Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFighting Fire With Fire?
New Weapons Sales and Military Aid Will Not Bring Peace and Stability to the Middle East
The Bush administration's recent announcement of tens of billions in new high-tech weapons and military aid for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Gulf States was offered as the solution to many of the problems facing the region. But, critical and worthy goals like stability in Iraq, a nuclear-free Iran and peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved through the barrel of a gun, the point of a precision missile or the belly of a fighter plane.
The policy amounts to fighting fire with fire-- introducing more weapons into a highly volatile and militarized region in the name of peace.
The announcement also shows a grim determination to ignore the lessons of history. Colombia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Iraq in the 1980s, the Afghan mujahedeen in the 1970s-in each of these instances U.S. weapons, military aid and training have undermined security, been used against civilian populations, absorbed resources better devoted to human development and sowed the seeds of future conflicts.
The Bush administration is making a grave mistake, and Congress must use its power to block these weapons transfers.
It is not yet possible to put an exact figure on the arms and aid packages being offered. However, we know that Egypt is slated to receive an increase in military aid to a total of $13 billion over 10 years, and that Israel will receive a 25% increase in military aid to $3 billion a year for the next 10 years.
Arms offers to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states could equal another $20 billion. Among the weapons systems being proffered are: air-to-air guided missiles, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs)-- a satellite guidance kit that turns dumb bombs into precision weapons--fighter plane upgrades and new naval vessels.
While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asserts that billions in arms transfers will "bolster the forces of moderation," most of the recipient nations are undemocratic and all have "serious" problems safe-guarding the human rights of their citizens.
Of the eight nations, only Israel is a democracy where "the law provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully" according to the State Department's 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. But, the report acknowledges, "Palestinians in the occupied territories are not citizens of the country and do not enjoy the rights of citizens."
In Egypt-- despite recent elections-- the State Department found "limitations on the right of citizens to change their government" including "a state of emergency, in place almost continuously since 1967." The rest of the countries are monarchies or sultanates where-in the words of the State Department's annual report-- there is "no right to peacefully change the government."
Weapons transfers to nations with records of gross violations of human rights run counter to U.S. policy. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act was amended in 1976 to read: "It is the policy of the United States, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, to promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.... It is further the policy of the United States that, except under circumstances specified in this section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."
Despite U.S. law, U.S. military assistance continues to go to countries that brutally oppress their own populations. According to the 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, "serious" problems with regards to human rights include: torture (Qatar, Egypt and Israel), unlawful killing (Kuwait), flogging and other forms of corporal punishment (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates), and abuse of women, including female genital mutilation (Egypt).
And the list goes on.... Where is the moderation that will be bolstered by more weapons and military strength?
Resources for More Information
"Exporting Instability," William D. Hartung, The Nation, cover date September 10, 2007 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070910/hartung
"The United States Should Not Send Potentially destabilizing Weapons to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY, 9th district) announces a bipartisan coalition of more than 100 members of Congress who will oppose weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, August 2, 2007
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny09_weiner/08022007saudis.html
"Backgrounder on Proposed U.S. Arms Sale to the Middle East" Carah Ong and Travis Sharp, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, August 9, 2007
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/backgrounder_us_arms_sale/
* Figures for FMF and FMS come from "Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales and Military Assistance Facts," Published by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and online at http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/facts_book_2005.pdf . The 2006 version of this report is not yet available but data on Foreign Military Financing for 2006 and 2007 as well as future requests is contained in the Congressional Budget Justification for Fiscal year 2008, online at http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/110th/CBJ08.pdf
** These "Arms Sales Notifications" are published by the DSCA and available on their website at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/36b_index.htm
Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation.
19 Comments so far
Show Allthe bombs fall swiftly through the night reaching their targets with speed and accuracy. Only hurting the terrorists, being smart bombs, they know the good muslims from the bad. It's with these bombs of freedom that we will reshape their soul. Bring freedom and comfort to the good muslims and eliminate the bad. We will bomb for freedom
we will bomb for hope we will kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kil and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill because we want the good muslims to be free. And all we ask in return is a cruse of oil.
For Labor Day
Join in the battle
Wherein no man can fail
For who so fadeth and dieth
Yet his deed shall still prevail
William Morris
These folks knows their history just too well. You make more money out of chaos and wars. Follow the money and see who is making off like bandits. And now they are willing to add another conflict before they step out. It will place the US in at least another 10 years worth of conflict. And guess who will be raking in the bucks?
During the Iran/Iraq war, they armed both sides. Now they arm ALL the insurgents. They also arm all sides in the ME. What is their game plan? Read the PNAC manifesto. Chaos is their goal. And everything is going according to plan.
FRANK1569
had to laugh at your post. you are so right. these people are just not 'happy'.
KEM PATRICK
check out info for you posted on the article about cholera in iraq.
you know, i go searching for you all over this site to speak to you. we should rig up some kind of meeting place here.
The military/industrial complex owns the government.
The average US citizen does not realize that weapons are the main industry of the country.
Whoa!! I just had this wild waking dream sequence. What if the higher-ups, seeing that our present economy has been denigrated into a low paid "service-economy", thought of this brilliant idea that we could once again shine in the glory of america being the chief, major and sole manufacturer of WEAPONS. And this where the the dream part came in. I envisioned this 1950's family scene. You know, like "Leave it to beaver" or "My three sons". And dad is sitting down with his sons explaining how his job at the weapons factory is very important and that one day if they study hard in school and brush their teeth and read the bible that maybe someday they too could work there.
We need a new Congress then.
Preferably one where neither Republicans or Democrats were the majority. Or not even if those two combined, because they will whenever faced with a challenge from the American citizens.
Of course Frida is absolutly correct, it's our Congress that is so terribly wrong.
Frida Berrigan writes: "The Bush administration is making a grave mistake,____ and Congress must use its power to block these weapons transfers".
UMmmmmm,___ 'Congress MUST use its powers'. That is what our Constitution reads. 'Congress SHALL impeach, if the president violates the law'.___ Wonder if Congress will do their duty? Haaaa Haaaaa Haaaa. Seen any pigs flying lately?
If all things were equal, what is the probability that two presidents would be father and son. Oh no, lets say it like it is, the "nobility" believe they own this country.
Well let me say, they could not be more wrong. Land cannot be owned can it really? The land will last much longer than we will, and way much longer if we don't start learning. It seems simple to me.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
As usual, Ms Berrigan is right on target. Although the phrase that pops into my mind is "fighting fire with gasoline" instead.
On a the topic of peace, I think back to the time of around 1990. At that time, it seemed like 'peace' was breaking out around the world. The Soviet Union was collapsing, and for people on both sides of the cold war, this was seen as a chance to end the cold war. There were people dancing on the Berlin Wall. People were excited about the prospects of peace all around the world. In the US there was talk of the "peace dividend" which we would see when we no longer had to maintain the massive defense budgets that we'd carried through the entire cold war.
From where I sat, Bush Sr took deliberate actions to end that and make sure that a mindset of war and violence was maintained. And the way he did that was with Iraq.
The start of the first Gulf War was very bizarre to me. The key part is the story of the US Ambassador going to Saddam and telling him that the US regarded any border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait as a local matter and we weren't concerned.
Given US satellite capabilities, we had to see the lumbering Iraqi army heading towards the border. So the Ambassador telling Saddam this was basically giving him a green light to attack Kuwait. Then of course, we acted all shocked that Saddam had attacked this wonderful little democratic nation and we sent all our troops and planes over there the kick Saddam out of Kuwait.
My impression of all of this was that it was done by a large part exactly to put an end to this notion of peace. In the matter of a few months people stopped talking about the end of the cold war and the peace dividend and instead everyone was talking about kicking Saddam's ass and the airwaves were full of generals raving about the capabilities of military hardware and what the latest news from the front meant.
In essence, the move towards peace around the world was ended then and there, and from that point on the US went on being a very military oriented society. During the Clinton years, we launched missile strikes, we launched an illegal war in Yugoslavia, and we funded terrorists in Colombia. And what was definitely killed off, buried, dead and gone was the atmosphere of peace that was growing out of the cold war.
I've always felt that was quite deliberate. I felt Bush Sr baited Saddam into this fight to accomplish exactly that goal. That the main goal of Bush Sr, the Pentagon, the military contractors and everyone else who lives off of war, death and destruction was to make sure that the notion of 'peace' was quashed before it could really get going.
We're only #1 in War and Prisons so of course Bush will push the military-industrial complex.
Frida is her parents' daughter (Elizabeth McAlister and Phil Berrigan, niece of Father Dan Berrigan) and she does her family proud. Her latest missive would be a good one to send to our Congress critters with a penned message, "I agree. Please read and act to prevent disaster."
The undrawn yet oh so obvious conclusion is this: peace is not an option for the loyalCheneybushie cult. Peace is for wimps. Peace is boring. Peace does not pay for Lockheed Martin's kids' college educations. Peace doesn't look good on camera or sell neocrazy "magazines" and "newspapers." Peace doesn't finance so-called think tanks.
And, worst of all, peace sometimes leads to happiness and fun and sex, which the GOPathological God-talkin warmongers only have in secret. Except for the happiness part, which continues to prove elusive to the entire, angry, chickenshit sect.
Thank you, Frida
It's true violence will bring more violence and it is happening here too. In good US of A. I hope that we and others who have witnessed the suffering created by the industrial military complex not only in the Middle East but the world will be able to help buried the dead in our communities…
There won't be anywhere to hide and your flat TV screens
won't you give you the updates on your neighbors suffering.
Awake up, awake up, America!
"Those war planes and iron tanks,
generals and men of higher ranks,
say they're all instruments of peace.
All I can see is the mark o' the beast.
They can't fool me, oh no way
they're preparing for a doomsday.
Brimstone and fire throughout the land.
Better prepare for this here Armageddeon...
I'm tellin' ya brothers it's gonna' be dread, dread,
I'm tellin' you sisters it's gonna' be dreader than dread,
dreader than dread I said..."
sung by Leroy Sibbles
It seems that our country's economy is in the service sector. On the one end are the low paying, uninsured jobs. At the other end of the spectrum is the arms service indutsry - high paying contracts for the well connected providing the service of aquiring arms to whomever.
It makes sense to me! You have a volatile region where everyone pretty much hates everyone else. So arm them to the teeth, hell give em nuclear weapons! Then we'll quitely back out and wait and see who flinches first. Extremists? Terrorists? In the Middle East? not anymore..... there isnt anyone left there.
Great plan United States. While we are at it why dont we give some weapons to Osama? I know for a fact he would no exactly what to do with them!
The timing? To wage a world war three, presumably started with Iran and then Pakistan would be drawn in and India starts rattling it's new and improving nuclear saber and we are off and running with no where to run. Bush arms allies, bribing some, reassuring others?
If Bush is planning war with Iran, then he would need to firm up his allies in the area first... wouldn't he?
Things expand when people think about them. Either war or peace. Another law of nature is 'equal and opposite' forces. Welcome to WW3.