Even before assuming office, President-elect Barack Obama’s most pressing priority has been the economic crisis. But an equally pressing priority is national security.
Obama has assembled an experienced and credible security team, with Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Robert Gates continuing as defense secretary, four-star general James Jones as national security adviser, and Leon Panetta as CIA chief.
Context is important in any discussion about fashioning the nation’s security strategy. First, since 9/11, the United States has been free of any terrorist attack on its soil. Second, al-Qaeda and the Islamic jihadists remain a constant threat. And third, national security must be expanded to focus on human security. Thus, environmental and human rights issues must not be ignored.
Obama has reportedly decided to issue an executive order closing the detention center at Guantanamo. But as he has acknowledged, the challenge remains what to do with several al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects, and where to send a few scheduled for release who might be tortured if sent back home and if no other country is willing to accept them. Guantanamo has severely damaged the U.S. reputation for observing the rule of law, and the decision to close it will undoubtedly be widely applauded here and abroad.
Human rights activists have persistently argued that the Obama administration must investigate those Bush administration officials responsible for making policy (such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) and hold them accountable if they are found to have violated U.S. and international laws on torture. After 18 months of deliberations, the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a bipartisan finding, concluded that the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison were the direct result of policies adopted by Rumsfeld and other senior Bush administration officials. (Plus, Cheney has often said that he does not consider waterboarding to be torture.)
Obama was noncommittal on this point, focusing more on the future while stressing that prosecutions would proceed if the Justice Department concluded that laws had been broken. Even though he will face challenges and there might be setbacks to his own initiatives, there must be no impunity for those who have broken the law. The U.S., as a champion of the rule of law, cannot sweep these abuses under the rug. Perhaps a congressional commission — a kind of truth commission, as currently envisioned by some — will be the answer.
As to the “war on terror,” that hyperbole must be dropped. Terrorism cannot be combatted by the use of force alone, and hence diplomacy and development must play a critical role in this ongoing struggle.
The one sage piece of advice that an international lawyer can offer to the new administration is that it must scrupulously follow principles of international law. Unilateralism, exceptionalism and “preventive war” options espoused by the Bush administration must be rejected to restore America’s credibility and reputation, which President Bush erroneously said the other day have not been hurt.
On Tuesday at her Senate committee hearing, Sen. Clinton appropriately rejected unilateralism and called for vigorous diplomatic efforts if she is confirmed as secretary of state. We need to lead the world on the defining issues confronting humanity: environmental degradation, climate change, hunger and poverty, international crimes. Consequently, the U.S. must ratify international treaties such as those on the International Criminal Court, climate change, women’s rights, cluster bombs and landmines.
The world is eagerly anticipating the Obama administration to provide principled leadership once again. Let us hope that it will meet these expectations.
Ved P. Nanda (vnanda @law.du.edu) is Thompson Marsh professor of law and director of the Interna- tional Legal Studies Program at the University of Denver.
