US trained Khashoggi's killers. A review of all military training programs is necessary
Recent revelations have exposed the United States' role in
providing military and paramilitary training to at least some of the alleged
hitmen behind two of the most high-profile assassinations of the past decade --
the murder of Saudi journalist and political dissident Jamal Khashoggi, and the
recent killing of Haitian President Jovenel Moise. These revelations, reported
by The New York Times and The Washington Post, cast a harsh light on US
security cooperation programs and the private firms operating with the approval
of the State Department that train thousands of foreign military personnel
every year.
Without stronger safeguards on America's foreign military
training enterprise, it seems inevitable that the United States will continue
to hone the skills of those who go on to become foreign assassins, coup leaders
and human rights abusers.
In the 2018 fiscal year, which ended just two days before
Khashoggi's brutal assassination, the US State Department, along with the
Department of Defense, provided military training to approximately 62,700
foreign security personnel from 155 countries. That number excludes many more
who received military training in deals commercially licensed by the Department
of State but negotiated directly between foreign clients and US defense
contractors.
Whatever the mechanism, US foreign military training remains
plagued by a range of flaws that have clearly implicated the US government in
the behavior of powerful -- and in many cases, brutal -- foreign security
services. The scale of these programs and the risks that they will be used for
nefarious ends should prompt a new and more comprehensive review of all US
military training programs worldwide, with reforms that more effectively bar
members of military units that have a record of human rights abuses.
The United States has long seen foreign military training as
a critical instrument of American statecraft, helping to provide foreign
partners with the expertise to address shared security threats, and also as a
means of deepening and expanding America's network of alliances. Training in
particular, as opposed to arms sales or other security cooperation programs, is
seen as especially effective in enhancing US influence among the security elite
of foreign partners, aiding in the cultivation of personal and cultural ties as
well as a shared military ethos that are meant to provide enduring returns for
US security interests. Others have touted the importance of US military
training in improving the professionalism, human rights compliance and
civil-military affairs of foreign partners.
Despite these good intentions, these programs too often go
awry, as in the case of the alleged role of US-trained operatives in the
assassinations of Khashoggi and Moise. The recent collapse of Afghan security
forces in the face of a concerted Taliban offensive despite more than $88
billion in intensive US training, equipping and defense institution building
over the past 20 years also raises serious questions about the efficacy of US
military training programs.
While various US government agencies are supposed to weigh
in on decisions regarding foreign military training, the current vetting
procedures are far from perfect. Background checks for foreign students have
missed red flags, as was the case for a Saudi military trainee who opened fire
at a Pensacola naval base in 2019, killing three US sailors. A subsequent
review and more rigorous screening led to the expulsion of an additional 21
Saudi military students.
While applicants are first cleared by their home countries
before they undergo a US-led screening process, it's unclear just how
thoroughly the US government reviews the histories, backgrounds and political
roles of the applicants before they are approved for training programs. US and
Saudi sources who spoke to the Washington Post allege some of the operatives
behind Khashoggi's killing who had received training in the United States were
part of the Saudi Rapid Intervention Group, a key instrument in a campaign of
surveillance, kidnapping, detention and torture of Saudi dissidents.
While there is no evidence that either the American
officials who approved the training or the company that provided it knew of the
trainees' involvement in the crackdown in Saudi Arabia, it is important to ask
two questions: If US officials didn't know, did they conduct a thorough enough
background check on the trainees? And if US intelligence did know about this
group, did it share any information with the State Department?
Additionally, guardrails to ensure that training is not
provided to human rights abusers are all too easily circumvented. Officials
responsible for protecting human rights are frequently cut out of security
assistance decision-making processes. The Leahy Law, a key safety measure meant
to prevent the provision of US assistance to military units that engage in
human rights abuses, is not applied to a variety of activities -- including
training purchased on a commercial basis -- in deals with private companies
that are licensed by the State Department, as was the case with the four
alleged Saudi assassins.
Moreover, the State Department processes thousands of
licenses for the transfer of weapons and services, including training, every
year, which creates bureaucratic challenges in ensuring thorough assessments.
And while Congress is meant to play a key oversight role
when it comes to foreign military training, such activities often fall under
the radar. In our conversations with congressional staffers, we learned that
lawmakers are often unaware of the scale of the training enterprise or of many
of the programs through which trainings are administered. Worse still, members
of Congress are not notified when the executive branch authorizes sales of
training that fall below multimillion-dollar thresholds, meaning these programs
often proceed without any meaningful opportunity for lawmakers to intercede.
The system lacks transparency and reforms are urgently needed to keep lawmakers
and regulators in the executive branch engaged, enforce accountability measures
and condition assistance on human rights criteria more broadly.
The most recent revelations are just some of the most
conspicuous examples in a long and troubling history of US forces providing
assistance, training and the means of violence to actors who are then in a
position to make use of their newfound resources to prey on civilians or expand
their power in fragile political environments. In Mali, for example, the
leaders of two separate military coups in the past decade received US military
training.
In Colombia, US-trained commandos are prized recruits for
the shadowy world of international private military contracting, where they
have been deployed as mercenaries in theaters as far-flung as Yemen and Iraq.
Across Latin America, the United States has provided critical combat training
to individuals who have gone on over many decades to be involved in coups,
paramilitary activities and hit squads, most notably through the now rebranded
School of the Americas.
How well has the United States either tracked the activities
or assessed in advance the risks of training thousands of Colombian security
personnel -- many of whom have since transitioned to private military
contracting? Why have successive US administrations allowed this to go on in
the first place, given the unintended consequences that can in some cases,
hamper US interests?
In the past few years alone, the United States has financed
or sold training to numerous countries that have been alleged to engage in
serious human rights abuses, including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Israel,
Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Cameroon and Azerbaijan, among many
others.
These trainings impart sophisticated combat skills to
foreign security services.
They also create relationships between the top brass in the
United States and international partners that are intended to foster kinship
through shared experiences, expertise and benefaction. But these partnerships
between Washington and the security forces of recipient countries also bind the
United States to the use or abuse of imparted combat skills and the elevation
of particular military elites in deeply unsettled political environments. And
with tens of thousands of foreign security personnel granted visas to the
United States each year, the question must be asked: How many future assassins,
coup leaders or human rights abusers are benefitting from these training
programs?
President Joe Biden has pledged to place human rights at the
center of US foreign policy. Without urgent reform to America's foreign
military training enterprise, that promise will remain only rhetorical in
nature. In the Saudi case, a State Department spokesperson declined to confirm
whether it awarded the license that provided the Saudis training and stated,
"This administration insists on responsible use of U.S. origin defense equipment
by our allies and partners, and considers appropriate responses if violations
occur. Saudi Arabia faces significant threats to its territory, and we are
committed to working together to help Riyadh strengthen its defenses."
And despite the alleged role of US-trained Colombian
personnel in the assassination of the Haitian President, Pentagon spokesperson
John Kirby denied there was anything from the training they received that could
be tied to the assassination. He went on to say, "I know of no plans right
now as a result of what happened in Haiti for us to reconsider or change this
very valuable, ethical leadership training that we continue to provide."
US Army Col. John Dee Suggs also told Voice of America in
April, "We will only train people who have the same human rights values
that we have, who have the same democratic values that we have."
If President Biden wishes to match his promises with deeds,
he should start by improving vetting procedures, embracing restraint, applying
Leahy Law procedures to arms sales, and committing to public transparency on
the military training the United States is sharing with its international
partners.
Until then, the risk that the United States will train more
individuals like the four Saudi operatives who are accused of playing a role in
the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, or the handful of Colombians allegedly
involved in gunning down a sitting head of state, will remain high.
Comments
Post a Comment