Talk:Lecture 3
Sale of Arms Between Nations
Jared Smelser- ( 4th year Poli Sci major with PP minor) I’m hoping that this reference is not too pedestrian as it is from the movies, but I feel that the topic is important and it is relevant to the class. This weekend I viewed the film the Lord of War, (www.lordofwarthemovie.com) in brief, it’s about an arms dealer who in finding success in the illicit sales of arms, also tries to find his moral bearing in those very sales. I won’t go further into the film or my opinion of its thematic merits, but I will say that based on fact or fiction this film asks a very important question of how we as nation view the sale, licit or otherwise, of arms to foreign nations. In the last few months the United Nations has drafted an agreement to track the sale of small arms- MARKING AND TRACING SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS: IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND CONTROL http://disarmament.un.org:8080/cab/docs/trcngexperts/grip.pdf
This agreement comes after much debate in the UN, on the inherent harm in the sale of arms between nations, as well the inability of policing agencies to investigate the use of said arms. Unfortunately the agreement does little to solve many of the problems it is intended to fix. An article found on Global Policy Forum and written by Amnesty International, Oxfam International and International Action Network, it proposed that the above agreement was weakened by a few nations including the US.
"Most governments had backed a much stronger, legally binding agreement that covered ammunition as well as weapons, but the opposition of just a few countries, particularly the United States, Iran and Egypt, means that the chance to have a serious impact on the activities of arms dealers has been lost." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/2005/0714undeal.htm
It was this quote in particular which sparked my interest, how is it that in a time of terrorist threat the US who has pledged to wage war on all types of terrorist behavior fails to follow through on that claim? For the most part the majority of small arms Literature is centered on the large scale impact of small arms on human rights violations. While in it self an important topic, human rights as an issue within homeland security is only tangentially relevant, for this class the more relevant question in my opinion is the proliferation of arms to terrorists. Did the US fail to support this agreement because it felt the sale of arms to so called friendly states was an issue of national defense, quoted from the GPF article above “an explicit loophole in the agreement allows any country to refuse to disclose information about arms sales on the grounds of "national security". This “loop hole” was reported to be pushed by the US. If this is the case that the US (or other nations) must have the right to support other nations or groups (the Mushahadin in the 80's) with weapons, that it be allowed to do so with anonymity? As history shows us today’s ally is tomorrows enemy, while I’m sure to some one it sounded like a good idea to train and arm Osama Bin laden, and others like him when the US was in a cold war with the Soviet Union, was it in our best longterm interests. Perhaps someone in Professor Nacht's National Defense class can elaborate on the issues that surround aiding groups such as the Mushahadin for National Defense reasons.
Is this a national defense issue and if so, can national defense in some circumstances be counterintuitive to homeland security?
- Jared
General Question/Comments
Dean Nacht mentioned the enormous Muslim population in India. Outside of the Kashmiri conflict, have the Indians encountered much Islamic terrorism? If so, should it be viewed as terrorism or was being made by Pakistan on a different front? If there have been such actions, how has India reacted? I am interested, particularly, because India is a democracy and because much of the Indian government and legislation was modeled on the British system.
Would the first group of London bombers be considered al Qaeda proper or an al Qaeda franchise? I believe the group used a name similar to or the same as the group the conducted the Madrid bombings – were they linked in a significant way?
Are there any public examples of hoaxes initiated by al Qaeda?
[Pravin Mittal, PMP, Microsoft, UW]
I must state that being from India so my answers may inherently prejudiced but would try to as objective as possible. To answer your question: Outside of the Kashmiri conflict, have the Indians encountered much Islamic terrorism?
One thing Indian media/even day to day parlance has been very careful to use the word "terrorism" not "islamic terroism" even in Kashmir. This worked against terrorist as they have never been able to strike any chord with "mainstream" muslim population and remained in fringes. India has suffered lot of terrorism in various states ethnic/religious and idelogical (leftist). problem. 1) Ethnic: Gorkhas in Darjeeling hills: They were given more autonomy and power eradicated the problem. There are lot of ethnic entities in N.E states of India but eventually they came to negotiationg table once their grievances are addressed.
2) Sikhs in Punjab: It resulted some autocratic government actions from then Primeminister of the country. Currently, peaceful and prosperous state once federal gave more powers to state.
3) Bombay Blasts, May 1993 -- was devastating attack on scale on number of people killed, purpotedly carried out by Intelligence Agencies of Pakistan. Dawood Ibrahim currently hiding in Pakistan. After 10 years, US govenement recognized him as terrorist but yet to apprehended.
4) Indian Parliament attack, 2002 by Lashkar-E-Taiba, pakistani hardline group. Group was banned by Musharraf but it has sprung with different names nad all members released after 6-9 months of the attack. It is one of the biggest supporter of Taliban.
5)Naxalite (Communist movement through armed means) --- Land reforms in west bengal eradicated the problem in the state. but it still to linger in neighboring poor districts of states like Bihar, Andhra pradesh and orissa.
Guerrilla Movements
Professor Maurer, you have stressed repeatedly that terrorist organizations are no match for state power when it is seriously brought to bear against them. In reference to the Vietnam War, Dean Nacht recalled a statement by a Vietnamese General that it is true that North Vietnam never defeated the Americans in battle but that that was “irrelevant” (relatedly, he also made the point that several groups that have gone on to have disproportionate impacts on societies were small and rather insignificant when compared to the state governments they maneuvered against). The Tet Offensive seems to be a good example of that line of thought. I understand that the Offensive was, in fact, a tremendous military defeat for the North Vietnamese but that the US media and public opinion effectively turned the Offensive into a massive strategic victory for the North Vietnamese. Could not the same thing happen with respect to the US and terrorism? The terrorists may never defeat US troops head to head or bring down the US state but their actions and the effects on public opinion that they may have can, potentially, have or contribute to real strategic effects (i.e. the US taking a much more active role in this part of the world, a less active role in that part, etc.). Thoughts?
SMM: Guerrilla wars are mass movements and different. I can have all sorts of thoughts about what might happen. The trick is to bring evidence to bear. I think I said everything I can say about this in the second lecture.
