|
- A Tangled Webb New, Season Finale! (Harm and Gunny try to rescue Mac and Webb, and the survivors then try to stop the terrorists from getting away with their missiles)
- Webb refers to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British government asserted its support for the eventual creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Britain controlled the Arab-majority Palestine as a British mandate after World War I but left in May 1948, when the state of Israel was established under a U.N.-approved plan. For more on Israel and its history, go here.
- Pas de Deux New! (Mac tries to rescue Gunny, who is also working undercover with Clayton Webb and has been captured by terrorists operating in Paraguay; Harm pretends to marry a CIA attorney whose mother is on the verge of death)
- The terrorists who capture Gunny refer to the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia as a motive for their actions.
- "Pas de deux" is a dance term that translates from French as "dance for two persons," and it refers to a coming together of two people.
- Lawyers, Guns and Money (Mac goes undercover to help CIA agent Clayton Webb stop a drug lord from selling missiles to terrorists, while Bud represents Turner when a former client claims Turner provided a bad defense by not raising evidentiary objections)
- Federal anti-drug officials have played up the terrorism-drug connection since the September 11 attacks as some terrorist organizations (primarily in South America and formerly Afghanistan) have used drug trafficking to finance their operations
- Paraguay's role in the international drug trade is primarily as a transit country for cocaine originating from Colombia, Bolivia and Peru and going to Argentina, Brazil, the United States, Europe and Africa, according to the United States Department of State's 2002 narcotics control report (on-line here). President George W. Bush identified Paraguay as one of 23 major drug-producing and drug-transit countries in January 2003.
- Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 831) prohibits the interrogation of a suspect unless that person is first informed of the nature of the accusation and his right to not make a statement. This article seems to provide greater protection than the Miranda rules applied in the non-military criminal context; how Harm and Mac interviewed the fake whistleblower in the "Standards of Conduct" episode would be fine under the Miranda rules as he was not in custody, but might indeed have violated the stricter Article 31 provisions.
- Ice Queen and Meltdown (Harm is accused of the murder of Lt. Singer, who was pregnant at the time)
- The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is a worldwide law-enforcement organization dedicated to protecting the Navy, the Marine Corps and their families; it has about 2,300 employees and about half are civilian special agents located around the world and aboard Navy vessels. The NCIS is on-line here.
- References to the attack on the USS Cole, which took place on October 12, 2000 in the Yemeni port of Aden and which killed 17 soldiers and injured 39 others. The attack has been blamed on al-Qaeda. The Navy has a site with news on the USS Cole on-line here)
- Family Business (Harm defends a man accused of murdering his wife; Bud continues his recovery)
- The Promised Land (Harm and Mac defend a marine who is accused of deserting the U.S. Marines to join the Israeli army; Israel)
- Critical Condition (Bud undergoes surgery after being injured by a land mine in Afghanistan)
DoD photo dated 7/31/01, by Petty Officer 3rd Class George Branham, U.S. Navy. On-line here.
| |
Saudi Arabia (last updated May 13, 2003) (back to top)
The bombing incident in Saudi Arabia on May 11, 2003 has again drawn new concern to the tensions surrounding the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia. The United States Department of State said that eight American citizens died in the attack against three compounds where foreigners lived, and Secretary of State Colin Powell said the incident "certainly has all the fingerprints of an al-Qaida operation."
Saudi Arabia's symbolic power stems from its being the birthplace of Islam and its economic power from its being the world's leading oil producer, but its governmental and military power stem from close ties to the United States that have become extremely controversial within the Muslim world. Many in Saudi Arabia now oppose the United States presence so close to Mecca, the holy place all Muslims are obligated to visit once in their lives if possible, and its support of an elite regime that has been criticized by many throughout the world, and one of the terrorist group al-Qaida's primary goals is to force the United States' withdrawal.
Ties to the United States
Effectively working under a security-for-oil agreement, the United States and Saudi Arabia have been allies since the 1940s. Saudi Arabia has been an oil power since World War II and now brings in about $70 billion a year from oil exports, which go largely to Asia; the United States itself gets more oil from Saudi Arabia than from any other country. With that oil money, Saudi Arabia has bough billions in military equipment from the United States and is by far the biggest consumer of United States military equipment.
Moreover, the United States has stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War, a presence that has become very controversial due to having so many United States troops so close to Mecca. There were about 600,000 allied forces in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, and about 5,000 troops and thousands of military contractors have been there since (troops are also in nearby Kuwait and Qatar). Religious leaders criticized King Fahd in 1992 for allowing United States troops on Saudi land, and Osama Bin Laden has said in interviews that one of his main goals is to drive the United States out of Saudi Arabia.
In addition to the March 2003 bombing incident, two other bombing incidents have targeted the American presence in Saudi Arabia. The first was on November 13, 1995 at a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in the capital city of Riyadh, in which 8 people were killed and 60 wounded (5 of the 8 killed and half the casualties were Americans). The second was at the U.S. military residence in Dhahran, called the Khobar Towers, on June 25, 1996; 19 American servicemen were killed in this incident and 100 seriously injured. These two incidents are believed to be unrelated; the first was allegedly caused by four Sunni Saudi nationals, and the second allegedly by Shi'ite Saudi extremists supported by members of Iran's government.
A Monarchy with a Poor Human Rights Record
Saudi Arabia has been a monarchy since King Abd Al-Aziz Al Saud unified the nomadic tribes in the area in the 1930s. King Fahd has ruled the country since 1982, though his son, Crown Prince Abdullah, has effectively led the country since Fahd suffered a stroke in 1995. The government is based on a conservative form of Islam and has declared the Koran to be its constitution, but has faced opposition from fundamentalists who want a more conservative regime in power. The country has no political parties or elected representative institutions.
The country's human rights record is poor, according to the U.S. State Department and international organizations, as is its record on religious freedom. The U.S. State Department's 2001 report on Saudi Arabia criticized it for denying citizens basic rights such as free speech and changing their government, and criticized abuses by the country's security forces. The Committee to Prevent Vice and Promote Virtue, whose agents are known as the Mutawwa'in, or religious police, monitors public behavior and have intimidated and abused citizens and foreigners of both sexes for offenses such as not following a strict dress code.
Women in particular have very limited rights in Saudi Arabia; they are not treated as equal members of society, are not allowed to drive, and are segregated in terms of education and their use of public facilities. Women are expected to wear an abaya, a black garment that covers the entire body, and to cover their head and hair. Women make up 5 percent of the work force and own about 20 percent of the businesses, but cannot represent themselves in financial transactions and have their testimony in a Shari'a court count half that of a man's.
One incident cited by critics of Saudi Arabia is the Mutawwa'in's alleged interference with rescue efforts at a March 2002 fire at a girls’ public intermediate school in Mecca. According to Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses reported that members of the Mutawwa'in intentionally prevented some students from evacuating because they were not wearing the required abaya, allegedly forcing students who escaped through the school’s main gate to return via another and preventing parents and residents from helping. At least 14 students died in the fire, according to Human Rights Watch's account in a press release.
For more information on arms sales, go here. For more information on Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, go here.
Sources: The State Department's country background report is on-line here. Its human rights report on Saudi Arabia is on-line here. A Human Rights Watch press release on the March 2002 fire at a girls’ school is on-line here. Secretary of State Colin Powell's May 13, 2003 comments on the May 11, 2003 bombing incident are on-line here.
Drugs and Terrorism (last updated May 6, 2003) (back to top)
Federal drug officials have emphasized the financial ties between foreign terrorism and international drug trafficking since the September 11, 2001 attacks. Of the 28 terrorist organizations recognized by the United States as of 2001, 12 have been identified by the Bush administration as having links with drug trafficking.
"To fight the terror inflicted by killers, thugs and terrorists around the world who depend on American drug purchases to fund their violence, we must stop paying for our own destruction and the destruction of others," Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters said in February 2002 in announcing a new anti-drug campaign based on the links between terrorist organizations and the drug trade.
"If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America," President George W. Bush said in a December 2001 speech.
The two countries where the link between terrorism and drugs is most clear are probably Colombia and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Colombian drug cartels reportedly pay groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) to protect their crops and refining facilities. The Taliban, which gave sanctuary to al Qaeda, earned revenue by taxing opium grown in Afghanistan and reportedly manipulated the opium supply to increase revenue.
The 12 foreign terrorist organizations designated as having links with drug trafficking are:
- America-based groups (4)
- Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) – Marxist group in Colombia (for more information on Colombia, go here)
- National Liberation Army (ELN)
- Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL) – Peru
- United Self-Defense Forces/Group of Colombia (for more information on Colombia, go here)
- Islamic separatist organizations (4)
- Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) – based in Philippines
- Hizballah (Party of God) – based in Lebanon (Hizballah carried out the October 1983 vehicle bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon and was responsible for more deaths of Americans than any other terrorist group in the world, prior to the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center)
- Islamic Movement of Uzbekhistan – based in Uzbekhistan
- al-Qaeda – established by Osama Bin Laden (for more information, go here)
- Palestine-related organization (1)
- Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
- Europe-based groups (2)
- Basque Fatherland and Liberty – based in northern Spain
- Kurdistan Workers' Party (KK) – pro-Kurds in Turkey
- Asia-based organization (1)
- Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) - pro-Tamils in Sri Lanka
For more information on foreign terrorist organizations, go here.
Sources: The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has information about the ties between drugs and terrorism on-line here. ONDCP Director John Walter's February 2002 statement is in a press release on-line here. President George W. Bush's December 2001 statement is on-line via the White House here. Background information on most designated groups comes from the Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001 report, on-line here.
The Miranda Recitation of Rights (last updated March 12, 2003) (back to top)
As anyone who has seen a modern cop show knows, you have the right to remain silent, and anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, an attorney will be provided you.
That is the basic recitation of constitutional rights established in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) as the absolute minimum necessary to ensure a constitutional police interrogation, and it remains the minimum despite a constitutional challenge that was rejected in 2000. But the rights against self-incrimination are not as broad as people generally think and the recitation is not always required when a suspect talks to police.
Basically, the Miranda recitation is designed to prevent coercion, not stupidity or gullibility. So, even if police think you're a suspect, they can still talk to you without reading you your rights, and they generally can trick you into admitting information that you probably shouldn't have revealed. What they cannot do is hold you in custody (which doesn't necessarily mean in jail, just that you're not free to go) and then question you without reading you your rights. But even if they did, all that generally means is that the police could not use any subsequent statements you make as evidence.
How the Miranda Rights Evolved (back to top of article)
The Miranda recitation arose from a re-evaluation of police procedures in the 1960s by the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Warren Berger. One problem was dealing with police brutality during interrogations. A report in the 1930s showed that the common police procedure was to assume a suspect's guilt and to beat a confession out of him; such procedures had softened by the 1960s but still occurred.
The Supreme Court tried to prevent such police behavior through rulings that confessions had to be voluntary and not coerced to be admissible in court. But this bogged down the courts with litigation over whether a confession was voluntary or not, forcing the courts to look closely at what occurred in the interrogation room. The Supreme Court thus revisited the issue with the Miranda case, and in 1966 came up with a bright-line rule that would be easy for police to follow and that would cut down on evidentiary motions by defense lawyers.
Basically, once a suspect has been taken into custody, he must be informed of his rights against self-incrimination if the police interrogation is to be used against him in court. At a minimum, the Court said, police must inform suspects of their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments (see the full text of them here). The Supreme Court hoped that police would come up with additional, more effective safeguards, but set this baseline as a minimum.
The Miranda decision was criticized by police at the time, but actually became useful for law-enforcement, because it made showing that a confession was voluntary easier than before. Rather than having to explain the circumstances in detail each time, the police need only convince a suspect to sign a form indicating he had been told of his rights, and any subsequent statements were admissible. The main effect of Miranda and other court-imposed mandates in the 1960s was to force police culture to become more professional and regulated with new rules and requirements. Police adapted to those changes and some studies have shown that the number of confessions has, in fact, stayed the same or even increased since Miranda.
Attempts to Undo the Miranda Requirement (back to top of article)
Miranda remains the law of the land today, despite an attempt in the 1990s to argue that it had been superseded by Congress in 1968. In the wake of the Miranda decision, Congress passed a federal law that enabled the use in federal court of confessions that did not involve a recitation of rights and that would still be considered voluntary under the pre-Miranda case law. Law-enforcement did not invoke this provision for decades, but the issue arose in the 1990s and eventually reached the Supreme Court. In 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist upheld the Miranda requirements as a matter of constitutional law that Congress could not supersede in a 7-2 majority.
But what would have happened if the Supreme Court had overruled Miranda? As far as interrogations go, arguably not much. Years before Miranda, the Court found that confessions must be voluntary in order to be admitted; the Miranda decision in some ways simply set out a presumption that any statement in an interrogation is voluntary if made after a suspect hears and understands the warnings.
How Miranda Gets Applied (back to top of article)
There are some nuances to the Miranda rights, most of which are based on the principle that Miranda's only purpose is to prevent police coercion during an interrogation. It does not guarantee that you fully understand the consequences of your confession, it does not mean that police have to give you the warning each time they speak to someone, and it does not mean that you have a right not to be stupid.
For example :
- Miranda does not ensure that you are fully rational and properly motivated when you make a statement to the police. In the case of Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987), a defendant was given the Miranda warnings and then confessed, but later claimed that he had been compelled by inner voices to give the confession. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is intended solely to prevent police coercion, nothing else, and the confession was admissible.
- Miranda only applies when a suspect is being interrogated. Interrogation is not the same as conversation, and the difference requires a determination by the courts. Did the police engage in express questioning or its functional equivalent? Should the police have known that their words or acts were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the subject? If the answers to these questions are no, then Miranda is not triggered. A leading case here is Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
- Undercover agents do not need to give Miranda warnings because the suspects are not being subjected to government coercion. Miranda simply prevents coerced questioning. The pressures of police-dominated atmosphere and government coercion do not exist when the undercover agent is maintaining his or her cover and thus has shown no authority.
- You can waive your Miranda rights without knowing the strength of the government's case against you or knowing of other circumstances. Your choice to waive your rights has to be voluntary and has to be made with a full awareness of the rights being waived, but it need not be fully-informed as to all relevant circumstances. See for example the Supreme Court case of Moran v Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986). However, there is the possibility of a due process violation if extreme police conduct that transgresses against fundamental fairness.
- Even if police didn't give the Miranda recitation, they can use subsequent statements in some some ways. Usually, statements made after a Miranda recitation should have been given are inadmissible. But police can still use the statements to show that the suspect is lying at trial if he testifies and says something different. Police generally can still use evidence discovered as a result of the inadmissible statement (so-called "fruit of a poisonous tree"), and police can even get the confession into direct evidence if it was obtained in emergency circumstances.
Sources: Stephen A. Saltzburg and Daniel J. Capra, American Criminal Procedure : Cases and Commentary (Fifth edition) (West Publishing Co., 1996). Supreme Court Cases are available on-line via Findlaw.com : Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is on-line here, and Dickerson v. United States (2000) is on-line here.
Intimate-Partner Violence (last updated October 9, 2002) (back to top)
Intimate partner violence – violence committed against someone by his or her current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend – is usually directed more towards women than men, but became less common overall from 1993 to 1999, according to a 2001 study by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics.
In 1999, there were about six violent crimes committed against women by their intimate partners per 1,000 women; this marked a 41 percent decline from the per capita rate of intimate-partner crimes against women in 1993. Women were victimized in 85 percent of the intimate-partner violent crimes committed in 1999, and 74 percent of those murdered by an intimate partner in 1999 were women.
Younger women generally were more likely to experience intimate-partner violence than older women; there were 16 victimizations per 1,000 women aged 16-24, and 9 victimizations per 1,000 women aged 25-34. As for murders, there were 2.1 murders per 1,000 women aged 35-49, compared to 1.6 murders per 1,000 women aged 20-24.
About 10 percent of the intimate-partner victimizations between 1993 and 1999 were between male intimate-partners, and about 2 percent were between female intimate-partners.
Sources: The Bureau of Justice Statistics has published several reports on intimate-partner violence. Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99, was originally published in October 2001 and is on-line here. Intimate Partner Violence was published in May 2000 and is on-line here.
Israel-Palestinians : Overview (last updated May 3, 2002) (back to top)
For more than 50 years, the state of Israel has existed in uneasy tension with its Arab neighbors and with the Palestinians who originally occupied some of the same territory. This tension has erupted into wars such as the Six Days War of 1967 and into violent uprisings (aka intifadas) within Israeli-controlled territories such as the one that began in September 2000 and continues into 2002.
Beyond religious differences and historical enmities, some pressing political and economic issues dividing Israel and the Palestinians include:
- Terrorist actions by groups such as Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) and the Islamic Jihad. Since December 2001, Israel has sharply criticized Yasir Arafat for not doing more to stop terrorist actions by such groups, charging that he lacks either the power or the will to do so and thus has become irrelevant to the peace process. As part of its biannual review of foreign terrorist organizations, the United States recognized in October 2001 six terrorist organizations that directly oppose Israel’s involvement in Palestine, as opposed to Islamic separatist organizations such as al-Qaeda.
- Control of occupied territories. Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization agreed in 1993 to begin a transition process in which Palestinians would gradually be given self-government over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, two areas which Israel has occupied since its military successes in the Six Days War of 1967. This two-track process was broadened by the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement. However, each side has accused the other of not living up to the conditions set forth in the agreements, and progress has stalled.
- Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Israelis have created many settlements in the occupied territories, thus provoking Palestinians in such areas and complicating the resolution of who controls the land. As of August 2000, there were an estimated 231 settlements and civilian land-use sites in the West Bank, 42 in the Golan Heights, 25 in the Gaza Strip, and 29 in East Jerusalem. Israel says it has stopped creating new settlements, but is simply allowing currently-existing settlements to grow naturally. The United States has consistently opposed Israel’s settlement policy since the Carter administration, and has criticized growth patterns that seem to cover new territory while existing territory goes relatively unused.
- Control of Jerusalem. With both Israel and the Palestinians seeking to have Jerusalem as their capital, the status of this city has been constantly deferred from political negotiations. It was deliberately not resolved in the historic September 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement and was to be negotiated in future rounds.
- Poor economic conditions and massive unemployment in the occupied territories. Israel is a technologically advanced market economy, which had in 2000 an estimated gross domestic product of $110.2 billion, GDP per capita of $18,900, and a GDP growth rate of 5.9 percent, as reported in the CIA World Factbook. Israel’s unemployment rate was about 9 percent in 2000. By contrast, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have relatively undeveloped economies with only some small industry. Both areas saw declining economies and rising unemployment from 1992 to 1996 as a result of Israeli border closure policies that responded to security incidents but also disrupted market relationships. Both areas then began to recover when Israel used such policies less frequently from 1997 to 2000. Recovery has at best stalled since the uprisings beginning in late 2000 and continuing into 2002. Estimates for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 2000 showed a GDP of $3.1 billion and $1.11 billion respectively, GDPs per capita each less than one-tenth that of Israel, and a combined unemployment rate of 40 percent.
The Peace Process
The 1990s started off with the promise of successful – though difficult – negotiations towards the peaceful transfer of authority over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from Israel occupation to Palestinian self-government. In the wake of the Gulf War, Israel met with Palestinian and other Arab leaders in the Madrid Conference and began talks. After a round of talks in Oslo, Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) signed a joint Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993. That declaration called for a five-year transition period in which Israel would gradually withdraw its troops from major Palestinian centers and Palestinians would gradually govern themselves.
Several divisive issues, such as the status of Jerusalem and Jewish settlements in areas such as the West Bank and the Gaza strip, were officially set aside for a second stage of negotiations to begin no later than 1996.
Since 1993, negotiations have moved on two separate tracks, one towards Palestinian self-government as an interim step, and another towards a permanent adjustment. The interim track culminated with the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed on September 28, 1995. This agreement was implemented in stages over the next few years.
However, other issues continued to go unresolved. First, the status of Jerusalem, which both Israel and the Palestinians want for their capital city, was left for future negotiations. Second, though Israel stopped creating entirely new settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it continued to support the growth of existing settlements; this policy, which the United States has opposed continuously at least since the Carter administration, has been a particularly severe grievance to the Palestinians. On the other hand, Israel has complained that the Palestinians have been slow to implement their obligations under the Interim Agreement, including policing their own radicals.
Israel and the Palestinians began negotiating these issues in May 1996 and periodically since then, but without much success. One difficulty has been the frequent turnover in power between the Labor Party and the Likud Party. The Labor Party led by Yitzhak Rabin won national elections in 1992, Likud under Binyamin Netanyahu won in May 1996, and Labor took power again with Ehud Barak in 1999. Barak himself was replaced by Ariel Sharon in February 2001. Labor is generally more secular and favors giving land for peace to the Palestinians; Likud is more religious and conservative, and has greater concerns about security.
The Current Intifada Began in September 2000
In September 2000, a new wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence broke out with an intifada that seems to have set back the entire peace process. Events began with the September 28, 2000 visit of Israeli Parliament member Ariel Sharon (now the country’s prime minister) to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Palestinians protested the visit the next day, and Israeli police reacted with violence to disperse the demonstrations, killing four and injuring hundreds. Violence then continued and escalated through the end of 2000 and into 2001, resulting in hundreds of deaths on both sides, though mostly Palestinians. Amnesty International has reported at least 300 Palestinians were killed in the first three months of the intifada and that more than 570 Palestinians and more than 150 Israelis (including 150 Palestinian and 30 Israeli children) were killed during its first year.
The Sharm el-Sheikh Fact Finding Committee, organized by the United States and chaired by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, later reported in April 2001 that there was no evidence that Sharon’s visit had been anything more than "an internal political act," or that the Palestinians had any deliberate plan to incite violence. On the other hand, the committee found, the violence resulted because "each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly."
The Committee had plenty of criticism for both sides. It criticized Israel’s use of military force, noting that Israel needed to differentiate better between terrorism and protests, and noting that two-thirds of the alleged "attacks" by Palestinians against Israelis did not involve firearms or explosives. The Committee also criticizes Israel’s settlement policy for instigating Palestinian ire. At the same time, the Committee found that the PLO needed to make more efforts to enforce a complete stop of violence and prevent anti-Israeli terrorism.
Tensions and the death toll on both Israeli and Palestinian sides increased over the course of 2001, and the Israel government began taking steps directly against Yasir Arafat. In December 2001, the Israeli government publicly called Arafat an enemy and said he had become irrelevant due to his inability to stop the actions of groups such as Hamas. In March 2002, the Israeli government moved to contain Arafat within his Ramallah headquarters or to force his exile, and began extensive military operations in the occupied territories.
Some Historical Background and Context
Territory that has been dominated by different empires for centuries, the land now known as Israel was previously known as Palestine and was controlled by the Ottoman Empire from the 1600s to the 20th century. Britain then controlled the land as a mandate from 1917 to 1948, at which time the state of Israel was created out of a United Nations partition plan supported by the United States.
From 1948 into the 1970s, Israel fought several wars with its Arab neighbors. However, Israel’s decisive military victory in the 1967 war (known as the Six Days War) and its success in repelling a 1973 attack by Egypt and Syria -- as well as the 1979 Camp David accords that brought peace between Israel and Egypt – have moved the conflict more or less from the military arena to the political. Instead, direct conflict has moved largely to terrorist attacks and internal fighting between Israel and the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Israel began establishing or renewing diplomatic relations with Arab states after the 1993 agreement with the Palestinians, and signed a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994.
Israel has historically received strong support from the United States, beginning first with the United States’ support for the very creation of a Jewish state in 1948. It bought about $8 billion worth of military equipment from the United States from FY 1991 to 2000, though Saudi Arabia and Egypt both bought more equipment over the same period. For more on arms sales, go here.
For a timeline and for more on developments in Israel and the Palestinians, go here.
Sources Report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact Finding Committee, April 30, 2001. The United States Department of State maintains a section on the Middle East, available here. The United States Embassy in Israel has collected historical documents (available here) and an ongoing collection of developments (available here). Ahron Bergman and Jihan El-Tahri, Israel and the Arabs: an eyewitness account of war and peace in the Middle East (TV Books 2000). The State Department has a country background report on-line via its website here. Economic information on Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well as Israeli settlement estimates come from the CIA World Factbook 2001, on-line here. Amnesty International’s report on the first year of the intifada is on-line here.
Afghanistan (last updated April 24, 2002) (back to top)
Even before the events of late 2001, Afghanistan had known political chaos and violence for almost three decades, centered around a decade-long Soviet invasion that ended in 1989 and left the country to even more years of civil war and tribal warfare. In 1996, the Taliban took control of the country and implemented a government based on an extreme form of Islamic interpretation. The Taliban was sanctioned by the international community for its harboring of terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden even before the September 11 attacks, and it was finally driven out of power in November 2001.
Since the fall of the Taliban, the international community has begun to rebuild Afghanistan. In December 2001, the international community established an interim administration headed by Hamid Karzai. In June 2002, Afghan citizens will convene an emergency "loya jirga," chaired by former king Mohammad Zahir Shah, to decide constitutional matters and select the form of a transitional government. There are no plans to restore the monarchy.
Slightly smaller than Texas in terms of land size, Afghanistan is located in the Near East at the crossroads between the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and Central Asia. The country is largely Muslim (85 percent Sunni Muslim, 15 percent Shi'a) and has long been divided amongst ethnic groups, the largest of which is the Pashtun ethnic group (about 38 percent of the population). The country is extremely poor and its economy depends on basic agriculture; in recent years, however, its biggest trade has been as the world's largest illicit opium producer.
Afghanistan has had a troubled time since the 1970s and especially since it was caught up in Cold War politics. For the past two decades, it has had the distinction of producing the world's largest-ever single refugee caseload each year. About a third of the country's population fled during the Soviet invasion, and though millions have returned since then, about 2.6 million refugees remained in exile in early 2000.
The 40-year reign of Mohammad Zahir Shah, who took the throne as king when he was 19 years old after the assassination of his father, ended in 1973, when his cousin took power and established a short-lived republic. King Shah went to exile in Italy, staying there for the next 29 years until he finally returned in April 2002 to help create a new government for Afghanistan.
The new republic that replaced King Shah lasted only a few years before it was itself overthrown in 1978, this time by a communist party. The Soviet Union then sent troops into Afghanistan in December 1979 to support the communist regime, thus beginning a decade-long struggle which ultimately emboldened the resistance (supported and trained by the United States and other countries) and sent about a third of the population fleeing the country as refugees. Negotiations to end the war culminated in the 1988 Geneva Accords, and the last Soviet troops withdrew in February 1989. The country then soon broke down into tribal warfare, which lasted for years and left a power vacuum that the Taliban filled in 1996.
The Taliban, which literally means "religious students" and which refers to the educational background of the movement's leaders, controlled about 90 percent of the country at its peak. Taliban leadership, many of whom received training to fight against the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, adhered to the Hanafi school of Sunii Islam and attended Deobandi-influenced seminaries in Pakistan; the Deobandi school seeks to purify Islam by discarding supposedly un-Islamic accretions to the faith and re-emphasizing the models established in the Koran and the customary practices of the Prophet Mohammed. The Taliban was ruled by Mullah Omar, Head of State and Commander of the Faithful, and a ruling council known as the Shura.
The Taliban emerged as a power in 1994 and, helped by Pakistan, took the capital city of Kabul in September 1996. Overcoming the traditional segmentation of the various Pashtun tribes by emphasizing Islamism and targeting non-Pashtun ethnicities, the Taliban then imposed a strict list of regulations on the Afghan people and enforces these regulations through a religious police force under the control of the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Suppression of Vice and through Islamic courts.
These restrictions had their greatest impact on women. Upon taking power in 1996, the Taliban immediately forbade girls to go to school and banned women from working outside the home, which had far-reaching impacts on health care services and education; some of these restrictions were reportedly eased in 1999. The Taliban also imposed rigid lifestyle restrictions on women, restricting them to their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative and requiring them to wear a burqa (a garment covering the body from head to foot with a small, lace-covered opening for the eyes) or risk a beating.
The Taliban also banned music, movies and television on religious grounds. In 1998, the Taliban prohibited television sets and satellite dishes in order to enforce the prohibition, though this regulation was reportedly not strictly enforced. Regulations covered many aspects of daily life, including the length of a man's beard. According to Taliban regulations, men must have beards extending longer than would a fist clamped at the base of his chin or face beatings or imprisonment for 10 days.
The United Nations condemned the Taliban government several times, beginning shortly after it came to power. In particular, the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions and a military embargo against the country once the Taliban began supporting and harboring terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. During the Taliban's rule, the United Nations continued to recognize the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of the anti-Taliban movement.
Isolated from the international community, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was just one of a handful of conservative Islamist states and was recognized by only three countries: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And even though Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was ruled by a fundamentalist Islamist government, there were some crucial distinctions between it and its neighbor, Iran. While both countries are fundamentalist Islam, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was largely Sunni Muslim and entirely under religious rule, whereas Iran is largely Shia Muslim and has a secular government that has some independence from the totalitarian religious structure.
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the United States moved to attack al-Qaeda forces located in Afghanistan and to drive out the Taliban government that supported them. U.S. and British forces began air strikes in early October 2001, and began ground attacks later that month. By late November, the Taliban had lost control of Afghanistan's major cities to the Northern Alliance forces. In December 2001, Afghan leaders meeting in Germany signed an agreement to establish a broad-based, multi-ethnic, post-Taliban government, beginning with an interim administration headed by Pashtun leader Hamid Karzai and culminating with emergency council meetings chaired by the former king.
Sources: CIA World Factbook entry on Afghanistan, available on-line here. Annual country reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch, Crisis of Impunity: The role of Pakistan, Russia, and Iran in fueling the civil war, available on-line here. Annual reports by the U.S. Department of State on human rights practices and on international religious freedom, available through the department and its archives here. United Nations Security Council resolutions and reports regarding Afghanistan are available here. A U.S. State Department chronology from September to December 2001 covering U.S. activity in Afghanistan is on-line here. An April 11, 2002 special briefing on the rebuilding of Afghanistan is on-line here.
Land Mines (last updated March 27, 2002) (back to top)
An international campaign to stop the use of anti-personnel landmines culminated with the Mine Ban Treaty that was signed by 120 nations in Ottawa in 1997. The United States refused to sign the treaty at the time because there was no exemption for using landmines to defend South Korea. Nonetheless, the United States has funded international demining operations in countries such as Afghanistan since 1988, and it has been destroying all of its non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines except in South Korea and for training and research.
Landmines are explosive devices that are designed to detonate by the presence or contact of either a person (anti-personnel mines) or by a vehicle such as a tank, truck or tractor (anti-tank or anti-vehicle mines). Some mines are designed to self-destruct or self-deactivate after a set period of time (these are sometimes called "smart" mines); the United States maintains stockpiles of both "smart" and non-self-destructing landmines, but it has promised to destroy all non-self-destructing landmines except those for use in South Korea and for research and training.
Aside from the ethical and strategic considerations in using landmines in war, landmines pose a severe problem to civilians even after war has ended. Civilians in heavily mined areas can be injured or killed by landmines, and heavily mined areas are thus unavailable for agricultural use until they can be demined.
There are an estimated 50 to 100 million landmines laid in the world, primarily located in developing countries such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, Egypt, and Mozambique. According to estimates by the Landmine Monitor, there are now about 15,000 to 20,000 new victims (either injured or killed) by landmines a year, a decline from earlier, long-standing estimates of 26,000 casualties a year. The following table, based on the State Department's "Hidden Killers 2001" report, shows countries which had the highest reported number of casualties due to landmines in 2000.
In the early 1990s, several nongovernmental organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights came together to form the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which now consists of more than 1,000 groups in more than 60 countries. The ICBL and its coordinator Jody Williams are widely credited with starting the fast-track diplomatic process that culminated with the Mine Ban Treaty that was negotiated in September 1997 and signed by 120 nations in December 1997. The treaty entered into force on March 1, 1999. For their efforts, the ICBL and Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize in October 1997.
Under the treaty, participating countries vow never to use or produce anti-personnel landmines and to destroy all anti-personnel mines. They also vow to help care for victims of landmines. By 2000, every country in the Western Hemisphere has signed except for the United States and Cuba. Other countries that have not signed the treaty include China, Russia, India, and Israel.
Even though the United States did not sign the Mine Ban Treaty, the Clinton administration actively encouraged the creation of an international agreement. In May 1996, President Bill Clinton announced a major shift in U.S. anti-personnel landmine policy.
First, Clinton announced that the United States would seek actively an international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines, but that it would not give up the option to use anti-personnel landmines on the Korean peninsula. During the September 1997 negotiations over the Mine Ban Treaty, the United States proposed including such an exemption for South Korea, but this proposal was rejected.
Whether landmines are truly necessary for defending Korea has been questioned by some, such as the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. In addition, six retired US generals and two admirals wrote President George W. Bush a letter in May 2001 arguing that anti-personnel mines are not critical to Korean security.
Second, Clinton also announced in May 1996 that the United States would cease the use of all non-self-destructive landmines except in South Korea and for training purposes. At the time, the United States used non-self-destructive landmines only in South Korea and the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. By the late 1990s, the United States reported that it had destroyed all non-self-destructive landmines except for defending South Korea, research, and training. It still maintains stockpiles of "smart" landmines in several countries.
Even though the promise had little real force, Clinton moved in 1998 somewhat towards signing the Mine Ban Treaty. In May 1998, Clinton promised that the United States would end the use of all non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines outside Korea by 2003 and that it would sign the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006, if alternative weapons were developed by that time. This policy is being reviewed by the Bush administration.
Even without signing the Mine Ban Treaty, the United States has worked with other nations on efforts to amend the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. It has also taken unilateral actions against landmines since the early 1990s. The United States banned the export of anti-personnel landmines in October 1992, though the ban expires in 2003, and has not produced any anti-personnel landmines since 1996.
The United States has also been involved with demining operations since 1988, when it helped start efforts in Afghanistan. The United States then established other programs in the early 1990s and has spent more than $500 million on demining efforts from 1993 to 2000.
Sources: The International Campaign to Ban Landmines is on-line with detailed information about the Mine Ban Treaty here; the ICBL publishes the widely respected Landmine Monitor, and its 2001 report on the United States is on-line here. The Office of Humanitarian Demining Programs, which is part of the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and which now coordinates the United States' demining efforts, is on-line here; its 2001 report "To Walk the Earth in Safety" contains the "Hidden Killers 2001" report as an appendix and is on-line here. A May 1997 report by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on implementing the U.S. policy on anti-personnel landmines is on-line here. The United Nations organizes disarmament issues on-line here. Information on the Nobel Peace Prize is on-line here. Anthony DePalma, As U.S. looks on, 120 nations sign treaty banning land mines, New York Times, December 4, 1997. Steven Lee Myers, Clinton agrees to land-mine ban, but not yet, New York Times, May 22, 1998.
|
