U.S. is top weapons supplier to unstable states
November 14, 2006
By Bryan Bender Boston Globe
WASHINGTON - The United States last year provided nearly half of the
weapons sold to militaries in the developing world, as major arms sales
to the most unstable regions - many already engaged in conflict - grew
to the highest level in eight years, new US government figures show.
According to the annual assessment, the United States supplied $8.1
billion worth of weapons to developing countries in 2005 – 45.8 percent
of the total and far more than second-ranked Russia with 15 percent and
Britain with a little more than 13 percent.
Arms control specialists said the figures underscore how the largely
unchecked arms trade to the developing world has become a major staple
of the American weapons industry, even though introducing many of the
weapons risks fueling conflicts rather than aiding long-term US interests.
The report was compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
"We are at a point in history where many of these sales are not
essential for the self-defense of these countries and the arms being
sold continue to fuel conflicts and tensions in unstable areas," said
Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the nonpartisan Arms Control
Association in Washington. "It doesn't make much sense over the long term."
The United States, for instance, also signed an estimated $6.2 billion
worth of new deals last year to sell attack helicopters, missiles, and
other armaments to developing nations such as the United Arab Emirates,
Pakistan, India, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Developing
nations are designated as all those except in North America, Western
Europe, Russia, Australia, and New Zealand.
In addition to weapons already delivered, new contracts for future
weapons deliveries topped $44 billion last year - the highest overall
since 1998, according to the report. Nearly 70 percent of them were
designated for developing nations.
Many of the US sales are justified by American officials as critical to
the war on terrorism or other foreign policy goals such as checking an
emerging China. One such example is the recent decision to sell F-16
fighter jets to Pakistan.
The United States has long relied on arms sales to prop up allies or
enhance collective defense arrangements.
"For decades, during the height of the Cold War, providing conventional
weapons to friendly states was an instrument of foreign policy utilized
by the United States and its allies," according to the report, titled
"Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations."
'This was equally true for the Soviet Union and its allies," the report
said.
Yet there is growing evidence that the sales are increasingly more about
dollars and cents for the US military-industrial complex and other major
military economies. The trend began after the end of the Cold War, when
American, European, Russian, and other defense industries were forced to
consolidate and competition for foreign sales heated up.
"Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign
suppliers might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today
that motivation may be based as much on economic considerations as those
of foreign policy or national security policy," said the congressional
report, which detailed both arms deliveries, or weapons actually
delivered to customers, and arms agreements, or contracts signed for
future deliveries.
Washington's desire to maintain the status quo was on display at a
meeting at the United Nations on Oct. 26, when a UN panel voted to study
whether a new treaty might be possible to regulate the sale of
conventional arms. The United States was the only country out of 166 to
vote no, though China and Russia were among a handful of countries to
abstain.
With that lone dissent, the UN's Disarmament and International Security
Committee approved a British proposal to draw up uniform standards that
might block arms sales considered destabilizing, including those that
might fuel ongoing conflicts, violate embargoes, undermine democratic
institutions, or contribute to human rights abuses. A UN task force is
set to make its recommendations to the General Assembly next year.
But powerful interests in the global arms industry have long stood in
the way of controlling the arms flow to the developing world.
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for example, the five permanent members
of the UN Security Council - the United States, Russia, France, Britain,
and China - pledged to limit the sale of arms to the volatile Middle
East, attributing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the region having been
awash in high-tech arsenals.
More than a decade later, those pledges have gone unfulfilled. The
United States is not the only culprit.
For the first time in eight years, Russia outpaced the United States
last year in the value of new arms transfer agreements reached with
developing nations, according to the Congressional Research Service
report, authored by Richard F. Grimmett.
Moscow inked major deals to sell missiles, warships, and other hardware
to such potential trouble spots as Iran and China, according to the
report, which is considered the most authoritative breakdown of the
global arms trade. China also agreed to provide weapons to trouble spots
such as Iran and North Korea, while major Western European suppliers,
such as Britain and France, also concluded large orders with developing
countries.
But it is the United States that by far remains the top purveyor of
high-tech arms to areas where analysts believe the likelihood of armed
conflict remains highest. A study last year by the progressive World
Policy Institute found that the United States transferred weaponry to 18
of the 25 countries involved in an ongoing war.
"From Angola, Chad, and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan, and the
Philippines, transfers through the two largest US arms sales programs,
Foreign Military sales and Commercial Sales to these conflict nations
totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003," the report found.
Meanwhile, more than half of the countries buying US arms –13 of the 25
– were defined as undemocratic by the State Department's annual Human
Rights Report, including top recipients Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the
United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan.
The agreement last year to sell F-16s to Pakistan underscores the larger
trend, according to Wade Bouse, research director at the Arms Control
Association.
"F-16s with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles are not for
fighting Al Qaeda," Bouse said. "They are for fighting India."
And India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan, is considering a
US offer to sell the country F-16s.
"We are creating our own market by selling to both sides of regional
conflicts," Bouse said.
With more such lucrative deals in the offing, there is little sign that
the United States - or other major suppliers - wants a treaty to control
the sales.
"The US would be significantly affected if there was an arms treaty that
took into account human rights abuses and conflict areas," added William
Hartung, director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy
Institute in New York. "The US government still wants to be able to do
covert and semi-covert arms transfers. And a certain amount of it is
simply keeping factories running in certain congressional districts."
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Crusnet/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Crusnet/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
