The Trans-continental pipeline on United States foreign policy and international events

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Arm-erica: The Bullet-holes of Hypocrisy

A press release in a 2005 study from the Human Security Center says that number of armed conflicts has dropped by 40% since 1992. A very lukewarm and bittersweet piece of news that maybe welcome, but still difficult to digest. But further on, the release (pdf) says:

Most armed conflicts take place in the poorest countries of the world, but as income rise, the risk of war declines.

Okay... the little fact seems to diminish the study somewhat. What exactly is the nature of these nation's to invest so much in arms despite their people's suffering is beyond any reason. Nations like Chad, the fifth poorest nation in the world, continue to fuel atrocities in Darfur - squaring off with another nation in which it really doesn't have any business in meddling with. The nature of the arms industry is this according to Globalissues.org:

Global military expenditure and arms trade form the largest spending in the world at over $950 billion in annual expenditure, as noted by the prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SPIRI), for 2003.

It is agreed, undoubtly, that arms trade is a huge business. Moreover, the Red Herring (requires password+ID) reports that more money is fueled into new technologies to "smoothen" the effects of war (efficient killing). Further on, the report brings up this:

America's military is the country's biggest business. According to the House Budget Committee, in 2000, defense expenditures represented 16 percent of discretionary federal spending.

The United State's current war in....um...everywhere. The business of war and arms is peaking at this point for one the largest and sophisticated military in the world. However despite the United States own military expenditure, the government is able to balance the costs through being one of the forerunner's in the arms market. A report (pdf) published on August 29, 2005, catalogs the number of conventional arms transfer across the world. Conventional meaning limited to guns, assault weaponry and not in the realm of higher military technology such as ballistic missiles or nuclear, chemical, biological weaponry.

The second page of the report reveals striking facts, or may not be striking at all:

  • Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales by weapons suppliers. During the years 1997-2004, the value of transfer of arms with developing nations accounted for 62.7% of all such agreements worldwide.
  • The value of all arms transfers to developing nations in 2004 was $21.4 billion. The number of arms deliveries to developed nations totalled to a value of $22.5 billion.
  • In 2004, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with nearly $6.9 billion or 31.6% of these agreements. Russia was second with $5.9 billion or 27.1% of such agreements.
  • In 2004, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at nearly $9.6 billion or 42.6% of all such deliveries. Russia ranked second at $4.5 billion or 20% of such deliveries.
The United States has been in the forefront of selling arms to many nations, establishing the marken alongside Russia. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) cite light arms as one of the purveyors of constant destruction around the world:

Illicit arms trafficking fuels civil wars, contributes to sky-rocketing crime rates and feeds the arsenals of the world's worst terrorists. Particularly troubling is the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SA/LW). SA/LW account for an estimated 60-90% of the 100,000+ conflict deaths each year (Small Arms Survey 2005) and tens of thousands of additional deaths outside of war zones.

Conventional and light weaponry no doubt inflict a larger death toll despite the obsession of many developed nations have with controlling the use of chemical nuclear and biological weapons. In the background, conventional arms seem to repeatedly go unnoticed, and inflict a higher human toll than imagined. With the number of arms transfers that occur through the United States, although it is a business, after the weaponry is tranferred, there is no way to track or be able to ensure that weaponry does not fall in the wrong hands, and in particularly concerns Russia with its shaky adminstration. Ironically the report also reveals this fact:

The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E) was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing world recipients in 2004, recieving $3.6 billion in such deliveries. Saudi Arabia ranked second in arms deliveries in 2004 with $3.2 billion.

The Dubai Ports deal that rocked the United States a few months ago, met opposition by the public because UAE was "known" to support terror groups with anti-western sentiment. Despite this, UAE was still the largest reciever for arm deliveries. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia, a nation that has repeatedly holds a "shady" stand on international terrorism, also recieved an extraordinary amount of arms. What gives? How do we explain this?

The United States history in the arms trade is quite extensive actually and reveals holes in the policies that the government reflects or at least tries to. PBS Frontline World presents an interesting and in depth look into the worldwide arms trade and its evolution:

The richest and longest-lived practitioners of this treacherous business simply "fronted" for a particular government or alliance or even "ruling family." In the 1950s and 60s, the late legendary Sam Cummings, a CIA veteran, supplied anyone who had U.S. government approval with weapons from stockpiles in the United States and the United Kingdom. And, of course, there were the "middlemen" who stood in for the oil rich, such as Adnan Kashoggi, who in the 1970s and 80s often fronted for the interests of the Saudi royal family.

Furthermore:

During the first 25 years of its existence, Israel was often denied weapons and ammunition by U.S. and European governments, as well as most nations in Asia and, of course, the Middle East. As a result, it built its own arsenal and related industries that are to this day active internationally. Israeli arms and trainers have turned up in China, Guatemala, Ecuador and Central Africa. Israel Defense Industries has a long history of both procurement and development of military technology and its sale overseas. The man once known as the richest Israeli, the late Shaul Eisenberg, is an example of the "legitimate" arms entrepreneur using the trade in weapons and weapons technology to create a multi-faceted business empire.

Israel according to another FAS resource:

Since 1950, the United States has provided more than $46 billion dollars in grant military aid to Israel, a sum that outstrips military aid to Egypt, America' s next largest beneficiary, by at least $20 billion. Israel has also received many billions more in grant 'economic' aid, loans for military purchases, and used American armaments.

However, Israel has been accused of actions that may violate U.S. arms export control laws. Specifically, some Israeli military operations and reported retransfers of U.S. weapons or technology may have violated the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the Foreign Assistance Act. More broadly, Israel serves as an example of how vast amounts of arms sales and military aid eventually contribute to a loss of U.S. control over conventional arms proliferation.

It is difficult to track arms. Although weapons are supplied in a diplomatic fashion, there is just no way to keep track of all it. In effect, they can be distributed unknowingly to the nations that first supplied them. Which can have a disasterous effect when they are used against the nations that have produced or supplied the weapons in the first place - a la Stinger missiles in Afghanistan. We as a nation try to push the image of peace and cooperation, but we seem to reduce that image to a lie everytime things like this happen. The shortsightedness cannot be that short of the government. Frontline goes on to profile some of the most prolific arms dealers in the world. One in particular that is profiled is Jean Bernard Lasaund who operated out of Miami International Airport:

A French citizen by birth, Lasnaud has made South Florida his home for more than a decade. Personable and easy-going, he was in the business of selling tanks, rocket launchers and SCUD missiles from a luxury condo in a gated South Florida community. With the proper paperwork, a customer can still order a fighter plane or a 400-bed field hospital from Lasnaud's Web site.

He was accused of:

Over the years, Lasnaud, 60, has been sought on a number of arms-related charges - mostly allegations of embargo violations and financial fraud - in France, Belgium and Argentina. A Belgian newspaper reported in 1983 that Lasnaud was convicted in absentia for illegal arms trafficking. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but the newspaper said police could not find him. A few years later, he showed up in the United States.

Lasnaud now stands accused in Buenos Aires courts of brokering sales of Argentinean weapons to Croatia and Ecuador from 1992 to 1995, in violation of U.N. and international embargoes.

In all, more than 6,500 tons of small arms and ammunition found its way to wars in the Balkans and the Andes, for fees totaling $100 million or more. Investigators estimate that half the money went for bribes.

Ironically despite of all these crimes and having been issued a "red warrant" for his arrest by Interpol (Osama Bin Laden too has a "red warrant") the United States Justice Department stepped backwards in extraditing him to Latin authorities to stand trial for these crimes. Recently however:

UPDATE: Just days after the publication of this Web-exclusive report on May 23, Jean Bernard Lasnaud was arrested in Switzerland in response to an Interpol request. Swiss authorities contacted the Argentina courts, where the current judge on the case quickly requested Lasnaud's extradition. If sent to Argentina, Lasnaud will face 22 years in prison on charges of arms smuggling and "abuse of authority."

As this FRONTLINE/World report pointed out, the U.S. had broken from standard practice and never took even basic steps toward detaining Lasnaud. If he finally faces the Buenos Aires courts, it is hoped Lasnaud's testimony will help shed light on how a wanted international arms smuggler was able to spend a decade living openly in the U.S.


Wow, I mean WOW. Is that not the height of hypocrisy? This could also fuel a sense of anti-US sentiment across Latin American which is spreading already. The refusal or slowness to act to detain him doesn't prove well for the image of the United States. The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) released an interesting fact sheet (pdf) with a striking statistic:

According to Mexican authorities, 80% of the guns in Mexico originate in the US. In 2002, the Toronto police's gun taskforce estimated that 50% of handguns recovered in crime were smuggled from the US. 30% of guns recovered in Japan originate from the US...

Although the crime rates maybe assumingly low in Canada and Japan, who knows where these light arms will end up? Disarmament and arms limitations are undoubtly linked and have effects on international security. But for the United States to not quell its arms deliveries outside the boundaries, we suddenly get a feeling that we a nation are almost indirectly causing our own fear of lack of security since 9/11. Arms dealings occur all over the place, and there is little control to stop it and also kills or diminishes our sense of security it is like a Iran-Contra Affair times 10.

It is hypocritical for a nation that calls on other nations to disarm or lay-off tactical weapons programs (Iran) when conventional arms are a bigger problem. The recent arms deal to sell F-16's to India for example, only pitts the two (Pakistan) nuclear rivals in more a deadlock than defusing the already critical and fragile situation. In a recent published report, Boeing was actually surprised by the arms deal brokered with India:

But rarely ever to India, which resolutely bought arms from the Moscow, Washington's Cold War rival, and Europe.

Then one day it began changing. Early last year, a top Boeing executive received a phone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's office. The US was going to finally clear the sale of F-16s (made by Boeing's rival-in-arms Lockheed Martin) to Pakistan. But the Secretary was keen to offer India more advanced F-16s and even newer Boeing-made F/A-18 Super Hornets in keeping with the strategic shift in the region. Was Boeing prepared for that?

"We were all stunned," another Boeing executive, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the exchanges, recalled. "This is a new generation combat aircraft that we have not sold to our closest allies. Outside the US Navy, no one has it. Yet here was the Secretary asking if we were ready to sell to India and also ready for joint production." Boeing's reply was swift: Sure thing.


The very first post in the blog about Indonesia where Senator Kit Bond visited disaster hit areas of Aceh Province and in the process sold military equipment like F-15 jets. We are open to arms dealings across the world, with weapons firms showing off their wares in a recent "show" in Singapore:

The Singapore air show, which ended Feb. 26, is one of the world's largest arms bazaars. It's a hot spot for foreign countries looking to buy American-made fighters, drones such as those made by AV and other military equipment. The biggest U.S. defense contractors entertained generals here and cultivated contacts from nations on the Pentagon's approved buyers list. They were competing with defense firms from France, Britain, Russia and Sweden who chase the same market.

During the Cold War, air shows in Paris and near London offered settings for the U.S. and the former Soviet Union to sell billions of dollars' worth of weapons to their allies, while spies strolled the exhibit halls. But in recent years, much of the deal-making has shifted to Singapore as American defense contractors, big and small, focus on boosting sales in Asia to make up for the coming slowdown in Pentagon spending.

It is also important to point out that the terrorist groups that we do have a "fear" of, use conventional weapons, small arms, and explosives to further their agendas. We make a big issue out of WMD when the focus should be conventional arms. They are the root to what inflicted 2,000 military deaths in Iraq today. There was no nuclear, chemical, or biological threat. And I hate to say it, the planes in 9/11 - they were conventional even an unorthodox form of weaponry. The emphasis is being misplaced wholly on pre-emptive measures for the threat of WMD use by terrorist groups when the threat NOW is conventional weapons. If the emphasis for disarmament of WMD does not coincide in conjunction with the disarmament of conventional arms - then honestly there is NO effect in the hopes that violence and armed threat will decrease. This also includes landmines, which have inflicted death and maimed millions from Cambodia to Mozambique. In a 1997 BBC news story, it highlights a landmine treaty that was signed by many nations, but surprisingly NOT the United States:

A treaty banning landmines is being signed by at least 89 countries in Ottawa, Canada, but some major producers and users of landmines, including the United States and China, will not be adding to the list of signatories.

And of course, the reason:

However, the US government will not sign because it still sees a use for landmines in preventing any North Korean invasion of South Korea.

Interesting reasoning nonetheless, it still doesn't make sense in the context of today's world - where the United States is trying to push an image of "peace" against a growing anti-US sentiment.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home