US Weapons Sold To Human Rights Violators/Undemocratic Nations

Thirteen of the top 25 U.S. arms recipients in the developing world in 2006/07, and well in 2008 were either undemocratic governments or regimes guilty of major ongoing human rights abuses, says a just released report by the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan policy institute headquartered in the U.S.

"U.S. arms transfers are undermining human rights, weakening democracy and fueling conflict around the world," the report said.

William D. Hartung, the lead author of the report, said, "The United States cannot demand respect for human rights and arm human rights abusers at the same time."

The 13 listed in the report were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Colombia, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, Yemen and Tunisia.

This is a one-third reduction in the number (18) of top U.S. recipients that fit these categories when the Foundation last surveyed these trends in 2005, but the number of such recipients contrasts sharply with the Bush administration's pro-democracy rhetoric. The majority of the undemocratic and/or human-rights-abusing governments armed by the United States are in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain) and South Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Although the administration's motivations for arming these nations-protecting oil flows, supporting antiterrorism efforts, or promoting coalition partnerships in theaters of war-are not without merit, the New America Foundation notes the rationales for making these sales and their effectiveness in achieving U.S. policy goals such as promoting democracy and upholding human rights need to be reconsidered.

Sales to these countries totaled more than $16.2 billion over 2006 and 2007.

Sri Lanka which militarily defeated the home grown Tamil Tiger terrorist movement in May 2009 and described by terrorism experts as the most ruthless terrorist group in the world is not named by the New America Foundation as undemocratic country or human rights abuser.

For Sri Lanka’s fight against the Tamil Tiger terrorist movement military assistance that came from the United States was measly US$ 310,000.

The New America Foundation report further states that the U.S. arms and military training played a role in 20 of the world's 27 major wars in 2006/07. The dollar value of U.S. weapons transfers and weapons orders destined for zones of conflict during that two-year period was $11.2 billion. The biggest recipients were Pakistan ($3.7 billion), Turkey ($3.0 billion), Israel ($2.1 billion), Iraq ($1.4 billion), and Colombia ($575 million).

Nations receiving less than $5 million in transfers included Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Uganda, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Haiti.

U.S. weapons did not play any role at all in controlling and eliminating the LTTE terrorist threat that challenged democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka except the intelligence and maritime surveillance support it received.

There is less concern in U.S. policymaking circles about the negative impacts of arms sales, from fueling conflict to enabling major human rights abuses. In the case of the United States, this is true despite the fact that U.S. law calls for curbs on sales to countries engaged in a "gross and consistent" pattern of human rights abuses or to countries using U.S. weapons for aggressive purposes. More often than not, these reasonable requirements are set aside in favor of the short-term strategic, political, and economic objectives. This tendency has been even stronger since the 9/11 attacks, with limits on arms sales and security assistance to certain client nations being lifted in the name of winning support for the U.S. campaign against terrorism.

The New America Foundation in its concluding remarks says:

“U.S. arms sales policy is in disarray. As the size, scope, and sophistication of U.S. transfers has increased during the Bush administration, so have the risks. When the vast bulk of U.S. arms transfers to the developing world go to human rights abusers and undemocratic regimes, it does real and substantial damage to the reputation of the United States as a force for democracy and the rule of law. This in turn undermines the ability of Washington to promote cooperation in other areas of national need, from the coordination of intelligence and law enforcement, to promoting economic growth, to curbing climate change. While some of these objectives-particularly those in the economic and environmental spheres-should be of mutual interest to all countries, Washington's ability to play a leadership role is hampered by its role as the world's leading arms trafficking nation.

“In addition, arming repressive regimes is more likely to promote instability than it is to foster stability. Arms transfers can serve as a U.S. government "seal of approval" for governments engaged in unacceptable behavior, not to mention being used as tools of internal repression and instruments of warfare with neighboring states. This concern is underscored by the fact that U.S. weapons are present in fully half of the major armed conflicts currently under way worldwide. And in some potential conflicts-between India and Pakistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Turkey and the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, forces on both sides are receiving U.S. arms and training.”

A study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that U.S. arms sales surged in 2008, despite the worst global economic downturn in decades. In 2008, U.S. arms dealers signed new weapons contracts worth approximately $37.8 billion, a considerable increase from previous years. The surge was remarkable given that the total volume of new arms orders in 2008, $55.2 billion, was billions of dollars below the comparable figures for 2007 and 2006.

The United States also fortified its position as the leading arms-exporting country. Last year, the volume of global defense contracts involving the United States exceeded those of all other countries combined. The nearest competitors were Italy, with $3.7 billion in global arms sales agreements, and Russia, with $3.5 billion in weapons contracts. In 2007, the United States government accounted for only 41 percent of the value of all weapons orders, with an estimated value of $24.8 billion . This figure still represented a major rise over the 2006 figure of $16.7 billion.

The United States, which entered into over $23 billion in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreements in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and $32 billion in FY 2008, is the world's largest arms supplier. U.S. exports range from combat aircraft to Pakistan, Morocco, Greece, Romania, and Chile to small arms and light weapons to the Philippines, Egypt, and Georgia. In 2006 and 2007, the United States sold weapons to over 174 states and territories, a significant increase from the beginning of the Bush administration when the number of U.S. arms clients stood at 123. While many of these sales were relatively small deals licensed commercially by the State Department, a number of important new states were added or restored to the U.S. client list, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, East Timor, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan.

Arms transfers are undertaken for a variety of rationales. On the strategic side of the ledger, weapons exports and military training can be utilized to increase interoperability (the ability to fight together in a coalition) among U.S. and allied forces; to reward partners in the fight against terrorism, including countries fighting alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq; to gain access to foreign military bases; and to strengthen allies against internal and/or external threats.

Politically, arms and training can be used as leverage for everything from gaining preferential access to oil and other strategic resources to persuading other countries to vote with the United States in international and regional bodies like the United Nations and the Organization of American States. In the domestic economic sphere, the arms trade is a source of income and jobs for key localities, a way to lower the costs of weapons purchased by the U.S. military, and a means of maintaining a larger U.S. defense industrial base than would be possible without these foreign sales.

Whether arms transfers are the best tools for achieving these objectives is a matter of debate, but there is no question that the United States utilizes them in hopes of achieving these goals.

- Asian Tribune -