In Arms Sales, We're Number 1 (again)
Today's New York Times had an article by Thom Shanker on the continuing role of the United States as the world's top weapons supplier. The article is based on an annual report by the Congressional Research Service that assesses global arms sales, with a special emphasis on exports to the Third World.
As usual, the normal reasons given by the Bush administration for serving as arms merchant to the world pale in comparison with the negative consequences of U.S. transfers.
Arguments for arms sales -- provided to us courtesy of the Pentagon and the State Department -- include the following: 1) helping to fight terrorism and promote democracy; 2) making it easier for the U.S. military to fight alongside U.S. allies by providing equipment that is compatible with U.S. systems; 3) bolstering the "defense industrial base" by keeping open factories and employing skilled workers who might otherwise leave the defense industry for jobs in commercial industry (not to mention the windfall profits these deals provide to companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics).
The reality is quite different. Despite the Bush administration's protestations that it is promoting democracy, a majority of U.S. sales in 2006 (the year covered by the CRS report) go to undemocratic regimes and/or major human rights abusers like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. Far from promoting democracy, these sales help to entrench these repressive governments while giving them the tools to go to war with their neighbors over political or economic disputes. This continues a long tradition of ill-conceived U.S. arms sales, many of which have resulted in U.S.-supplied weapons falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries, as happened with Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Panama, Iraq, and numerous other allies of the moment.
Despite this track record, most members of Congress -- if they focus on U.S. arms exports at all -- view them as an easy way to win friends and intimidate adversaries. A significant grouping of our Representatives and Senators should express their support for a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a measure supported by the United Kingdom and virtually all NATO members except the United States.
The treaty would impose tighter human rights restrictions on arms exports, even as it curbs sales to nations at war. This is a long-term project, but that's no reason for our members of Congress not to weigh in now. The Bush administration is no doubt hopeless on this issue, but a new president might consider a policy change in the context of Congressional and public pressure.
And even if this larger goal is not achieved, the fight for a treaty could pave the way for other useful reforms in U.S. arms transfer policy.
Interestingly on a somewhat related note, just yesterday there was local news promo here in Los Angeles for a story they are doing in which the question they ask is "Are our Cops Outgunned?" Of course the solution to this is to equip our police officers with even more powerful weapons and munitions rather than removing military grade weapons from the market. Bucks over bodies I suppose.
And the entrepreneurial spirit that flourishes in the gun-biz knows no borders. Many of these companies are deeply embedded within our own political and military infrastructure. They have the access to grow their business and that is exactly what they do, both domestically and internationally.
October 1, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious what you have in mind as "military grade weapons". I know of few, not zero, incidents where the military characteristics of a certain weapon were exploited. Given the lack of accuracy of the average street criminal, you could give him a light machine gun, and, if he were shooting at shadows, it might be safer to be in one.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 1, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
For full disclosure Howard I grew up in NE PA and loved hunting so I'm not a rabid "all guns are bad" individual by any means. But to me there is simply no need for anyone to have access to a weapon or munitions that rate above that needed to kill game in the wild. Round velocities should be capped. Powder loads too. And these things need to be enforced at the manufacturing level first, it's much harder to buy something that isn't made. How many rounds these weapons can hold is also something I take issue with. If a hunter needs rapid access to more than a few rounds they're either a terrible shot or they're taking a shot they should not be.
To be honest, the marksmanship of the "average" street criminal isn't something that I had given a lot of thought. You're probably correct that it may generally be very poor but allowing them to fire a larger number of more powerful rounds more quickly would increase their chances of either hitting their intended target or the innocent bystanders who often pay terrible tolls in these situations.
There was of course the infamous bank robbery which occurred out here in LA back in '97 where the criminals had automatic weapons and custom built bulletproof suits (I think is one of the few incidents to which you refer). This is not the normal situation of course but it demonstrated what is possible. It is also one of the situations being used to support more heavily arming the police. What scares me is that all of these attempts to out-weapon each other is creating an arms race between the police and criminals. And I don't know about anyone else but the idea of LAPD (or any PD for that matter) carrying even more firepower does not make me feel safer. It seems we are simply asking for trouble in doing so, especially in large and crowded urban areas.
In the end it's our nations love of violence and guns that propels this as both the domestic problem in the tangent we're talking about here, and an international problem as we are the king of the hill in terms of weapons exports. In the end we are creating these mini-arms races all over the planet which is of course great for these companies bottom lines. But it's terrible for the average citizens all over the planet that are either being targeted or are simply caught in the crossfire.
October 1, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thirteen reasons to reduce arms sales:
Arms sales--
1. Mainly consist of expensive war machines which have little or no effect on fighting terrorism.
2.Aren't needed for interoperability with other armies--few armies will fight alongside ours.
3. Draw scientific, technical and engineering talent away from US commercial industry.
4. Export vital technology.
5. Distract from the building and production of infrastructure and machines usefeul to mankind, thus reducing US exports and overseas trade, and increasing imports.
6. Restrict our largest trade contacts to (often repressive) regimes needing armaments.
7. Export investment and jobs via "offset" programs, commercial investment in other countries which can exceed the value of the sales contract.
8. Results in the proliferation of US goods and machines which have no constructive purpose, only purpose of killing people, thus contributing to world instability.
9. Provide arms that could be used against us.
10. Results in undue leverage on other governments causing them to support policies not in their citizens' best interest.
11. Gives the military/industrial complex even more power over a large segment of the economy, affecting local politics and foreign policy.
12. Further reduces the reputation of the US in the eyes of foreigners who see the US as a big bully.
13. Contribute to a global arms race, contributing further instability and national rivalry.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 1, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was impressed in the article by Russia's role. Nice to know that replacing those evil commies with capitalists has brought peace and stability to the world.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 1, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read an AP story today (in the Seattle P.I.) about the proposed arms sales treaty. In the first paragraph the author (one Charles Hanley) lays out the conflict as between the hundred or so nations that support the treaty vs. the NRA, which would not.
Does this analysis strike anyone else as totally ridiculous and misleading? Elswhere in the article the author mentions that the US rakes in $13 billion per year in arms sales, and yet he pins the responsibilty for making US foreign policy and trade agreements not on the administration, not on the influence of the military-industrial complex, but on the NRA?(!)
Hanley is either a spook or a fool.
Here's the article:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_GUN_TREATY?SITE=ALANN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
October 1, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Massive arm sales - military Keynesianism to feed the military-industrial complex.
October 1, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believe me, I feel like I can't find the right position in some of these issues. I have some good friends who are adamant about being armed for personal protection. Now, when they are in a very rural area, I see some reason for that assumption, and their place has a real bear problem. OTOH, I have never seen either of them even dry-fire a weapon in the last year or two, and she has hand problems that make me wonder if she could control a pistol, especially after the first round.
Let's put it this way: I believe practice is a necessity in many eye-hand coordination situations. When I was much more active in photography, I constantly practiced without film, which let me get some incredible available light shots that most people assumed had to have a tripod. Two married (to one another) friends are both in the Army, she having had one tour and he two in Iraq. He's still active, and, after she heals from an athletic injury, is scheduled for Officer Candidate School. Even when at a US base, they try to fire 100 pistol rounds a week, and get to the rifle range as much as possible. They consider that necessary to maintain the proficiency they would need in a combat zone.
I grew up with an air rifle/.22 range in my basement; my single mother was an Army officer who maintained expert rifle and pistol until her arthritis got too bad. At Scout camp, I ran out of money for ammunition for the highest awards, but I was on the way. Apropos of the number of rounds in a firearm, I never hunted but was a target shooter, and I envied those who had semi-automatic rifles. Given I had a bolt action, I had the handicap of having to re-acquire the sight picture each time. Semi-auto vs. bolt isn't fair competition.
So, I am amazed by both criminals and police that somehow think a firearm is a magic weapon. The number of rounds is questionable for most hunting, although I can see wanting a large magazine for convenience with skeet.
Yes, I was thinking of the LA example, but I was also thinking of some of the odder claims made about "military weapons". You mention capping round velocity, and I assume you generalize that to round energy. An "assault rifle" is defined as firing an intermediate power round, less powerful than a military rifle cartridge. The reason for this is that assault rifles like the M-16/M-4 are intended to be used to lay down many shots, not necessarily aimed as precisely as one might do with a WWII M-1 or older M-1903. While it may be a worthy goal to limit muzzle energy, many hunting rifles have more energetic rounds than do assault rifles, and certainly submachine guns -- the latter are defined to fire a pistol cartridge.
I suppose that I'd like to see police not necessarily get heavier weapons, although I'm open to them having larger magazines. There may be a reason for a specialist to have a high-power round, but the average cop doesn't need it.
In point of fact, I'd far rather see police budgets not spent on heavier weapons, but on more intense weapons training, and not just punching holes in targets every so often, but in high-stress training, which can include realistic simulators. The military uses a super-laser-tag system, MILES, for much of their training, and finds it very realistic when it's in an overall simulation experience.
I've talked to some ordinary police who were in firefights, and they admit that both they and the criminal just pulled the trigger as fast as they could, not aiming, and sometimes neither hit anyone. That worries me.
No, I don't want a class of criminals that are good shots. What concerns me is that many of the defining characteristics of a military weapon, especially an assault rifle, are irrelevant to their street danger. One aspect that defines a weapon as "military" is that it has a lug for mounting a bayonet. Have you ever heard of a crime with a bayonet on a rifle? I haven't.
Large-capacity magazines are a matter of concern. I'm not sure that muzzle energy is a critical factor, other than in making marksmanship worse -- the more powerful the cartridge, the stronger the recoil.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
October 1, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need an organization like the UK's Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) in the US. One CAAT report cites a 2005 Congressional Research Service study (pdf) showing that the five permanent member nations of the UN Security Council accounted for 87% of the $35 Billion in arms exports for 2004.
Also, an account of an arms bazaar in Abu Dhabi by Robert Fisk is worth a read.
October 2, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The arms industry: Sales of guns, ammunition, missiles, military aircraft, consumables and systems... account for 18% of the national budget. US cannot reduce military sales because of the consequent fall in the GDP.
And of course in the illegal endless buying, selling and trading in small arms, all in secret, any bad actor has easy access to just about any small or not so small weapon he may want. Not off the wall that much of the materiel stored in arsenals all over Iraq was sold etc. from the US originally. Never properly, if at all, guarded by our military, the arsenals have provided Iraqi insurgents with much that has probably ended up killing or maiming our own troops. (The bottom line for the merchants of death is profit, not worrying or wondering about who gets killed.)
Be interesting if it could be determined from where, from whom and when Iran secured the weapons she is now supposedly supplying Iraqi insurgents with. (Iran-Contra was a while ago, but hey, who knows.)
October 2, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink