Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
America Arms Questionable New 'Allies'
The recent furor over U.S.-supplied weapons missing in Iraq raises the question of whose hands U.S. weapons are finding their way into in other parts of the world.
Since the terrorist attacks on the United States six years ago today, the answer has been, increasingly: to human rights abusers and undemocratic regimes.
Immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, the United States began recruiting partners to assist in the myriad efforts necessary to stamp out international terrorist networks. In many cases, the United States chose to partner with countries repeatedly criticized by the State Department for human rights violations, lack of democracy and even past support of terrorism. Despite these concerns, the Bush administration has increased arms sales and military assistance to its so-called allies and waived restrictions on others in the intervening years - even going so far as to lift bans on arms exports to six countries immediately after 9/11.
Our ongoing analysis of 25 U.S. allies in the "war on terror" has consistently uncovered some troubling trends. U.S. arms sales authorized to these countries in the five years after 9/11 totaled four times more than in the five years prior to 9/11, and military assistance was 18 times higher. Not only is the funding for military training increasing to these countries, but they are also receiving an even greater percentage of funds allocated for U.S. military training.
At the same time, the State Department reported that "serious," "grave" or "significant" abuses were committed by the government or state security forces in more than half of the 25 countries we examined in 2006 alone.
Several of these countries, including Nepal, Thailand and Chad, have also experienced serious political upheaval during the past year.
In addition to the influx of traditional military training and heightened arms sales, the U.S. government has also created a host of programs through which these countries can receive the training and weapons to conduct counterterrorism operations, either on their own or in cooperation with the United States.
These programs - such as the Regional Defense Counterterrorism Fellowship Program and the "train and equip" authority in the defense authorization bill - are funded out of Pentagon coffers, instead of the Foreign Operations budget. As such, these funds do not immediately fall under the State Department's restrictions that delineate the conditions under which traditional U.S. military assistance can be provided.
In short, controls and oversight of U.S. military assistance are being sidestepped in favor of short-term political interests.
Increasing arms exports and other military assistance to states with questionable records on human rights and political stability is shortsighted and potentially contributes to further instability and weapons proliferation.
As we have learned in Iraq, once weapons leave U.S. control, it is virtually impossible to guarantee how they will be used or by whom.
Although countries receiving the U.S. weapons and training have pledged to support U.S. goals and interests, weapons last longer than words and convenient political alliances. U.S. taxpayers need to know that not only are we paying - in the name of fighting terrorism - to arm serious human rights abusers and unstable governments now, but we could be paying to undermine our national security down the road.
Rachel Stohl is senior analyst and Rhea Myerscough is research assistant at the Center for Defense Information at the World Security Institute in Washington. Their e-mails are rstohl@cdi.org or rmyerscough@cdi.org.
© 2007 The Baltimore Sun
5 Comments so far
Show AllWhat the author fails to acknowledge is that the US itself is a violator of human rights and the international laws. It is not just those who are receiving the US weapons. The perception of Americans about their own country should change. Then only people in the world can expect peace, stability, and security in the world. Frida Berrigan rightly comments that without the active participation of the world's largest weapons producer and exporter, this important UN resolution "will not be strong enough to counter the perfect storm of profiting from war." She makes this comment in the context of the UN resolution in late October 2006 on the Arms Trade Treaty , which is aimed at curbing arms transfers to major human rights abusers and areas of conflict. The treaty also urges weapons suppliers to limit weapons sales likely to undermine development in poor nations. 139 countries voted in favor of the resolution, while 24 countries (including many major weapons suppliers) abstained and the United States was the only country voted against the resolution.
-A 2005 report by the World Policy Institute found that of the largest U.S. arms recipients in the developing world, over 70 percent were undemocratic regimes, major human rights abusers or both. A recent report by the research group Saferworld found that in 2005 the United Kingdom provided weapons to 19 of 20 nations that had been singled out by its own government as "major countries of concern" for human rights abuses. The Control Arms Campaign has found the U.S. origin bullets in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is engaged in one of the deadliest civil wars.
-Recently it has been reported that the US has supplied weapons through Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to the anti-government forces of Sudan, an oil-rich country (where civil war is going on).
-According to an analysis done by the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center, the United States provided countries in the developing world with more than $1260 crores in arms in Fiscal year 2005. According to the Congressional Research Service's "Conventional Weapons Transfers to Developing Nations" report, the United States led in global arms deliveries for the eighth year in a row. The United Kingdom trailed in second with $310 crores and Russia was a close third at $280 crores in arms deliveries. Together, these three weapons exporters were responsible for almost 70% of arms delivered worldwide. Frida Berrigan, "United States Rides Weapons Bonanza Wave," www.fpif.org, 16.11.2006.
-Read William D. Hartung, "We Arm the World," www.tompaine.com, 27.10.2006.
-
-In Annual Human Rights Report, Amnesty International Says U.S. "Unrepentant About GlobalWeb of Abuse"www.democracynow.org, 5.24.2007.
-Frida Berrigan, "A Nation of Firsts Arms the World" www. TomDispatch.com, 5.21, 2007.
- Glen Ford, "A Tale Of Two Genocides,Congo and Darfur,"
www.countercurrents.org, 7.18.2007.
The above articles give the clear picture of American terrorist activities around the world,and its violations of human rights and the international laws.
-
A promising development is that the Bush administration slapped a vindictive arms embargo on Venezuela due to Chavez and his liberation politics and economics. Hugo's unforgivable crime may have been selling heating oil at a discount to low-income Americans. Or perhaps is was suggesting that Bush was the anti-Christ ?
A result of the embargo is that Chavez is not only importing Russian weapons, but he is building a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela. Perhaps he plans to arm the poor of South and Central America with the most reliable combat rifle ever invented ? Gringos would then face serious resistance if they invaded with war cries of freedom, democracy and neoliberalcon globalization. Iraqis seem to be proving that a well armed resistance movement may be the only way to stop the imperial juggernaught ?
Ask the French why they are no longer in Algeria ?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1651709/posts
As long as the military industrial complex is getting the revenue,it doesn't matter who gets the weapons. The more US taxpayer money that BushCo can give to the military industrial complex, the more money that industry can donate to political campaigns. If those weapons are used against the US, its easy to rationalize the spending of more US taxpayer's money on more weapons to fight back.
Buy stock in weapon suppliers. You can't go wrong.
Buy stock in weapons suppliers!!!! If you do that, consider yourself a war profiteer of the lowest kind, equal to the criminals in your government. The US is the biggest terrorist nation in history, and you will be contributing to terrorism directly by profiting through stock ownership.
When referring to terrorist or terrorism as labeled by the US Government especially today, it's best to use quotation marks around the term to show it's only the label the government is giving it, and it may not have any validity, and it always biased in favor of those supporting the neo cons' fascist agenda.
As John Pilger quite rightly puts it the US war on terror really has been a war on democracy, and his documentary feature film by the same name is something all should see. If the US Government let it in this country, then we'll know why. As Winston Churchill would say, "They're modest, and they have a lot to be modest about."