Finding a better way to protect troops

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Few international issues illustrate partisan lines more clearly than the International Criminal Court (ICC) and U.S. military assistance in Latin America. Republicans are skeptics of the court. Democrats have worried about U.S. interactions with Latin militaries.

That makes it all the more remarkable that a bipartisan consensus is forming around the need to relax U.S. policies that have held up military aid to member countries of the International Criminal Court. This consensus was evident at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing I chaired last week, and at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this week.

To address legitimate concerns that the ICC could become a kangaroo court for politically motivated charges against U.S. troops, Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) in 2003.

ASPA prohibits U.S. government cooperation with the ICC, and restricts the participation of U.S. troops in U.N. peacekeeping operations. Significantly, ASPA also prohibits U.S. military assistance to any country that is a member of the ICC and hasn't offered treaty assurances to shield U.S. troops from possible prosecution without our consent. This provision is increasingly coming under fire, together with a subsequent amendment by Washington state's former Rep. George Nethercutt extending these prohibitions to economic aid.

While this issue has global reach, it is felt most acutely in Latin America. Today 12 Western Hemisphere countries are ineligible for U.S. military aid and training, including Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Uruguay, Paraguay and most recently Mexico.

The consequences have been disastrous. The U.S. is missing key opportunities to engage with the region's next generation of military leaders. Military-to-military engagement helps to underscore the importance of democracy, stability and professionalism -- issues with bipartisan appeal, particularly in a region where, not so long ago, the military establishment was complicit in decades of undemocratic rule.

Gen. Bantz Craddock, commander of U.S. Southern Command, has been forthright with his concerns about the ASPA's effects, particularly on the military training and exchanges through the IMET program. In his words, the law is "restricting our access to and interaction with many important partner nations." Gen. Craddock warns, "We now risk losing contact and interoperability with a generation of military classmates in many nations of the region, including several leading countries."

Restrictions in military and economic aid could also result in loss of U.S. diplomatic influence in the region. This occurs when populism and anti-Americanism are rampant, charges of U.S. neglect are common and humanitarian aid for the region is seeing reductions. And any real or perceived vacuum created by the U.S. could be filled by worrisome actors in the region or beyond, that may not share our democratic values.

Gen. Craddock has warned many Latin Americans who formerly would have come to the United States for military training are instead going to China.

Take Bolivia for example, a country of considerable instability. A couple decades ago, one might have expected the civilian government to be overthrown by a military regime. Yet through considerable upheaval, the Bolivian military has remained deferential to civilian control, no doubt reinforced through decades of regular training with U.S. instructors and doctrine.