1
   

US WEAPONS AT WAR 2005:PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT

 
 
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 03:32 pm
U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 2005: PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT?
U.S. Military Aid and Arms Transfers Since September 11

A World Policy Institute Special Report
by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, with Leslie Heffel
June 2005

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html#execsum

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President Bush's pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States' role as the world's leading arms exporting nation. Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition allies in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these alleged benefits often come at a high price. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries. As in the case of recent decisions to provide new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, while pledging comparable high-tech military hardware to its rival India, U.S. arms sometimes go to both sides in long brewing conflicts, ratcheting up tensions and giving both sides better firepower with which to threaten each other. Far from serving as a force for security and stability, U.S. weapons sales frequently serve to empower unstable, undemocratic regimes to the detriment of U.S. and global security.

Among the key findings of this report are the following:

In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts. From Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest U.S. arms sales programs (Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales) to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003, with the vast bulk of the dollar volume going to Israel ($845.6 million).

In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department's Human Rights Report: in the sense that "citizens do not have the right to change their own government" or that right was seriously abridged. These 13 nations received over $2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers under the Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales programs in 2003, with the top recipients including Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

When countries designated by the State Department's Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003-- a full 80%-- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.

The largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing (FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to nearly $6 billion. These years coincided with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the run-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The biggest increases in dollar terms went to countries that were directly or indirectly engaged as U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, including Jordan ($525 million increase from 2001 to 2003), Afghanistan ($191 million increase), Pakistan ($224 million increase) and Bahrain ($90 million increase). The Philippines, where the United States stepped up joint operations against a local terrorist group with alleged links to al-Qaeda, also received a substantial increase of FMF funding ($47 million) from 2001 to 2003. Military aid totals have leveled off slightly since their FY 2003 peak, coming in at a requested $4.5 billion for 2006. This is still a full $1 billion more than 2001 levels. The number of countries receiving FMF assistance nearly doubled from FY 2001 to FY 2006-- from 48 to 71.

The greatest danger emanating U.S. arms transfers and military aid programs is not in the numbers, but in the potential impacts on the image, credibility and security of the United States. Arming repressive regimes in all corners of the globe while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign for democracy and against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States in international forums and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues. Arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses in the process. These blows to the reputation of the United States are in turn impediments to winning the "war of ideas" in the Muslim world and beyond, a critical element in drying up financial and political support for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. Last but not least, in all too many cases, U.S. arms and military technology can end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries, as happened in the 1980s in Iraq and Panama, as well as with the right-wing fundamentalist "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, many of whom are now supporters of al-Qaeda.

At a minimum, the time has come to impose greater scrutiny on U.S. arms transfers and military aid programs. The facile assumption that they are simply another tool in the foreign policy toolbox, to be used to win friends and intimidate adversaries as needed, must be challenged in this new era in U.S. security policy. A good starting point would be to find a way to reinforce and implement the underlying assumptions of U.S. arms export law, which calls for arming nations only for purposes of self-defense, and avoiding arms sales to nations that engage in patterns of systematic human rights abuses, either via new legislation or Executive Branch policy initiatives. Equally important, the automatic assumption that arms transfers are the preferred "barter" for access to military facilities or other security "goods" sought from other nations should be seriously re-considered. Economic aid, political support and other forms of support and engagement should be explored as alternatives whenever possible... continue to read...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 284 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 04:32 pm
Quote:
France increases arms sales and intervention
In terms of arms delivery, France continues to demonstrate its reversal in foreign policy with a $100 million increase in weapons deliveries to Africa.

Russia has overtaken the United States as the top arms supplier to the developing world, a report by the US Congressional Research Service shows. Russia and France have taken full advantage of emerging markets and opportunities created by booming oil prices. China, India and Iran are the main buyers.

According to the report, the US share of the arms transfer market dropped from 35.4 per cent to 20.5 per cent between 2004 and last year. The value of these deals fell from US$ 9.4 billion to US$ 6.2 billion.

By contrast, Russia made US$ 7 billion last year selling weaponry to Asia, Africa and Latin America, a notable increase from US$ 5.4 billion in 2004.

This has propelled Russia to the position of the top arms supplier to the developing world.

France rose to second place, last year signing US$ 6.3 billion worth of deals for delivery of military hardware ...


Quote:
Russia Was Leader in Arms Sales to Developing World in '05

October 29, 2006, Sunday
By THOM SHANKER (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 12

WASHINGTON - Russia surpassed the United States in 2005 as the leader in weapons deals with the developing world, and its new agreements included selling $700 million in surface-to-air missiles to Iran and eight new aerial refueling tankers to China, according to a new congressional study.

Those weapons deals were part of the highly competitive global arms bazaar in the developing world that grew to $30.2 billion in 2005, up from $26.4 billion in 2004. It is a market that the United States has regularly dominated.

Russia's agreements with Iran are not the biggest part of its total sales - India and China are its principal buyers. But the sales to improve Iran's air-defense system are particularly troubling to the United States because they would complicate the task of Pentagon planners should the president order airstrikes on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.

Russia's weapons sales to China also worry Pentagon planners. Taiwan remains a potential flash point between Beijing and Washington.

Details of the specific weapons deals in the global arms trade last year are included in an annual study by the Congressional Research Service that is considered the most thorough compilation of statistics available in an unclassified form. The report was delivered to members of Congress on Friday.

Among other arms transfers described in the study was a statistic that a single, unnamed nation - but one identified separately by Pentagon and other administration officials to be North Korea - shipped about 40 ballistic missiles to other nations in the four-year period ending in 2005, the only nation to have done so. Transfers of these weapons are prohibited under international agreements.

The report, titled "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations," found that Russia's arms agreements with the developing world totaled $7 billion in 2005. That figure surpassed U.S. sales for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The leading buyer in the developing world in 2005 was India, with $5.4 billion in weapons purchases, followed by Saudi Arabia with $3.4 billion and China with $2.8 billion.



Quote:
Arms exports to Asia-Pacific region increase
The United States Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released its annual report on conventional arms transfers to the developing world, and the message for the Asia-Pacific region is mixed. In general, however, a lot of weapons are flowing into the area, and the consequences of these transfers are still unknown.


By Richard A. Bitzinger for IDSS (13/11/06)

The Asia-Pacific region has in recent years become the world's largest market for arms, overtaking the Near East. According to CRS, during the period 2002-2005, the Asia-Pacific accounted for nearly half, or US$43.6 billion worth, of all arms transfer agreements made with the developing world. In terms of deliveries, Asia was still number two in 2002-2005, at 38 percent (US$30.7 billion). Nevertheless, six Asian-Pacific countries - China, India, South Korea, Pakistan, Malaysia and Taiwan - were among the top ten arms importers during this same period.

The Southeast Asian arms market is particularly noteworthy. While it is relatively small - collectively worth around US$2 billion annually - it is also one of more truly open and competitive markets when it comes to arms sales. Compare this to China or India, which mostly buy from Russia or Japan or Taiwan, which are more or less captive markets of the US defense industry. While the US, for example, dominates Southeast in the sale of fighter aircraft (e.g., F-15s to Singapore, F-16s to Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand, F/A-18s to Malaysia), the United Kingdom has scored particular success in exporting its Hawk trainer jet to Malaysia and Indonesia. Germany, meanwhile, has sold submarines to Indonesia and corvettes to Malaysia and Singapore; France, frigates to Singapore and antiship cruise missiles to Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand; Russia, Su-30 fighters to Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam; and Sweden, submarines to Singapore. Malaysia and Singapore constitute the largest arms buyers in Southeast Asia; during 2002-2005, for example, Kuala Lumpur placed orders for US$2.8 billion worth of arms.

The lure of the Asian arms market
Given the size and strength of the Asia-Pacific arms market, it is not surprising that this region has become a critical market - and therefore the object of particularly fierce competition - for the world's leading arms suppliers, that is, the US, Western Europe, Russia and Israel.

The Asia-Pacific is a particularly crucial market for Russia's arms industry. According to CRS, nearly 85 percent of all Russian arms exports during the period 2002-2005 - approximately US$13 billion worth - went to this region, mainly to China and India but also increasingly to Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. Russian arms transfer agreements with Asia-Pacific nations have surged in recent years, totaling US$16 billion for the period 2002-2005 and accounting for 74 percent of all of Russia new overseas arms sales.

Many European arms producers have also come to depend heavily upon sales to the Asia-Pacific region. Almost half (45 percent) of France's arms sales agreements during 1998-2005 - and fully three-quarters during just the period 2002-2005 - were made to this region. During the same 1998-2005 timeframe, the region accounted for 58 percent of Germany's, and 35 percent of the UK's, total arms agreements to the developing world ...



Quote:
Russia now top arms supplier to developing world
Russia and France have taken full advantage of emerging markets and opportunities created by booming oil prices.
Monday, October 30, 2006


Russia has overtaken the United States as the top arms supplier to the developing world, a report by the US Congressional Research Service shows. Russia and France have taken full advantage of emerging markets and opportunities created by booming oil prices. China, India and Iran are the main buyers.

According to the report, the US share of the arms transfer market dropped from 35.4 per cent to 20.5 per cent between 2004 and last year. The value of these deals fell from US$ 9.4 billion to US$ 6.2 billion.

By contrast, Russia made US$ 7 billion last year selling weaponry to Asia, Africa and Latin America, a notable increase from US$ 5.4 billion in 2004.

This has propelled Russia to the position of the top arms supplier to the developing world.

France rose to second place, last year signing US$ 6.3 billion worth of deals for delivery of military hardware ...


Quote:
France increases arms sales and intervention
In terms of arms delivery, France continues to demonstrate its reversal in foreign policy with a $100 million increase in weapons deliveries to Africa.

Friday, November 10, 2006

According to a recent study, France is Africa's leading weapons supplier. This dubious milestone and increased French military presence in Africa signals a reversal of the 1998 French strategy that led to French troop reductions and less interference in Africa.
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005 (23 October 2006 US Congressional Research Service) revealed that France beat the United States, Russia, and China in terms of Arms Transfer Agreements (ATA) to Africa for the years 2002 to 2005. France's $900 million in arms sales dwarfed the United States with only $157 million.

Russia was the biggest loser with $500 million less in ATA that the previous reporting period of 1998 to 2001. At the same time, France showed an increase of $300 million from the previous reporting period.

In terms of arms delivery, France continues to demonstrate its reversal in foreign policy with a $100 million increase in weapons deliveries to Africa. The United States showed a 30 percent increase but Russia fell from $1 billion to $500 million.

News of increased weapons sales by France and the military build-up in Djibouti, Chad and now the Central African Republic (CAR) signals a move away from the strategic principles adopted by France's Defense Council in May 1998 and articulated in 1997 by Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.

"Neither interference nor indifference," Jospin said in 1997, describing the new French view of Africa.

The Defense Council outlined four key changes of French strategy in Africa in 1998:

• A more restrictive recourse to bilateral military intervention.
• Reduced permanent presence of French forces in Africa (At this time this was reflected by closing of military installations in the CAR,)
• Adopting a multilateral approach to Africa through the United Nations or other organizations.
• Increased support for Africa's effort to take over management of crises and conflict. This strategy was dubbed RECAMP (Renforcement des capacities africanines de maintien de la paix)

Some seven years later at least three of these "principles" lay in ruin and France appears to be returning to its neo-colonial behavior ...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » US WEAPONS AT WAR 2005:PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/06/2026 at 03:14:05