An Ominous Arms Trade

A Third World country wishes to purchase highly sophisticated tanks and missiles from military contractors in the United States. Pentagon intelligence suggests that these weapons would probably be used to initiate a bloody border dispute with a neighboring country. However, lobbyists for the military contractors persuade our government to ignore concerns for regional stability and approve the sale, because it would save high-paying American jobs.

This scenario may sound preposterous and farfetched, but it could soon become commonplace. The Clinton administration is currently preparing to adopt a policy that would require the government to consider financial benefits to the military-industrial complex in any decision regarding foreign arms sales.

According to a news article in the Boston Globe ("U.S. to Weight Firms' Health in Foreign Arms Sales Approvals," Nov. 15, 1994), government approval of such sales has historically only been based on "whether the sale enhances U.S. security, regional stability and international cooperation." But under the new guidelines, the health of the U.S. economy, the fiscal situation of military contractors and the number of U.S. jobs at stake would become additional considerations.

This country's involvement in the global arms trade has already increased sharply since the end of the Cold War. Statistics documenting recent foreign arms dealings (as found in the November issue of Mother Jones magazine) are particularly troubling. Military contractors now generate 25 percent of their revenue from foreign arms sales. From 1988 to 1993, the U.S. share of global arms agreements shot up from 17 percent to 70 percent, partly because the Soviet Union's strong competition disappeared.

The military-industrial complex is not only reeling from cuts in the U.S. defense budget but has also been forced to deal with decreased demand from Cold War allies. Many of the attempts to increase exports have focused on the notoriously unstable Third World. Over the past five years, global arms sales to the Third World decreased by 48 percent while U.S. arms sales to these countries increased by seven percent.

Even worse, taxpayers' money actually funds many of these export sales; the U.S. government gives foreign nations money to spend on our own weapons. Sometimes the money is sent as direct grants for military aid. Countries receive funds for weapons indirectly by funneling Economic Support Fund and World Bank monies back into arms. Tax money also covers expenses for military trade shows that demonstrate the technical superiority of domestically produced weapons to potential customers; it also pays the budget for a Pentagon department responsible for encouraging foreign sales. United States tax revenue used by foreign nations to buy arms totalled $7.8 billion last year.

Allegiances between the U.S. and other nations are far less binding in the post-Cold War era. Because the globe is far less polarized, we may have far less control over the nations that purchase our weapons. The tanks and planes we sell today may be used against us in the future. Of course, a resultant war would benefit the military-industrial complex.

Some of the volatile markets that we supply with the most modern, destructive weaponry include the Middle East and East Asia. Many of the nations in these areas are leaning towards religious fundamentalism, political instability or aggressive expansionism. U.S. military contractors are also helping to fuel an arms race between historical enemies Greece and Turkey. Although the U.S. currently supplies many nations with arms, there is no shortage of ruthless dictators or despotic regimes eager to buy weapons, either for foreign conquest or more likely, for internal conflicts and political oppression.

The U.S. government has a history of supporting nations that blatantly disregard the human rights of their citizens. From Chile to Greece to Indonesia, we have provided military aid to governments that crush political dissent and brutally repress populist movements. All across the globe, American-made tear gas and riot-control vehicles have been used to disperse peaceful demonstrations. American made rifles, explosives and tank have been accessory to the murder of innocent people who dare to criticize their governments and to the ousting of democratically elected officials. Clinton's new policy would jeopardize the freedom and safety of dissidents and threaten democratic processes in the Third World.

Some critics argue that many countries will simply buy weapons elsewhere if the U.S. refuses to sell them, but this weak rationalization does not make the new policy any less immoral or irresponsible. Global arms proliferation must come to a grinding halt. We cannot condemn other countries for acting as merchants of death while our greedy corporations rake in money that should have remained in the Third World. These funds could have stayed in developing countries to sponsor projects such as irrigation or child vaccination--projects that increase the quality of life instead of promoting death and destruction. We need to support the people of the Third World, not their warmonger leaders.

Instead of easing restrictions regarding foreign arms sales, the U.S. should seek more vigilantly to reduce these sales. An agreement with the Russians to jointly curtail military exports would also be an extremely effective method of harnessing the world arms trade. The Cold War is over, and Americans should reap a peace dividend. Instead of exploiting new markets, our military contractors need to stop mortgaging future world peace and convert more of their output to civilian goods.

The government must now consider financial benefits in any decision on foreign arms sales.

Clinton's new policy jeopardizes the freedom and safety of dissidents in the Third World.