| |
Praise God, Pass The Ammo
|
|
|
Praise God, Pass The Ammo
|
|
by Sean Gonsalves
|
| |
"True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
What would you say if someone on your block was claiming to be for peace but  supplied rival gang members with most of the weapons they use to terrorize the neighborhood?
Now, the Middle East "peace process" is more complicated than that in many ways. I don't understand all of the complexities involved. So, I won't opine about what Israelis or Palestinians should do. Besides, I'm an American and basic ethics requires that Americans hold their own leaders accountable for their policies.
But even with all of the confusion in that troubled region, there are a few things that are abundantly clear regarding the role of U.S. foreign-policy planners in the "peace process" and, frankly, it gives me the heebee-jeebees.
The most recent figures on weapons deliveries to the Middle East are found in the 1997 World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers report compiled by the State Department. According to WMEAT figures, of all major weapons imported by Middle East countries from 1994 to 1996, 78 percent were land armaments, mostly armored personnel carriers and armored cars (65 percent of which were provided by the United States).
An additional 15 percent were missiles, surface-to-air mostly, with the United States supplying about 65 percent of those.
Of the five principle legal means by which America exports weapons and military service abroad, nearly half of it is done through a corporate welfare program called Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Direct commercial sales (DCS), leases of equipment, transfers of excess defense articles (EDA) and emergency draw downs are the other routes.
According to a State Department document referred to as the "Section 655" report, Israel received 4,698 rifles from the United States in 1996. I wonder how many of those guns were used to kill rock-throwing Palestinians.
Instead of using taxpayer money for providing college grants to low-income Americans, through the foreign military financing (FMF) program, the United States doled out $3.2 billion to rich foreigners. This military assistance went primarily to Israel ($1.8 billion) and Egypt ($1.3 billion) - a "reward" for their "peace" effort at Camp David almost 20 years ago. Since then, Israel has received $28 billion and Egypt $19 billion in FMF grants to purchase U.S.-made weapons. Israel is allowed to spend $475 million of your tax dollars on weapons made by its own industry.
In a 1991 congressional hearing, former assistant Secretary of State, Reginald Bartholomew, told Congressman Lee Hamilton that if the United States didn't fill the void, other arms-dealing nations would.
Hamilton replied: "The problem has not been renegade suppliers. The problem has been the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council" - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, who, together, account for about 90 percent of global arms shipments.
There are a number of silly rationales for our leaders being as heavily involved in the arms trade now as they were during the Cold War. One of the more popular ones is: "U.S. arms create regional strategic balances."
First, the United States is not the only arms supplier. Therefore, U.S. arms shipments provoke a response from other buyers and sellers. For example, we have sent billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, supposedly to deter attack from Iran and Iraq. Because Iran is not under a U.N. arms embargo, they buy weapons from China and Russia. These arm sales are said to be "destabilizing" and thus warrant more arms from America.
Secondly, there is an obvious and fundamental link between arms and warfare. Weapons are not only used for self-defense but also for aggression and repression. In fact, the U.S. military has been sent into combat with former allies and recipients of U.S. arms, i.e. Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti and Liberia.
And lastly, the balance of power argument rests on an impossibility; namely, the impossibility of establishing military parity among regional states that have a huge disparity in territory, population, economic resources and nuclear capabilities.
Former Director of Naval Intelligence, Rear Adm. Edward Shaefer, says that despite "long-term plans to expand their military with the purchase of equipment, it is doubtful that the Saudis would be able to counter threats from Iran and Iraq completely."
The time is long overdue for U.S. leaders to start seriously considering strategies of "war without violence," as Gandhi termed it. The choice is ours: cooperative nonviolent struggle or mutual destruction?
Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff writer and syndicated columinist.
Copyright © 2000 Cape Cod Times
###
|
 Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
|
|
|
| |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
