The MST is a social movement whose goal to achieve agrarian reform was coupled with a radical militant ideology and semi-violent action that included road blockades and illegal take over of large pieces of land.

The MST, like the base of the PT, is part of the Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos (CBP), an organization controlled by Hugo Chavez aimed at reaching out to grassroots organizations throughout the continent. These organizations help to deepen Chavez’s Bolivarian revolution. In addition, they usually receive funds from Chavez.  The MST website (www.mstbrazil.org) displays articles and materials in support of Hugo Chavez and highlights the achievement of his revolution.

In other words, Lula’s government seems to be leaving the pragmatic road and embracing the demands of the most radical and most ideological factions within his constituency. Likewise, his astonishing policies towards Iran seem to revive the ghosts of Lula from the   "Foro of Sao Paulo". It looks like, contrary to expectations, it is Chavez containing Lula and not the other way around.

Does this behavior serve the interests of Brazil? 

Chavez and Iran have had very close relations. As it has been reported, both countries are partners in banking ventures whose only purpose is to help Iran avoid sanctions imposed on it. The more effectively Iran is able to circumvent sanctions, the more they can focus on developing their dangerous nuclear program. Chavez will also begin selling Iran 15% of the gasoline Iran needs with the same purpose in mind. It has also been reported a long time ago and confirmed recently by a Venezuelan high officer that both countries are cooperating in matters related to the extraction of uranium with which Iran could develop an atomic bomb and other aspects of nuclear technology.

Venezuela has been the main supporter of Iran, worldwide. As a result, Iran is deeply grateful to Chavez. Given this, what will Iran do to pay back their South American friend? Most likely Chavez will ask that Iran provide Venezuela with nuclear weapons once Iran obtains them. Chavez is a man with imperial ambitions who craves power. Lately, he has purchased large amounts of sophisticated weapons from Russia. Following this logic, it is clear to me that having a nuclear weapon will provide Chavez with the respect and the fear he needs to carry out his agenda of exporting his revolution, as well as controlling and deterring as many countries as possible.  This is even more frightening if we ask ourselves, why Iran would refuse to provide weapons to Chavez when, in fact, those weapons could place the U.S. under direct threat and provide Iran with a deterrence factor.

Most recently Jose Sarney, a former president and currently the President of the Brazilian Senate, pointed out that Venezuela’s aspiration to become a regional military power is worrisome. More troubling for Brazil and the region will be a nuclear Chavez-led Venezuela. Lula is not just the leader of the Brazils’ poorest. He was supported by a large middle class component that most probably rejects Brazil’s behavior. Polls already indicate that the PT candidate ranks third for the upcoming presidential elections.

Also, in its desire to become an influential country in the world, Brazil is seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Under the present circumstances Brazil does not deserve this seat unless it behaves with responsibility.  Historically, Brazil is a western country and its rise to power should be welcomed but not under the current circumstances. Nobody who has a moral and politically relativistic view of ominous individuals like Chavez and Ahmadinejad should be added to the community of world leaders. 

To the contrary, Brazil must overcome its moral and political schizophrenia and stand on the side of civilization and freedom against the barbarism and oppression of the Teheran-Caracas axis.

 

Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C

 

Making hash of Honduras

Now that the Honduran crisis has moved back into the media spotlight, we should examine what actually took place in Honduras as well as the Obama administration’s response because it provides an insight to where our foreign policy is headed. The anti-democratic movement led by the likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez (supported by Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega), who has destroyed democracy in Venezuela, has been derailed in Honduras.

The key issue in the Honduran crisis was the removal of President Manuel Zelaya for his illegal actions to force a referendum to change the Honduran constitution on presidential term limits, similar to what his ally Mr. Chavez did in Venezuela. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that his unilateral referendum was unconstitutional. The army, acting on orders from the Supreme Court, moved for his arrest and removal from office, and he wasflown to Costa Rica. This was no traditional military coup, as has been portrayed by the media and Mr. Zelaya’s left-wing supporters and regretfully by many in the Obama administration.

President Obama’s response was to say he was deeply concerned and to call on Honduran officials "to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Charters." Well, that is exactly what the Honduran government institutions did. Sowhy would the Obama administration want to join forces with the anti-American, anti-democratic forces led by Mr. Chavez, Fidel and Raul Castro, Mr. Ortega et al. to thwart the democratic process and install a Chavez-like dictatorship in Honduras?

We now have the secretary of state cutting more than $30 million in U.S. development aid (which only hurts the Honduran people) as one means of forcing Honduran officials to reinstate the ousted president for the remainder of his term. With help most likely from his leftist allies, Mr. Zelaya has surreptitiously returned to Honduras and has taken refuge in the Brazilian Embassy to avoid arrest. New elections are due in November.

The administration seems to be oblivious to how democracy can be challenged from within by ideologues who use the freedoms guaranteed by democratic institutions to subvert it, as is happening in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. The United States should be helping those countries preserve the independence of institutions that keep elected presidents from becoming dictators. In Venezuela, Mr. Chavez is guided by Cuba’s example as he attacks the press and systematically destroys the checks and balances of democraticinstitutions. Is this what we want to see happen in Honduras? Of course not!

Let’s not forget Mr. Chavez’s relationship with Iran. The Venezuelan president has signed economic and energy agreements totaling roughly $17 billion with the tarnished Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He also hosts and provides villas for representatives from the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists groups, both of which are supported by Iran.

Mr. Chavez also has established a strong military relationship with Russia and has embarked on a huge purchase ($15 billion to $17 billion) of military equipment, including tanks and Sukhoi jet fighters. None of this type of equipment will be of much use in the jungle, but it will help Mr. Chavez maintain control of the Venezuelan masses.

At a recently concluded a special summit in Argentina sponsored by Venezuela and Argentina, Mr. Chavez led his allies in opposition to the United States’ long-term access to Colombian bases to fight drug-trafficking and Marxist rebels. However, they were unsuccessful in derailing this important Colombian-U.S. relationship.

The Obama administration’s position on Honduras is symptomatic of a larger retreat from leadership that has our allies and friends nervous. For example, the administration’s scrapping of the planned missile defense system to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic by 2013 – with apparently nothing in return – will be seen as selling out our allies in Eastern Europe. Administration funding cuts for our anti-ballistic missile programs and advanced fighters like the F-22 may cause others to doubt America’s willingness to defend even itself.

This plus Mr. Obama’s willingness to embrace America’s adversaries will not make for successful foreign policy. Appeasement has not worked in the past and is destined to fail again. Mr. Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe on American foreign policy by Nicaragua’s paragon of democracy, Mr. Ortega, at the fifth summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, Trinidad, in July. The best response he could muster was that he was glad Mr. Ortega didn’t personally blame him for things that had happened when he was 3 months old. Shocking! Since when does the communist Mr. Ortega set the criteria for American foreign policy?

The practiced cool demeanor of our president will not enhance his stature or his popularity with those who plan to do harm to the United States. Respect for American ideals and the competence of our military forces should be the pillars for our foreign policy, which should support constitutional democracies and defend them against the predations of Mr. Chavez, the Castro brothers, Mr. Ortega and Mr. Morales.

Retired Navy Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations and deputy chief of naval operations, in which position he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.

Adm. Lyons is the chairman of the Center’s Military Committee.

The Obama doctrine

Undermine our allies.  Embolden our enemies.  Diminish our country. 

Those nine words define the Obama Doctrine with respect to American security policy.  All three elements were much in evidence in the President’s benighted decision last week to cancel the "Third Site" for intercontinental-range missile defenses in Eastern Europe.  They will be on display as well during this week’s several conclaves with foreign leaders. 

The cumulative effect is predictable: A world in which the United States has fewer friends, more enemies and less options for assuring its security.

Let’s start with the decision to abandon defense of our allies and the American people with interceptors based in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic.  President Obama and his minions at the Defense Department tried to confuse the issue by claiming that revised intelligence assessments of the Iranian threat justified such a step. 

Rubbish.  Anyone following Iran’s ballistic missile developments knows that the mullahs are determined to acquire missiles of sufficient range to be able to attack not only Israel and other targets in the Middle East but our allies in Europe and Americans here at home.  This is evident in the strides Tehran has recently made with solid-fuel rockets and with space-launch vehicles. 

If, against all odds, the latest intelligence estimates are right that it will take Iran a bit longer to get such long-range missiles, it would mean that we just might be able to have defenses against them in place before they are needed.  That would have meant a powerful boost to the confidence and solidarity of the NATO alliance, whose Eastern European members could especially use it in the face of ever-more aggressive Russian behavior.

Instead, the Obama administration has: rewarded that Russian behavior; undermined NATO’s confidence and solidarity; and debased American credibility and reliability.  It has also left the United States naked to the sorts of intercontinental-range threats Iranian missiles will constitute in due course.

This will be the case no matter how many additional defenses the Pentagon puts in place at sea or ashore (welcome as those are) against the shorter-range missiles Iran is now deploying.  The difference is, as Mark Twain once put it, like that between lightning and a lightning bug:  Team Obama has unmistakably capitulated at the geo-strategic level and no amount of obfuscations about revised intelligence or "stronger, smarter and swifter" missile defense architectures will conceal that fact.

 Unfortunately, in the process of capitulating, Mr. Obama has not only emboldened the Russians.  To be sure, they will see no reason now to abandon their Iranian allies.  Read: no help to us on new, more effective sanctions against Iran; no cessation of nuclear cooperation with Tehran; completed delivery of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft systems to protect Iran’s nuclear sites from Israeli or (hard as this is to imagine at the moment) our attacks, etc.  The Kremlin will also drive an even harder bargain in the strategic arms negotiations now underway, pressing an all-too-willing American president to denuclearize the U.S. arsenal in ways that may suit Russia’s agenda but disserve our security interests.

 The President has also further emboldened the Iranian mullahs.  They now know that – no matter what they do – they will be able to realize their nuclear weapons ambitions.  They will even be allowed to hold Europe and America at risk.  They need simply run out the clock for a few more months, which can be accomplished with or without further conversations demeaning their feckless Western interlocutors. 

Make no mistake:  With such steps, Mr. Obama is systematically diminishing the United States, effecting its transformation from what was once called "the world’s only superpower" to a nation subordinated to the demands of international consensus, organizations, "peer competitors" and even rogue states.

We can expect to see this doctrine in full flower during the President’s forays this week into Middle East peace-making, nuclear disarmament and reordering the world economic system.  

For example, during President Obama’s scrum with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the so-called "president" of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, he will not only try to coerce our ally to make political and territorial concessions to Palestinians who hate Israelis and us.  There will also likely be a push for a new round of "peace" negotiations in Moscow jointly sponsored by the U.S. and Russia.  No good can come of legitimating, let alone supporting, the machinations of Putin’s Kremlin in the Mideast.

Then, at the UN, Mr. Obama will personally preside over a Security Council session at which he will, evidently, affirm his commitment to a "world without nuclear weapons" – without evident regard for the fact that the only nation he can possibly denuclearize is ours.  Suffice it to say that the exercise will be one big pander to transnationalism and enhancing the preeminence of the United Nations, and America’s submission to its superior moral legitimacy and authority.

Finally, the economic version of the Obama Doctrine will play out in Pittsburgh at the so-called "Group of 20" summit.  There, efforts to affirm and consolidate sovereignty-sapping global financial regulatory schemes will be accompanied by attempts to formalize a new "multi-polar" world.  Bribes will be offered to emerging powers like China, India and Brazil in the form of promises of development assistance, technology transfers and institutionalized power if only they accede to "climate change" arrangements that will savage U.S. and Western economies.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

         

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated Secure Freedom Radio.