The Internet and Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy:

Abstract


Like the Cold War era, the world once again finds itself at the threshold of destruction. In the aftermath of 9/11, and the rapid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), reliable and current data on these weapons is imperative. This essay will argue that with the inherent fluidity of weapons of mass destruction, together with “globalization,” traditional mediums of information are impaired, inadequate, and ill fitted to deliver accurate and current intelligence. Timely, the World Wide Web has emerged as a viable alternative to supply a consistent and wide-ranging mode of accumulating, analyzing and swiftly disseminating information regarding WMD. Although many sites lack credibility and depth, there is a vast amount of useful material. Many sites are devoted to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, offering comprehensive reporting and access, with convenience powered by high-tech digital tools like video clips.



Due to recent international security developments, the world is again at the cross road of destruction. Rapid horizontal and vertical proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is a grave situation with unacceptable ramifications. As events of 9/11 illuminate, there is a growing security concern that terrorists could employ WMD to intimidate those opposed to radical Islamic destiny. The increased possibilities of WMD attack call for better ways of accessing, analyzing and sharing pertinent information. Contrary to the intelligence community’s emphasis on secrecy, the Web facilitates instant access to an assortment of information; timely, the Internet concurrently educates the public and undermines the proliferation of these weapons. The Web integrates traditional texts format into readily retrievable instruments by utilizing digital technological systems with amazing results. Security experts, as well as others in the field, will find the Web critical in routine execution of their duties. Although there are flaws in the cyber-information age, prospects are that the failings are essentially insignificant in the broader opportunities presented by the Internet. While I concede that reliable sites are rare, and many not comprehensive enough, online organizations have outshined conventional sources. This can be attributed to inherent multi cyber-functions; multi media options, accessibility, currency, and reliability, which lack in other long-established sources.


WMD are the most awesome tool of death ever invented by overly ambitious man. Naturally, one would anticipate a profuse amount of web sites on the subject with more than adequate data to satisfy the thirst of various users. Unfortunately, after countless searches on Yahoo! and Google it was clear that although staggering quantities of WMD are in hands of rogue states and dynamic amount of related sites exists, one is short of finding any terrific sites. Robert Burnett of the University of Karlstand and P. David Marshall of Northeastern University agree, “The web produces a massive surplus of content that may not actually be useable as information” (23), and many of these sites lack the fundamental facets of usable sites.


The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) is a typical example, for it provides good information but lacks any meaningful substance for the average user, international relations students or other interested persons. For example data is presented, organized and described in professional jargons for nonprofessionals to appreciate; but the site supplies no information on evacuation plans and other emergency procedures. Many articles have serious credibility issues because authors are not clearly identified by credentials, but by name and often with no contact information. The interesting piece by Wu Anne, “The Dance over North Korean Nukes” (NTI), is just one example. This undermines and raises questions about the validity and reliability of information housed on the site. Fielden remarked on the shortcomings of Web that “a certain amount of skepticism is appropriate in examining Internet resources…it never hurts to examine a researcher’s motive and perspective critically” (38-39). Therefore, despite useful resources, this site has some a few minor flaws.


However, NTI is professionally designed and easy to navigate. Its main page explains the mission as “working to reduce the global threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons” (NTI). To the right of the homepage users can explore the site extensively; the “[r] research library and [l] earn more” (NTI) are gateway to massive concentrations of data. To maintain its credibility the site provides documentation, “reference information” (NTI), and offers several active links to different sections that have sponsorship information and the organization’s history. The “Working for a safer world” (NTI) area dedicates a detailed account of the chronology of these weapons, along with the organization’s contributors around the world (see fig. 1). A link located at the top of the homepage entitled, “search country information” (NTI), provides users with current information on all WMD proliferating states. Individual links are active at any time for curious consumers, for an example the section “[o]ther resources” has policy and intelligence materials like “[t]he CIA report on technology acquisition” (NTI) which catalogue advanced weapon systems. In general, the links as well as a “search site” area contain contact and other relevant information; phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses and donation offers. However, although this site is remarkable, it lacks practical information of importance to average users; nonetheless, if multi-media applications are fully utilized this problem could be solved by using visually appealing and straight forward video images.


Upon a closer look at the site, I feel there a several usability problems, which limit the site’s goals; many of the links to other sites have no active way back to the NTI (see fig. 2). Also, data is not precise enough: useful information is hard to locate, for one would have to shift through often-irrelevant databases and hyper-links to get to appropriate resources. Consequently, despite a good collection of information on WMD, the site would attract only limited numbers of users. This evokes the “[s] scholar’s workstation model,” a method in research that relies exclusively on virtual access to reliable information (Fielden 39-40). To prevail over the shortcomings of the workstation model, Fielden accentuates the necessity for “[t]echnological training” to avoid any obstacles and discover useful Internet information (40). Fielden’s suggestion seems to be unreasonable on individuals seeking occasional but precise emergency updates on WMD. Nonetheless, in the case of NTI, this is not practical as there are no resources allocated to public education. Although one of the largest and most resourceful sites on the web related to chemical, biological and nuclear arsenals, it lags far behind the Monterey Institute of International Studies, to which we now turn.


Fortunately the next site boasts substantial usability. The Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS) maintains the same level of authority and information accuracy as NTI, however, the MIIS site furnishes current developments on all WMD and international security policy in a multimedia layout that is superior to any non-web resources. Each link directs the consumer to detailed images and scientific information, thus simplifying the complex process of nuclear, biological and chemical development, which is further supplemented with video images showing the devastation of these weapons. Mary Sellen, Assistant Director for User Services at the University of New York, Albany, maintains that “works that have the ability to be interactive with words and media and disseminated rapidly to any location at any time have the possibility to significantly enhancing the meaning of information and enhancing interactive learning” (118). For example the new book “The Four Faces of Terrorism” by Charles Ferguson is available online and can be accessed anytime, any where in world. Individuals with questions can email the author and contributors directly regarding the assertion that “substandard security at nuclear facilities in Europe, Central Asia, Russia, and Pakistan increases the risk of terrorists seizing highly enriched uranium to make crude, but devastating, nuclear explosives” (MIIS).


This widens the scope of users from just nuclear experts to foreign policy analysts and counter-proliferation regimes like the International Atomic and Energy Agency that act as global nuclear watchdogs; all of which can share this information instantly with great details and accuracy. MIIS maintains an undisputable authority on the subject of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the U.S. Congress depends on the site for analysis and updates. For example, Congress in 2004 asked the organization to offer an assessment of WMD security risks, in response to which Charles Ferguson for MIIS recounted, “that the challenge of securing commercial radioactive sources around the world is difficult, but manageable. [And if the recommendations are] implemented, could significantly reduce this component of the dirty bomb threat over the next five years” (MIIS 2003). Burnett and Marshall maintains that “[t]he Web performs different functions in our culture than previous information sources” (33), and in this instance the Internet has the ability to establish a public and private “information network” (32)


Moreover, the site is well organized, with activities clearly outlined as “communication and education, Russia/New Independent States, Biological, Regional and United States” (MIIS). Accessing this information is effortless; users are guided by links (see fig. 2) to areas of interest (e.g., “loose nukes”) (MIIS). The front page of the site meticulously defines its purpose as immediate and long term goals: it is “concerned that the threat from nuclear weapons had fallen off most people’s radar screens after the cold war…to strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons” (MIIS) (see fig. 3). Fielden noted that “various kinds of information that depend on currency–for example statistics…are often well served in an internet environment” (34). The site is particularly accessible to federal and local employees charged with funneling alerts to the necessary agencies, a task that would be very difficult in absence of the Internet. Along these lines, Mary K. Sellen convincingly contends that “the web allows for such efficiency and dissemination of information” (119); for the site boasts a number of books and articles dedicated to WMD, but there are also numerous means of and formats for accessing resources (e.g., pfd, html, video clips etc.). Burnett and Marshall rightly observe that “[the] Web is a combination of cable, phones lines” (36), which make interaction and communication faster and more reliable than ever before.


In addition, Web-based data is quite diverse in contrast to tangible sources because online materials come in a variety of forms, news articles, educational materials and electronic to mention but a few. Various tools that enhance the quality and quantity of the information supplement these resources. As Sellen reminds users, the web offers more choices to consumers, “new models of communication enhance the delivery of information and provide support services within the same electronic medium” (123). By using the “topic menu” on the MIIS site the user is re-directed to specific and quite frankly non-abstract collections of prosperous data. Indeed, as Sellen prophetically put it, “the internet and the World Wide Web are going to change the 21st century” (125). Since its inception the MIIS has changed the entire field of security policy by providing updated and integrated data on the qualitative and qualitative dimensions of weapon systems. For instance, the article on “International Proliferation in the 21st Century” provides rich insights on weapons processing, delivery systems, and a chronology of arms trade and technology transfer by developed to less developed nations.


Furthermore, the MIIS stands tall at the helm of “networking” with no viable rival to its muster of useful information. The site offers interactive and multimedia selections at the “WMD411”section, where individuals can instantly watch live such recent security developments as “India warns Pakistan over Kashmir” and “South Korean seeking nuclear technology” (MIIS). In particular the 2005 “newslink” has in-depth state by state analysis (e.g., “North Korean and Iran nuclear developments”) that brings experts up to-date on a spectrum of issues related to nuclear weapons in a multi-media driven system employing video images and animated simulations. A chronological assortment of these weapons is impressive; a PowerPoint driven photo gallery that is ironically “attractive” accomplishes this. With unbiased coverage and diversity of experts, it draws respect from all international security regimes and major political actors. British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a 2004 weekly television address cited the MIIS as “the world’s most trusted WMD tracking enterprise” (MIIS). Mary Sellen, a staunch proponent of information distribution, coined the term “multimedia literacy,” to explain the evolving meaning literacy, that the Internet has replace tangible forms (117). Sellen argues further, “[m]ultimedia technologies of the web allows these authors to create works that combine text, graphics arts and interactivity to tell the story” (118). These new electronic databases will extend data distribution with unrivaled speed and efficiency (117).


While undisputable that this Website’s boast superior WMD related data, there are notable imperfections. Users searching the web for WMD news would naturally go to the main MIIS website; however few ended up at the “nuclear terrorism” which is the immediate concern to most users. It seem individual users are required to have substantial knowledge of the site (e.g., site map and key words). Even when patient consumers master the Website, it’s quite frustrating to adequately access such data through the MIIS homepage; there is no direct links to this page (nuclear terrorism). Consequently, gaining initial access to “nuclear terrorism” (MIIS) literature is challenging. Nevertheless, individuals should not despair as Fieldman reminds us that, “[a] neat, linear line towards success is rare and that the actual process of extending one’s understanding through the locating and digesting of resource material is a worthy journey, even when results are minimal” (30). To wholly appreciate the complex process of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the scope of this inquiry must be extended to include narrowly designed sites as the Federation of American Scientist.


Weapons of mass destruction has been the focus of the Federation of American Scientist’s (FAS) since its founding in 1945 by scientists concerned about control of the awesome new technology they had helped create. It is also the oldest organization devoted to curbing the worldwide arms race. Fielden, a librarian at UC Berkley argues that, “several advantages of the internet over other mediums for research are its wide range access and retrieval” (32), FAS utilize Web “networks” to painless help interested individuals to locate the subject of their choice. This site focus on describing the scientific processes of making chemical, biological and chemical weapons to users in a straight-forward, and easy to understand fashion: “Ebola [biological weapon] exists naturally in primate populations…and occasionally spread to humans through contact with these animals” (FAS). Effects of these weapons are eloquently discussed with simplicity and clarity which is unrivaled by traditional sources. A vivid example is the description of anthrax which is done quite plainly by suggesting that “Inhalation anthrax is the most serious [of various forms]—mild respiratory symptoms develop into sever systems, breathing difficulties, shock, and eventually death if not treated. Symptoms normally appear within a week of exposure, but may not appear for 2 month” (FAS).


By clicking on the “nuclear weapons” link, one can promptly access resources on a number of subjects and explanations for clarification on the “[n]uclear weapons in the 21st century” (FAS). For example, there various issues are addressed under the sub-topic the “dirty bombs,” “proliferation,” “next generation of nuclear weapons” and “bunker busters.”(FAS). Because it’s important to keep updated on the trends of these weapons; the site displays information cautioning people to be aware of the new threat of “radiological bombs” (FAS) which are more accessible to terrorist groups and likely to be used. It is doubtful that this information could be readily available even in voluminous libraries. To gather this kind of current information would require a full-time research job for month in the library, going through multiple levels of administrative clearance.


The FAS exemplifies the competence of the global access to collection of information as well as an instrument of transmission. For the FAS is “dedicated to ending the worldwide arms race by training and education individuals” (FAS), bring the message close to users. Robert Burnett of the University of Karlstand and David Marshall of Northeastern University reasons that “[a]s a communications technology, the web provides the possibility for every large audiences, but also interpersonal, group and one-to-one forms of communication” (36). Indeed the FAS educate people on many issues, for example, “by training firefighters to deal with terror attacks reminiscent of the fire that destroyed Madrid's 32-story Windsor building Feb. 13 2005, as well as bring technological advances to first-responders in different part of the world” (FAS). In addition, the FAS Learning Federation (LF) project focuses on research and development of Technology-Enabled Learning Systems (TELS) that can make learning more engaging, effective and accessible. It’s Learning Science and Technology R&D Roadmap lays out benchmarks for how education technology can revolutionize how experts can teach and learn within a decade. First responders, military medics and others can learn faster and better with TELS. Federation of American scientist help institutions and citizens acquire cutting edge technology on WMD in the convenience of their offices or homes respectively, thus making this site irreplaceable tool for scintific research on weapons of mass destruction.


Unlike the sites presented thus far, the FAS is strictly an American organization. All doctors are citizens and graduates of the United States, and U.S schools respectively, thus creating a credibility problem for what is largely scientific work. (See fig. 4). Fielden believes this is a serious issue when he was addressing the issue of authority; rhetorically he probed “[w]hat makes for reliable information? A primary concern is trust. Are the persons who created the information accurate and honest?” (37). Other than being all American association, the site has no links to international organization or regimes dealing proliferation like the United Nations, the only links available are US military command and control. Therefore, in terms of trust the FAS trail the other WMD related Websites as the NTI and MIIS. Nonetheless, the site boasts unmatched expertise in weapon systems technology.


Like the FAS, the Ploughshare’s Fund (PF) supports the cessation of the nuclear arms race around the world. However, this site gives grants that are related exclusively to peace and security issues. The fund was started in the mid eighties—approximately 22 years ago—and has given grants totaling more than $40 million dollars. This diversity of services is a recent phenomenon due to the emergence of the Internet, this will certainly be impractical without what Burnett and Marshall correctly conceptualized as “the network society and the web” (41). To provide such benefits an extended system of monitoring is vital of which the internet has reliably facilitated, to quote Burnett and Marshal “the network society has developed from movements of information for the needs of large scale interconnected organization to operate” (42). Actually, the PF is the largest grant making foundation in the United States (see fig. 5). Some of the projects that have been funded by the fund include: “the international campaign to ban landmines, the public campaigns to compel governments to not support the development of usable nuclear weapons, in addition to a campaign that would ask governments to take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert, the work of physicist David Albright in getting Brazil and Argentina to back off their pursuit of nuclear weapons, the organization of various civil society organizations whose whole purpose is to monitor the governments’ adherence to biological treaty, in the absence of an official regime; the creation of seismic monitoring equipment in the former Soviet Union to determine whether nuclear testing was taking place, and finally establishing a code of conduct among Western countries—European countries—that prevents the sale of arms to countries that are led by dictators or human rights abusers” (PF).


Still, the grants that this organization offer are not only limited to the prevention of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons but also extended to conventional weapons such as surface to surface missiles, and others that could potentially be launched from space (e.g., air-plane based rockets). Furthermore, the fund also allocated to those projects that are concerned with conflict prevention, an example is the PF logistical support to India-Pakistan conflict over territory. The fund is extremely important to the whole discussion of nuclear arms prevention, as it has had an effect on changing the policy in the United States monies being given targeted countries. The PF leadership mantains that, “funds have been awarded to numerous Middle Eastern nations” (PF). To be sure, libraries don’t issues grants or funds, therefore, as sociologists David Marshall Robert Burnett eloquently stated that “the prevalence of web is merging global cultures into a network society” this is a new phenomenon, which is responsible for the increased capabilities of organizing, and increasing “traffic and trade beyond goods into the movement of information its self”(35). In particular the ability of the PF to provide money to advance its mission is revolutionary; traditionally information was static, limited in accessibility and scope. Practically speaking, if all these websites can coordinate their efforts it will serve as a valuable resource during times of emergency. Of course, there are a number of agencies that become involved during a national crisis such as the Red Cross, but the nexus between Internet-based organizations and emergency agencies is a powerful possibility.


Although the PF is a brilliant site, it has minor problems which could shrink the users attraction to it in future. Sellen makes a case for use of media tools on education websites, maintaining that “visual and aural concepts have the potential to change the concept of static word literacy into multimedia literacy” (117). Unfortunately, the PF site extensively lacking in moderns cyber tools which are seductively potent for users. By cling on to traditional text form, the PF is ironically undermining its ability to attract and retain information consumers. Specially, photos and other multi-media options are not utilized. The fact that this site is 21st a century phenomenon, it’s logically unsustainable to explain why streaming radio; video and audio supplements are not applied to engage user. Today information that lack dramatic punctuations in form of graphics, video and other interactive tools is bound to appeal only those who routinely seek WMD information. In general, it’s fair to conclude that PF is wonderful resource for individuals constrained by various reasons to utilize the library or other traditional resources, but there is a systematic neglect of opportunities to expand the data base. With such a lukewarm application of multi-media products, users will find it less interesting and experienced users are surely destined to seek better sites, ironically at this will happen at the expense of valuable information.


The Nonproliferation and Disbarment Fund (NDF) is a security arm of the U.S. Department of State. It is “sharply focused fund to permit rapid response to unanticipated or unusually difficult, high priority requirements or opportunities to halt the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons” (NDF). Most importantly, the site supplements it’s primary goals by funding other projects which include: “destroy or neutralize existing WMD, their delivery systems and limiting the spread of advanced conventional weapons and their delivery systems” (NDF). The credibility of the site is solid due to it’s close association and supervision by the State Department, and also it has vital information right on the main page. For instance the top most section displays information on the (see fig. 6) “establishment”, “fund control”, “goals & objectives”, “legal authority”, “management restrictions” and “proposal process” (NDF). As librarian Ned Fielden held the internet has the ability to merge massive volumes of data more effectively than text books, for one to be able to visualize the above options will require opening numbers of pages, back and forth. Such diversity of information is rare if ever present in traditional mediums on this subject.


Important to mention, the NDF is a home to vital information on homeland security. As the events of 9/11 remind us, the world is not short of individuals determined to kill those opposed to extremist religious views. The site does a fabulous job by organizing information by “project category” that offers insight on the broader perspective of the activities in which the organization is involved. Second, the “tracker,” is a software system that helps one process weapon trade control applications easily and efficiently. Tracker's automated tools replace cumbersome, non-automated methods of processing trade control information, making it possible to keep track of thousands of cases. With this software users no longer need to maintain stacks of paper applications that are forwarded to different people for review and approval. This technology acts as a central location for inputting, processing, tracking, reviewing, and deciding license applications. For more information, the user is politely invited “please link www.TrackerNet.org” (NDF).


Perhaps the most effective feature of this site is the “related link” icon, this lead users to all Executive Branches of the U.S government related WMD. As Ned Fielden articulates that online “[m]any resources can be reached from your own computer” (32), one doesn’t need to a trip top this federal departments to access information as was the case. This website guide users to applicable resource on WMD. Imperative to mention, the site also offers updates on U.S efforts on elimination weapons of mass destruction and it effectively use videos and other tools. For instance a “defenselink” guide users to live department of defense simulations about nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. The web is a practical resource, mixing various methods, (e.g., written, recorded, and direct images from spy-planes) to enhance the communication. In particular the NDF’s “photo essays” and “TV” reports on WMD illustrate the immediate and long-term consequences of a nuclear or chemical explosion. Users can see first-hand the survival tactics. This latter advantage is instructive, text books lack both the dramatic and practical effect of the web. Although websites likes this are rare, they supply critical information on an extremely important aspect of domestic security.


However, information on this site like the PF, is questionable, because of the government is viewed as excessively entangled in the operational and program priorities, hence raising doubts about the sites objectivity and independent in gathering and disseminating information. As Fielden timely argued, “A certain amount of skepticism is appropriate in examining Internet resources…it never hurts to examine a researcher’s motives and perspective critically” (38-39). NPF relies heavily on domestic intelligence information and solely on the U.S government for funds. The site was created by the U.S. government to promote American proliferation priorities, thus making it practically impossible for independent efforts. Many of the editorials can be traced to U.S. Defense and State Departments, or other U.S intelligence organs, with only updates available are from the Defense Department homepage. It would appear that U.S. government purposefully set up the website to promote its foreign and domestic security agenda with little or no input from other nations affected or threatened by biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.


Overall, these sites are integral and important sites because they also can serve as a valuable resource during times of emergency. Burnett and Marshall argue, “[t]he technical innovation of the Internet [is] it permits the Web to have multiple users…” (36).These sites could effectively use the internet for collaboration of their efforts. Of course, there are a number of agencies that become involved during a national crisis. For example, FEMA, the Red Cross, and a number or agencies made it their mission to aid the victims of September 11, 2001. However, theses websites, if they shared information, could also be valuable stores of information regarding the number of casualties, the amount of food needed to care for individuals affected by a disaster, locating loved ones, etc. The point is that these sites, especially the ones that are sources for funds, can aid in these types of disasters. They can be more helpful than government agencies because they are not bound by the restrictions that deal with local, state, and government municipalities. The bureaucracy of government is such that certain agencies handle particular crimes within particular precincts or regions.


In addition, because FEMA is a federal program the response time to people with pressing needs during an emergency can be held up by policy; instead, if localities had access to these websites the time between asking for assistance and receiving assistance can be cut in half because these agencies are none government funded agencies and do not require wading through protocol to help those people in need of assistance. These sites are reputable sites that are operated by organizations that have existed for decades and have devoted themselves to the prevention of WMD. For this reason, it is important for the governments, the federal and the local, to use these sites in their own operation to help prevent national catastrophes such as the one that occurred almost four years ago and to aid those people in need if catastrophe wreaks havoc on the nation again.

Although the World Wide Web bestows instant access to resources across the world, the lack of a centralized WMD website is disturbing given the destructive nature of these weapons. Without educating the citizenry and politicians, progressive efforts towards a WMD free world and familiarity of the consequences would be hopeless. The web is an amazing apparatus that can easily disperse a wide range of information on a subject traditionally reserved for policy experts. Time has come for political leaders to seize the opportunities presented by the web, to devise a comprehensive and centralized WMD website of unassailable sort. Exclusive of constant innovations in technology and the rise of the of the World Wide Web, imperative issues like nuclear, biological and chemical weapons proliferation in the world would not be given adequate attention.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Internet and the Security Policy

Rationale


As a student of International Relations, it is evident that the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is the sole most threatening security predicament since the demise of the “Evil Empire” in1989. In 1994, President Clinton in response to WMD intelligence issued Executive Order number 12938, declared a national emergency citing an “extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States”(EX.O no.12938). Recently the increase in terror attacks and proliferation of WMD by rogue states like Iran calls for non-traditional alternatives to obtaining, analyzing and disseminating WMD related intelligence. Despite the international effort before 9/11 and thereafter, effective WMD regimes have been painfully slow because of information fragmentation. Therefore, as Robert Burnett and P. David Marshall of Northeastern University, elegantly suggest, “[i]nformation and networks” (23) is the prudent recourse. This paper will thus investigate the extent to which the World Wide Web can mitigate the flaws in international security and WMD in particular.

Methodology

In conducting this research project I am relying on five Web-based organizations. These sites range from educational and governmental to nongovernmental. Cyber search engines Yahoo! and Google were the primary tools used to arrive at these sites, for they have vast volumes of all dimensions on WMD proliferation. Using “weapons of mass destruction” as a key word I was introduced to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons literature unknown before and indeed remotely present in formalized traditional sources like textbooks. Specific information is available on WMD development and acquisition, delivery process, and policy specifics. By clicking on the site search engines I sifted through multiple levels of data options, all organized by subject. Important still, I was able to initiate inter-site searches, for instance the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS) has a “search site links” option with tools directing users to other biological, chemical and nuclear sites (e.g., Nuclear Threat Initiative). In particular the MIIS is equipped with a multi-level option to almost any relevant Website.

Annotated Bibliography

Federation of America Scientists. 4 Feb. 2005 http://www.fas.org/static/about.jsp.
The Federation of American Scientists is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization founded in 1945 by a group of atomic scientists. Founders were members of the infamous Manhattan Project, creators of the atom bomb. Its primary goal is “to end the worldwide arms race and avoid the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose.” The site puts forward a comprehensive historical inquiry into the evolution of nuclear weapons with advanced delivery systems, including the intercontinental ballistic missiles and surface-to-surface cruise missiles. Furthermore, the “WMD Watch” area of the site offers the latest news on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, policy initiatives and defense spending. Moreover, the site’s navigation tools are user friendly, conveniently located and active.

Monterey Institute of International Studies, 1989. 2 Feb. 2005 http://www.cns.miis.edu/
The Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS) is located in Monterey, California and has offices in Washington, DC to maximize access to international policy makers and other security experts that flock into the US national capitol. The area “About Us” on the site gives a clear history of organization. It was established by Dr. William Potter in 1998 with a small group of students with daunting task but noble mission “to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by training the next generation of nonproliferation specialists and disseminating timely information and analysis.” In addition, MIIS is the largest nongovernmental organization in the United States devoted exclusively to research and training on nonproliferation. There are five extensive programs, each with area expertise, and it offers a variety of information ranging from raw intelligence data to publications. Conveniently, information is generated by one of the specialized programs (e.g., chemical weapons). More still, the site offers peer reviewed publications on virtually any WMD related subject. Overall, the site is instructive and unique in contrast to any other on weapons of mass destruction.


Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund. 1 April. 1994. 13 Feb. 2005 .
The Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF) was established pursuant to section 504 of the FREEDOM Support Act enacted on October 24, 1992. Its objectives include halting the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, delivery systems, and related sensitive materials by offering funds. Funds are offered to neutralize the existing weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and limit the spread of advanced conventional weapons and their delivery systems. Moreover, this site is run by a highly credible organization that supplements US diplomatic efforts to halt the spread WMD. The NDF works closely with the US Department of State, and it is well structured; for instance, the option “Project Category” lists news by date and alphabetically for easy access. Furthermore, by a simple click on the “Project Category” this initiates a process internal access with in project categories that catalog a particular aspect on WMD (e.g., the amount of stockpiles and procurement information). In short, the NDF is the only federally funded site for the purpose of reducing and providing intelligence on the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear Threat Initiative. 20 January. 2001. 2 Feb 2005 .
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) based in Washington, DC is a non-profit organization founded by Mr. Ted Turner and Senator Sam Nunn in January 2001. Its mission is “to strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.” Furthermore, NTI seeks to raise public awareness, serve as a catalyst for new thinking and take direct action to reduce these threats. The site is engaged in model programs to inspire private and governmental efforts toward threat reduction by offering services in communication and education in Russia, the New Independent States, and the United States. The “Web Highlight,” “Newswire,” “Press Room,” and “Search me tutorials” links introduce users to an independent news service produced by the National Journal Group. The “Online Library” contains briefing papers and in-depth analysis on key issues. The site’s most valuable features include the extensive studies of weapons of mass destruction, and inter-site information networking.


Ploughshare Funds. 9 Nov. 1984. 2 Feb 2005 http://www.ploughshares.org/about_us.php?a=1&b=0&c.=0.The Ploughshares Fund (PF) is a public grant making foundation that supports initiatives to prevent the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction and conflicts that could lead to the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). PF is based out of San Francisco. The site specializes in giving start-up funds to promising new efforts aimed at reducing the possibility of a WMD holocaust. It also funds public campaigns to compel governments to oppose the development of a new generation of “usable” nuclear weapons and to take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. In addition, resources are awarded to networks of civil society organizations that are monitoring governments’ adherence to the biological weapons treaty, in the absence of any official verification regime. Recently, monies were allocated for installation of seismic monitoring equipment in Russia that proved that a ban on nuclear testing could indeed be verified. An annual report on all weapon systems is a prominent feature which highlights the proliferation status of WMD-seeking states.

MILITARY FORCE AS A FOREIGN POLICY INSTRUMENT TO ARREST HUMANITARIAN CRISIS: WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES CLAIM TO RESOR

"So many people throughout the world look to the United States for a lead on the most crucial issues that face our planet and indeed the lives of our grandchildren. “Truly the burden of the world rests on your shoulders," Prince Charles, November 3, 2005


“The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in times of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” UN Genocide Convention- Article 1. 1948.


“If the horrors of the holocaust taught us anything, it is the high cost of remaining silent and paralyzed in the face of genocide.” Governor Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign.


“…in 1994, Rwanda experienced the most intensive slaughter in this blood-filled century…the international community must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy…” President Clinton, Kigali, March 1998.


INTRODUCTION


The world has seen several momentous events that may appropriately be described as rearranging the structure of international relationships and essentially creating a new world order demanding visionary ideas to promote peace and ensure stability. For instance, the defeat of Germany in the First World War led Woodrow Wilson to call for the creation of a League of Nations in which “power would yield to morality, and force of arms to the dictates of public opinion” (Nye1993, pp. 82-3). Likewise as World War II ended it was clear that new-sprung national relationships were forming. As it became evident that the Allies would defeat the Axis powers, Winston Churchill pressed his American allies to focus on the eastern front power vacuum created by retreating German troops. The results, had the Americans heeded Churchill’s vision, may have been substantially different power arrangements and relationships among states. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War might also be viewed as a colossal change. As a result of the collapse, the United States dominates all aspects of global power – military, economic, diplomatic and some believe – cultural. In what may be viewed as a new world order where the structure of international relationships are being rearranged the United States, as the world’s dominant power, is faced with a huge challenge on a scale similar to what it faced at the end of the World Wars.


This essay will focus on one aspect of the United States’ power in the post-Cold War era: humanitarian interventions and the use of force. The paper is structured as follows, introduction, and rationale of the study, theory and assumptions, definition of concepts, challenges, research design, basis for military, that is; international law, national interests and moral, the application of the Just War concepts to humanitarian interventions and controversies involved in its application, and how the world has changed to oblige regression from the tradition concept of sovereignty.

RATIONALE

As a student of Foreign Policy and International Security Studies, I feel “pumped up” when someone mentions intervention, this is the core of my academic interest---because it involves tough but vital choices. However, military intervention and the issues involved required further academic inquiry, for their serious ideological, national and international law complications involved when an independent state decide unilaterally or multilaterally decide to violate the territorial and political integrity of another sovereign. The study will try to make sense of contradictory concepts that divide policymakers in the United States. Public and international organizations also agree that human rights are universal; at least those enshrined in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Donnelly 2005 pp. 1-2), however, controversy arise in practical application of these rights. At this point, I would outline the theoretical basis of this paper.

Theory and Assumptions

The nature of international politics is characterized by absence of a strong, authoritative and legitimate central government; therefore a hegemony power is obligated to uphold the highest moral standards for all global citizens, not only as a moral imperative, but also as a prudent course of action to solidify her position in the system. The hegemonic power has not only a moral obligation, but also a legal responsibility to employ non-violent and violent measure to restore order and arrest a humanitarian catastrophe. The small, powerless, and helpless nations clearly have no means to intervene. The critical responsibility of a hegemonic state is also grounded in the natural law and international law. The “just war” principles outlined by Augustine in the fourth century provide an appropriate framework to analyze whether the use of force to prevent certain human tragedies is just. Using the just war framework as a guide, the United States should not hesitate to employ its military power and influence to discourage, prevent, or resolve humanitarian crises—Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo just to mention but a few. Values, however universal in principle, will always require muscles and self-interest to enforce.

Research Design

In this section I will outline how this project is actualized. The main variable will be the United States as the sole super power. Instruments will include examination of historical publications, text books and online sources on humanitarian, international law and the state as an independent political entity. Procedures are going to primarily include comparative analysis of competing arguments in favor of and against US military to restore respect for human rights. In general I will rely on qualitative methods. I will show the relationships that the combination of moral considerations, position of United States as the sole super power, US national interest and international law all together, are powerful forces to prompt US forceful (military) humanitarian intervention consistent with international norms enshrined in the Just War Principle, UN Genocide Convention- Article 1. 1948 and the
Operationization of Concepts


The concepts below are not universal; therefore, I will use them in the context of the definitions provided in this essay.

Humanitarian Intervention


This term refers to the use of international military force to stop the massive abuse of human rights in another state (Wheeler 2000, pp51). Such action might be taken unilaterally by a single state without international approval or by a single state or alliance of states with official international sanction from a multi-lateral organisation such as the United Nations. In his important analysis of humanitarian intervention, Nicholas Wheeler examines six instances of sufficiently grave and extensive human rights abuse to qualify for humanitarian intervention. Three of these are from the Cold War era: India’s intervention into Bangladesh in 1971; Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia in 1979, and Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda in 1979. Five of them are from the “new world order” of the 1990s: the UN intervention into Northern Iraq in 1991; the US and UN intervention in Somalia in 1992; the appalling lack of intervention in Rwanda in 1994, and the UN and NATO’s interventions in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999 (Wheeler 2000). There is a consensus that intervention refers to external actions that influence the domestic affairs of another sovereign state. This could take different forms, speeches, broadcasts, economic aid, military advisers, supporting opposition, blockade, limited military action or military invasion (Nye 1999, pp. 23).


Sovereignty


Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. Sovereignty over a nation is generally vested in a government or other political agency, though there are cases where it is held by an individual. A monarch who rules a sovereign country can also be referred to as the sovereign of that country. The concept of sovereignty also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.


For the purposes of this research, note that sovereignty comes with it responsibilities. That is, if you take your life in your own hands you also take upon yourself to act responsibly and with integrity in regards to your own life, your family, your community, your fellow human beings and the planet as a whole. If you fail, Kant eloquently counsel, when we act in a way that we would want without contradiction everyone else to act, then it is a “universal law,” which no government has the right to deny (Kaplan 2002, pp.111). There are moral standards which transcends state boundaries. In the Declaration of Independence: rights that are indisputable because, like the Founders, we wish them without contradiction to be universal (Kaplan 2002, pp. 113). While different moral value systems may coexist, there has never been and there is no and should never be, a universal right to slaughter the innocent human beings. Kant shows that even in the so-called “independent state era,” there are still universal principles worth struggling for-something we know only too well because of the Holocaust (Kaplan 2002, pp.113 & Kant 1785; 1784-1795). Let there be no illusion; sovereignty is not a moral imperative, life is and human life calls for utmost protection and respect, in short, the very principle that distinguish us humans from beasts and savages. Ever since Cicero, statesmen have proclaimed moral principles of a human community that no dictator has the right to annual (Grant 1960, pp. 168).

Hegemony

Let me specify what I mean by hegemony. In discussions of IR theory it tends to have two meanings: one has to do with the distribution of power in a system. Not merely military force, but also technical and financial strength. The other meaning is the dominance of a particular idea or set of assumptions, such as economic liberalism and globalization. I certainly use the term hegemony primarily in the first sense. It is the material condition that enables one great power, or a group of powers, or the great powers in a system acting collectively, to bring such great pressures and inducements to bear that most other states lose some of their freedom of action de facto, though not de jure (Keohane 1980, pp. 296-305 & O'Brien & Armand 2002). I formerly thought of hegemony as that area of the spectrum between multiple absolute independences and a single world government that allows dominant powers to influence the external policies of other states, but not, or only marginally their domestic policies. Now I realize how much the hegemony of the West and especially the U.S. also aims to modify the internal behavior of other states and communities (Keohane 1980, pp. 296-305 & O'Brien & Armand 2002). We will, and should, intervene whenever our national interests intersect with international law and moral considerations.


The Challenge – Recklessness or Visionary Leadership


In urging caution with respect to the use of military force in Bosnia, Secretary of State Madeline Albright chided then Joint Chief’s Chairman Colin Powell by asserting, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”(Chapman1997). The discourse characterizes a fundamental crossroads in approaches to American national security strategy and foreign policy. Her question is frustrating for its apparently foolhardy, almost immature failure to comprehend what it means to use force. The question reminds one of Mark Twain’s quip that to “someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” (Chapman 1997).On the other hand, the question presents a bold and direct challenge. While perhaps not as poetic, it seems to embody a certain JFK resonance. The challenge implicitly recognizes the primacy of American power and a refusal to shrink from the challenges of the world.


The ability of the United States to justify forceful involvement in humanitarian crises has been suspect. The tragedy in Somalia and, most recently Kosovo, come to mind. Consequently, isolationists call for a “survivalist foreign policy” in which a fortified fence is built around America and we retreat behind it (Harris 1999). There is an impulse by many Americans to withdraw from the world, squander our advantages, alienate our friends, diminish our credibility, betray our values, and discredit our example (Harris 1999).


The just war framework would certainly assist in establishing moral certainty and build confidence in U.S. involvement aimed at stemming human catastrophes. The paradox, however, is that in many cases forceful means are necessary to stem human suffering. Many balance of power realists and virtually every isolationist take a narrow view of what constitutes American interests and scoff at challenges such as that posed by Albright. Many argue that before any American lives are risked in a crisis a specific, clear, and definable “interest” is essential.


Narrowly defined interests that limit the ability of the United States to engage the world community could seriously impact the lives of future generations of Americans. The foremost crisis in a new century is that the United States will refuse to lead. One aspect of leadership in the new millennium will be how humanitarian crises are handled. By applying just war principles to proposed forceful interventions to relieve human suffering, the United States will have established the foundation for the moral correctness of its actions. Confident in the moral correctness of a particular future intervention the United States not only will relieve suffering and prevent tragedies, but it also advances its interests and establishes its leadership by actively engaging the world. As one of the great world powers, it is essential that the United States cultivate international cooperation, partnerships, and alliances, build coalitions, and with respect to humanitarian threats and crises – work to “liberalize” worldwide human rights.


Just War Tradition


Broadly, the elements of just war are usually divided into two categories; jus ad bellum – that which is just or right to engage in or resort to war, and jus in bello – that which is just or right within war (Deforrest 1997, pp. 7).While both are relevant in any analysis of the moral and ethical dilemmas of war, the intent of this essay is to focus on whether forceful humanitarian interventions are justified under jus ad bellum.


The central tenets of jus ad bellum consist of three key elements: 1) whether there is a just cause with regard to the use of force, 2) whether the use of force is mandated by a competent authority, and 3) whether force is used with the right intention. If all of these elements are met, then traditionally a nation is morally justified in prosecuting a war.


The notion of “just cause” developed out of the tradition that conquests were morally objectionable. St Augustine maintained that use of force was justified to defend the nation or take back what an unjust aggressor has taken from the nation or its allies. It is essentially a cause that is born out of some measurable or identifiable conduct by another. The concept was further expanded by Thomas Aquinas to justify punishing evildoers or transgressors. In essence, a just cause exists if a basic, fundamental value is “threatened, that is higher on a public good hierarchy than the disvalues involved in taking military action” (LaCroix 1988, pp. 147).


The concept of “competent authority” relates to the evaluation of military force by a legitimate government. If an illegal or unrecognized authority within a nation made a decision to go to war, then the decision would not be just since it would violate basic principles related to the governing of that society (Coll, et al. eds. 1995, pp. 8). The rationale is that only governments, as representatives of the people can determine the morality of engaging in war. The concept has been blurred, as the legitimacy of a ruling body is often difficult to ascertain. Non governmental organizations, guerilla movements (e.g., Irish Republican Army), and alliances (e.g., NATO) are but a few examples of bodies claiming authority and legitimacy in the use of force. The modern test to determine if authority exists to prosecute a war focuses on the ability to limit the use of force and assesses the “depth and breadth of popular support this authority possess” (Johnson 1984, pp. 24)


Finally, the concept of “right intention” has broadly been interpreted to mean – as outlined by Aquinas and Augustine, “the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil” (Kaplan 2002, pp. 109&130). While just cause deals with an objective situation and how it is ethically evaluated, the right intention concept is related to a state of mind and motives. The decision to go to war must be essentially protective. As Augustine pointed out, the goal of war is to obtain a just and durable peace (Johnson 1984 and Kaplan 2002, pp-109&130).


Humanitarian Interventions and the Application of Just War Concepts


While the just war framework has been used as a moral compass in armed conflicts and wars among nations it is equally applicable in the realm of humanitarian interventions involving the use of force. First, in any humanitarian intervention the underlying issue is one of morals and ethics. While “morals and ethics” are certainly, loaded terms, fundamentally the issue in a humanitarian crisis is one of right versus wrong. Similarly, the ultimate goal of a just war assessment is to determine whether it is right or wrong to use force. One might argue that morals and ethics are based on a sliding scale of perceptions and popular norms and thus, just war principles lose credibility and relevance. Some argue that because of the shifting nature of morals and ethics, just war traditions serve no useful purpose other than to justify the actions of each belligerent in a conflict.


The problem with these arguments is the history of warfare details horrific examples of the consequences of a failure to analyze actions using the just war framework. The desire for quick, decisive victories in many wars led to virtually unlimited forms of warfare – including the use of gas in the World War I, offensive strategic bombing aimed at “the will of the German, Japanese, and British people” and the obliteration of population centers in World War II, the use of the atomic bomb, and indiscriminate uses of other tools of death. Unlimited war is an abomination to the just war tradition. While “morals and ethics” are indeed shaped and developed based on the experiences and perceptions of society, they nevertheless serve to limit and restrain the use of force. The shifting nature of morals and ethics should not be used as an excuse for dismissing the just war concepts. Instead, it is precisely because of the mortality of morals and ethics as well as the changing character and conduct of war that, before a state commits a force in an effort to resolve a conflict (i.e., any type of conflict or forceful operation other than war), the just war balancing criteria be considered as a restraining mechanism.

As the character and conduct of warfare has changed through the centuries since Aquinas and Augustine so to have theories related to just war. Due to the fact that the nature of warfare is constantly being altered, or that traditional “wars” have become more difficult to define does not change the broad underlying moral and ethical questions concerning the use of force. The fact is that debates pertaining to humanitarian interventions are inescapably ethical and thus, would benefit from a rigorous analysis using the just war framework.


Moreover, the introduction of arms to a conflict or other crisis could produce unexpected and undesired results. For instance, a war that assumes “its own momentum” as alluded to by Clausewitz is no longer focused on political objectives or desired results (Clausewitz & Howard and Peter 1976). The just war principles attempt to keep war objectives focused. They force analysis of the justness of a pursued cause or end state and thus seek to keep the war machine on its tracks. They are likewise essential to restrain force, as necessary, in a humanitarian crisis.


The focused and limited use of force, elemental to a just war analysis, is likewise fundamental to any humanitarian intervention demanding a military presence. Implicit in the just war framework is a requirement for an assessment of whether armed conflict is a last resort, the likely degree of success produced by an armed conflict, and the proportionality of the military means in accomplishing objectives. The just war framework attempts to limit war and thus limit suffering. The objective is a “just and durable peace.” Similarly, the broad goal in a humanitarian crisis is to alleviate human suffering and achieve a peace comparable to that contemplated by Augustine.


Finally, the just war framework may appropriately be applied to forceful humanitarian interventions because, while sovereignty is still the basic “organizing principle of political power, political philosophy, and political science,” there are larger global issues and problems that transcend parochial sovereignty concerns. They include environmental issues, international security problems, and concerns related to information technology (Smith 1995). Moreover, and significantly for purposes of this essay, the creep of international laws into the realm of state affairs is largely a byproduct of failures by states to follow the guidelines of just war theories in conducting affairs (Smith 1995) The crises in Serbia, Bosnia, and Kosovo are an example. At the same time it is clear that a nation has a right to be free from interference in its internal affairs.


There are several possibilities for resolving sovereignty and “competent authority” issues related to forceful humanitarian interventions. The possibilities include codifying just war principles, strengthening and clarifying international laws, and possibly creating a body of small nations that would assess the nature of humanitarian crises and authorize interventions (Smith 1995). However, pending a more permanent resolution of the sovereignty issues, the just war tradition remains flexible and adaptive. The “depth and breadth” of an intervening nation or entity’s popular support applies to decisions regarding war as much as it does to decisions regarding forceful humanitarian interventions.



The situation in Kosovo provides an opportunity to assess the appropriateness and applicability of the just war tradition to a humanitarian crisis. The intervention by NATO to stop major human rights violations, ethnically motivated murders, and the possibility of ethnic cleansing certainly presented a just cause. And, given this underlying cause the expressed NATO intent of deterring ethnic cleansing was also proper. Many argue that NATO – traditionally a defensive alliance, was not a competent authority to decide whether to intervene in a nation’s sovereign affairs. However, use of force by NATO arguably represented the collective will of the people of several nations and thus it was, in fact, a competent body under the just war
framework.



The issue with regard to Kosovo is that while on the surface the intervention appears to be wholly supportable under the just war tradition, there does not appear to be a plan in place to produce what Augustine referred to as a “just and durable peace” which is the ultimate goal of any use of force (Kaplan 2002). It is the bedrock of what makes certain war is just. Many believe the U.S.-led NATO forces were hugely effective and successful in its application of military power. Yet, the crisis seems far from being resolved. Instead of trumpeting Milosevic’s military defeat the just war tradition would have seemingly call for U.S. engagement through diplomacy, partnering with Europeans as well as the Russians, involvement of U.N. peacekeeping forces which would be protected from both Serbian and Kosavar forces by NATO or U.N. troops, and, with respect to the war crime indictments against Milosevic, consideration of plea bargaining.



What Prompt U.S. Action?

Clearly, this analysis supports the conclusion that the just war framework is a proper tool for evaluating the appropriateness and correctness of forceful interventions in humanitarian causes. Given the availability of this moral compass the question remains what will prompt involvement in, and resolution of, humanitarian emergencies. The United States seems disjointed and confused in articulating a coherent policy of what will prompt it to act. The military being asked to “do more with less,” the denial of increased spending on foreign aid and State Department operations and failure to resolve payments of United States debts to the U.N. illustrate the confusion.


The incoherent policies and an apparent trend toward isolationism may have served to contribute indirectly to the alarming number of armed conflicts in the world. The numbers alone should prompt action. From January 1990 through December 1996 the world saw 96 armed conflicts, while in 2004 alone the world absorbed 19 major conflicts (SIPRI Yearbook 2005). A conservative estimate of the death toll in these wars is around 5.5 million people over 75 percent of those were civilians (Smith 1995). Certainly, as President Clinton stated, the United States cannot become involved in every problem we care about. On the other hand, with the just war framework as a guide, the timing as Ms. Albright recognized has never been better to engage the world by preventing or resolving humanitarian tragedies that we can do something about. By doing so the United States promotes its interest in expanding democratic principles and bolstering economic prosperity thereby enhancing our overall security.

First, the United States should, and must act with force, if necessary, whenever another nation or some other entity denies fundamental unchanging and universally accepted rights of man (Rice 1995, pp. 24). The denial of fundamental and universally unchanging rights demands the same kind of attention that a nation would devote toward the pursuit of a vital national interest. These are rights that belong to man, not because he is a citizen of a particular state, but rather because he is a human being. Such rights transcend nations, cultures, and religion. Certainly the atrocities committed by the Nazis represented a denial of fundamental and universal rights of Jews and many others. The elimination of a particular ethnic race (e.g., in Rwanda) might be another. Actions or inaction, with respect to this category of human rights affect the moral credibility and leadership of the United States as a world power.


In addition, humanitarian crises provide an opportunity for United States to not only alleviate suffering but to promote its values. Such crises may present cost effective means of pursuing other national interests. New weapons technology, air power, precision guided munitions as well as advances in information collection and distribution systems permit a cost effective employment of limited and proportional force, at least when measured against human resources. The employment of such force to ameliorate and possibly prevent human suffering is consistent with just war principles. As a quid pro quo for such actions the United States should seek to foster closer ties, promote the enlargement of democracy, and enhance the stability of the state or region.


Important still, the United States should act because it won the Cold War. Consequently, activism in world affairs -- particularly to avert and possibly resolve a humanitarian crisis, is appropriate. The absence of Cold War politics should be viewed as a super highway to a new world order. Certainly the former Secretary of State perceived the dominance of U.S. power; particularly military power. She realized that the Cold War precepts, which resulted in a Cold War victory, no longer work and are not relevant in the current international environment. As the sole super power the timing is right to engage the world, cultivate partnerships and alliances, and promote our values. Promoting our values may mean using force to prevent humanitarian catastrophes. And given the absence of Cold War politics the United States has much more latitude to act, to influence actions, and thereby promote vital, important, or other third tier interests. The United States should aggressively undertake action to prevent certain humanitarian catastrophes consistent with the “just war” tradition. Ms. Albright’s challenge – as tempered by the above analysis related to just war, ought to be embraced.


In a final analysis, its from this background that I thus propose, that, a responsible foreign policy requires that the U.S. never capitulate to gross human rights violations, U.S. troops should have been patrolling not only in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, but also in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Kashmir, Rwanda, Burundi, Northeastern Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and many other places. The U.S. as a universal superpower must behave like so, else a global constabulary force would be necessary with unwanted ramifications.