just received this and thought it was pertinent to the "democracy" thread. what the editorial doesn't say is that it's not only dictatorships that use arms in ruthless, insane ways. Vera Britto ([EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.umich.edu/~fiatlux) ............................................................................. > >Banning Arms for Dictators > > > >For years, a small band of peace activists pushed the entirely sensible but >seemingly hopeless >idea that the world should refuse to sell arms to dictatorships. Now it may >be coming to pass. >For the first time, a Code of Conduct setting out criteria for determining >who can buy American arms has >passed in the House of Representatives. The British Government has said it >will adhere to an even >stronger code, and support is growing in the European Union for a code that >would apply to all >members. Together the United States and the European Union account for 80 >percent of the world's >arms trade. > >The code passed the House last week on a voice vote, with no one speaking in >opposition. >It has drawn fierce opposition from the Administration, which resists >anything that ties its hands, and from >the aerospace industry. But it has support across the spectrum in the House, >where its sponsors are >the liberal Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and the conservative Dana >Rohrabacher of California. > >The widespread support is due in part to the fact that the code is a >watered-down version of >previous efforts. It would require the President to make an annual list of >countries eligible for American arms transfers, using several different >tests of democracy and nonaggression. If the Administration wanted to sell >to a country that does not meet the criteria, it could propose a waiver in >the national security interest. >Congress would then have eight months to block or condition the >Administration's >>request. It is not, therefore, an automatic ban, but it is likely that >the Administration would choose to >>duck many of the battles that selling to egregious violators might produce. >The code might also encourage some borderline nations to democratize. About >half of all American arms sales now go to countries that could be considered >dictatorships. > >Mr. Rohrabacher, who did not hesitate to support arming right-wing dictators >when he worked in >the Reagan White House, says that with the fall of Communism, selling arms >to dictators is no longer >necessary. Indeed, such sales are often dangerous. American weapons have >been turned against American soldiers in Somalia, Panama, Haiti and Iraq, to >name a few places. Dictatorships are often unstable, and arms sold to the >Shah of Iran end up in the hands of the Ayatollah Khomeini. > > >The sales also harm the buyers, who have better things to do with their >resources. >The former Costa Rican President and 1987 Nobel Peace Laureate Oscar Arias >points out that 18 of the world's poorest countries spend more on their >militaries than on education and health combined. >Mr. Arias, who has led the effort for the Code of Conduct internationally, >would like to see the money once spent on weapons go to demobilize armies >instead. While most governments will not unilaterally renounce modern arms, >many would be happy to join a ban that applies to their rivals as well. >At a recent conference at the Carter Center in Atlanta, 15 former and >current Latin American heads of state >joined former Presidents Carter and Ford in endorsing the code. > >Agreement by the major weapons-exporting nations is crucial. If the Code of >Conduct is multilateral no one country will be the chump, losing market >share to its competitors. Countries denied arms, moreover, will not be >able to look elsewhere. > >The Code of Conduct still faces obstacles before it becomes law here. It >must win the agreement of >Senate conferees. If it does, it will be an amendment to the State >Department's authorization act, which >has become a magnet for legal flotsam and could draw a Presidential veto. >The code, while very >worthwhile, is weaker than it should be and will face constant end runs by >the Clinton Administration. >But the House vote is a remarkable demonstration of the rewards that can >come to a dogged movement >with few resources but an important idea. > > >Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company >Joe Volk >Executive Secretary >Friends Committee on National Legislation >245 Second Street, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >Phone: 202/ 547-6000 >Fax: 202/ 547-6019 >E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Web page: http://www.fcnl.org/pub/fcnl > "What the hell are we fighting for?" -- Winston Churchill when asked to cut spending for the arts to fund the war effort
