U.S. war on terrorism expected to escalate
U.S. arms trade
By CLAIRE
SCHAEFFER-DUFFY
Typically, war is good business for the arms trade. In the wake of
the Gulf War, for example, arms sales skyrocketed. The Middle East, now the
largest regional market for U.S.-made weapons, accounts for 74.8 percent of all
U.S. arms transfer agreements to developing nations.
Experts in the conventional arms trade say it is too soon to
tell what the war in Afghanistan will yield but they anticipate a
significant escalation in the sale of U.S. weaponry.
The Bush administrations recent waiver of sanctions on
Pakistan, for example, opens the door to military trade with a volatile regime
once considered off limits.
In the U.S. war on terrorism, some experts note that arms export
control seems to be taking a back seat to the more pressing agenda of buying
allies.
Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at
Hampshire College in Amherst, N.H., and the author of Light Weapons and
Conflict, says the U.S. war on terrorism will generate two categories of
military trade. Initial transactions will involve day-to-day equipment used for
counterinsurgency operations. These transactions will be followed by the more
showy products offered as payoffs to loyal states.
Several of the United States future clients, such as
Uzbekistan, are dealing with internal conflicts and are most likely to want
basic counterinsurgency equipment such as helicopters, light weapons,
armored cars and communication gear, said Klare. He added,
Were not talking about supersonic jet planes here.
States that assist the United States in the war on terrorism
will be rewarded, he said. Pakistan, for example, will be favored
to get equipment in return for its support.
Bill Hartung, executive director of the World Policy Institute,
says the Pentagon has established a cell within the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency, to expedite arms sales. The agency has been given
marching orders to cut through the paperwork and speed up arms
transfers, he said, noting that arms sales to Egypt and Oman, who already
had deals on the table before the war, were recently
accelerated.
In early October, the Bush administration sold $1.1 billion worth
of sophisticated weaponry to the Sultanate of Oman, according to a United
Nations report. The Oman package included F-16s, sidewinder missiles and
air-to-air medium range antiaircraft missiles.
The U.S. war on terrorism has already altered U.S. military trade
relations with Pakistan and India, two volatile nuclear rivals. After they
launched nuclear tests in May of 1998, both countries were sanctioned by the
United States. The sanctions included a prohibition on sales of U.S. weapons.
When Pakistans Gen. Perez Musharaf seized power in 1999, the country
qualified for additional restrictions under the Foreign Operations Act, which
prohibits providing assistance to any country whose duly elected head of
government was deposed by military coup.
On Sept. 22, the Bush administration asked Congress to waive these
sanctions, arguing that they were not currently in the national security
interest of the United States. With Bill 1465, Congress is expected to
pass legislation endorsing a modified version of Bushs request, though
many experts view the waiver with alarm.
The waiver of the democracy provision on U.S. arms
export is the most significant exemption granted, according to Erik Floden
director of the Conventional Arms Transfer Project with the Council for a
Livable World. Floden, however, is cautious about predicting the impact of this
legislation.
The administration has more freedom but that doesnt
mean they will necessarily use it he said, pointing out that Bushs
initial aid package of $100 million to Pakistan was slated for debt relief
rather than military expenditures. In House discussion of the bill, Floden
noted, there were some lawmakers who went to the floor and said, We
dont believe supplying arms will be the best approach.
The crystal ball here in Washington, D.C., has been rather
cloudy, Floden said. Partially, I am hopeful, but a lot of caution
has been thrown to the wind as of late. Ive got this bad feeling that
were going to send in a lot of equipment thats going to have a
destabilizing effect.
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who opposed S. 1465, spoke in favor of
sending economic and humanitarian aid only.
Until sound democracy is established in Pakistan, it is unclear
what military artillery and weapons will be used for, Pallone said. He
described South Asia as one of the most politically volatile areas in the
world and Pakistan an unstable nuclear power.
Historically, U.S. arms export to Pakistan have been used against
India, primarily through cross-border military action in Kashmir. The two
countries have fought three wars in the last 50 years, and the ongoing conflict
over the disputed region of Kashmir has claimed the lives of 50,000 people in
the last decade. According to Defense Week, Pakistan, driven by a desire
for military parity with India, is seeking an assortment of sophisticated
U.S. weapons as a reward for supporting Washingtons war on
terrorism.
The items on Pakistans wish list include: the newest version
of the F-16s, anti-ship and antiaircraft missiles, artillery and unmanned
aerial aircraft. Defense Monitor reports that an unnamed Pakistani
defense ministry source was quoted as saying, We want the kind of
relationship the United States has with Egypt in terms of weapons sales. We
have been telling the U.S. that a military balance is the best way to avert war
on the subcontinent.
Pakistans new shopping spree has some Indian analysts
worried.
If Pakistan is able to convince the United States to sell it
the latest weapons, then it will start a new arms race with India, said
Bidanda Chengappa, researcher at New Delhis Institute of Defense Studies
and Analysis.
Any escalation of Pakistans conventional arsenal will
indirectly affect the nuclear rivalry between the two countries,
says Steve LaMontagne who works with the Council for a Livable World on the
Nonproliferation Project. Anything that has impact on security relations
in India in general also has an impact on the nuclear situation.
Despite the projected expansions of arsenals in South and Central
Asia, neither Hartung nor Floden expect the war against terrorism to trigger an
arms boom comparable to what occurred with the Gulf War.
Unlike the oil-rich Middle East, the Pentagons prospective
clients from the U.S. war on terrorism are not flush with cash, and Pentagon
subsidies will be required to underwrite much of the trade. Hartung views the
Bush administrations efforts to clear the way for arms sales as
opportunistic. The administration is hoping to push through
deals that have been in limbo, he said.
In late September, The Washington Post reported that the
Bush administration was asking Congress for a removal of all restrictions on
U.S. weapons exports and military assistance through 2007. At this point,
Congress is only considering waivers for India and Pakistan, and these would
apply until 2003.
Claire Schaeffer-Duffy is a freelance writer living in
Worcester, Mass.
National Catholic Reporter, November 9,
2001
|