Get Task & Purpose in your inbox
The State Department doesn't really care if its human rights training for partner security forces is working or not
By law, the United States is required to promote "human rights and fundamental freedoms" when it trains foreign militaries. So it makes sense that if the U.S. government is going to spend billions on foreign security assistance every year, it should probably systematically track whether that human rights training is actually having an impact or not, right?
Apparently not. According to a new audit from the Government Accountability Office, both the Departments of Defense and State "have not assessed the effectiveness of human rights training for foreign security forces" — and while the Pentagon agreed to establish a process to do so, State simply can't be bothered.
The GAO audit was initiated under the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018 to assess the Pentagon and State Department's adherence to 10 U.S. Code § 333, which mandates that any program designed to build the capacity of foreign security forces must include elements that promote "observance of and respect for the law of armed conflict, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, and civilian control of the military."
While the GAO found that the while the Pentagon "has taken initial steps to develop monitoring and evaluation policies but officials stated that they have not yet determined whenDOD will evaluate human rights training," State Department officials told the GAO that "they do not know when the agency will begin monitoring and evaluating human rights training" conducted under its $100 million International Military Education and Training (IMET).
That the Pentagon and State haven't slapped together a unified human rights training tracking system isn't totally surprising; they are, of course, part of the same nation-building apparatus that used Microsoft Excel to track gross human rights violations in Afghanistan until 2017.
But what is surprising is how the two agencies responded to the GAO's recommendations, captured in this spicy meatball here (emphasis ours):
GAO is making three recommendations, including that the Secretary of Defense establish a process to systematically track mandated human rights training and develop a timeline for implementing monitoring and evaluation. DOD agreed. GAO also recommends that the Secretary of State develop a plan with a timeline to monitor and evaluate such training. State disagreed. GAO continues to believe the recommendation is valid as discussed in the report.
State's logic is detailed more thoroughly in the bottom of the GAO report (emphasis ours, again):
In its comments, State acknowledged that human rights training is a vital element of IMET programs and agreed with the need to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of training—including human rights training— delivered through IMET. However, the department stated that it did not agree to separately conduct monitoring and evaluation of human rights training for IMET participants. Our recommendation for State to develop a plan with a timeline to evaluate the effectiveness of human rights training provided under IMET does not call for a separate evaluation. State could meet the intent of our recommendation through evaluating the effectiveness of human rights training as part of its broader efforts to monitor and evaluate IMET. We added a statement to the report to that effect.
So according to the GAO, the State Department objected to something the GAO ... didn't even ask for?
This isn't just a bizarre objection, but potentially problematic one. Under the 1997 'Leahy Law,' the U.S. government is outright prohibited from furnishing aid to foreign allies that face credible allegations of gross human rights violations, a provision "intended to leverage U.S. assistance to encourage foreign governments to prevent their security forces from committing human rights violations."
But despite this, the State Department's response to the GAO implies the agency doesn't really have any interest in tracking how effective its human rights training actually is — and, in turn, that human rights training means precisely dick in the context of the agency's foreign security assistance programs.
This, as many observers have already noted, is a stark departure from the United States that led the United Nations to adopt the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the aftermath of World War II, a nation that enshrined "inherent dignity" and "equal and inalienable rights" at the heart of its diplomatic mission abroad. Then again, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did just establish a new panel to reexamine "the role of human rights in American foreign policy."
What an age we live in.
The DNA of a niece and nephew, who never met their uncle, has helped identify the remains of the Kansas Marine who died in WWII.
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency announced that 21-year-old U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Pfc. Raymond Warren was identified using DNA and circumstantial evidence. Warren had been buried in a cemetery in the Gilbert Islands, where he was killed when U.S. forces tried to take secure one of the islands from the Japanese.
The Battle of Tarawa lasted from Nov. 20 to Nov. 23, 1943, and claimed the lives of 1,021 U.S. marines and sailors, more than 3,000 Japanese soldiers and an estimated 1,000 Korean laborers before the U.S. troops seized control, the agency said.
Arizona lawmakers are vowing to fight a plan by the Air Force to start retiring some of the nation's fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt II ground-attack jets — a major operation at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base — as part of a plan to drop some older, legacy weapon systems to help pay for new programs.
U.S. Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., a former A-10 pilot, and U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., both vowed to fight the move to retire 44 of the oldest A-10s starting this year.
During a press briefing last week, Air Force officials unveiled plans to start mothballing several older platforms, including retiring some A-10s even as it refits others with new wings.
MOSCOW/SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea, whose leader Kim Jong Un was filmed riding through the snow on a white stallion last year, has spent tens of thousands of dollars on 12 purebred horses from Russia, according to Russian customs data.
Accompanied by senior North Korean figures, Kim took two well-publicized rides on the snowy slopes of the sacred Paektu Mountain in October and December.
State media heralded the jaunts as important displays of strength in the face of international pressure and the photos of Kim astride a galloping white steed were seen around the world.
North Korea has a long history of buying pricey horses from Russia and customs data first reported by Seoul-based NK News suggests that North Korea may have bolstered its herd in October.
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A high-profile local Taliban figure who announced and justified the 2012 attack on teenage Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai has escaped detention, Pakistan's interior minister confirmed a few days after the militant announced his breakout on social media.
Former Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan, who claimed responsibility on behalf of his group for scores of Taliban attacks, proclaimed his escape on Twitter and then in an audio message sent to Pakistani media earlier this month.
The Pakistani military, which had kept Ehsan in detention for three years, has declined to comment but, asked by reporters about the report, Interior Minister Ijaz Shah, said: "That is correct, that is correct."
Shah, a retired brigadier general, added that "you will hear good news" in response to questions about whether there had been progress in hunting down Ehsan.
The 7-day "reduction in violence" negotiated between the United States and the Taliban is set to begin on Feb. 22, an Afghan government official who spoke on condition of anonymity told Task & Purpose on Monday.
A temporary truce beginning on Saturday that would last for one week is seen as a crucial test between the Taliban, U.S., and Afghan governments that would prove all parties to a potential peace deal can control their forces. Defense Secretary Mark Esper declined to confirm the date on Sunday.
"That is a moving date because we are still doing consultations, if you will," Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters.