This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ideas defense + diplomacy for
2011 | reimagine development in foreign policy
10 Ideas for Defense & Diplomacy
July 2011 National Director Hilary Doe Director of Operations Tarsi Dunlop Lead Strategist for Defense & Diplomacy Rocky Taylor Cole Editor James M. A. Hobbs Alumni Reviewers Brad Bosserman Charsaree Clay Kevin Powers Taylor Jo Isenberg
The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network A division of the Roosevelt Institute 455 Massachusetts Ave NW Suite 650 Washington, DC 20001
Copyright © 2011 by the Roosevelt Institute. All rights reserved. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors. They do not express the views or opinions of the Roosevelt Institute, its officers or its directors.
Defense & Diplomacy
Congratulations to Chris scanzoni
with Christian Blanco
Mark Caine sarah Hadburg anthony Petti Rose stanley
The Moral equivalent of War
Nominee for Policy of the Year
Inside the Issue
Entrepreneurial Foreign Aid Kevin Dean Scrapping the Osprey Michael Francus A New Approach to 21st Century Governance Ashley Herzovi Renewable Energy as an Incentive for Peace Keri Majikes Reforming Private Security Contractor Use Peter Nauka Child Friendly Aid Provision Hannah Nemer An Expanded HIV/AIDS Relief Focus Hannah Nemer Building America’s Next Grand Alliance Jonathan R. Sherman Statehood for Somaliland Benefits U.S. Security Elizabeth Watkins Humanitarian Aid Reforms for the U.S. Military Marie Zoglo The Moral Equivalent of War Chris Scanzoni with Christian Blanco, Mark Caine, Sarah Hadburg, Anthony Petti, and Rose Stanley
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
p Letter from Washington
We are pleased and proud to present the third edition of the 10 Ideas Series. Comprised of six journals, these articles represent the best of our student policy work from across the country. Students are told they are too young to participate in the policy process and that they must wait their turn. Roosevelt’s founders believed, as we do, that the next generation of leaders deserves a voice in current political debates. In the winter of 2009, the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network launched a national initiative called Think 2040, asking young people to design the future they want to inherit. Millennials nationwide contributed their individual visions at campus and regional Think 2040 conversations as well as through Think2040.org, a website designed to capture the values and ideas of a generation. These diverse voices were encapsulated in the recently released Blueprint for Millennial America; this summer we’re proud to publish this set of policy ideas that will move us forward towards our shared vision for 2040. Young people want to reinvent our social safety net to lift Americans up during tough economic times when support is most important. They want to see community needs drive investments in high-speed rail, build local green job corps, and devise a renewable energy market. Millennials identified preventative care and a culture of wellness as a key priority, with more access to fresh food and community health clinics. As future leaders, they want equity in opportunity for all Americans through access to quality education; they see it as vital for long-term economic growth and competitiveness in the world market. In order to inherit this future, we must start building it today. Roosevelt members research, design and write their policy ideas from a grassroots perspective; in doing so, they exemplify a generation of committed practitioners who strive to understand public policy in the context of effecting long-term change. Yale is working to support the revitalization of city blocks in New Haven through loans to low-income entrepreneurs, while the health care policy center collaborated with Young Invincibles to design information toolkits for their graduating peers. Northwestern University received a grant to conduct a survey to establish a baseline of single-use disposable bag usage on campus and is also working with stakeholders in Evanston IL to forgo the use of plastic bags. Students in the DC area are consulting with Teach for America at a low-income Washington D.C high school, and at ASU, they are working to develop a hydroponic garden to build a more sustainable university community. Some of the ideas you read here will make their way into state and local government offices or become part of a federal discussion while others may become initiatives through partnerships. We are proud to showcase our students’ ideas and we hope that you feel inspired to join in their efforts. Tarsi Dunlop Director of Operations
strategist’s Note P
The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network has long sought to empower students with ideas that tackle America’s myriad challenges. In the realm of defense and diplomacy, building a platform where students can share their ideas is particularly daunting. Washington’s tendency to treat defense and foreign policy issues as sacrosanct restricts the number of voices that can be heard, or at least taken seriously, when it comes to policies addressing war, diplomacy, and international development. While the Campus Network has already shown great success in promoting student thought in areas such as health care, financial reform, and equal justice, our efforts to introduce Millennial ideas on foreign policy remained largely academic, cut off from the real world. Until now. This year, the Defense and Diplomacy Center made enormous progress in breaking the glass ceiling preventing students from sharing their ideas on foreign policy and defense. We began with Think 2040, a nationwide effort to identify the core values Millennial Americans want to see upheld in our foreign policy. We hosted the Defense, Diplomacy, and Development Conference at the George Washington University, where we brought together a group of students, policymakers, and academics to translate those core generational values into a grand strategy. Finally, we released our Budget for Millennial America, which extrapolated specific policy recommendations from the core values identified at Think 2040 events and at the Defense, Diplomacy, and Development Conference. This journal, now in its third year, continues our progress by demonstrating the work of Roosevelt students across the nation in this monumental year. It presents a tableau of ideas driving this year’s campaign to reform foreign policy in the vision of our generation’s interest, tackling issues ranging from reforming military procurement to establishing new diplomatic relations, from making international economic cooperation more lucrative for entrepreneurs in developing economies to addressing the military threat from energy dependence. Taken together, the ideas in this journal hint at a Millennial vision for a 21st century grand strategy founded on a three-pillar concept of balanced defense, diplomacy, and development priorities. These proposals demonstrate ways to achieve this vision by reforming budgets, restructuring the foreign policy community, and reconsidering priorities. We hope you enjoy it. Rocky Cole Lead Strategist, Defense and Diplomacy
Entrepreneurial Foreign Aid
Kevin Dean, Michigan State University Congress and the State Department should create an online marketplace that allows entrepreneurs and small businesses in developing countries to connect with consumers in the United States. The focus of Secretary Clinton’s Global Entrepreneurship Program (GEP) is building and sustaining entrepreneurial capabilities in Muslim communities worldwide, utilizing the power of private-sector development to improve standards of living and relations with the United States. President Obama hosted the first Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship in April 2010.1 Key Facts
analysis Congress and the State Department should contribute to Secretary of State Clinton’s GEP strategy by creating a one-stop online marketplace to aid entrepreneurs in developing countries. While a number of NGOs engage in such market-connection activities, U.S. government involvement would bring added diplomatic benefits to innovative, effective international development. The State Department’s creation of such a program contributes to fulfilling U.S. declarations of support for development, lending credibility to the United States in its interactions with foreign governments and peoples. This online marketplace will connect sellers in developing countries with buyers for their products in the United States. Consumers could browse the site for the products they are interested in and purchase them. Then, with the help of U.S. logistical aid, sellers can ship those products. This marketplace would act as both an economic boon to existing entrepreneurs and as an incentive for others to undertake entrepreneurial activity. Business owners, their families, and their communities would all benefit from this kind of consumer-driven aid. As incomes rise, locally directed spending power would also rise in these developing economies. The U.S. should negotiate to place the goods sold on this marketplace into the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), a trade preference program in the U.S. that allows products from low-income countries tariff-free access to the U.S. provided that these goods can be shown not to have significant direct competition with domestic U.S. producers. Americans, too, benefit from a new source of innovative and interesting products. Small businesses in the U.S. will not be threatened by the entry of these products into American markets, which can be guaranteed under the GSP framework. Further, increasing
• In april 2010, secretary of state Hilary Clinton committed the United states to promoting entrepreneurship abroad and assisting with international development through the Global entrepreneurship Program (GeP).3 • according to the Global entrepreneurship Monitor (GeM), 22.8 percent of the workingage population in countries at an early stage of economic development is involved in startup entrepreneurial activity, with a further 12.6 percent owning established businesses more than 3 years old.4 • a majority of startup entrepreneurs in nearly every country referenced above has less than 1 percent of customers from outside of their own country.5
incomes in developing countries is an investment in future trading partners that will benefit U.S. businesses. This empowering approach to foreign aid is a progressive contribution to American interests as well as to those of the global community at large. One obstacle to the implementation of such a program is that lo• Talking Points • an online marketplace, like an amazon.com cal business owners often lack the for developing-country small businesses, can skills they need in order to ship their be a source of new products for americans. products to the United States. Off• according to the joint WTO-UN Internationsetting this obstacle is part of where al Trade Centre, least-developed countries substantial “foreign aid” comes in. (LDCs) face severe difficulties in market acThere would be a very low cost to cess and discrimination when entering develcreating and maintaining a sales oped markets.6 registry, but some additional funds • Not only developing-country entrepreneurs, should be spent on training to maxibut also their families and communities benefit from the income generated from a onemize use of the online marketplace. stop online marketplace. This security-enhancing alternative • Development arising from an online marto traditional foreign aid would not ketplace would improve diplomacy, mitigate increase the deficit. Extraneous conflict, and build markets that would bendefense spending should be pared efit U.s. businesses as well as consumers. down, and a small portion of this spending should be redirected to provide more effective foreign aid. Congress can re-appropriate funds into this program’s training and physical-shipment components alongside the small amount required for the maintenance of the online marketplace. The foundations for this program already exist in the form of the GEP. In November 2010, the State Department celebrated business promotion as a form of foreign aid, calling empowering entrepreneurs “A New Pillar of U.S. Foreign Policy.”2 The State Department is already at work on entrepreneurship training and development programs, often in the same countries in which this new program would be implemented. Existing training programs serve a similar function to this new approach, but the payoffs can be expected to grow massively from this market opening for the beneficiaries of entrepreneurial training and support programs. With the U.S. and global economy still reeling, sustainable income growth is beneficial now and as a valuable investment in the future. Such a sustainable security strategy benefits U.S. interests by improving the personal security of people worldwide while avoiding the perils of traditional aid-based corruption. endnotes
1. Steven R. Koltai, “Empowering Entrepreneurs: A New Pillar of U.S. Foreign Policy,” November 17, 2010, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www. america.gov/st/business-english/2010/November/20101117124926nevets0.9789698.html. 2. Koltai, “Empowering Entrepreneurs.” 3. U.S. Department of State, “Announcement on Global Entrepreneurship Program,” April 27, 2010, accessed January 8, 2011, http://www. america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/April/20100428114705xjsnommis0.1187664.html. 4. Donna J. Kelley, Niels Bosma and Jose Ernesto Amoros, “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2010 Global Report,” page 23. Countries referenced: Angola, Bolivia, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, Iran, Jamaica, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Vanuatu, West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Zambia. 5. Kelley, et al., “2010 Global Report,” 44. 6. Friedrich von Kirchbach and Mondher Mimouni, “Market Access Barriers: A Growing Issue for Developing Country Exporters?,” International Trade Forum, 2003, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.tradeforum.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/552/Market_Access_ Barriers:_A_Growing_Issue_for_Developing_Country_Exporters_.html.
Scrapping the Osprey
Michael Francus, University of Chicago Terminating the outdated and unnecessary V-22 Osprey program would cut wasteful defense spending and save lives. In this age of fiscal crisis, politicians left and right are looking to cut the budget, particularly wasteful spending. The Osprey is a project whose wastefulness is overwhelmingly agreed upon. Given its record of spending more than $50 billion while producing subpar results, Congress should rally bipartisan support to cut the Osprey program. After the Iranian hostage crisis debacle, the military realized that it needed an aircraft with the capacity to take off and land like a helicopter but fly long distances like a plane. Thus, the Osprey was born. Since then, it has compiled a rocky track record (four crashes and 30 deaths before seeing combat) and nearly been cancelled numerous times, most notably when then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney attempted to terminate it under the George H. W. Bush administration in 1989.1 Attempts to cancel the project have failed Key Facts because for years the Osprey was thought to • The Osprey’s total program provide necessary capabilities to the military, but cost since its creation in fiscal these grounds for keeping the project intact are year 1982 is $53.3 billion.10 now obsolete. Furthermore, the Department of • Osprey crashes have resulted Defense’s major acquisitions have proven woein 30 deaths, and the plane is not in compliance with Fedfully over-budget and are currently the target of eral aviation administration Congressional legislation. This legislation aims standards.11 to minimize cost overruns and provides a good • The program intends to prostarting point to begin the systemic reforms Concure 458 aircraft at $93.4 mil2 gress seeks. In times of fiscal trouble, it is prulion each, a far cry from the dent to save billions of dollars by eliminating a initial program goal of 1000 program that has proven a failure, as evidenced for $37.7 million each.12 by Secretary of Defense Gates’ own desire to cut the defense budget.3 analysis Since Cheney’s attempt to terminate the program in 1989, the Osprey has continued to disappoint. It has problems of safety and physics. Furthermore, it has become a financial black hole—at the onset, the federal government planned to order 1000 at a cost of $37.7 million each. Those numbers are now 458 and $93.4 million each. Even after many years of testing and development, the Osprey is subpar in its field. It has a readiness rate—the time it is not grounded—and an availability rate under 70 percent, well below the military’s standard of 80 percent.4, 5 The failure of the airplane parts has been egregious, with many parts lasting only half as long as expected. In the case of some parts, such as the engines, real life expectancy is as low as 30 percent of the expected duration.6 These issues have affected the Osprey’s ability to perform its functions and lowered the mission-completion rate, which is well below the military’s standards. In comparison, the current aircraft have acceptable rates, no difficulty with parts, and safer track records.7 Eliminating the Osprey would not require the military to replace it, would save lives and money, and would retain the military’s capabilities.
• The Osprey has underperformed in the field and is demonstrably unsafe.13 • The program has drawn significant funding throughout its 30-year history and is an exemplar of wasteful spending. • There is no reason to continue funding the program, as hawks such as former Vice President Dick Cheney and the government’s Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have asked to “put the Osprey out of its misery.”14, 15 • Cutting the Osprey program will not limit the capacity of the military or weaken the defense of the country.
• Talking Points
Next steps In today’s political environment, the defense budget is no longer sacrosanct. While Republicans used to categorically oppose defense cuts, the party is now divided. Many Republicans (most notably the Tea Party wing) are prepared to cut wasteful defense spending, which makes this an especially opportune moment to execute such a policy.8 The Osprey accounts for roughly 3500 jobs in 276 congressional districts, which is a force counteracting legislators’ desires to make smart policy changes.9 Nonetheless, the contractors’ persuasive force will be less powerful in times when so many elected officials are calling for fiscal restraint, especially considering the obviously wasteful nature of the Osprey project. endnotes
1. Mark Thompson, “A Flying Shame,” Time Magazine, September 26, 2007. 2. Moshe Schwartz, “Defense Acquisitions: How DOD Acquires Weapon Systems and Recent Efforts to Reform the Process,” Congressional Research Service, 2010. 3. “American Military Spending: Threatening a sacred cow,” The Economist, February 10, 2011. 4. Jeremiah Gertler, “V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, 2009. 5. U.S. Congress. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “The Future of the V-22 Osprey Program: Hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.” 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 23, 2009. 6. Gertler, “V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft.” 7. Ibid. 8. Elizabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker, “Pentagon Budget Cuts Split G.O.P.,” The New York Times, January 27, 2011. Accessed March 27, 2011, http:// www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/us/politics/27pentagon.html. 9. Lee Gaillard, “V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow-Maker?,” Center for Defense Information, 2006. 10. Gertler, “V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft.” 11. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “The Future of the V-22 Osprey Program.” 12. Gertler, “V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft.” 13. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “The Future of the V-22 Osprey Program.” 14. Ibid. 15. Thomas, “A Flying Shame.”
A New Approach to 21st Century Governance
Ashley Herzovi, Michigan State University The United Nations should repurpose the Trusteeship Council to oversee states with long-term issues of self-governance due to conflict that are thus unable to provide basic human necessities to their constituents. There are debilitating limits to the current system of peacekeeping as defined by Chapter VII of the United Nations (U.N.) Charter. Chapter VII allows the U.N. to identify threats to international peace, and to take action (both forceful and non-forceful) to alleviate those threats.1 However, it approaches threats to international peace and security as short-term, discrete issues. It seeks to immediately remedy the security problems in a member state with little intrusion on its government. This method of peacekeeping is outdated and unsustainable — it does not take into account the nuances of governance in the 21st century. The problems with this old approach are twofold: threats to international peace and security are chronic, not discrete; and true peacekeeping solutions hinge on member-state cooperation. Currently, the only time when the U.N. can ignore national sovereignty is when it invokes the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and takes immediate action to prevent severe loss of life.2 Innovation to meet new challenges is not commonly associated with the U.N. system. After completing its mandate to oversee decolonization in the League of Nations’ old Mandate States after World War II, the Trusteeship Council was left without a mission. Although there are many failing states around the world, there is currently no institution within the U.N. system to address this challenge. R2P has taken a brave step by temporarily suspending state sovereignty in cases of the endangerment of life. By repurposing the Trusteeship Council, the U.N. would be taking another huge step forward in adapting itself to a new international order. Key Facts
• ●The Trusteeship Council was originally set up to oversee the process of decolonization in the League of Nations’ Mandate states. • In 1994, the Trusteeship Council dismantled after its original mandate was fulfilled.6 • By accepting trusteeship, states would rescind a share of their sovereignty. Despite the negative implications of trusteeship, states should join to increase the likelihood of creating a permanent and sustainable nation.
analysis The success of peacekeeping is dependent on member-states’ donation of resources as well as cooperation by host-states where conflict is taking place. Consider the U.N. mission in Sudan (UNAMID), which was plagued by both issues of cooperation and resources. By January 1, 2009, only 9000 of the 26,000 expected troops were deployed.3 This is only 35 percent of the expected peacekeeping troop presence nearly two years after the mission’s establishment in July 2007.4 In this case, the success of UNAMID was compromised due to lack of physical support by member-states. Additionally, UNAMID’s attempt at appeasing the Sudanese government to gain cooperation hindered its success from its inception.5 By accepting trust states once again, the Trusteeship Council would take a more active role in the governance of the territory. Through trusteeship, the U.N. forces would have greater ability to follow through with their missions. To en12
sure that the new Trusteeship mandate remains unbiased, the rotating members of the Security Council should also be asked to join the Trusteeship Council in addition to the Permanent Five. Next steps The U.N. General Assembly should initiate the process of trusteeship by referring nations with long-term stability issues to the Trusteeship Council for supervision. In order for nations referred to the Trusteeship Council to receive U.N. aid or Chapter VII Peacekeeping Operations, they must agree to become a trust state. States not referred by the General Assembly but eligible for Chapter VII Peacekeeping Operations will see no change in their humanitarian intervention. From here, the Trusteeship Council will do the following: • Talking Points Aggregate information regarding the conflict known to the other U.N. bodies and councils. Assist the Department of Peacekeeping Operations with any current peacekeeping missions in the trust state. Develop an action plan that seeks to stabilize political, economic, and social tensions in the state.
• Trusteeship would give the U.N. more power to enact policy recommendations during its missions. Current peacekeeping operations are limited by national governments’ cooperation, which can at times hinder the success of U.N. operations. • Chapter VII Peacekeeping Operations only provide the U.N. with short-term action for international security threats, not longterm governance solutions. • Chapter VII activities limit U.N. intervention to what the host-state has agreed to, whereas trusteeship allows for fewer restrictions on humanitarian intervention.
One of the biggest concerns with trusteeship is its temporary revocation of sovereignty. To combat the concern that the U.N. will take advantage of trust states, the General Assembly should be used to directly check the Trusteeship Council’s power and ensure that states’ interests are represented appropriately during the trusteeship process. Having a diverse international body recommend states for trusteeship additionally ensures that the Trusteeship Council will not overstep its boundaries and attempt to take on cases that do not require its attention. Adding a new autonomous body to the U.N. would require the amendment of the U.N. Charter, which member-states are unlikely to approve of. Repurposing an existing entity is the swiftest way to create an international institution to deal with failing states. Regional organizations could begin to solve this dilemma, but they lack the wide and largely untapped resources of the U.N. As the predominant international actor in peacekeeping operations already, adding the trusteeship system is a natural extension of the U.N.’s current duties. endnotes
1. United Nations. “Charter of the United Nations.” Welcome to the United Nations: It’s Your World. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/ chapter7.shtml (accessed May 9, 2011). 2. Jolly, Richard, Louis Emmerij, and Thomas George Weiss. “Peace and Security.” In UN Ideas that Changed the World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. 174-175. 3. Rebecca Tinsley. “The Failure of UNAMID,” The Guardian, January 1, 2009. 4. “African Union/United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur (UNAMID),” United Nations, accessed February 24, 2011, http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unamid/. 5. Tinsley, “The Failure of UNAMID.” 6. “Trusteeship Council,” United Nations, accessed February 17, 2011, http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/council.htm.
Renewable Energy as an Incentive for Peace
Keri Majikes, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The U.S. can eliminate Iran’s incentives for developing nuclear technology without becoming militarily involved by creating an economic agreement that establishes Iran as a leader in renewable energy. The United States and the majority of the international community are increasingly concerned about the possibility of a nuclear Iran for a number of reasons. First, Iran has proven itself an ally of terrorists and could pass nuclear technology to them.1 Second, Iran has declared itself the primary enemy of Israel, a country that is strategically important to the delicate political balance in the Middle East. Finally, a nuclear Iran would cause other Middle Eastern countries to fear for their own safety and seek their own nuclear capabilities, resulting in additional destabilization in the region. Key Facts
• a majority of arabs believe a nuclear-armed Iran would be good for the region.5 • Oil, a key energy resource in Iran, will be depleted within 75-100 years.6 • Increased scarcity of fossil fuels as well as environmental concerns will increase the market share of renewable energy.7
Despite widespread belief to the contrary, Iran does not have enough oil to sustain domestic power for even three generations.2 Currently, Iran obtains the majority of its energy from oil and natural gas and has no plan to transition to other energy sources. This creates a problem regarding Iran’s future domestic energy demand, and leads Iran to seek nuclear enrichment for energy in addition to any geopolitical reasons it already may have for doing so.3 Additionally, it is clear that the Iranian people are very interested in obtaining regional leadership and respect. Currently, Iran’s government is pursuing legitimacy by seeking nuclear capabilities for military purposes. These capabilities would offer increased regional standing and alternative energy resources, but do so in a way that would destabilize the Middle East. The United States must negate both the energy and status incentives Iran has for pursuing nuclear technology. analysis By training Iranian citizens to produce renewable energy such as solar power or wind power, and providing materials to help them build their renewable energy capacity, the United States could offer Iran a solution to its legitimate energy problems. Further, it could also offer Iran an alternative, non-nuclear path to recognition as a regional power. If Iran pursued the training programs offered through such a deal and invested further in renewable energy sources, it might become a global leader in renewable energy. As oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuel supplies decrease, renewable energy technology will be particularly valuable in the Middle East because Arab countries will need large amounts of energy to desalinize water as conventional energy supplies become scarce. Those countries will absolutely need a regional energy leader and Iran can fill this gap before other Middle Eastern countries invest their own resources in new energy sources. Although many governments’ leaders instinctively turn to economic sanctions in an attempt to discourage Iran, economic sanctions are extremely difficult to manage because
of the extent Iranian markets have been globalized and the value of Iran’s resources.4 In comparison, an economic treaty provides greater incentive to forego nuclear enrichment because the agreement would offer Iran a solution to its own looming energy crisis.
While such an agreement might be expensive for the United States, the cost would surely be less than the cost of entering into a military conflict with Iran or assisting another country’s attack on Iran. Additionally, the cost of an economic agreement would not exceed the cost of a “do nothing” approach, which would cause severe strategic problems regarding the stability of the Middle East. The price of the agreement could also be lessened if the United States persuaded other countries to contribute. Considering the threat a nuclear Iran would pose to numerous countries, finding support should not be difficult. Next steps As policymakers consider possible methods for deterring Iran’s nuclear proliferation, the United States should choose to pursue an economic pact with Iran that would eliminate Iran’s incentives for nuclear enrichment, rooted in energy resources and regional power dynamics. This pact should involve other western countries, as well as many of the Middle Eastern governments that also have reasons to deter Iranian enrichment. It is absolutely necessary to pursue this because Iran’s obtainment of nuclear weaponry could result in regional turmoil, further proliferation, and dissemination of weapons to terrorist groups. The implementation of this idea would require more research into the specific needs of the Iranian and the Middle Eastern economic systems as well as research into the limitations of renewable energy. This idea would also require significant diplomatic efforts over a relatively long period of time but is a necessary investment in American interests and national security in the long-term. endnotes
1. Greg Bruno, “State Sponsors: Iran,” Council on Foreign Relations, October 7, 2010, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsorsiran/p9362. 2. Mohammad Sahmi, “Energy: Iran Needs Nuclear Power,” The New York Times, October 14, 2003, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.nytimes. com/2003/10/14/opinion/14iht-edsahimi_ed3_.html. 3. Hossein Aryan, “Understanding Iran’s Defiant Nuclear Policy,” Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty, December 1, 2009, accessed May 1, 2011, http:// www.rferl.org/content/Understanding_Irans_Defiant_Nuclear_Policy_/1892404.htm. 4. Paul Richter, “Diplomat says Iran Sanctions not Working.” Philly.com, November 3, 2010, accessed March 1, 2011, http://www.philly.com/philly/ news/nation_world/20101103_Diplomat_says_Iran_sanctions_not_working.html. 5. Ben Bimbaum, “Arab Majority Backs Nuclear Iran,” Washington Times, August 6, 2010, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.washingtontimes.com/ news/2010/aug/6/poll-majority-of-arab-world-views-nuke-armed-iran-/. 6. Sahmi, “Energy: Iran Needs Nuclear Power.” 7. F. Atabi, “Renewable Energy in Iran: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1, issue 1 (2004):69-80.
• The U.s. must negate the incentives Iran has for pursuing nuclear weaponry or it eventually will obtain them. • The U.s. should provide renewable-energy education and technology to Iranians in exchange for a pledge to stop nuclear enrichment and inspections in Iran. • an economic agreement would be less expensive than a military operation in Iran.
• Talking Points
Reforming Private Security Contractor Use
Peter Nauka, University of California, Los Angeles To aid and accelerate our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States Congress, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice should work together to bring more accountability and transparency to private, for-profit military contractors.
Since the end of the Cold War, our armed forces have begun to shift away from conventional warfare techniques and a reliance on traditional soldiers, instead moving toward outsourcing military projects to Private Security Contractors (PSCs). Essentially private companies for hire, PSCs perform various tasks that the military cannot or does not want to perform, monetizing military functions for profit, not results.1 A lack of PSC oversight can lead to human rights abuses such as those perpetrated by Blackwater in Nassur Square and Abu Gharib. Beyond these well-documented examples of PSC abuses, there are many other, less well-known issues with contractors. The $200 billion PSC industry is notoriously expensive.2 Often paid two to ten times more than regular military soldiers, PSCs abuse the fact that the military is reliant on their services.3 Furthermore, PSCs, when initially in charge of training Afghan and Iraqi ground forces, produced poorly trained individuals, hampering our stabilization efforts.4,5 Contractors are also notorious for waste and Key Facts fraud. In Afghanistan, it is well documented that • The U.s. military has shrunk in PSCs subcontract their work to other companies recent years while the number who further subcontract, leading to administraof conflicts has risen, leading 6 tive waste. In addition, contractors face no into an exponential increase of centive to maintain communications with other Private security Contractors. military forces, which leads to catastrophes. In • Contractors form a $200-billion-per-year industry.16 2004, a Blackwater convoy drove through the • PsCs are notorious for their dangerous but stabilizing city of Fallujah without waste, inefficiency, and human consulting local Marine units. The convoy was rights abuses. ambushed and four contractors were mutilated without the Marines’ knowledge. In an attempt to catch the culprits, the Marines abandoned their counterinsurgency tactics and stormed the city, setting back all stabilization progress. This caused the city to devolve into civil war and threatened the stability of the entire region.7 Additionally, since contractors are private for-profit companies, they have an economic incentive to prolong conflict.8 analysis These issues lead to a negative perception of PSCs, and because locals often do not differentiate between U.S. military and contractors, this results in an overall negative view of the U.S. and its involvement in the Middle East. This in turn endangers our ability to win the hearts and minds of the local populous and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.9,10 Yet little has been done to rectify the situation. There is no agency monitoring PSCs, what their contracts consist of, or whether or not they are achieving results effectively.11, 12 These negative impacts are heightened as U.S. forces pull out and contractors swarm to replace them.13, 14 This means that now, on the verge of a major influx of contractors, is the time to significantly change the way PSCs operate and how they are regulated.
Next steps Previous attempts to address contracting prob• Talking Points lems, including the passing of directives to clarify • The Department of Defense contractor roles, have proven inadequate. The must increase recruitment Department of Defense (DoD) must work in conthrough elevated incentives as well as reform the sPOT junction with the Department of Justice (DoJ) system, a centralized database and Congress in order to solve the contracting for contracting information. problem. First, the DoD must play a larger role • The Department of Justice in overseeing contractors. Increased benefits for must work with Congress to military members should be used to draw more amend current laws and help people to join and stay with the military. This will clarify them to our allies. help reduce contractor dependency and incen• Congress must require annual tivize soldiers not to join PSCs. In addition, the analyses of contractor cost Synchronized Predeployment and Operational and efficiency. Tracker (SPOT) system, created in January 2007, must be updated and expanded. The SPOT system was initially created as a centralized database for contractor information, but suffers knowledge gaps due to varying interpretations of what information should and should not be entered. This system must be reformed to close these knowledge gaps and expand to include the language and objectives of all contracts. Such a centralized database will allow for the study and reform of contracts, as well as help auditors eliminate waste. In addition, the DoD must increase the number of officers within contractor ranks to give the U.S. an investigative tool for determining what occurs on the ground. The DoJ must work with Congress to amend the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to insure that all contractors can be clearly and easily prosecuted with current laws and must take the effort to communicate with allies, specifically the Iraqi and Afghan governments, of how the laws apply to contractors. Finally, Congress must mandate the current administration to submit annual cost- and contracting-efficiency analyses that bring together all the information from the suggested reforms so that future problems can be quickly and effectively addressed.15 endnotes
1. Peter W. Singer, “Outsourcing War,” Brookings Institution, 2005.
2. Peter W. Singer, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003). 3. Singer, “Outsourcing War.” 4. Peter W. Singer, “Contracting Out Iraqi Army Advising,” Brookings Institution, May 12, 2008 5. Ann Jones, “US wins minds, Afghan hearts are lost,” Asia Times Online, Sept 22, 2009, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/ South_Asia/KI22Df03.html. 6. Kim Barker, “Letter From Kabul,” Foreign Policy, November 30, 2009. 7. Peter W. Singer, “Can’t Win With ‘Em, Can’t Go To War Without ‘Em: Private Military Contractors and Counterinsurgency,” Brookings Institution, September 2007. 8. Peter W. Singer, “Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and Its Ramifications for International Security,” International Security 26, issue 3, (2002): 186-220. 9. Moshe Schwartz, “CRS Report for Congress, Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis,” Congressional Research Service, July 2, 2010. 10. Ann Mulrine, “Private Security Contractors Face Incoming Political Fire,” U.S. News and World Report, October 5, 2007, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.usnews.com/news/iraq/articles/2007/10/05/private-security-forces-face-political-fire. 11. Gansler Commission, “Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations,” October 31, 2007. 12. “DOD’s Increased Reliance on Service Contractors Exacerbates Long-standing Challenges,” General Accountability Office, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, April 3, 2008, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.gao. gov/new.items/d08621t.pdf. 13. William Matthews, “US contract use in Iraq expected to rise,” Defense News, August 12, 2010. 14. Jim Fink, “How To Profit From the War in Afghanistan: Military Contractors,” Investing Daily, April 12, 2010. 15. Richard Fontaine and John Nagl, “Contracting in Conflicts: The Path to Reform,” Center for a New American Security, June 2010. 16. Peter W. Singer, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003).
Child Friendly Aid Provision
Hannah Nemer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The United States Congress should actively endorse legislation that reduces instances of child marriage in an effort to create more effective foreign-aid investments. The United States has failed to pass critical international child-protection • Key Facts • In developing nations, on average, one legislation. In December 2010, the Interin three girls is married before age 18, national Protecting Girls by Preventing and one in seven before age 15.3 Child Marriage Act (S. 987) unanimously • Both infant and maternal health are put passed the Senate. Upon reaching the at risk by child marriages. PregnancyHouse of Representatives, however, the related deaths are the leading cause bill failed to receive the necessary twoof mortality for 15-19 year-old girls, and thirds majority to pass under a suspeninfant deaths are also twice as likely sion of the rules. Dissenting represenamong the babies of young mothers.4 tatives cited both cost and fear that it • as marriage results in increased sexual intercourse and decreased condom would promote abortion as a form of foruse, child marriages further spread HIV eign aid as reasons to oppose the legislato young women. In a Zambian study, tion. However, the bill mentions neither married girls were nearly 60 percent family planning nor additional costs; inmore likely to contract HIV/aIDs than stead, the proposal would reallocate $67 their unmarried counterparts.5 million of current foreign aid funds over the next five years.1 The failure to pass this bill echoes the United States’ failure to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which has yet to be presented to the Senate. Approving the CRC would demonstrate the United States’ commitment to preventing child marriage and other infringements on the rights of a child. The only other United Nations member state that has failed to ratify the CRC is Somalia. analysis Because the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act reallocates existing funds, there would be few additional costs associated with the adjusted focus. Similarly, ratification of the CRC requires child-conscious aid, not necessarily more aid. Even if the quantity of aid were increased, preventing child marriage uses long-term funds more efficiently. The longer a girl remains unwed, the longer she has to develop financial stability and agency through education, both improving her status in society and contributing to the local economy.2 As social structures strengthen, financial aid can be gradually reduced. Similarly, current aid spent on maternal health could be made more efficient by working to eliminate child marriage, as young mothers are more likely to face threats to their health. By rewriting its aid framework, particularly resources filtered through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. would renew its commitment to children’s rights and gain greater international standing. With CRC ratification, the United States would also be able to partake in the Committee on the Rights of the Child. This convention promotes unity among nations in working to enforce the rights of children around the world. It is also an ideal forum to develop costeffective solutions and greater international collaboration.
The primary stakeholders in such a policy shift would be nations with significant rates of child marriage, and those health initiatives that focus on areas of health where child marriage has the most profound implications. Because child-marriage prevention can be integrated into preexisting programs, it would primarily influence foreign development programs that deal with youth-based issues and maternal health.
• Child marriage prevention could be easily integrated into pre-existing aid programs.6 • established child marriage prevention standards would foster accountability among aid recipients. • Reducing child marriage complements efforts to reduce HIV/aIDs and infant mortality, while minimizing common dangers that young mothers face. This makes aid more effective, without requiring additional funds.
• Talking Points
Next steps The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act must be reintroduced. To ensure its successful passage, the issue must be depoliticized. Once costs and ties to family planning are clarified, the bill will have a better chance to pass. Constituents must pressure their representatives to move this critical legislation forward. In order to receive the two-thirds vote necessary to ratify the CRC, the State Department must also complete its interagency review that began in 2009. However, once the treaty is submitted to the Senate, it will likely face similar opposition as the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act. Thus, it is critical that constituents push for rational, depoliticized conversation and the swift ratification of this critical treaty. Once Congress passes this critical legislation, it will need to monitor the reallocated funds, increasing transparency and requesting reports for aid-receiving agencies. With renewed focus on the rights of children, the United States will become a relevant and effective contributor to foreign-aid programs that diminish the prevalence of child marriage. endnotes
1. Jeanne Faulkner, “Child marriage: Congress throws away an opportunity to protect girls,” OregonLive, January 1, 2011, accessed March 10, 2011, http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/01/child_marriage_congress_throws.html. 2. Sarah Robin, “Support the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act,” Change.org, accessed March 10, 2011, http://www. change.org/petitions/support_the_international_protecting_girls_by_preventing_child_marriage_act. Robin, “Support the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act.” 3. “Child Marriage Factsheet.” The Elders, accessed March 10, 2011, http://www.theelders.org/docs/Child_Marriage_Factsheet.pdf. 4. “Child Marriage Factsheet.” 5. Shelly Clark, “Early Marriage and HIV Risks in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Studies in Family Planning 35, Issue 3 (2004):140-160. 6. Robin, “Support the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act.”
An Expanded HIV/AIDS Relief Focus
Hannah Nemer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The United States should remove the Anti-Prostitution Mandate from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) relief program, and instead actively support condom distribution to sex workers.
In 2003, President Bush pledged $115 billion for global HIV/AIDS prevention through the creation of PEPFAR. While PEPFAR has been heralded for its overall work in Africa, PEPFAR’s anti-prostitution provision, which aid-receiving organizations must sign, has met with significant criticism. The so-called “prostitution pledge” forces organizations to explicitly oppose prostitution, which is often interpreted as a prohibition of condom distribution to sex workers.1 Contending that it violates the First Amendment, several organizations sued the U.S. government in order to lift the prostitution pledge. One court placed an injunction on the enforcement of the pledge on U.S.-based organizations that perform both domestic and foreign work. However, foreign organizations must still comply with the provision’s restrictions.2
• In areas of western africa, over one in five sex workers live with HIV.10 • Globally, fewer than 80 percent of sex workers used a condom with their last client.11 • In senegal, when transport workers engaged in peer education that encompassed sexual health relating to sex workers, 42.2 percent of the corresponding sex workers’ clients agreed to use a condom - up from 2.2 percent.12
• Key Facts
analysis While the United States invests heavily in HIV/AIDS relief and prevention, the refusal to address prostitution as a primary cause of sexual infections limits the effectiveness of aid. Currently, to qualify for PEPFAR funds, an organization must explicitly oppose sex workers, which due to ambiguous guidelines is often interpreted as the prohibition of condom use or distribution.3 Even if government auditors accept condom distribution as viable under PEPFAR, organizations are hesitant to receive funds without explicit government confirmation, which the provision does not grant. The Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, through PEPFAR, isolated confusion over the United States’ position on condoms as one of the key factors of condom shortages.4 Organizations that sign the pledge are prohibited from using both federal grants and private funds to provide AIDS relief and health education to prostitutes.5 Thus, organizations are unable to address the link between HIV/AIDS and prostitution. Without the barriers of the anti-prostitution pledge, money could be used more effectively to better address the root of HIV/AIDS proliferation. Peer-reviewed medical studies suggest that prostitution “defines the AIDS pandemic more than other factors.”6 Ignoring such a linchpin in the fight against AIDS is counterproductive. Additionally, the pledge creates inefficiencies within NGOs. Developing nations will most benefit from the removal of the prostitution pledge, as they have the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS. According to a study based in southern Africa, where prostitutes have access to condoms, less than 0.1 percent of female prostitutes are infected.7 Other developing nations should receive similar access to methods of HIV/AIDS prevention, and foreign NGOs
that currently receive aid under the pledge will be able to better address the sexual health of prostitutes and related populations. NGOs formerly unable to receive United States aid would also have access to significant PEPFAR funds. Next steps The U.S. should enact legislation that would remove the prostitution pledge in its entirety from aid requirements, though it may be most politically feasible to wait until the next PEPFAR reauthorization to remove the pledge. Congress must, if not fully remove, at least add greater clarity to the conditions for aid, explicitly allowing sex worker-based condom distribution. The U.S. should also pass legislation that encourages outreach to sex workers to help break the taboos associated with condom use.8
• acknowledging the reality of prostitution makes HIV/aIDs prevention efforts more effective. Prostitutes often transmit HIV to clients, who may then also pass the virus on to others. • Prostitutes can serve as “peer educators,” informing other sex workers how to practice safe sex.13 • Brazil, a country that incorporates sex workers into its public-health programs, has one of the most successful HIV-prevention programs in the developing world.14
• Talking Points
To better transition towards comprehensive prostitution policies, the U.S. should also establish clearer guidelines for organizations to determine if they meet the changes in aid requirements. Organizations such as the Center for Health and Gender Equity have already begun to define rights that prostitutes should be guaranteed, including governmental support of condom distribution, prostitute unionization, and the criminalization of the client rather than the prostitute.9 By removing the prostitution pledge and focusing on condom distribution, the U.S. can guarantee basic rights and more effectively prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. endnotes
1. “Making Prevention Work: Lessons from Zambia on Reshaping the U.S. Response to the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic” Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Accessed April 28, 2011. Last Modified post-August 2009. http://siecus.org/index. cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&FeatureID=1767 2. “Human Trafficking, HIV/AIDS, and the Sex Sector Human Rights for All.” Change Center for Health and Gender Equity. Accessed February 25, 2011. Last modified October 2011. http://www.genderhealth.org/files/uploads/change/publications/Human_Trafficking_HIVAIDS_and_the_Sex_Sector_12_3_2010FINAL.pdf. 3. “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR): PEPFAR funding restrictions.” AVERT. Accessed April 28, 2011. http://www. avert.org/pepfar.htm 4. David Bryden. “Condom gap “quite disturbing” according to PEPFAR.” Science Speaks: HIV & TB News. Accessed April 28, 2011. Last modified February 2, 2011. http://sciencespeaksblog.org/2011/02/02/condom-gap-quite-disturbing-according-to-pepfar/?utm_ source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceSpeaksHivTbNews+%28Science+Speaks%3A+HIV+%26+ TB+News%29 5. Ibid. 6. “Prostitution Defines AIDS Pandemic More Than Other Factors” Peer Reviewed News for Medical Professionals. Accessed March 27, 2011. http://www.rxpgnews.com/aids-research/Male-circumcision-overstated-as-prevention-tool-against-AIDS_39994.shtml 7. Ibid. 8. “Human Trafficking, HIV/AIDS, and the Sex Sector Human Rights for All.” Change Center for Health and Gender Equity. 9. Ibid. 10. “Human Trafficking, HIV/AIDS, and the Sex Sector Human Rights for All.” 11. “Sex Workers and HIV Prevention.” Avert. Accessed February 25, 2011. http://www.avert.org/sex-workers.htm. 12. Overs, Cheryl. “Sex Workers: Part of the Solution.” The World Health Organization. Accessed April 9, 2011. Last Modified 2002. Accessed via http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/vct/sw_toolkit/context/en/index3.html.PDF 13. Where Prostitutes Also Fight AIDS, Monte. “Where Prostitutes Also Fight AIDS.” The Washington Post. Accessed February 25, 2011. Last modified March 2, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR200603002316.html. 14. “Prostitution Puts U.S. and Brazil at Odds on AIDS Policy.” New York Times. Accessed February 25, 2011. Last modified July 24, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/americas/24brazil.html.
Building America’s Next Great Alliance
Jonathan R. Sherman, American University Congress should ratify the Korea-United States (KORUS) Free Trade Agreement to solidify the United States’ strategic security, economic, and political influence in East Asia. South Korea has been a critical ally to the United States for over 60 years. Since the signing of the Mutual Defense Treaty in 1953, in which both countries agreed to defend each other against outside aggression, South Korea has become the United States’ seventh largest trading partner and a major financial ally. During the 2008 financial meltdown South Korea urged the G20 to keep global markets open. South Korea is also vital in maintaining U.S. military interests in East Asia, with 27,000 American troops currently stationed there after the implementation of the Combined Forces Command (CFC) in Seoul to defend against North Korea in 1978. Most recently, the military partnership between these two nations was best exemplified with the handling of the March 2010 sinking of a South Korean submarine by North Korea. With this history in mind, former South Korean Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard voiced strong support for the Congressional ratification of the KORUS Free Trade Agreement, citing the $3 million in state revenue and 10,000 new jobs generated by Korean car manufacturers in Alabama and Texas. Hubbard also projected grim consequences for rejecting the agreement, and President Obama’s Trade Representative issued a recent statement stressing the $10 to $12 billion that would be added to U.S. GDP after the agreement’s passage.1 The statement also noted that Congressional support for the agreement would make 95 percent of all bilateral trade with South Korea dutyfree in 3 years.
• The agreement would make 95 percent of trade between the two nations duty-free in 3 years, phasing out all tariffs on bilateral imports and exports in 10 years.6 • The KORUs FTa will increase the export of U.s. goods and services by $30 billion, increasing the export manufactured goods by 46 percent.7 • The agreement would give U.s. investment firms greater access to $100 billion in government procurement funds. • The KORUs FTa would reduce the U.s. trade deficit by $4 billion annually.8
• Key Facts
analysis If ratified by Congress, the KORUS Free Trade Agreement would be the most substantial development in U.S.-Korean relations since the Military Defense Treaty of 1953. It would enhance national security interests in Asia by increasing U.S. defense forces in South Korea, and form an alliance of neighboring states to pressure China to adhere to World Trade Organization (WTO) standards. It would include the United States in a trade agreement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and encourage other Asian powers to enact similar agreements with the United States.2 The agreement would also improve U.S. agricultural industries by granting duty-free status to two-thirds of U.S. agricultural exports. It would increase revenue for the American meatpacking industry by eliminating the 40 percent tax on beef imported from the United States over
15 years. The Korean automobile industry, which accounts for 30 percent of the United States’ market, would also build 600,000 new vehicles in the U.S. each year with the termination of an 8 to 10 percent tariff on passenger cars and trucks, providing more jobs to middle-class Americans.3 Both nations would also commit to making 60 percent of the textile and apparel trade duty-free and liberalize service trade beyond WTO guidelines. The United States International Trade Commission concludes that while U.S. GDP would only increase by a total of $11.9 billion, agricultural and automobile industries would significantly increase exports by $10.9 billion and the textile industry would improve imports by $6.9 billion.4 This would expand employment in the major U.S. agricultural and textile sectors, and strengthen South Korean GDP by as much as 2.27 percent.
• Ratification of the KORUs FTa would exchange industrial imports and increase agricultural exports, providing greater employment to working- and middle-class americans. • Ratifying the trade agreement would strengthen U.s. credibility in southeast asia, putting greater pressure on China to comply with World Trade Organization standards. • Ratification of the agreement would reinforce U.s. defense strategy in asia, making it the largest development in KoreanU.s. relations since the Military Defense Treaty of 1953.
• Talking Points
Next steps Providing great economic and political benefit, the ratification of the KORUS FTA will be a vital step in improving the American economy, yet there are still lingering concerns over the safety and sanitation of imported beef, the production of ITAC-12 steel, and access to the Korean car market all mentioned in the agreement. Therefore, to address these issues, Congressman Mike Michaud of Maine introduced the TRADE Act of 2009 in the 111th Congress - which received 136 co-sponsorships - and asked to review the KORUS FTA to ensure that U.S. interests are fully met. Meanwhile, organizations like the U.S.-Korea FTA Business Coalition and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have also been consulting members of Congress on the benefits of the agreement by bringing together representatives of American industries and organizations to push for its ratification. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently traveled to Seoul, where she addressed the South Korean people with a commitment to signing the KORUS FTA, but public opinion will also be crucial to making the agreement a priority for the 112th Congress.5 endnotes
1. “Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement,” Office of the United States Trade Representative, December 3, 2010, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta. 2. William H. Cooper and Mark E. Manyin, “Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications,” Congressional Research Service, February 12, 2010, accessed May 1, 2011 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/ RL33435.pdf. 3. Troy Stangarone, “Moving the KORUS FTA Forward in a Time of Economic Uncertainty,” Korea Economic Institute of America, 2008, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.keia.org/Publications/Exchange/01Exchange08.pdf. 4 Jordan Heiber, “U.S. – Korea Economic Relations: A Washington Perspective,” Korea Economic Institute, June 30, 2007, accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.keia.org/Publications/KoreasEconomy/2008/Heiber1.pdf. 5. “In Seoul, Clinton says US committed to passing free trade pact with South Korea this year.” The Washington Post, April 16, 2011. 6. International Trade Administration, “The United States-Korea Trade Agreement.” U.S. Department of Commerce, December 7, 2010, accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/tradeagreements/fta/tg_ian_002423.asp. 7. “KORUS FTA Facts,” Office of the United States Trade Representative, June 2008, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.ustraderep.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2008/asset_upload_file51_14959.pdf. 8. Ho-Jin Lee, “Recent Developments in the Korean Peninsula In the Context of the U.S.–ROK Alliance,” The Brookings Institution, February 25, 2011, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2011/0225_korea_lee.aspx.
Statehood for Somaliland Benefits U.S Security
Elizabeth Watkins, Wheaton College U.S. recognition of Somaliland as an independent state will aid in the fight against piracy and help prevent Somaliland from being used as a staging ground for terrorism. Somaliland is a region of Somalia that declared independence in 1991.1 While Somalia has continued to be consumed in anarchic violence, Somaliland has made great strides towards constructing a working democracy but suffers from a lack of international recognition that makes it difficult to promote economic growth and provide security for its citizens and the region. No move has been made by the U.S. to recognize Somaliland. The U.S. wants the major African powers in the area to take the first step, although Ethiopia, for one, wants the U.S. to be the one to start the process of recognition.2 Many countries, including the U.S., do not want to signal that it approves of the breakup of states for fear of giving tacit approval to secessionist groups everywhere.3 analysis The U.S.’s recognition of Somaliland would go a long way towards helping the fledgling state gain greater international recognition, which would in turn aid its economy. Currently, Somaliland firms have difficulty obtaining letters of credit because their country is not recognized internationally, nor will the International Monetary Fund provide financial assistance • Key Facts to Somaliland. The growth of Somaliland’s econo• somaliland was recognized my would help it raise its citizens’ standard of livby the U.N. as an indepening and procure the funds necessary to increase dent country in 1960 for a its ability to prevent terrorism and piracy. It does not appear that the African regional powers’ unwillingness to officially recognize Somaliland will change in the near future. This should not deter the U.S. from recognizing Somaliland, however. Recognition of Somaliland would not encourage secessionism in other states, because Somaliland was at one point its own independent country, formed out of colonial British Somaliland, and held U.N. recognition at that time. Recognizing Somaliland would not be giving legitimacy to a secessionist group, but simply acknowledging post-colonial borders, as the U.S. has done many times before. If the U.S. recognizes Somaliland, it will have the opportunity to build a close strategic relationship with a country that is geographically close to many areas of American security concern, including Somalia proper, the waterways off the Horn of Africa, and the Middle East. Building such a relationship could provide the U.S. with a useful ally in an unstable and potentially dangerous region. This alli24
few days before it united with the rest of somalia.5 • somaliland’s current and fourth president is ahmed Mohammed silanyo, elected in July 2010 in an election deemed mostly free and fair by foreign electoral observers, including the International Republican Institute and Progressio. 6,7 • In order to become a member of the International Monetary Fund, a state must be accepted by a majority of the IMF’s members. as an unrecognized state, somaliland would not be accepted, and therefore cannot obtain monetary aid from the IMF.8 • a U.N. envoy has already suggested helping somaliland set up courts to prosecute pirates.9
ance would allow the U.S. to help Somaliland combat terrorism both within its own territory and in its neighbor Somalia. Somaliland could also help the U.S. significantly by policing pirate-infested waters off its shores. Finally, U.S. support for an emerging Muslim democracy could provide credibility to its claim that it supports freedom and democracy in the Middle East and is not at war with the Islamic religion. Somaliland’s various internal components — firms, people, and government institutions — would benefit from international recognition and experience increased economic growth and internal stability.4 The U.S. would benefit by gaining a potential ally against terrorism and piracy. Those who would lose wouldn be terrorists seeking to gain a foothold in Somaliland, and pirates illegally using its shores to base their operations commit crimes in its waters.
Next steps There are several potential next steps available to U.S. policymakers to start the process of officially recognizing Somaliland. A useful first step would be to send a letter to the Secretary of State signed by several members of Congress in order to get the Executive Branch on board with the recognition process. A next step would be to hold an informational hearing in order to raise awareness of the Somaliland situation both within Congress and with the general public, then to work on producing a joint resolution in favor of recognizing Somaliland. Another step would be to send a formal representative to Somaliland, and to officially accept a formal representative from Somaliland in return. endnotes
1. “Somaliland: Democratisation and its Discontents,” International Crisis Group, July 8, 2003, accessed March 3, 2011, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f5218004.html. 2. Kurt Shillinger, “Recognizing Somaliland: Forward Step in Countering Terrorism?,” Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies Journal 150 (2005): 46-52. 3. Jessica Caplan, “Failing the State: Recognizing Somaliland,” July 7, 2009, accessed April 16, 2011, http://hir.harvard.edu/frontiers-of-conflict/failingthe-state. 4. Frank Langfitt, “In East Africa: A Bright Spot Amid the Anarchy,” National Public Radio, October 27, 2010, accessed March 3, 2011, http://www.npr. org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130857899. 5. “Regions and territories: Somaliland,” British Broadcasting Corporation, December 1, 2010, accessed March 3, 2011, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ africa/country_profiles/3794847.stm. 6. “Somaliland Holds Credible Presidential Election.” International Republican Institute, July 27, 2010, accessed May 8 2011, http://www.iri.org/newsevents-press-center/news/somaliland-holds-credible-presidential-election. 7. “Somaliland elections: peaceful expression of popular will.” Progressio, June 28 2010, accessed May 8 2011, http://www.progressio.org.uk/blog/ news/somaliland-elections-peaceful-expression-popular-will. 8. “Membership,” International Monetary Fund accessed March 3, 2011, http://www.imf.org/external/about/members.htm. 9. Patrick Worsnip, “U.N. envoy proposes piracy courts in Somali enclaves,” Reuters, January 25, 2011, accessed 3 March 2011, http://www.reuters. com/article/2011/01/25/us-somalia-piracy-un-idUSTRE70O6J420110125.
• somaliland is an emerging, stable, democratic state with a smoothly functioning government and fair elections. • The U.s. would benefit strategically in several ways from helping somaliland achieve the greater economic growth that can only come from international recognition. • somaliland would be a valuable ally in the fight against both piracy and terrorism. • The U.s. has sufficient international influence to lead the way to a general, worldwide recognition of somaliland.
• Talking Points
Humanitarian Aid Reforms for the U.S. Military
Marie Zoglo, American University Congress should streamline the military’s existing structure for humanitarian aid by removing redundancies and creating a unified humanitarian aid command. Poor countries often serve as havens for terrorism, the drug trade, human trafficking, and money laundering. Furthermore, instability within one state has a tendency to spread to neighboring states, destabilizing entire regions. While combat may be the only way to defeat existing terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, insurgencies will continue to spring up unless underlying issues that cause them are addressed. Military aid is one way of addressing economic and security concerns crucial to U.S. interests, and ensuring the stability of other nations. Furthermore, aid creates an opportunity for displaying compassion on an international stage, such as during the 2004 tsunami that devastated the Indian Ocean basin. In this situation, the U.S. Navy responded quickly and effectively, building goodwill and respect in the region, while China, which lacks a worldwide naval capacity, did nothing.
• $108 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2011 for regular humanitarian aid operations, with $4.5 billion in supplemental funds budgeted for foreign aid to afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan and $2.8 billion for Haiti earthquakerelated reconstruction.4 (In fiscal year 2007, the amount given to the Department of Defense for response to tsunami disaster relief was $95 million.5) • The military already engages in significant humanitarian aid, but the system has sprung up as the need has arisen and is thus haphazard and decentralized.
• Key Facts
The military is uniquely suited for humanitarian aid, as it is deployed in some of the most hazardous and difficult situations on earth. In dangerous areas, the military is needed to protect operations, aid workers, and the target population. Furthermore, the U.S. military’s capacity is unmatched by civilian organizations in terms of the logistics, command and control, communications, and mobility needed to conduct major humanitarian aid initiatives. Given these security concerns and logistical advantages, it is unsurprising that the military has already recognized the need to take an active role in humanitarian aid. Existing programs engaged in humanitarian aid include the Center for Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance, which reports to U.S. Pacific Command; the Commander’s Emergency Response Program, the Center for Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance Medicine under the Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, and the Pacific Disaster Center.1 In Pakistan, U.S. helicopters rescued almost 5000 Pakistanis and delivered 634,000 pounds of relief supplies following the floods of 2010.2 Significant military humanitarian aid operations have also occurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, and Southeast Asian areas affected by the 2004 tsunami. Following American tsunami-related humanitarian aid, favorable views of the U.S. jumped from 15 percent to 38 percent in Indonesia.3 analysis Clearly, the U.S. military is already engaged in humanitarian aid, but Department of Defense humanitarian aid takes place through a variety of haphazard ad-hoc programs, and
coordination is difficult. The Department of Defense’s humanitarian-aid system has developed as the need arose, and is thus decentralized and scattered. The military needs to bring its various existing organizations for humanitarian aid into the formal Department of Defense structure and give them a proper place in the budget. The various Department of Defense humanitarian aid organizations should also be moved under one command. This will reduce redundancy, increase efficiency, and enable specialization in military foreign humanitarian aid. Costs associated with this proposal are minimal, as it mostly entails a shifting of money already in the budget and personnel already in the military into one coherent command structure. This is mainly a reorganization of programs already in the budget, one that will remove wasteful redundancies over the long term.
• Restructuring the military’s humanitarian-aid system would reduce redundancy, increase efficiency, enable specialization in aid, and increases efficacy. • This proposal streamlines the existing programs, thus eliminating expensive redundancies and saving money over the long-term.
• Talking Points
Next steps A new military department in the Department of Defense should be created specifically to train and equip military personnel for humanitarian aid. In terms of leadership, a chief of staff of military humanitarian aid should be appointed and made a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assist with planning and coordinating military humanitarian aid operations. The military’s humanitarian-aid structure should also rely on cooperation and collaboration with other government agencies. Under the Unified Combatant Commands, the military should establish a command devoted to humanitarian aid that is allowed to accept interdepartmental and international contributions from various other groups involved in humanitarian aid. Outside the formal military structure, a committee under the National Security Council will help coordinate Department of Defense humanitarian aid along with representatives from the Department of State, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, International Monetary Fund, and relevant non-governmental organizations. endnotes
1. “Joint Publication 3-29 Foreign Humanitarian Assistance,” Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 17, 2009, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/ lib.nsf/db900sid/EGUA-7R7PVJ/$file/usmil-foreign-hum-assistance-mar09.pdf. 2. Jim Garamone, “U.S. Military Continues Pakistan Relief Efforts,” American Forces Press Service, August 19, 2010, accessed November 4, 2010, http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=60513. 3. “America’s Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project,” Pew Research Center, March 14, 2007, accessed May 1, 2011, http://pewglobal.org/2007/03/14/americas-image-in-the-world-findings-from-the-pew-global-attitudes-project/. 4. “FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs,” Congressional Research Service, July 27, 2010, accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41232.pdf. 5. “Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Budget Estimates: Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster Assistance, and Civic Aid (OHDACA),” Department of Defense Security Cooperation Agency, February 2006, accessed May 1, 2011, http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2007/budget_justification/ pdfs/01_Operation_and_Maintenanace/O_M_VOL_1_PARTS/OHDACA.pdf.
The Moral Equivalent of War: A Program for Energy Security
Senior Fellow: Chris Scanzoni, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Co-Authors: Christian Blanco, University of California at Berkeley Mark Caine, University of Cambridge Sarah Hadburg, University of California at Los Angeles Anthony Petti, University of California at Berkeley Rose Stanley, Cornell University We are proud to nominate “The Moral Equivilant of War” for policy idea of the year. It is the first student-generated white paper to receive this distinction. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter clenched his fists and decreed to the nation that America’s energy crisis was “the moral equivalent of war.” Since then, every U.S. president has declared his intention to pass a sustainable energy policy for the nation, and every president has failed. In spite of compelling rhetoric, our leaders have not passed any significant adjustments which may reduce the nation’s consumption of fossil fuels. Prolonged inaction by policymakers on energy has precipitated a panoply of national security crises, impeding American strength and credibility abroad. This white paper is a product of a year-long process comprising rigorous research and vetting by field experts. We contend that our influence abroad resides in our ability to achieve energy modernization and efficiency domestically. Our agenda advocates for vigorous federal investment, emulates the successes of the Asian, European, and Canadian models, and leverages the unique capacities of American entrepreneurship. President Carter’s likening of the energy crisis to war provides an appropriate metaphor. Without robust public-private partnerships, we cede the future of our nation to indomitable global threats and our environment to calamity. American ingenuity and federal investment is responsible for the invention of railroads, microchips, the first nuclear reactors, crucial life-saving pharmaceuticals, and modern aviation. The Millennial generation rejects the notion that budget crises and political impasses preclude our ability to ensure homeland security, preserve our ailing climate, and set the foundations for the next wave of industry in America.
• Divert some Department of Defense federal research and development grants • • • •
to an underfunded ARPA-E fund Restructure STEM education expectations Invest in smart grid technologies to scale new technologies Reassess nuclear energy subsidies Formalize collaboration between Canada and the United States
• Innovation Priorities
Recommendations We propose a series of policy priorities with the objective of creating the next generation of innovators and spurring the development of new technologies. Each of these proposals highlights successful components of innovation programs abroad, while cultivating the unique conditions required for breakthrough developments in the United States. While the advancement of many clean energy agenda items are challenged by obdurate processes in Washington, we reiterate the importance to our national security of investing in this enterprise. 1. Invest Department of Defense Federal Grants in aRPa-e The Department of Defense (DoD) has a unique ability to drive rapid, disruptive technological innovation given its large research and development budget. Additionally, the DoD develops high-risk, high-reward technologies and scales them with remarkable speed and effectiveness. Creating a mechanism by which the DoD can leverage its vast R&D budget and procure advantageous ARPA-E projects would guarantee markets for these breakthrough technologies. 2. Restructure sTeM expectations The U.S. has undoubtedly been falling behind many countries in the proficiency of its students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) academic fields. To resolve these issues, the federal government should: incentivize teacher proficiency in STEM fields; provide more scholarships to incentivize higher education in STEM fields; and fund regional STEM centers to provide consistent teacher training and support student enrichment across states. 3. Invest in smart Grid Technologies An incoherent and fractured national grid has mostly rendered the use of alternative energy an unfeasible option; restructuring to a smarter grid, equipped with real-time feedback for both demand and supply sides is an imperative for policymakers concerned with America’s energy future. These new priorities include new federal renewable standards, diligent management, and incentives to private suppliers. This agenda item will engender a market wherein intermittent alternative energy sources are made more reliable and consumers are better informed on real time energy pricing. 4. Reassess Nuclear subsidies To achieve carbon neutrality goals, the United States government must invest in new, safe nuclear power plants. The current scheme of federal incentives and subsidies are not efficient, place an undue burden on the American taxpayer, and do not sufficiently compel companies to further develop nuclear power. The government should instead offer competitive research grants to increase the number of producers, raise the rate of procurement by nuclear companies and reduce production costs. 5. strengthen Formal american-Canadian Partnerships Given the long-standing record of amicable energy trade, substantial physical and human capital sharing, immense natural resources and well-established political relationships between the United States and Canada, there are considerable gains to be realized through increased collaboration in energy research and development. We propose two phases of policy. The first phase identifies a proven, secure and relatively domestic sup29
ply of crude oil that can be accessed immediately. Phase two outlines the creation of a central electronic resource which will coordinate the efforts of stakeholders, review and approve plans, allocate funds, and facilitate coordination between like initiatives. By aligning the needs of stakeholders, independent of political borders, the United States can expedite the technological development process. Conclusion We acknowledge that historic budgetary pressures and political deadlock make reform indescribably challenging. Our priorities include substantial investments in R&D and incentives to swiftly trigger innovation and procurement: a difficult agenda item to promote amidst austerity measures. In the aftermath of the tragic earthquakes and tsunami in Japan, the American public is rightfully wary of any expansion of nuclear power. Additionally, we express the necessity to eliminate or restructure many long-standing subsidies and expectations, which promise to inflame special interests content with the status quo. However, we also recognize that surmounting these obstacles to attain substantive reform will present the greatest step forward for American prosperity and security in the 21st century. The inextricable links between national security and energy insecurity demand swift, ambitious, and prudent domestic innovation. Specifically, federal involvement should emulate the most successful elements of the Chinese and European innovation models, while leveraging the unique capacities of American entrepreneurship. Short-term, superficial fixes to this structural issue will no longer suffice. While our priorities do not expend all potential policy options, they absolutely place the nation on a more efficient and sustainable path. World War II united the nation, reinvigorated domestic industry, triggered historic levels of innovation, precipitated dramatic economic growth, and ultimately established the United States as a world leader. The consequences of exacerbated energy insecurity are great, though the promised political and economic benefits are greater. Energy security can no longer be considered a partisan issue; rather, it is an American cause. It is the moral equivalent of war. Read the full version online at www.rooseveltcampusnetwork.org
Get in the spotlight.
New York • DC • Boston • Detroit • San Francisco
Where young + professional = ready for more. Take your leadership to the next level:
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.