September 2, 1999

by Peter J.M. Orvetti, Manager of Editorial Services

In today's Cato Daily Dispatch, a disarming encounter in Kosovo, China plays chicken on Taiwan, George W. wants background checks for gun purchases, and why Switzerland is safe.

A New Kosovo Conundrum

The Kosovo Liberation Army may lose U.S. support if it does not fully disarm soon, AP reports. The KLA's military commander, Agim Ceku, had assured the United States that the former guerrillas would honor a demilitarization agreement with NATO and hand in their arms by September 19. However, Ceku now says that the KLA is going to become the "Kosovo army," a violation of the June demilitarization agreement. In closed door talks, NATO Lt. Gen. Mike Jackson has urged KLA political chief Hashim Thaci to meet the deadline, CNN reports. They also discussed terms to end an eight-day-long stalemate between ethnic Albanians and Russian soldiers in the southern city of Orahovac.

Gary Dempsey examines the "Theater of the Absurd in Kosovo" in a recent commentary: "While paying lip-service to peace and harmony in front of the international press corps and Western diplomats, Hashim 'Snake' Thaci, the KLA's self-declared prime minister of Kosovo, has scoffed, 'There might be some people who are armed who aren't under KLA control... but there might be some people in KFOR [NATO's Kosovo Force] who aren't under General Jackson's control.' Nonsense. NATO troops are not disobeying Jackson's orders, let alone killing civilians, burning down houses, and looting stores. The United Nations says it is now moving into Kosovo to help deal with the ethnic violence, and the UN's chief administrator, Bernard Kouchner, says he wants to pull the KLA into the exercise of power, offering it a share of executive responsibility. Other Western officials want the KLA to form the core of Kosovo's police force. What is likely to happen is more theater of the absurd, as the KLA's control is institutionalized while the charade that the KLA is not in control is perpetuated. In the meantime, NATO commanders find themselves not with a peacekeeping policy in Kosovo, but a KLA management policy. That was entirely predictable. 'When we entered Kosovo there was still fighting going on and without a doubt the KLA had seen NATO and the air campaign as all part of what they were doing,' concedes NATO's Gen. Jackson, 'But time's moved on.' It certainly has. NATO served as the KLA's unwitting errand boy, which was the KLA's aim all along, and now the KLA is advancing on to its next goals: ruling over Kosovo and pursuing a Greater Albania. Both those goals, of course, contradict NATO's calls for the creation of a multi-ethnic democracy in Kosovo and could bring NATO peacekeepers and the KLA into direct conflict. They also bode ill for Balkan stability--an ostensible goal of NATO's occupation in the first place." The Cato Policy Report asks "What Do We Do Now" in the Balkans; Selected Cato Readings on the Kosovo Conflict are available as well.

Wargames And Weapons

As the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the People's Republic of China nears, the chances of a China-Taiwan war remain high. The People's Liberation Army recently conducted submarine warfare exercises and missile tests, the Liberation Army Daily reports, and President Jiang Zemin has reiterated Beijing's insistence on its right to use force against Taiwan. Jiang said Monday that Beijing would prefer peaceful reunification but would make use of the military option if required. "It is the shared aspiration of the entire 1.2 billion Chinese people to settle the question of Taiwan at an early date. If China were to undertake not to use force, the peaceful reunification of China would become hollow words," Jiang said in an interview. And the Australian Financial Review reported that Richard Armitage, called "a top adviser to leading Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush" by Agence France Presse, had warned Australia it must stand ready to give military support to the United States if the U.S. goes to war with China.

"Let Taiwan Defend Itself", says Ted Galen Carpenter in a 1998 Cato Policy Analysis: "President Clinton changed U.S. policy on Taiwan in a subtle but significant way. Washington's position since 1972 had been that the United States did not challenge the assertion of Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait that there is one China and Taiwan is part of China. Clinton went much further, signaling U.S. hostility to the possibility of an independent Taiwan or even Taiwanese membership in international organizations. Clinton thus took a major step toward the position advocated by those Americans who want Washington to mollify Beijing by such measures as terminating U.S. arms sales to the island. Yet the president also implied that the United States would intervene militarily to defend Taiwan from attack. That 'accommodationist' approach combines the worst, most dangerous features of appeasement and firmness. Nearly as dangerous is the policy of all-out support for Taiwan that many American conservatives suggest. A U.S. security guarantee to Taiwan would lack credibility and, given the emotional determination of mainland Chinese to pursue reunification, could easily entangle the United States in a war with a nuclear-armed great power. That is all the more likely because enthusiasm for formal independence is growing in Taiwan, and the United States would be pressured to back that bid. The only solution is for the United States to allow increased arms sales to Taiwan, thus enabling the Taiwanese to build a self-sufficient defense and an effective deterrent to coercion by Beijing. At the same time, U.S. officials must make it clear that Taiwan is not a vital American interest and that under no circumstances will the United States intervene in a war between the island and the mainland." Carpenter followed up in an August commentary on the current crisis: "The United States should seek to maintain decent relations with the PRC, but U.S. officials must stop giving undue deference to Beijing's "one China" claims. Instead, Washington needs to articulate a new policy that includes the following elements: 1) The United States takes no position on the issue of whether there is one China, two Chinas, or one China-one Taiwan; 2) Whether Taiwan politically rejoins the mainland or maintains a separate political existence is properly a decision for the people of Taiwan to make; 3) The United States will continue to sell Taiwan defensive weapons as outlined in the Taiwan Relations Act; and 4) Under no circumstances will the United States become involved militarily if an armed conflict breaks out between PRC and Taiwanese forces. Such a policy would affirm the right of the Taiwanese people to determine their own political destiny. At the same time, it would put Taipei on notice that, if it rejects the one China principle and proceeds down the path toward separatism and full independence, it must do so at its own risk." The Taiwan issue and other issues arising from China's 50th anniversary will be discussed at the Cato Institute conference Whither China? The PRC at 50" in Washington on September 29.

Bush Wants Background Checks

Gov. George W. Bush (R-Texas) raised eyebrows last week by endorsing gun control measures including raising the legal age for purchase of a handgun from 18 to 21, Reuters reports. Bush, the GOP presidential frontrunner, said he also supported congressional efforts to ban large ammunition clips and to require instant background checks. "I think there's problems everywhere when people illegally use guns, and so the first question we must ask is, is it possible to have reasonable laws to keep the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them? That's why I support instant background checks," Bush said.

But any background checks should be part of a "shall-issue" licensing law, Jeffrey R. Snyder wrote in a 1997 Cato Policy Analysis. "The key feature of the new concealed-carry laws is that the issuing authority--usually a sheriff or the chief of police--must grant the permit as soon as a citizen can satisfy specific and objective licensing criteria. It is for that reason that those reforms are often referred to as 'shall-issue' concealed-carry laws… So long as the state requires a criminal background check, the check will disclose whether the applicant who desires to carry a firearm is permitted to possess a firearm under federal or state law. If not, obviously no permit may issue, and the applicant's possession of a weapon would be in violation of federal or state law. Further, since permit holders are registered, that is, the application information is maintained in the state's criminal records, the data provide a ready means of identifying and confiscating the weapons of permit holders who commit a crime postissuance or otherwise become disqualified (e.g., by drug use or mental illness). Critics of laws liberalizing the ability of citizens to carry firearms in public often ignore the fact that the new licensing statutes provide an ongoing way of policing compliance with federal and state laws regarding firearm ownership… Shall-issue licensing systems are not, as is sometimes asserted by their opponents, another example of America's free-wheeling, hands-off approach to guns. The licensing systems are gun control. Applicants are registered and fingerprinted and their backgrounds are thoroughly checked, both at the state and at the national level through the FBI, for criminal histories, and histories of drug or alcohol abuse and mental illness. In addition, the great majority of states require that applicants have received training with firearms. On the basis of 10 years of experience in 25 states, we may conclude that shall-issue licensing systems work. They accomplish the twin goals of providing a mechanism by which law-abiding citizens can carry the means with which to defend themselves from a violent criminal assault that imminently threatens life or grievous bodily harm and provide the public reasonable assurance that those who receive permits are persons who will act responsibly."

Swiss Army Life

The Times of London featured Switzerland's long history of peace. "Created as a nation in arms, Switzerland is proud of its heritage of Alpine liberty, based on the legendary figure of William Tell, who is said to have liberated the Swiss from aggressive Austrians in 1291. Switzerland has one of the largest land-based armies in Europe. It has a small professional army of about 3,300, with a pool of about 360,000 conscripts... Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Army, said: 'The Swiss have a very large defence establishment and it tells you straight away how Switzerland managed to avoid the First and Second World Wars.' According to Article 18 of the Constitution, every Swiss male is subject to military service. In 1992, this was amended to allow alternative civilian service. When a Swiss conscript enters military service, it will engage him virtually his entire life. Until 1995, conscription lasted a period of 30 years, from 20 to 50. Since then, it has been reduced to 22 years," the Times writes.

But it is Switzerland's gun policies and not conscription that keeps it free and safe. "[P]rivate possession of weapons does not automatically lead to their misuse: heavily armed societies like Israel and Switzerland have only a fraction of our violent crime," Doug Bandow writes. And a Cato Policy Analysis notes that "Switzerland, through its militia system, distributes both pistols and fully automatic assault rifles to all adult males and requires them to store their weapons at home. Further, civilian long-gun purchases are essentially unregulated, and handguns are available to any adult without a criminal record or mental defect. Nevertheless, Switzerland suffers far less crime per capita than the United States and almost no gun crime." As for conscription, it is not advisable in a free society, Bandow writes in a just-released Cato Policy Analysis: "The draft was bad policy during the Cold War and would constitute amazing foolishness today. For instance, renewed conscription would reduce the quality of new service personnel. Returning to the draft would also increase the costs of raising a military force. Conscription is an expensive process-for individuals, government, and society. For the armed services, a draft would yield higher turnover, thus increasing training costs. Also, because few conscripts choose to make the military a career, the Pentagon would have to hike reenlistment benefits. A draft would not improve the retention rate of skilled personnel or inculcate civic virtue. The military does have some serious personnel problems; however, such problems could be solved by returning to a foreign policy that is proper for a republic. The Clinton administration's promiscuous use of military force in conflicts irrelevant to U.S. security drives many potential recruits away from and current career personnel out of the service. Furthermore, policymakers should adjust compensation and benefits to more successfully attract both new recruits and skilled personnel in the years ahead. A renewed draft would be bad for the military. But more important, conscription would be unfair and unjust-sacrificing the very constitutional liberties that the military is charged to defend."