foreignpolicydigest.org

Latest Headlines

Home Featured Content Global Conflict Update

Featured Content

The Globalization of Guns

E-mail Print PDF

Bullets

 DEVELOPMENTS

The international trade of firearms and heavy weaponry affects poor and developing nations the hardest. Abusive practices emerging from the globalization of the weapons trade are very real problem that kills huge numbers of people worldwide each year.

Gun dealers like Jean-Bernard Lasnaud, Leonid Efimovich Minin, Victor Anatoliyevich Bout, Monzer Al Kassar and Sarkis Soghanalian often avoid prosecution and are known by IGOs for their business dealings which significantly destabilizes regions of the world all in the name of profit. In some cases, like that of Jean-Bernard Lasnaud, dealers operate in places as well known as South Florida. Conversely, gunrunners like Victor Bout are encouraged by some nation-states to conduct their global business because it improves their bottom line. Victor Bout was arrested in Bangkok in 2008 in a sting operation by DEA agents posing as Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels who were seeking weapons in their armed struggle against the Colombian government. Besides ammo and cargo planes the undercover DEA agents were seeking 700 to 800 surface-to-air missiles. At one point Bout was indicated by many sources for his involvement in selling arms to groups battling the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1990s but it was reported that he had begun selling weapons to the Taliban.

While the international market for illegal weapons affects governments battling insurgent groups it also predominately affects villagers and children in many poor African states. Often children are forced to join guerilla groups as child soldiers. In Liberia and Sierra Leone child soldiers have been found with AK-47s produced by manufactures in the former Yugoslavia. As long as many wealthier nations and individuals continue to treat global conflict-zones as a seller’s paradise for cheap assault weapons, irresponsible practices stemming from the sale of arms will continue feed violence and slow development in vulnerable nations around the globe.

Read more...
 

North Korea and the Sinking of the Cheonan Warship

E-mail Print PDF

Recovery of the Cheonan

 BACKGROUND

Tensions on the Korean peninsula are the highest that they have been in nearly two decades, following the intentional sinking of the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, on March 26th by a torpedo launched from a North Korean submarine. The sinking killed 46 South Korean sailors.

North and South Korea have effectively been at war following the hostilities from 1950 to 1953, despite the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement on July 27th, 1953 - for all intents and purposes, a faux peace treaty. Rhetoric on both sides has steadily risen since a team of international inspectors concluded that the Cheonan's sinking was the result of hostile actions by North Korea, and not accidental.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters during a May 25th press conference with the South Korean Foreign Minister, Yu Myung-hwan, that “We cannot turn a blind eye to belligerence and provocation…This was an unacceptable provocation by North Korea, and the international community has a responsibility and a duty to respond.”

Read more...
 

President Obama’s Revamped Nuclear Strategy

E-mail Print PDF
President Obama: 2010 Nuclear Security Summit

 BACKGROUND

For the first time in decades, since the early days of the Cold War, the United States has issued a new set of policy guidelines regarding the use of nuclear weapons that differs significantly from past efforts.  President Obama clearly lays out when, how and under what circumstances nuclear weapons would be used.

The new strategy would eliminate previous ambiguity that has existed for decades, and which many of his predecessors had failed to or wished not to address.  In laying out his new strategy, the President said: “Today, my Administration is taking a significant step forward by fulfilling another pledge that I made in Prague—to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and focus on reducing the nuclear dangers of the 21st century, while sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent for the United States and our allies and partners as long as nuclear weapons exist.”

Exercising his prerogative, the President ordered the new strategy titled the Nuclear Posture Review.   In fact, former President Bush had issued one in 2002; and former President Clinton issued his in 1994.  The fact that Mr. Obama issued a Nuclear Posture Review in and of itself is not significant - what is significant is that it defines a much more limited role for nuclear weapons.  In particular, the United States will not launch a nuclear attack against any state that is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), even if that state should launch a chemical or biological weapons attack, or cripples the United States via a cyberattack.  Specifically, the Nuclear Posture Report says, “the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing ‘negative security assurance’ by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.  This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.”

Read more...
 

United States and Russia Sign a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

E-mail Print PDF
President Obama and President Medvedev

 DEVELOPMENTS

U.S. President Barack H. Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitri A. Medvedev, have signed a treaty to succeed START I. For clarification, START II was never implemented, and its successor agreement, START III, never got to the negotiation phase.  Following the signing, Mr. Obama attended a formal state dinner in Prague with 11 fellow NATO allies.

Essentially, the context for the New Start Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) negotiations took place at a meeting in Moscow in July of 2009 between President Obama and President Medvedev.  That meeting addressed several key issues. Most importantly, President Obama and his counterpart signed an agreement that established the groundwork for the New START Treaty, replacing START I when it expired on December 5th of last year.  According to an analysis made at the time by Peter Crail of the Arms Control Association, “Just setting a new limit would send a signal to the international community in general that the United States was getting serious about its disarmament commitments again.”

Originally the two world leaders met for the first time at the G-20 meeting in London in April 2009 and agreed to start a formal process of drafting the New START Treaty.  The meeting in Moscow was intended to smooth over any differences that each side had regarding complicated matters like missile defense and verification measures.

Many individuals familiar with the negotiations report that the Russians overextended their hand and assumed that President Obama would be more willing to compromise regarding the nuances of the treaty.  Mr. Obama erred by assuming that he would be able to use his oratorical skills to simply persuade the Russians to agree to his terms.  To overcome these deficits, Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev met or talked by phone a total of 14 times in an effort to reach some sort of agreement.  In the end what carried the day and eventually breached the logjam was simple perseverance on the parts of President Obama and President Medvedev.

The New START Treaty was signed in Prague on April 8, 2010 in the gilded halls of the Prague presidential castle.

Read more...
 

Tenuous Progress Being Made In Afghanistan

E-mail Print PDF
US Marines in Garmsir, Afghanistan

DEVELOPMENTS

As a direct result of the 30,000 American troop surge in Afghanistan, coalition troops are attempting to capture the Afghan town of Marja, located in the Helmut Province. In the operation that was launched at the beginning of February, thousands of American, Afghan and British soldiers began their assault on the area. Arriving in mine resistant vehicles and by helicopters the assault has largely appeared to be effective.

Add to this development the recent capture of several high ranking Taliban commanders in Pakistan by a joint mission of American and Pakistani intelligence agencies, the progress in Afghanistan towards nullifying the Taliban or rendering their presence a nuisance is possible and illustrates that progress is being made in the nearly decade long struggle.

The American effort in Marja is also significant because instead of focusing on a purely military victory, i.e. killing all remaining Taliban fighters and moving on to the next mission, American and Afghan officials are focusing on rebuilding the governance in the area after years of Taliban rule. To insure that this occurs, a significant number of American and Afghan soldiers will remain in the area to insure that the Taliban are unable to return to establish a foothold in the area again. In order to decrease the chance that corrupt Afghans will assume the reins of power in Marja and the region, the United States has begun flying in Afghan police officers and administrative officials from outside of the area. These officials and officers from the North and elsewhere in the country are perceived to be less corrupt than those from the Helmut Province or Taliban areas. Referencing these government officials, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal had this to say, “We’ve got a government in a box, ready to roll in.”

Read more...
 
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »
Page 1 of 2