December
30, 2002
Boomtime for the
Military-Industrial Complex
Arming for Armageddon
by JOHN STANTON
In
2001, the US weapons industry controlled approximately 50 percent of the
world arms market. The Federation of
American Scientists (FAS) reports that for fiscal year 2001, the US
government exported $12.2 billion in weapons and was awarded $13.1 billion
in new foreign contracts through its Foreign Military Sales program. That
excludes the $36 billion in direct commercial sales by US weapons
manufacturers to foreign nations. FAS indicates that the weapons industry
is second only to the US agriculture industry in its receipt of US
taxpayer subsidies. Yet, the weapons industry still whines about export
restrictions and pesky public disclosure requirements that actually make
them somewhat accountable to the US Congress and the American people. So
it's no surprise that in 2003, the weapons industry will be busy lobbying
the US Congress and the American public for more subsidies, fewer
restrictions on what can be sold and to whom, and exemptions from public
accountability and long standing agreements.
The weapons industry storyline will include appeals
to 9-11 and patriotism, free markets, job creation and level-playing
fields, and global democracy--US style. But the reality behind the phony
proclamations is, of course, profits and free-rides. American taxpayers
spend upwards of $10 billion a year in subsidies to the US weapons
industry. American jobs are, in fact, exported along with the technology
to countries like Turkey and Israel through off-sets which means that the
importing country can build the systems themselves. US technology and
know-how gets given away at no charge or at discounted rates through the
Excess Defense Articles program. US foreign policy is regularly altered
and human rights ignored to meet the needs of US weapons manufacturers.
More chilling though is the observation of a weapons industry executive
who mused, "There will come a day when we will have no allegiance to a
nation-state. We will be viewed as neutral suppliers to all combatants."
That day has arrived.
The American public would do well to take note of
the weapons industry's activities in 2003 because as FAS
reports,"US-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world
over...Of the active conflicts in 1999, the United States supplied arms or
military technology to parties in more than 92% of them --39 out of 42. In
over one-third of these conflicts--18 out of 42--the United States
provided from 10% to 90% of the arms imported by one side of the
dispute...In Fiscal Year 1999, the United States delivered roughly $6.8
billion in armaments to nations which violate the basic standards of human
rights...The costs to the families and communities afflicted by this
violence are immeasurable. But to most arms dealers, the profit
accumulated outweighs the lives lost. In the period from 1998-2001, over
68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations,
where lingering conflicts or societal violence [continues]...The United
States military has had to face troops previously trained by its own
military or supplied with U.S. weaponry in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti,
and now in Afghanistan. Due to the advanced capabilities these militaries
have acquired from past US training and sales, the US had to invest much
more money and manpower in these conflicts than would have otherwise been
needed."
Just recently, US weapons industry members were
showing the flag and their fine products in October 2002 in Jordan at the
annual SOFEX Conference and Exhibition. AM General, American Molds &
Hickling Engineering, Environmental Tectonics, Harris Corporation, SAIC,
JPS, Kollsman, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon and Sikorsky had products on
display. Official delegations to that event included Iran, Iraq, Libya and
Syria and other nations that the Bush Regime wants to destroy. Yet, there
they were-- those patriotic Americans from the US weapons industry,
selling the same American-made components and weapons that young US
service men & women will likely use in the conflicts that are certain
to come in 2003 (http://www.sofex.com.jo/htm/index.html).
And the Center for Defense Information reports that "Some countries
receiving U.S. weapons and/or training continue to recruit children for
their official armed forces. Thus, United States is supplying arms and
military aid to countries where children are used as soldiers."
Hide Behind National
Security
High on the US weapons industry 2003 to-do list is
to gain full implementation of the 17 Defense Trade Security Initiatives
that will allow, among other things, the weapons industry to be exempt
from many provisions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations for
both foreign military sales and defense services. In short, removing US
government oversight of arms sales. They also are seeking to fight the
World Trade Organization's ruling that the US Extra Territorial Income
Exclusion Act of 2000 is an illegal subsidy to corporations by the US
government. That Act allows the weapons industry to claim a tax credit on
portions of its foreign weapons sales.
2003 will also see an intense lobbying effort in the
US Congress to gain approval of measures that would prevent public
disclosure of information relating to security incidents and
business-sensitive data. That's code for a movement in the US weapons
industry to broaden the classfications of Secret or Top Secret to include
everything from timesheets and accounting records to reports of faulty
test data and missing equipment. Revealing classified information, even if
the information clearly shows the weapons maker can't meet the
government's requirement, can mean jail time and stiff fines. Classifying
every document is a convenient way to keep employees quiet and make it
tough for lawyers to get in and defend those who still have some measure
of ethics. It's a surprise to the uninitiated to learn that the weapons
makers in the "private" sector hold 98 percent of all US government
classified information. It is normally the corporation or insitution
Facility Security Officer (FSO) that determines what gets classifed and
what doesn't. The US government typically provides classification
guidelines in its contract award that the FSO must ensure are followed;
but, ultimately, it's up to the business to make sure the correct
classification is made.
Since the "death penalty" for a weapons maker is to
have its facility clearance pulled by the agency granting it, the tendancy
is to be overly broad in classifying information. For example, over 11
years ago the US government terminated its contract with General Dynamics
and Boeing (Boeing owns the original partner McDonnell Douglas) for
failure to perform its obligation to build the US Navy an A-12 aircraft
similar in design to the US Air Force F-117. The US government demanded $1
billion in repayment--now up to $2.3 billion and still on appeal--and, of
course, the two companies sued the US government. In the discovery process
that followed roughly 80 percent of the weapons makers' documents turned
out to be financial records such as timesheets and annual reports that
were stamped Secret or Top Secret. Slowing that litigation process was the
cumbersome requirement that staff on both sides of the lawsuit had to
receive US government security clearances to the Top Secret level and, in
some cases, beyond that designation. The clearance process can take up to
a year and there's no guarantee of approval.
Damn Human Rights! Arm 'Em
All!
The US weapons industry is an equal opportunity
death merchant. It supplies weapons to totalitarian and democratic regimes
of all flavors, all over the world. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a
customer as is King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz, custodian of the Two Holy Mosques
and Head of State of Saudi Arabia. Tony Blair of the United Kingdom is an
eager customer as is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. China, Cambodia, Kazakstan
and Laos receive military assistance. Need weapons to quell that pesky
domestic rebellion? The US weapons industry is there for you. For years it
supplied weapons and gear to Indonesia to assist it in the killing of at
least 100,000 East Timorese. Protestors all over the US have been
subjected to weaponry and tactics developed by the US weapons industry and
the US military. Need landmines? Human Rights Watch estimates that the US
has stockpiled 11.2 million landmines for use in conflict. The Bush Regime
has indicated it will use them in Iraq if necessary.
The power of the US weapons industry to influence
foreign policy is perhaps best represented by its successful effort to
expand NATO. According to William Hartung of the World Policy Institute,
with the blessing of the Clinton Administration, "In 1994 several major US
military manufacturers set up offices in the region to promote their
products, and in 1996, defense giant Lockheed Martin organized a series of
"defense planning seminars" for officials in Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic, a soft-sell, relationship-building approach intended to
demonstrate the benefits of buying American. In 1997 in the months leading
up to public referendums, the Czech, Hungarian, and Polish governments, as
well as U.S. arms manufacturers, launched aggressive media campaigns to
win public support. On Hungarian television, a popular sitcom suddenly had
a new character, a military commander who spouted the virtues of NATO,
while school libraries gave away slick pro-NATO CD-ROM games supplied by
McDonnell Douglas [now owned by Boeing]. While lulled by propaganda, lured
by the illusion of imminent EU membership, and lavished with new
subsidized military hardware, the people of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic, were given little concrete explanation of the potential costs or
obligations of NATO membership. Majorities in both Hungary and the Czech
Republic, however, correctly discerned that increased government spending
on the military would come at the expense of education and
health..."
One price of NATO membership is a requirement to
set-aside 20 percent of their total defense budget for procuring US
weaponry. The per capita income for Latvia is $3,013. According to William
Hartung of World Policy Institute, "the U.S. share of a full-blown NATO
expansion initiative -- including military exercises and troop
deployments, modernizing military bases and communications networks, and
rearming the nations of East and Central Europe -- could reach $250
billion between now and the year 2010." That $250 billion for NATO
expansion excludes funds yet to be spent on US Homeland Security, National
Missile Defense, the War In Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, the War in
Iraq, and, perhaps, World War III. Can the Latvians and other new entrants
afford the increase in defense spending? Can Americans afford it and the
mad designs of the US weapons industry and their friends in government?
Can the world afford it?
The outlook is grim. Few in the US Congress will
stand in the way of the US weapons industry and its supporters in the
Pentagon and White House, including former members of Congress, which is
just another way of saying that they'll get what they're looking for in
2003, particularly since they helped get many of them into office. It's
unclear whether mass demonstrations and voting will make any difference in
limiting the political power of the weapons manufacturers. Meanwhile, in
the board rooms of the US weapons industry, the sun is shining, freedom is
defended, democracy lives, and it's going to be a record profit-taking
year in 2003.
John Stanton is a
Virginia-based writer specializing in national security matters. He can be
reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|