Outlook 2005: Struggle for Security, Iraq Elections  and War Dominate Agenda 

by Catherine Gordon

In early December the United Nations released a new report, "A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility." The report was commissioned more than a year ago, after the debacle of the start of the Iraq war and its impact on the Security Council and the U.N. in general.

The report gives 101 recommendations on how the United Nations should modernize in response to the full range of issues which an increasingly interconnected world must face. For the first time the U.N. defines terrorism, a definition which emphasizes the violence against civilians. They identify terrorism as actions "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

What is most remarkable about this report is its redefinition of "collective security" from the original stated reason for the founding of the United Nations-the prevention of war-to a definition that addresses the security issues the world faces today:

• Economic and social threats, including poverty, infectious diseases, and environmental degradation;
• Inter-State conflict;
• Internal conflict, including civil war, genocide, and other large-scale atrocities;
• Nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons;
• Terrorism;
• Transnational organized crime.

The report attempts to create a new vision of collective security, which could help the United Nations function more effectively and perhaps allow the United States to be more secure. It also addresses many of the security concerns of the United States, including nuclear proliferation and prevention of nuclear terrorism. 

This U.N. report must be backed up with support and action by the United States and the other nations of the world. The U.S. will only be secure if it works for the collective security of all. However, the ongoing assaults by the Bush Administration-and some Members of Congress-on international law may place this new vision of collective security out of reach. 

The International Criminal Court and International Law

The omnibus spending bill, signed into law in early December, contained an amendment sponsored by Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) which prohibits certain aid for countries that have not signed "bilateral immunity agreements."  These agreements are part of an effort by the United States government to obtain immunity for all U.S. citizens and certain foreign nationals from transfer to the International Criminal Court. The bilateral agreements further weaken the International Criminal Court, which was established to prosecute those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is the most recent attempt by some in the U.S. government to undercut the norms and institutions of international human rights and humanitarian law. And with the proposed nominee for Attorney General (who argued that the "war on terrorism" should not be subject to the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions), this trend is likely to continue in the coming year.  The United States will continue to dismiss international law except when useful for obtaining its own ends and for burden sharing of its own initiatives. 

Landmines

In 2004 the Administration announced its landmines policy, which rejects the mine ban treaty and asserts the right of the U.S. to use mines in combat, and doesn't agree to give up  anti-personnel mines until 2010. This policy will most likely stay in place in the coming year.

National Missile Defense

On December 15th, the first  test flight in two years of the developing national missile defense system failed, when an interceptor missile did not launch.  This was an embarrassing setback for the Administration and further proof that, despite the more than 100 percent increase in funding, the system is no more workable. One major concern is that in the coming year, the Administration's drive to deploy the missile defense system-as well as an offensive nuclear policy-could further damage current arms control efforts and lead to nuclear proliferation rather than security. It is unlikely that this policy will change in the coming year.

According to the World Policy Institute, "thirty two key appointees of the administration are former executives, consultants, or major shareholders of top defense contractors. And, 22 former advisory board members or close associates of the Center for Security Policy, a vocal missile defense advocacy group funded in part by missile defense contractors, have been appointed to key policy making posts." 

New Nuclear Weapons

While the funding for new nuclear weapons development was taken out of the omnibus appropriations bill passed in December, there will be several opportunities in early 2005 for supporters of these programs to reinstate the funding. A supplemental spending bill is expected to be submitted by the President in early February of 2005.  The Administration is not expected to ask for new nuclear weapons in this request, but some  supporters of nuclear weapons may try to restore the funds through an amendment. 

There may also be an attempt to include funding for new nuclear weapons in the Department of  Defense budget. This funding is usually included in the Energy and Water Appropriations, whose subcommittee chairman and ranking Democrat strongly oppose new nuclear weapon funding.  Including it in the defense budget is an attempt to get around these detractors. 

Iraq

The situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate and it seems likely that it will continue to deteriorate in the coming year. A recent study published in the Lancet estimates that 100,000 Iraqis have died because of the war and the conditions of occupation.  Half of these are estimated to be women and children. Malnutrition among the youngest children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the U.S.-led invasion.  The ongoing military occupation in Iraq will continue to cause more casualties, foster extremists' causes, and hinder reconstruction of the country.

While elections are to be held in January, it is probable that they will be seen as illegitimate, for they are being held under U.S. occupation and under election rules which were written by the United States. In addition, the lack of U.N. election experts on the ground and the continued lack of security will further call the election into question.