Tag Archives: United Nations

Are honor killings simply domestic violence?

On February 12, 2009, Muzzammil Hassan informed police that he had beheaded his wife. Hassan had emigrated to the United States 30 years ago and, after a successful banking career, had founded Bridges TV, a Muslim-interest network which aims, according to its website, "to foster a greater understanding among many cultures and diverse populations." Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III told The Buffalo News that "this is the worst form of domestic violence possible," and Khalid Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, told the New York Post that Islam forbids such domestic violence. While Muslim advocacy organizations argue that honor killings are a misnomer stigmatizing Muslims for what is simply domestic violence, a problem that has nothing to do with religion, Phyllis Chesler, who just completed a study of more than 50 instances of North American honor killings, says the evidence suggest otherwise. —Editors, Middle East Quarterly

When a husband murders a wife or daughter in the United States and Canada, too often law enforcement chalks the matter up to domestic violence. Murder is murder; religion is irrelevant. Honor killings are, however, distinct from wife battering and child abuse. Analysis of more than fifty reported honor killings shows they differ significantly from more common domestic violence.[1] The frequent argument made by Muslim advocacy organizations that honor killings have nothing to do with Islam and that it is discriminatory to differentiate between honor killings and domestic violence is wrong.

Background and Denial

Families that kill for honor will threaten girls and women if they refuse to cover their hair, their faces, or their bodies or act as their family’s domestic servant; wear makeup or Western clothing; choose friends from another religion; date; seek to obtain an advanced education; refuse an arranged marriage; seek a divorce from a violent husband; marry against their parents’ wishes; or behave in ways that are considered too independent, which might mean anything from driving a car to spending time or living away from home or family. Fundamentalists of many religions may expect their women to meet some but not all of these expectations. But when women refuse to do so, Jews, Christians, and Buddhists are far more likely to shun rather than murder them. Muslims, however, do kill for honor, as do, to a lesser extent, Hindus and Sikhs.

The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 5,000 women are killed each year for dishonoring their families.[2] This may be an underestimate. Aamir Latif, a correspondent for the Islamist website Islam Online who writes frequently on the issue, reported that in 2007 in the Punjab province of Pakistan alone, there were 1,261 honor murders.[3] The Aurat Foundation, a Pakistani nongovernmental organization focusing on women’s empowerment, found that the rate of honor killings was on track to be in the hundreds in 2008.[4]

Continue Reading…

 

Yes, they can

Senator Barack Obama became President-elect on the uplifting, if inexact, slogan, "Yes, we can."  This week, there is growing evidence that people who have in mind doing away with the presidency of the United States – and all other aspects of our secular, democratic and constitutional form of government – are similarly convinced of their inevitable success. Judging by the sheer audacity of their agenda, "Yes, they can" would appear an apt description of the prospects for the Saudis and other champions of the totalitarian program they call Shariah. 

In the run-up to an emergency summit outgoing President George Bush has called to address the now-global financial crisis, the oil-rich Islamists of the Persian Gulf led by Saudi Arabia have not only established that their petrodollars are indispensable to any solution. They also seem to have secured the Bush Administration’s acquiescence to the sinister strings attached to any bail-out of the West in which they might participate.

Specifically, the Saudis and their friends want the United States to join those, particularly in Europe, who have accommodated themselves to Shariah.  No, we are assured, they aren’t taking about the brutal theo-political-legal code that features such barbaric practices as beheadings, floggings, stonings, amputations, female genital mutilation and mysogeny more generally. 

All they want, those in the know insist, is for Washington to encourage Wall Street – more and more of which is owned by the U.S. government – to embrace Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF). A Treasury Department seminar convened last week depicted SCF as nothing more than a kind of socially responsible investing vehicle that respects Muslim religious beliefs by eschewing interest-bearing transactions and those involving pork and "sin" stocks. So, what’s the big deal? The Catholics, Methodists and Jews have their funds, why not the Muslims?

What makes the Shariah-Compliant Finance gambit both a big and troublesome "deal" is that, unlike these other religious traditions, Shariah’s adherents are pursuing a global theocracy. They believe they must impose their agenda on everybody else, religious and secular alike, using violence if necessary. And SCF is explicitly described by leading practitioners as a complement to violent holy war: "financial jihad" and "jihad with money."

In other words, there is no such thing as free-standing Shariah-Compliant Finance. According to all of the recognized authorities and institutions of Islam, Shariah is a unified, indivisible program to which all faithful Muslims must adhere comprehensively.  

Not surprisingly, therefore, the Saudis & Co. are not simply seeking to insinuate Shariah-Compliant Finance into our capital markets. They are also advancing the creation of a parallel Shariah-governed society through various other means. 

One of these techniques will be in evidence when the Saudi monarch himself convenes a meeting in New York City in the hope of imposing Shariah blasphemy laws worldwide. In light of the stated, and seemingly benign, purpose of the so-called "Culture of Peace" event hosted by King Abdullah at the United Nations – namely, promoting interfaith understanding and tolerance, numerous world leaders, including President Bush, will be present. Never mind that Saudi Arabia is arguably the most intolerant nation on earth, a fact even some in the Bush administration have acknowledged.

The real reason attendance at the King’s séance is going to be impressive, of course, has more to do with the hope that petro-largesse will flow to those who ingratiate themselves to the House of Saud. Abdullah appears confidently to have signaled that, if the West plays ball on the "Culture of Peace" agenda, the Saudis and their fellow Islamists will be constructive at what might be called the subsequent "Culture of Money" meeting in Washington.    

What will the answer be when the Islamists insist that free speech must not allow the slander, libel or defamation of Shariah, or other aspects of their faith?  If the European Union and the United Nations Human Rights Council have already accommodated themselves to this demand, why should we object?  So what if, by so doing, we would effectively thereby be precluded from talking about – or even understanding – the Islamist threat we face, to say nothing of eviscerating the First Amendment?  As the Treasury Department can attest, we need the money.

Unfortunately, this is no time for us to be diminishing awareness throughout the Free World of the various, grave dangers we face from adherents to Shariah’s seditious program. London’s Sunday Telegraph reported this weekend that a classified British government assessment has concluded that there are "some thousands of extremists in the U.K. committed to supporting Jihadi activities, either in the U.K. or abroad."

Such extremists are said to be engaged in attack planning in the United Kingdom "either under the direction of al-Qaeda, or inspired by al-Qaeda’s ideology of global Jihad" (read, Shariah).  They may inflict "mass casualties" and constitute a "severe" threat to the Government Security Zone (including the Houses of Parliament and key executive offices) in the heart of London.

At such a moment, a federal judge in Oregon has held the law criminalizing material support for terror is unconstitutionally "vague." Taken together with the other manifestations of our capitulation, is it any wonder the champions of Shariah are convinced that "yes, they can" have their way with us?  Who will disabuse them of this terrifying notion?  We can, but will President-elect Obama lead the way?

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a founding member of the Coalition to Stop Shariah (USAStopShariah.org).

Israel and the Palestinians: Ending the Stalemate

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s July 30, 2008, announcement of his intention to resign from office and the recent upsurge in internecine violence between Hamas and Fatah eratives in Gaza has thrown a monkey wrench in the Bush administration’s goal of seeing and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority sign a peace treaty laying out the borders and powers of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008. But even in the unlikely event that such an agreement is reached, far from stabilizing Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians, it will likely have either no impact on the Palestinian conflict with Israel, or a profoundly negative one.

Indeed, even if the outgoing Bush administration and the lame duck Olmert government manage to sign a peace treaty with the increasingly powerless remnants of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, that achievement is liable to be quickly eclipsed by violence that will follow the signing ceremony. The likely upsurge in Palestinian violence against Israel, in turn, will demonstrate that the Administration’s stated aim of establishing a Palestinian state—an aim which is supported by the Israeli government—has little relevance to the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel.  Moreover, seeking such a state today will likely exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, the conflict.  Indeed, the aftershocks of such an agreement will make clear that both Israel and the United States are basing their policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on false assumptions about the nature of that conflict.

Role Reversal

In 1993, when Israel first recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian Arabs, the Israeli and American perception of the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation underwent a profound change—as did both countries’ chosen paradigm for resolving the conflict.

Prior to 1993, both Israeli and U.S. policies were based on the view that the root of the conflict was the Arab world’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist. That view was codified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which asserted that two principles were to form the basis of any “just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” The first was an Israeli withdrawal from some of the territory taken over by the Israel Defense Forces during the June 1967 Six-Day War. The second was that the Arab states must accept Israel’s right to exist. While Resolution 242 was purposely vague about the extent of future Israeli territorial withdrawals, its language on the second component of a future Middle Eastern peace was explicit.

It asserted that a future Middle Eastern peace would be based on the “termination of all claims of states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders free from threats or acts of force.”

Since Israel has consistently demonstrated its  readiness to make territorial compromises for a lasting peace with its neighbors, it was this second condition that formed the foundation of both U.S. and Israeli policies towards the Palestinians specifically, and the Arab world generally, from the end of the Six-Day War until the onset of Israel’s peace process with the PLO in 1993.

In basing their policies on the need for the Arab world to accept Israel’s right to exist, successive American administrations and Israeli governments found themselves out of step with Western Europe, the Arab League, the United Nations and the Soviet Union. For these powers, the root of the conflict was not a refusal of the Arab world generally or the Palestinians specifically to accept Israel’s right to exist, but Palestinian statelessness itself.1

The difference could not have been more profound. The Israeli-American view placed the burden of change on the Arabs. The European-Soviet-UN view placed the burden for change on Israel. In the former case, the underlying assumption was  that the principal obstacle to peace was not Israeli claims to lands it took control of during the Six-Day War but the Arab world’s refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Until the Arabs changed their view, peace would be impossible.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Spreading the wealth

During last week’s debate, Republican presidential candidate John McCain struck upon a theme that polls suggest is resonating with American voters:  His rival, Barack Obama, is determined to engage in the sort of redistribution of wealth that has long been the hallmark of the radical Left.  As the Senator from Illinois famously told an Everyman questioner named Sam Wurzelbacher – who will forever be known as "Joe the Plumber": "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

The days following the third Obama-McCain debate have been filled with invective, much of it aimed at obscuring the extent to which Senator Obama actually embraces a redistributionist agenda.  Democratic partisans have emphasized their man’s proposal to give tax cuts for 95%, insisting that only the rich earning more than $250,000 would be soaked. Republicans have retorted that 40% of Americans pay no taxes, so they would actually be getting tax credits – significantly increasing the wealth dispersed at the government’s discretion.  Along the way, Joe the Plumber became political road-kill, his professional, political and tax status the object of withering scrutiny and criticism.

As it happens, Sen. Obama has exhibited a commitment to "spreading the wealth around" that extends far beyond his ominously socialistic Robin Hood agenda for this country.  Late last year, he introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433).  Interestingly, one of the bill’s original co-sponsors was Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a man rumored to be a leading candidate for Secretary of Defense in an Obama administration.  Another sponsor is the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, who moved S.2433 to the Senate floor without a single hearing in his Foreign Relations Committee.

The stated purposes of this legislation purport to be as modest as they are seemingly laudable.  Who can object to the goal of dramatically reducing hunger and privation that afflicts hundreds of millions around the world?  And who could find fault with congressional direction that the President come up with a strategy to advance this goal?

[More]Unfortunately, the apparently innocuous language of S.2433 belies a larger and troubling purpose, one that augurs ill for those of us who still think of ourselves as American citizens – rather than as, in Sen. Obama’s words, "citizens of the world."  It would explicitly make it the policy of the United States " to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

The operative phrase in this problematic policy directive is "the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal."  In fact, the bill would require that the mandated presidential strategy coordinate "the goal of poverty reduction with the other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals." (Emphasis added.)

The Obama bill makes clear, in turn, that the latter are the objectives laid out by the United Nations General Assembly in its 2000 "Millennium Declaration" resolution.  As the legislation goes on to note, these goals include (but are not limited to): "eradicating extreme hunger, promoting gender equality, empowering women," combating communicable diseases, "ensuring environmental sustainability," affording access to clean water and sanitation and "achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers."

Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid reminds us that, in order to advance these ambitious goals, the Millennium Declaration would require the United States to apply "0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance."  

In other words, for each year between 2002 and 2015, the United States would have to cough up roughly $65 billion over-and-above its current foreign aid distributions.  This amounts to a staggering commitment of at least $845 billion – all of which is to be given to the notoriously incompetent and corrupt United Nations to manage. 

Voters need to establish whether, as it appears, Sen. Obama has, in fact, no problem with either the magnitude of this redistribution of wealth or with the idea of having international bureaucrats dole it out.  We also must know whether he agrees with the UN functionary who is the driving force behind its Millennium Project, Harvard professor Jeffrey Sachs, who insists that a new "global tax" on carbon emissions is required to underwrite his agenda for spreading the wealth around.

If these obligations were not bad enough, Kincaid points out that, "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, [the Millennium] Declaration commits nations to banning small arms and light weapons and ratifying a series of wildly controversial treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as ‘the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.’"

Just as wealth creation domestically has proven to be more conducive to national prosperity than wealth redistribution, it would be far better to find ways to grow the global "pie," rather than have national or international officials apportion it to their liking.  One of the most promising ways to do the latter is to adopt another piece of bipartisan legislation: the Open Fuels Standards Act. 

This legislation (H.R. 6559 in the House and S.3303 in the Senate) – which neither Sens. Obama nor McCain have as yet co-sponsored – would require most new cars in the United States to be capable of running on ethanol or methanol, as well as gasoline.  Inevitably, this Open Fuel Standard would become the international one.  The result would be to enable some 100 countries around the globe to begin growing their own fuel, rather than continuing to impoverish their peoples by having to buy oil at exorbitant prices from OPEC. 

Rewarding America’s Joe the Plumbers for their enterprise, rather than penalizing them, is the right answer for this country and its economy.  Similarly, we are far more likely to see the wealth earned pursuant to the Open Fuel Standard truly alleviate world poverty than by having politicians or officials impose global taxes – and spread around the resulting revenues, at huge expense to U.S. taxpayers and their sovereignty and interests.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

A world without America

Q. What do Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Barack Obama have in common?  

A. The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Democratic candidate for president of the United States of America have both chosen to spend much of their lives in the company of people who are virulently hostile to this country.   At least some of them seek to bring about, as Ahmadinejad puts it, a "world without America."

 
 

As it happens, Ahmadinejad will be given Tuesday a platform for his anti-American invective by the United Nations.  That organization increasingly not only shares a generalized transnational ambition to transform a sovereign, powerful United States in favor of one-world government.  Worse yet, thanks to the growing petro-wealth and aggressiveness of the leaders of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN is actually starting to accommodate itself to that bloc’s ambition to have the new world order be arranged according to the totalitarian program the Iranian and other Islamists’ call Shariah.

In the early days of the Iranian revolution, Ahmadinejad was a street thug (and, according to some Americans taken hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran, one of their tormentors) in the service of the radical Shiite Islamist, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.   Ever since, he has been rewarded for his loyalty to the most intolerant strains of Islam and for his hostility to the "Great Satan."  

Today, that service continues as the front-man for the current ruling theocracy, led by another radical cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.   The Iranian regime is not content with having Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touting repeatedly its determination to bring about a world without America – and, by the way, without Israel, either.   It is acting to acquire the capability to fulfill these genocidal threats with the development and deployment of the means of launching unimaginably destructive nuclear attacks against these nations.  

Is that possible?   Unfortunately, given Israel’s small size and concentrated population, a single weapon could effectively achieve Ahmadinejad’s stated goal of "wiping Israel off the map."   Less well understood is the fact that, according to a congressional commission, a single nuclear weapon used to unleash a devastating electro-magnetic pulse via a nuclear detonation in space, could cause "catastrophic" damage to this country, too.   By some estimates, were the electrical grid to be taken down for a very long time, nine out of ten Americans would be unable to survive.   A world without America, indeed.

Thankfully, the friends of Barack Obama who have exhibited their own, rabid hostility toward this country have had more modest ambitions towards "changing" this country – or at least not been in a position to act on Iranian-style apocalyptic visions.   It is now common knowledge, however, that his pastor for twenty-years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, called on God to "damn America" and that one of Obama’s early political allies, convicted terrorist William Ayers, expressed regret that he was unable to "do enough" when it came to "setting bombs."  

[More]Before Messrs. Wright and Ayers, though, there was "Frank," the name Obama gives in his memoirs to a man he describes as a formative influence during his early years in Hawaii. It turns out this Frank was none other than Frank Marshall Davis, a Stalinist black Communist whom the inestimably valuable Cliff Kincaid has identified as a "high-level operative in a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii," which "the communists had targeted…largely because of its strategic location and importance to the U.S. defense effort." Kincaid describes Davis as a "propagandist, racial agitator and recruiter for the Communist Party of the USA." He reports that, during the 19 years Davis was under FBI surveillance, Obama’s mentor "spent much of his time" photographing Hawaii’s shorelines and beachfronts – presumably not for their scenic value.    

Last, but not least, there is increasing evidence of Obama’s long-standing ties to two others with records of hostility towards this country. According to investigative reporter Kenneth Timmerman, the first is Khalid al-Mansour (a.k.a. Don Warden), once a prominent advocate for racist black nationalism.  Since his conversion to Islam, al-Mansour has worked closely with a Saudi billionaire anxious to "exert influence in the United States," Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. 

It will be recalled that the latter was the Wahhabi whose largesse then-New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani famously spurned after 9/11 upon learning the Saudi royal had blamed American policies for that day’s horrific attack.   Obama reportedly benefited from these Islamists’ help in securing a position at Harvard Law School – a university that now has a $20 million center named for the prince that helps legitimate the seditious practice of Shariah in America.

We know that Barack Obama has, in the past, declared his willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition.   While he has subsequently qualified that commitment, it seems fair to conclude that, given what they have in common, the Democratic candidate would feel unencumbered by a reluctance to dignify – to say nothing of encourage – so vociferous a proponent of anti-Americanism as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  

It is clear what kind of "change" the Iranian president believes in and that which has animated several of Barack Obama’s long-time friends.   This week’s presidential debate may afford an opportunity to determine to what extent change inimical to America is also what the Democratic candidate believes in.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

 

China’s one world?

With all the world’s attention focused on the Beijing Olympics and to a lesser extent, the "truce" in Georgia, we should not underestimate the serious implications for U.S. strategic objectives posed by the Chinese military modernization programs, (Russia’s announced modernization programs is another element).

Notwithstanding China’s propaganda about banning weapons in space, the People’s Liberation Army now has a demonstrated capability to intercept and destroy U.S. satellites in Polar and Low Earth Orbits. We should expect that more capable follow-on to the SC-19 anti-satellite weapon will allow the PLA to target even higher orbit satellites, like our critical GPS navigation and radar surveillance satellites.

As it builds systems to fight in or from space, China is also quickly exploiting space for military missions on Earth. China has an initial electro-optical and radar satellite constellation that will this year be joined by Russian-designed surveillance satellites. It should be noted that China has broken with Europe’s Galileo navigation satellite program and will loft its own 30 satellite constellation to compete with the United States, Russian and European NavSat Systems. In April, China launched its first tracking data relay satellite to lessen its dependency on ground satellite control and relay stations. The emerging systems will in the near future enable global precision targeting by Chinese weapons.

China’s space surveillance is being complemented by even more capable ground and sea systems. China has built several sky-wave based Over-the-Horizon radar stations that for the first time allow the PLA to monitor continuously U.S. Navy ship movements hundred miles out in the Western Pacific. China will also soon have new underwater sonar sensor networks designated to monitor and greatly aid in targeting U.S. submarines.

The PLA’s space networks and ground surveillance systems will help target the PLA’s new revolutionary long-range anti-ship ballistic missiles. Today, the 2,500-kilometer-range DF-21C medium range ballistic missiles and the 700= kilometer-range DF-15A tactical missiles are being deployed along the Taiwan Straits. While those missiles were influenced by the old U.S. Pershing 2 radar guided ballistic missile, China’s system is far more capable and effectively keeps U.S. carrier battle groups out of their range until the U.S. Navy can put enough truly effective anti-missile defenses to sea.

It also argues for a stealth long-range attack aircraft as part of the airwing to provide more flexibility on how we employ our carriers. China can in the future sell these missiles to its rogue allies like Iran and further complicate U.S. security objectives.

Complementing the anti-ship ballistic missiles, China has purchased advanced Russian anti-ship missiles like the supersonic Sunburn and the very advanced Club-two-stage anti-ship missile. (We need to ensure that our ship defense can defeat these missiles). China also is developing its own advanced anti-ship missiles and its navigation satellite-guided bombs, like the U.S. JDAM.

By 2010, the PLA Navy could have about 60 very modern to moderately capable submarines. The threat from conventional and nuclear submarines cannot be overstated. Even older "Ming" class designs from the 1970s are modernized, and have been quieted enough so they can approach a ship and get off one deadly shot.

The implications for the U.S. Navy are clear. In 1987, I had 255 ships including seven aircraft carriers in the Pacific Fleet which is almost what we have in the entire Navy today.

We have taken some steps to improve our anti-ballistic and anti-ship missile capability, but more needs to be done. We obviously need to ramp up our ship building program. Cancellation of the Zumwalt DDG-1000 program was the right move with more focus on building Arleigh Burke DDG-51 missile destroyers and improving their defensive capability.

With increasing range of anti-ship missiles, our carrier airwings need a long- range stealth attack capability, both manned and unmanned. With the accelerated modernization of both China and Russia’s military forces, the silver medal won’t carry the day.

James "Ace" Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (the largest single military command in the world), senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations and was deputy chief of naval operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters. He is currently the military adviser to the Center for Security Policy.

 

Chinas Cuba-Venezuela connection

Since the People’s Republic of China took over control of the Panama Canal in 2000, China has been rapidly increasing its activities in Latin America.  In terms of economic activities, trade between China and Latin America increased 10 times in less than 10 years.  President Hu Jintao’s visits to several Latin American countries in 2004 and his promise to invest $100 billion in the region also illustrate China’s increased presence in Latin America.

Although China is establishing closer ties with numerous countries inLatin America, its close relations with Cuba and Venezuela deserve special attention.  Some analysts assume that China’s ties with Cuba and Venezuela are primarily economic and are compatible with U.S. interests.  Considering, however, China’s alleged weapons sales to Cuba and Venezuela, Chinese electronic spying facilities in Cuba, and Chinese opposition to U.S.-led efforts regarding these two anti-American regimes, it is reasonable to conclude that such Chinese advancement does hurt U.S. security interests

 

China’s Connections with Cuba and Venezuela 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of economic, political, and military support from the Soviet Union, it was China who rescued Cuba from their severe economic crisis. China had provided interest-free loans to Cuba in the early 1990s, and in 2001 China signed an Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement, under which China offered substantial support to Cuba, including an additional $6.5 million interest-free loan and a $200 million grant to modernize Cuba’s telecommunications. Furthermore, China and Cuba started 10 operative joint ventures with a particular focus on pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.[i] 

In 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao signed a trade agreement which called for $500- million-Chinese-investment in Cuban nickel plants and an annual 4,400 tons of Cuban nickel exports to China.  China also agreed to provide a $6 million grant to Cuban hospitals, materials for school uniforms valued at $6 million, and one-million television sets.  Trade between the two countries reached $2.2 billion in 2007, almost a 250 percent increase from 2005.[ii]  In the last few years, China became Cuba’s second-largest trading partner, next to Venezuela.[iii]  The frequent high-class military exchanges and the expansion of weapons systems provided by China to Cuba show the close military ties that now exist between the two countries.[iv]

In terms of Chinese-Venezuelan relations, Hugo Chavez’s visit to China in 1999 illustrated the strong ties between the two countries.  During his trip, Chavez signed a number of oil and political agreements, including Venezuela’s purchase of Chinese military equipment and China’s dispatch of military trainers to Venezuela.[v]  Indeed, after the failed attempt to overthrow Hugo Chavez in 2002, PLA military trainers replaced U.S. military trainers in Venezuela.[vi] 

 

China’s Weapon Sales to Cuba and Venezuela

In June 2001, citing U.S. intelligence sources, the Washington Times reported that state-run China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) sent "at least three shipments of weapons" to Cuba during 2000.[vii] A Chinese spokesman, Zhang Yuanyuan, denied the allegations saying, "China has supplied the Cuban military with logistics items – never arms," although he refused to specify what kinds of "logistics items" China provides.[viii]  Being asked if explosives were included, the Chinese spokesman simply said that explosives could be used for both civilian and military purposes.[ix]  Some claim that such military logistic items are used to modernize the base and other military equipment, including Russian war planes.

An intelligence source told the daily El Nuevo Herald, a Spanish newspaper published in Miami, that China limits its military assistance to logistical items, such as radars and aircraft equipment.[x] Additionally, because the U.S. State Department denied that the government had documents "confirming" China’s allegations, it seems that Chinese military sales to Cuba are in fact limited to "logistical items."  Jason Feer from CubaNews claims that China is unlikely to supply lethal weapons to Cuba because such an act triggers a 1996 U.S. law that requires U.S. economic sanctions against a country that provides significant arms to Cuba.[xi]  However, now that China controls the Panama Canal, where most ships from the Pacific pass through in order to reach Cuba, such speculation causes one to wonder how the United States detects China’s weapon sales to Cuba without any U.S. presence at the Panama Canal.[xii] 

China is getting closer to selling significant weapons to another anti-U.S. regime in Latin America-Venezuela.  The United States used to be a principal military supporter of Venezuela until Hugo Chavez took over the government.  However, now that Chavez is President of Venezuela, Venezuela recently purchased a modern communications satellite and three Chinese long-range defense radars in an attempt to reduce its dependency on the United States.  The contract includes China’s right to have leased access to a satellite communications network.  According to the Press Association, this satellite is to be launched on November 1, 2008.[xiii]  Al Santoli, a former Senior Vice-President of the American Foreign Policy Council, testified to Congress that one intelligence source reported that China recently offered to sell FC-1 fighters to Venezuela.[xiv]  Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, even claims: "We can anticipate that Chavez will soon be buying Chinese weapons."[xv]  Indeed, a news article of the Press Association on August 18, 2008, reported that President Chavez said that Venezuela is looking to purchase Chinese-made military planes.[xvi]  

 

China’s Electronic Espionage Facilities in Cuba and Intelligence Sharing

China operates several electronic and cyber-warfare bases in Cuba, which, according to Al Santoli, "not only permit enhanced electronic surveillance of broad areas of the U.S. at present," but also "can be used to disrupt critical U.S. strategic communications during a period of conflict."[xvii] China seems to operate at least three electronic and cyber spying facilities in Cuba: one in Santiago de Cuba, another in Bejucal, and the third in Lourdes.

A spying facility in Santiago de Cuba, located in the far east of Cuba, seems to be intercepting U.S. satellite signals, including military satellite communications, according to Cuban sources in 1999.[xviii][xix][xx] An espionage base in the Bejucal area is said to possess complex telephone interception systems.[xxi][xxii][xxiii] In Lourdes near Havana, China reportedly operates an electronic espionage facility after Russia abandoned its largest espionage facility outside the former Soviet Union in 2001.[xxiv]  Al Santoli claims that these bases have been camouflaged under a pretext of China-Cuba collaboration regarding telecommunications.[xxv]

In 2005 China was accused of conducting espionage activities using front companies to steal sensitive military technologies from the United States, Britain, Germany, and Canada.[xxvi]  Considering China’s past attempts some are rightly concerned that while China’s close military ties does not provide an immediate military threat to the United States, it enhances China’s asymmetrical military options because China was able to obtain "major listening posts and communications jamming stations in Cuba."[xxvii]

Additionally, as Chavez has suggested that he may provide China and Cuba with some U.S. military jets so they can study the technology,[xxviii] it is possible for these three countries to cooperate in espionage against the United States and share intelligence with their anti-U.S. friends, such as Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism (See The Americas Report on July 24, 2008, article by David Witter).  

 

China as a Guardian of State-Sponsor of Terror and Anti-U.S. Regime

China has been a powerful advocate of Cuba, a state sponsor of terror as designated by the U.S. State Department.  Chinese President Jiang in 2001 claimed that China "supports the Cuban people’s fight to safeguard state sovereignty…and reject foreign intervention and threats…. Politically we support and understand each other."[xxix]  Indeed, China consistently opposes U.S. sanctions on Cuba at the United Nations.  

For example, China’s UN representative criticized the United States for maintaining the embargo on Cuba in October 2004 and opposed U.S.-led efforts to condemn Cuba for its repression of civil and political freedom in April 2005.  It is also important to remember that China has veto rights on the U.N. Security Council that could be used against any decision seeming to harm China’s friends, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, North Korea and others.

Castro and Chavez seem to know from prior experience that the United States will not take any strong actions against them if China is on their side. Now two anti-U.S. regimes in Latin America seemed to have gained a powerful ally that supports their undemocratic regimes.[xxx]

 

China Threat: Strategic Positioning around Latin America and the World 

Not only has China obtained energy and natural resources from Cuba and Venezuela, but it has also succeeded in gaining anti-U.S. friends with strategic locations, creating a counterweight to the United States in Latin America.  Considering Chinese control of the Panama Canal, other Chinese attempts to secure strategic locations around the world, Chinese rapid naval modernization beyond capabilities necessary at the Taiwan Strait, and its support to anti-U.S. regimes, policy makers in the government and on Capitol Hill should be able to connect the dots and realize what such moves by the Chinese really mean and how the United States should respond. 

It seems clear that the Chinese government is interfering with U.S. efforts to contain openly hostile regimes in its hemisphere; a policy that should be considered in the overall U.S.-China relationship. Finally, Evan Ellis, a Latin American analyst at Booz Allen Hamilton, provides a great hint regarding what these Chinese moves may mean: "Chinese strategic thinking, from the writings of Sun Tzu to classic games such as ‘go’ emphasize the value of setting the stage, as much as the battle itself.  The idea is to position oneself at an advantage in all possible realms -politically, militarily or physically-so that if a tangible confrontation must occur, the adversary simply cannot prevail."[xxxi]

 

Yojiro Konno is a senior sociology major at Grinnell College, IA. He is interested in public policy and is currently an intern at the Center for Security Policy.

[i] "Cuba and China: the new face of an old relationship." AllBusiness. September 22, 2006. (http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/3975916-1.html)

[ii] "Cuba-China Ties in Focus as Standing Committee Member Visits Fidel." Transpacifica. June 27, 2008.

(http://transpacifica.net/2008/06/27/cuba%E2%80%93china-ties-in-focus-as-standing-committee-member-visits-fidel/)

[iii] "Chinese presence, interests in Cuba growing." The Miami Herald.  June 24, 2007. (http://www.hemisferio.org/al-eeuu/boletines/02/75/pol_20.pdf)

[iv] "China and Cuba: Dangerous Liaison."  NewsMax.  June 29, 2001. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/28/211846.shtml)

[v] Testimony of Albert Santoli.  July 21, 2005. "China’s Strategic Reach into Latin America."  (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_07_21_22wrts/santoli_albert_wrts.htm)

[vi] Testimony of Albert Santoli.  July 21, 2005. "China’s Strategic Reach into Latin America."  (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_07_21_22wrts/santoli_albert_wrts.htm)

[vii] "China and Cuba: Dangerous Liaison."  NewsMax.  June 29, 2001. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/28/211846.shtml)

[viii] The Washington Times.  2001. "China claims sale of ‘logistics items,’ not arms." (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y01/jun01/14e4.htm)

[ix] The Washington Times.  2001. "China claims sale of ‘logistics items,’ not arms." (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y01/jun01/14e4.htm)

[x] Asia Times. 2001. "China/Cuba/US Taiwan tit-for-tat."  (http://www.atimes.com/china/CF22Ad04.html)

[xi] Asia Times. 2001. "China/Cuba/US Taiwan tit-for-tat."  (http://www.atimes.com/china/CF22Ad04.html)

[xii] The Washington Times.  2001. "China claims sale of ‘logistics items,’ not arms." (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y01/jun01/14e4.htm)

[xiii] "Venezuela to Launch Satellite." August 18, 2008. The Press Association. (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOiDMTD1_8Can9ZlVOBVbLstAd6Q)

[xiv] Testimony of Albert Santoli.  July 21, 2005. "China’s Strategic Reach into Latin America."  (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_07_21_22wrts/santoli_albert_wrts.htm)

[xv] Testimony of Albert Santoli.  July 21, 2005. "China’s Strategic Reach into Latin America."  (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_07_21_22wrts/santoli_albert_wrts.htm)

[xvi] "Venezuela to Launch Satellite." August 18, 2008. The Press Association. (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOiDMTD1_8Can9ZlVOBVbLstAd6Q)

[xvii] "China’s ‘Peaceful’ Invasion: Latin America attractive as market for arms sales."  Washington Times.  November 20, 2005.  (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/nov/20/20051120-124045-3471r/?page=3)

[xviii] Stephen Johnson.  October 2005.  "Balancing China’s Influence in Latin America."  Heritage Foundation.  (http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/upload/84474_1.pdf)    

[xix] Testimony of Albert Santoli.  July 21, 2005. "China’s Strategic Reach into Latin America."  (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_07_21_22wrts/santoli_albert_wrts.htm)

[xx] "Castro And Cuba Dance With China How Cuba-China Relations Will Affect The U.S." 2002. NBC6.  (http://www.nbc6.net/hanktester/1497131/detail.html) 

[xxi] Stephen Johnson.  October 2005.  "Balancing China’s Influence in Latin America."  Heritage Foundation.  (http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/upload/84474_1.pdf)    

[xxii] Testimony of Albert Santoli.  July 21, 2005. "China’s Strategic Reach into Latin America."  (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_07_21_22wrts/santoli_albert_wrts.htm)

[xxiii] "Cuba and China: the new face of an old relationship." AllBusiness. September 22, 2006. (http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/3975916-1.html)

[xxiv] Stephen Johnson.  October 2005.  "Balancing China’s Influence in Latin America."  Heritage Foundation.  (http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/upload/84474_1.pdf)    

[xxv] Testimony of Albert Santoli.  July 21, 2005. "China’s Strategic Reach into Latin America."  (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_07_21_22wrts/santoli_albert_wrts.htm)

[xxvi] Fred Stakelbeck. "Sino-Cuba energy relations raise concern in Washington" Aug, 2006. (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/energywatch/oilandgas/features/article_1190927.php/Sino-Cuba_energy_relations_raise_concern_in_Washington?page=2)

[xxvii] Testimony of Albert Santoli.  July 21, 2005. "China’s Strategic Reach into Latin America."  (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_07_21_22wrts/santoli_albert_wrts.htm)

[xxviii] "China’s ‘Peaceful’ Invasion: Latin America attractive as market for arms sales."  Washington Times.  November 20, 2005.  (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/nov/20/20051120-124045-3471r/?page=3)

[xxix] Menges, Constantine C. 2005. China: the gathering threat. Nelson Current.

[xxx] "China and Cuba: Dangerous Liaison."  NewsMax.  June 29, 2001. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/28/211846.shtml)

[xxxi] "China’s ‘Peaceful’ Invasion: Latin America attractive as market for arms sales."  Washington Times.  November 20, 2005.  (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/nov/20/20051120-124045-3471r/?page=3)

Taiwan arms freeze

When President Bush came to power in 2001, his administration had an announced policy to improve the defensive posture of Taiwan. However, recent statements from the administration have made it clear that the president has suspended or is "freezing" arms sales to Taiwan for an undetermined period. While administration officials deny such a "freeze" exists, other reports have suggested the freeze may become permanent.

Such a policy choice would be a tragedy not just for the people of Taiwan, but for our U.S. military forces who may have to defend Taiwan from a Communist China that shows no inclination to consider a future for Taiwan other than from its own dictat. In view of the rapidly expanding Chinese military modernization program, the current freeze makes no sense.

Taiwan, along with our friends and allies, could not be faulted for viewing the freeze as a first step in abandoning democracy for Taiwan and adding a significant degree of uncertainty to our Asian security policy. This is not a legacy President Bush should want to leave for his successor.

As Adm. Timothy Keating, current USCINCPAC (United States Pacific Command) commander, recently pointed out in an address at the Heritage Foundation, Taiwan’s military equipment is getting older, leading to an expanding imbalance as the People’s Republic of China (PRC) accelerates the modernization of its military forces, which include a force projection capability. There are reports that China is planning to construct an amphibious force consisting of 6 new Type O81 helicopter assault ships and 3 Type O71 landing dock assault ships. These forces are clearly not for defensive purposes.

[More]Since his election in March, President Ma Ying-jeou and the new Kuomintang (KMT) government have moved quickly to reduce tension with mainland China. The Bush administration has worked hard to show its preference for many of the moves the KMT government is now trying to do. However, for the people of Taiwan and for the United States, the preservation of democracy on Taiwan remains paramount.

Chinese military writings over the last decade have made it patently clear that Taiwan’s value to China is as a new military base. They look at Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier; controlling Taiwan will allow Chinese military forces to break out of what has been called the "First Island Chain" and to then dominate East Asia. Even with President Ma’s conciliatory moves to reduce tension with mainland China, there has been no reciprocity by the PRC. Since the Taiwan election in March, China has shown no inclination to reduce its order of battle facing Taiwan, or even to slow the rate of growth in these forces. The Chinese air force flies up to five sorties a day up to the "midline" of the Taiwan Strait, creating a strain on Taiwan’s air defense posture, made more burdensome by the increasing number of nearly-impossible-to-evade, long-range Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles.

Since 2001, the number of Chinese ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan has increased from about 400 to over 1,250, and include 250 new land attack cruise missiles. The number of modern, fourth-generation fighters facing Taiwan has grown from about 150 to about 500. The number of modern submarines has grown from about eight to about 30. This does not include the new underground submarine pens on Hainan Island, which provide a base to interdict the critical sea lines of communication coming from the Straits of Malacca to Taiwan and our allies Japan and South Korea.

Had the Bush administration’s original 2001 arms sales package to Taiwan of new destroyers, new Patriot anti-ballistic missile interceptors, P-3 anti-submarine aircraft and eight new, conventional submarines been transferred immediately, Taiwan might have been able to sustain a margin of technical superiority and deterrent capability. Further, as many as 66 new F-16 fighters that Taiwan has requested in the last two years would also have to be added to the equation.

There can be no errors in preserving the military balance in the Taiwan Strait. We either have a sincere interest in Taiwan’s ability to defend itself, as stated in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, or we do not. I suggest that America continues to have vital interest in sustaining Taiwan’s survival as a democracy, plus a vested interest in helping the Taiwanese to defend themselves. Failing in our responsibility to provide the necessary defensive arms to Taiwan could force Taiwan to renew a latent nuclear weapons program to maintain some semblance of deterrence in the Straits.

Until mainland China changes its totalitarian regime and can accept Taiwan on its own terms, the creditability of American leadership demands that we do what’s necessary to defend freedom on Taiwan. This should be the legacy that the Bush administration leaves for its successor.

James A. Lyons Jr., a retired U.S. Navy 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.

 

Citizen Obama

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s single most illuminating statement in the course of a just-completed overseas tour was his self-description during the stop in Berlin as a "citizen of the world."  Widely interpreted as nothing more than an innocuous expression of solidarity with his adoring, post-nationalist hosts, this declaration is actually just the latest indication that Senator Obama embraces a vision of his own country and its role in the world that should be exceedingly worrisome to America’s citizenry.

The appellation "Citizen" has a checkered past.  French revolutionaries used it  first to distinguish the common man from the reviled aristocracy, then to enforce their reign of terror on both.  Orson Welles entitled his classic film modeled on the life of William Randolph Hearst "Citizen Kane" – depicting an unscrupulous demagogue who, despite his privileged background, nearly obtained high elective office on a populist platform.

[More]Now Citizen Obama uses a turn of phrase with no less troubling overtones.  The notion of world citizenship has become a staple of transnationalists who seek to subordinate national sovereignty and constitutional arrangements to a higher power.  They are working to replace, for example, our directly elected representatives operating in a carefully constructed system of checks-and-balances, with rule by unaccountable elites in the form of international bureaucracies, judiciaries and even so-called "norms." 

Citizens of the world can have their rights circumscribed or even eliminated without their consent.  For instance, in March the Organization of the Islamic Conference – what amounts to a Muslim mafia organization – demanded that the UN Human Rights Council (dominated by the OIC’s members) amend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The effect was to alter the foundational freedom of expression so as to prohibit speech that offends adherents to Islam.

World citizens embrace the idea that the United Nations and other multinational organizations are imbued with a moral authority not found in nation-states like ours.  When he was the Democratic Party standard-bearer, Senator John Kerry famously described American foreign and defense policy as only being legitimate when it passed a "global test" – in other words, approval by the international community.

Today, the Democrats’ incipient nominee subscribes to the view that, as he put it in Berlin, " The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together."  Global citizenship amounts to code for subordinating American interests to our putative responsibilities as a member of the international community.  The former can be pursued only to the extent our fellow global citizens – or, more precisely, their unelected, unaccountable spokesmen in Turtle Bay , Geneva , The Hague or other seats of "world government" – approve.

To further such a subordination of American power, the transnationalists have long sought to enmesh the United States in a web of treaties and institutions.  These include: the World Trade Organization (which now routinely rules against U.S. companies and economic interests while giving a pass to Communist China’s); the International Criminal Court (which has just established an ominous precedent for U.S. officials by indicting the sitting – albeit opprobrious – president of Sudan); and the Law of the Sea Treaty (described by its admirers as a "constitution of the oceans," it assigns unprecedented responsibilities for control of the oceans and even activities ashore to international organs).

Of course, the notion that there truly is such a thing as an "international community" is a conceit of the transnationalists.  In practice, decisions are made by majorities usually dominated by the world’s authoritarians – Russia, China, the so-called "non-aligned" of the developing world and, increasingly, the Islamist states.  The subordination of U.S. freedom of action, let alone national security, to such a world citizenry is a formula for disaster.

A riveting insight into this reality was provided a few months back when the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre addressed a meeting in New Orleans, the scene following Hurricane Katrina of the forceful disarmament of law-abiding U.S. citizens.  Mr. LaPierre showed a video which included a chilling statement from a senior UN official to the effect that, while she understood Americans were reluctant to part with their firearms, they had better get used to being "citizens of the world" just like everybody else.

For many in Sen. Obama’s audiences, references to "global citizenship" must sound about as benign as his mantra about promoting "change we can believe in."  It all has a sort of Rodney King-like quality to it:  "Can’t we all just get along?"

In fact, the terminology Citizen Obama uses reveals an attachment to a radical transformation of not just our foreign policy but of the nature of our country itself.  The "change" he has in mind could prove fatal to our sovereignty and constitutional form of government.

Questions about the appropriate role of America in the world and how it conducts its relationships with foreign powers are, of course, essential topics in any presidential campaign.  That is particularly true at a moment when the United States finds itself engaged in a global war with a totalitarian ideology, Islamofascism, that has embedded itself in many allied countries and enjoys strong support from most of our foes.

It falls most immediately to Senator John McCain to highlight Citizen Obama’s radical answers to these questions and ultimately to U.S. voters to determine whether they want a global citizen in the White House or a president of, by and for the American people.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

LNG port security

Rising oil and gas prices, environmental concerns and the possibility of domestic gas shortages have drastically increased demand for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) within the United States.

There are six active U.S. LNG terminals, with 40 more marine LNG facilities proposed to service the U.S. market. LNG facilities are unique and the ships transporting it are highly visible and easily identified targets. They are extremely vulnerable to a terrorist attack, which if successful, could have catastrophic results. Within the continental United States, the U.S. Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, currently has the lead responsibility for LNG tanker and marine terminal security.

As the frequency of LNG tanker arrivals in U.S. ports increases, and new LNG terminals are built, U.S. Coast Guard resources and personnel are being severely overextended and are unable to balance the demand of LNG security requirements against other critical and growing Homeland Security responsibilities, as well as carry out their traditional search and rescue, law enforcement, marine safety and environmental protection missions.

Recent congressional testimony has shown there is a widening gap between the extent of LNG missions that the Coast Guard is called upon to perform and the budgets and resources currently available. In many cases, the U.S. Coast Guard is forced to fill these gaps by calling upon local law enforcement agencies to provide additional waterside security when LNG tankers deliver their shipments. In most cases, the local police departments do not have the level of training or legal authority that the Coast Guard has to conduct the water-based security missions and interventions. Furthermore, neither the Coast Guard nor the local law enforcement agencies are adequately funded or staffed to perform this mission.

The U.S. House of Representatives Coast Guard Authorization Act 2008, HR 2830 in Section 720 and 721 takes some positive steps to improve security for LNG terminals and tankers. While positive in intent, the House Bill incorrectly places full responsibility for security on government, state and local agencies.

The U.S. Coast Guard and the administration are right in objecting to the requirements as drafted. As written, it is too resource intensive at all levels. Further, it does not provide the U.S. Coast Guard any flexibility in adjusting resources to address various threat levels. However, it does allow the Coast Guard to take into consideration local law enforcement forces being applied. This does not solve the problem because this is an unfunded mandate for local governments and reduces their resources for traditional community law enforcement protection, which is not acceptable. Further, in most cases, they are not trained for this mission. You must have specially trained personnel such as counterterrorist SEALs to defeat a determined terrorist attack.

The solution is to place more responsibility for security on LNG terminal and tanker operators. There is an excellent precedence for this approach established by the U.S. Congress when it passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This Act required tanker operators and oil terminals to have pre-established contracts for oil spill cleanup. This model should be applied to LNG terminals and tanker security as well. The Senate can correct the problem when it prepares the Senate (DELTE) version of the Coast Guard Authorization Act 2008. The Senate version should include the following:

  • A requirement that LNG terminals and tanker operators directly or through contract provide necessary surveillance, tanker escort and waterside security to meet maritime (MARSEC Level 1) security threats.
  • Authorization for the U.S. Coast Guard to accept and rely on surveillance, tanker escort and waterside security provided by the LNG terminal and tanker operator to meet routine (MARSEC Level 1) security threats.
  • A requirement for approval by the U.S. Coast Guard of the necessary surveillance, tanker escort and waterside security to meet routine (MARSEC Level 1) to be provided by the LNG terminal operators as part of the basic application for an operating license.

The joint House Senate conference then needs to include the above provisions in the final U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act for 2008.

Note: We’re pleased to feature a new column by the chairman of the Center for Security Policy Military Committee, Admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. Admiral Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (the largest single military command in the world), 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. Admiral Lyons’ biweekly columns in the Washington Times will appear here as a National Security Forum.