Speeches

International Military Operations and Law Conference

Remarks by Ambassador Frank Lavin
March 21, 2005

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, leaders of the United States military and our allies and friends. Let me echo General Ng’s greetings as you begin your conference. PACOM serves as organizer of this conference. Singapore is your host. We in the embassy merely facilitate.

I believe even those who arrived over the weekend can quickly get a sense of why Singapore is so attractive a locale for these type of senior-level gatherings. A modern city, with world class services and a professional military establishment all mean that participants in this conference will have a rich diet of food for thought as well as a rich diet of food. Perhaps I can help in the latter category.

As I reviewed the themes for the conference I couldnt help but note that from an embassy perspective, we have also been grappling with many of these issues. Let me take advantage of my role here to touch on just three.

As one example, along with many in the room, we are concerned about a tendency toward criminalization of the public policy process, so that people who have differences of views over policies feel they should use criminal proceedings against those with whom they disagree. This had led to spectacles such as criminal cases filed against political figures, including our Secretary of Defense, and has spurred the U.S. interest in seeking Article 98 exceptions with regard to the International Criminal Court. I am afraid the temptation for moral posturing is too great to expect this tendency to abate. But I hope can we devise some kind of protection for our forces and our leadership so that in the next conflict the commander of a tank is not hauled in for violating automobile emissions standards.

A second set of examples involves the cluster of issues related to terrorism and non-standard warfare. These include situations in which formal war is not declared, or those in which at least one set of combatants adheres to no formal chain of command or military structure, or those in which third parties, including nation-states, might be involved in supporting the conflict, or those in which the combatants include transnational bodies. Most troubling is the defining attribute of terrorism, that the perpetrators see no rights for non-combatants at all.

These circumstances can contribute to a complicated picture. For example, an American citizen is carrying arms on behalf of the Taliban even as American forces are fighting that same Taliban, or a so-called charity in the United States or Saudi Arabia sends financial compensation to relatives of suicide bombers. Here in Southeast Asia, JI might undertake recruitment in one country and training in a second country, for a planned attack in a third country. What legal rights would the third country have in such a situation?

Some of these issues are not new, but are seen in a new light. Even in World War II there were American citizens who took up arms on behalf of countries that were fighting America, and there were other Americans who provided political support or intelligence to America’s enemies. I do not recall from history that any members of the Wehrmacht received Miranda warnings or rights to an attorney when they were taken prisoner, but there is an expectation today in some quarters that warriors for the Taliban be so entitled. Some of this might be a kind of reverse racism, that Afghans are not necessarily entitled to legal rights but that third country nationals who fight with them are entitled to the full legal protection as if they had simply committed an everyday crime in their home country.

Third, we have an evolution in the role of our law enforcement agencies. They are no longer just domestic agencies, but need to work cross border with like-minded professionals. This raises a similar set of issues on rules of evidence, extraditions, and the like – a set of issues thought to be well regulated but in view of terrorism perhaps also in a need of a fresh look.

And all of these challenges take place against a policy environment that is sometimes super-heated, with intense political schisms and instantaneous 24-hour-a-day media coverage. Questions have been raised about U.S. responsibilities in renditions and in our own treatment of prisoners such as at Abu Gharib. I encourage all the U.S. participants in this conference to take an honest look at short comings in the U.S. system. Healthy in itself and only then will we be able to ask our friends in the room to come to terms with whatever short comings they might have.

So from looking at the policy process, terrorism, and international law enforcement, this is a timely conference indeed. I wish you good luck in your efforts to better explore the legal framework for our military operations, and to ensure our enemies cannot exploit any gaps in our system for their own ends. Thank you.