Abstract
Keeping the peace in Darfur
Roberta Cohen and William G. O'Neill's “Last Stand in Sudan” (March/April 2006 Bulletin) is a comprehensive and insightful piece on Darfur and the African Union Mission in Sudan. In February, I led a bipartisan congressional delegation to Africa and visited Darfur. I witnessed children trapped in the heat without shade and adequate clothing and heard stories of murder, torture, and rape. Yet among these horrors, I saw the bright and playful eyes of toddlers, contrasting greatly with the haunted eyes of the region's older children.
The humanitarian disaster in Darfur challenges the conscience of the world. It is indeed genocide–a systematic destruction of a people. As Cohen and O'Neill describe, the African Union should be commended for its efforts to protect the Darfurians. Our delegation saw the African Union's impact in displaced persons camps where people were able to eat a full meal and receive medical attention. However, to secure and stabilize Darfur, the capability of the African Union military force must be enhanced, and international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO need to provide additional support.
The House of Representatives has passed legislation urging the Bush administration to appoint a special envoy to Sudan. This appointment would signal that bringing peace and stability to Sudan is a priority for the United States. The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act also offers incentives for peace, authorizes additional humanitarian funding, and extends sanctions on individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. These initiatives are a step in the right direction, but stronger leadership is necessary. Every day we wait, the genocide continues, and the hope I saw in the youngest children's eyes will disintegrate into disease, despair, and death.
We must work with the African Union to ensure that its mission in Sudan has the necessary resources and mandate to make a difference, while there is still an opportunity to save lives.
Cong. Nancy Pehsi House Democratic Leader Eighth District, California
Right, on Afghanistan
In “Afghanistan: The Night Fairies” (March/April 2006 Bulletin), Sarah Chayes gives us a rare view from the ground in Kandahar, an important center in the battle against the insurgency in Afghanistan. Her paradoxical finding that Kandaharis believe that the United States is supporting the resurgent Taliban is consistent with what I've seen in my 27 years of research and involvement with Afghanistan. Unable to believe that the United States could be so uninformed and incompetent, Afghans conclude that we have a secret plan to accomplish the opposite of our proclaimed goals.
The Clock
UPDATE: He said, she said
When questioning Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the controversial U.S. India nuclear deal at an April 5 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold had some useful talking points at hand, courtesy of Leonard Weiss's Bulletin article “Power Points” (May/June 2006):
RICE: India does need to change its mix. They principally use coal, which is very, very bad for the environment given the nature of their coal. But because they're trying to diversify away from coal, they're looking at other sources. And right now, while the percentage from oil is somewhere between 30 to 35 percent–some people say as much as 50 percent–you would like that diversification from coal not to go to oil but instead to multiple other sources that are clean and don't require further hydrocarbons and what we consider to be–and we believe we are convincing them–unreliable suppliers.
Says Weiss, “Secretary Rice's answerto Senator Feingold's question was unresponsive. He asked how nuclear energy in India could replace oil, very little of which is used to produce electricity for India's national grid, and she told him how important it is for non-fossil sources in India to replace coal.”
Chayes is correct when she argues that the predatory commanders who came to power in southern Afghanistan with U.S. support have turned the local populace against the government. Although this opposition does not directly translate into support for the Taliban, who remain unpopular even in their so-called home region of Kandahar, it does mean that the population is reluctant to take risks to defend the authorities. In addition, an ill-advised counternarcotics policy that attacks farmers rather than traffickers has driven farmers into the arms of insurgents, who protect the farmers' livelihoods.
Of course, the insurgency's true vitality depends on its logistical and support networks in Pakistan. These networks enjoy the open support of the governments along the border provinces and some elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus. The Pakistani officer corps appears to be deeply split between those who see the necessity of collaborating with the United States and those who still favor an independent path that relies on asymmetrical warfare waged by Islamists.
U.S. officials in Afghanistan are not blind to these problems. But the Bush administration's single-minded focus on military solutions has made it difficult for the United States to make a balanced contribution to the multilateral effort toward stabilizing Afghanistan. Nor has the White House's interest in Iraq–and now, Iran–helped address the complex situation along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where Osama bin Laden and his closest associates are likely holed up.
Barnett R. Rubin
Director of Studies, Center on International Cooperation, New York University
New York City
Sarah Chayes has written a startling piece that evocatively captures the state of affairs in parts of Afghanistan. The Taliban, operating from southeastern Afghanistan, and regional warlords, flush with cash from the lucrative drug trade, rule much of the country's territory, as the writ of the central government extends barely beyond Kabul–hence President Hamid Karzai's nickname, “the Mayor of Kabul.” What seemed like a clearcut victory over the Taliban and their AI Qaeda allies in 2001 now looks very different.
Marvin Zonis
Professor, Graduate School of Business
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Thank you for Sarah Chayes's excellent dispatch from Afghanistan. The events there may be faraway and forgotten, but they're vitally important to those of us in the United States. While the situation she describes is grim, her quiet determination, along with the determination of the people she works with, serves as a ray of light in a dark cloud.
David Gaeddert
Buffalo, New York
A nuclear lend-lease?
In “British Nuclear Forces, 2005” (November/December 2005 Bulletin), the authors write: “Britain has title to 58 [Trident II] missiles but does not own them.” Yet on October 27, 2005, John Reid, Britain's secretary of state for defense, told the House of Commons that Britain had “purchased” 58 Trident missiles. To my colleagues and me, purchasing implies ownership, although we have always understood that Britain leases the missiles from the United States. Is there a statement or document that clarifies this point?
Jenny Maxwell
Chairwoman, West Midlands Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Birmingham, England
The dictionary defines “own” as “belonging to oneself.” The missiles don't really belong to Britain, which purchases the rights to operate a revolving subset of missiles within a larger U.S. fleet. That's much different than buying 58 specific missiles outright, taking them to Britain, maintaining them, and slapping a Union Jack on them. (Think of renting a car. The agreement functions more along these lines.) So rather than an independent deterrent, Britain has a leased deterrent.
It's a unique relationship among nuclear powers. If other countries (for example, China and Pakistan or Russia and India) engaged in such behavior, we might not view it as favorably.
A call for the wild
Andrew Marshall brings much-needed attention to the enormous illegal wildlife trade and the Bush administration's initiative to forge the global Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT) in “Making a Killing” (March/April 2006 Bulletin). A $10 billion-a-year black market in wildlife threatens many species with extinction and represents a global menace to human health since it's a factor in the spread of diseases such as avian flu. CAWT was created to combat this illegal trade.
The State Department has been–and continues to be–at the forefront of building this coalition. On April 21, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice named actress and activist Bo Derek as her special envoy on wildlife trafficking issues, who then, with Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, celebrated Earth Day with an event spotlighting the coalition's efforts.
Since I launched CAWT last year, Britain, India, and four nongovernmental organizations have joined, which brings the total number of coalition partners to 14. Currently, we're working on signing up other key countries and organizations to help us raise political awareness and educate consumers. Already, the coalition is attempting to improve wildlife law enforcement in Southeast Asia and India. Such actions also help defeat organized crime, as wildlife traffickers often double as small arms and drug dealers.
Stopping wildlife trafficking requires a global effort. The good news is that if we work together, we can end it. But there's no time to lose.
Claudia A. McMurray
Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
U.S. State Department
Washington, D.C.
I applaud the Bulletin for publishing “Making a Killing.” Prior to the publication of my book, Tiger Bone and Rhino Horn: The Destruction of Wildlife for Traditional Chinese Medicine (2005), I spent a lot of time researching the black market in endangered species parts. I was astonished at its size and influence.
After a recent fact-finding trip to India, I can report that while the rhino population of the Kaziranga National Park is thriving–at around 1,500, it's the largest population of Indian rhinos anywhere–tigers throughout India are in serious danger. Two years ago, there were some 40 tigers in the Sariska Tiger Preserve; today, thanks to the prevalence of poachers, there are zero. Tiger bones are believed to be useful aphrodisiacs, but they don't work nearly as well as Viagra–if at all. Many remedies employed in traditional Chinese medicine provide a measure of relief, but in some cases, the efficacy is imagined. Awareness of such facts is the first step in halting this disturbing, illegal, and, unfortunately, burgeoning global market.
Richard Ellis
American Museum of Natural History
New York City
“Making a Killing” provides insight into the development of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN). The TRAFFIC Network, the largest and oldest wildlife trade monitoring organization, and Wild-Aid are working together to support this significant initiative. The concept of regional wildlife law enforcement networks is not new; limited networks exist in North America, Africa, and Europe. However, ASEAN-WEN is the first regional network that approaches the illegal wildlife trade from local to regional levels. ASEAN-WEN encompasses operational enforcement activities, intelligence sharing, and public awareness and aims to deal with poaching, domestic black markets, and the burgeoning international trade. It's a political minefield, but it has the support of many governments and nongovernmental organizations. The network is also a vital model for the rest of the world to emulate.
Two years ago, governments attending the South Asia Regional Wildlife Law Enforcement Workshop, organized by TRAFFIC, identified establishing a regional wildlife law enforcement network as the top priority. Sadly, today there is little movement in making such a network a reality. South Asia's political dynamics are partly to blame, but ASEAN-WEN, if successful, could serve as the role model South Asia needs to resell the idea to its various governments.
The next challenge: Establish a global network. Sound unrealistic? Not if the State Department's Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking can fulfill its vision of motivating and mobilizing international political will and resources. I hope Marshall's article will resonate positively with the decision makers who possess the clout to bring such a partnership to fruition.
Crawford Allan
TRAFFIC North America
Washington, D.C.
Andrew Marshall's article on Asia's illicit wildlife trade exquisitely describes one of transnational crime's most lucrative endeavors. Wildlife is illegally hunted and trafficked around the world for a variety of reasons, the most critical of which is human consumption. While the article notes that exotic and endangered species are often consumed as a delicacy in parts of Asia, illegally harvested bushmeat has rapidly become a major source of protein for rural residents in much of Africa. For centuries, wild game meat was utilized for food at sustainable levels. But in the last 15 years, population growth, increased poverty, and rising unemployment have placed more pressure on natural resources, creating a thriving market for bushmeat and abrogating cultural prohibitions discouraging the hunting of certain large species.
Species targeted by bushmeat poachers range from elephants, hippos, and lions to birds, reptiles, and, even, insects. Hunting practices employed by poachers include the use of firearms, dogs, and snares–simple, yet destructive, wire nooses set along game trails and near water holes. And after local animal populations decline, poachers target public and private wildlife reserves for new bushmeat sources to meet the ever-increasing demand. (Conservation officers report that snares are now found in game reserves by the hundreds.)
While rural Africans may own livestock, these animals are not always used as a source of meat; they're considered symbols of wealth to be held rather than consumed. All of these factors together have catapulted the bushmeat trade ahead of the ivory and pelt trades as the most serious threat to wildlife in southern Africa.
Greg Warchol
Associate professor of criminal justice
Northern Michigan University
Marquette, Michigan
Ignoring science
Eugene Rabinowitch's 1952 editorial “A Sustained Reaction” (reprinted in the November/December 2005 Bulletin) opined that “An understanding of… utilizing the methods of science in public policy is slowly emerging.” More than 50 years later, this emergence seems to have slowed to a halt.
This is unfortunately clear if one stops to consider the progress–or lack of it–in using science to determine the safest transport and storage sites for liquefied natural gas (LNG). In the January/February 2004 Bulletin, I wrote about the fire hazards associated with shipping LNG by sea; the studies commissioned by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Energy Department had found that a fire started by a terrorist could expose people to second-degree burns at a distance of 1 mile. I have suggested that this distance be increased to 3 miles to ensure the public's safety in the event of such a fire.
But two years later–and without any kind of distance increase–the rush to site waterfront LNG terminals throughout the United States continues, with controversial proposals pending for terminals in densely populated areas such as Fall River, Massachusetts, and Long Beach, California. Other important LNG issues fester as well. Field tests at the Nevada Test Site in 1984 to determine the effectiveness of vapor fences, which mitigate the distance an escaped LNG vapor cloud could travel, directly contradict FERC's assumptions that the vapor from some spills remains on site.
This all begs the question–are the methods of science really being properly used to make public policy?
Jerry Havens
Chemical engineering professor
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Put it in writing
The Bulletin wants to hear from you. Letters should not exceed 250 words and may be edited for clarity and length. Be sure to include your phone number and mailing and e-mail addresses.
Letters to the Editor
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
6042 South Kimbark Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
fax: 773/702-0725