|
|
| ARMS
TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
CURRENT UPDATE: May 23, 2006 Dear Friends, There is a lot of big news in weapons this month. Boeing is salivating over the possibility of new fighter plane sales to India while Lockheed Martin has already staked its claim on rival Pakistan. Speaking of rivals, Greek and Turkish pilots crashed their U.S.-made F-16 fighter planes into each other in a mock fight high above the Aegean Sea. The U.S. has offered a missile defense shield to countries in Central Europe- maybe based in Poland or the Czech Republic. But it won't sell any more weapons to Venezuela. In this issue of the ATRC E-Update, we look at the State Department's ban on arms sales to Venezuela and offer an analysis of the administration's position towards Iran. We also share links to new resources on Private Military Corporations and the Outsourcing of War. Thanks, Bill Hartung TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. HARD EYED ASSESSMENT:
No Arms to Venezuela Last week, the State Department announced it would stop selling military hardware to Caracas, as spokesman Sean McCormack, explained, the decision was based on "a hard-eyed assessment of whether or not a country is cooperating with the U.S. in fighting terrorism* in this case, the answer is no." Venezuela has been designated as "not fully cooperating" with U.S.-anti-terrorism efforts. The State Department cited Chavez's warm relations with Castro in Havana and Ahmadinejad in Tehran, as well as alleged support for the FARC and ELN-- Colombian guerrillas groups considered terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. The Chavez government denies all of this. On the Cuba and Iran allegation, Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez Herrera writes in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece that relations with these two countries are "based on specific interests- oil with Iran, social programs with Cuba," and are "no threat to the United States." The Ambassador also rejects the accusations of collaboration with FARC and ELN, saying "nothing could be further from the truth" and describing a warm collaborative relationship with the Uribe government in Colombia as evidence. Washington's real aim in imposing the arms embargo appears to be punishing President Hugo Chavez for buying weapons elsewhere. His government has embarked on a multi- billion dollar arms buying spree and in short order has picked up 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles and $33 million in helicopters from Russia, and a Chinese defense communications network. Venezuela is now negotiating with Spain for a package of patrol boats and troop transports. Assistant secretary of state John Hillen put forward the official administration view in recent congressional testimony in which he claimed that Chavez is "retooling and rebuilding and rearming his military with the avowed purpose of building a military that can fight against the United States." What? Hugo Chavez may be a fiery populist and a devout anti-imperialist, but he has a long way to go before he can muster a force able to challenge the United States. According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, Venezuela devotes 1.2% of GDP to military expenditures, for an estimated total spending of $1.61 billion. By the same measurements, the United States devotes more than 4% of GDP to the military and outpaces China- the world's next largest military spender- by orders of magnitude. Counting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. is on course to spend over $600 billion for military purposes this year. That's well in excess of 300 times Venezuela's military budget. The real impact of the ban might be slight (at least in the short term). In 2005, Venezuela only bought $33.9 million in U.S. arms, and the single largest purchase was a $30.5 million deal for spare parts for the country's fleet of C-130s from Lockheed Martin. But, military analyst John Pike of Global Security.Org says that over time the embargo could grow teeth because most of the country's planes are U.S.-made and the ban includes spare parts and maintenance assistance. The ban could "ground a significant fraction of their Air Force." Of Venezuela's 277 military aircraft, 177 are U.S. made, including F-16 and F-5 fighter planes. Already, the decision has fanned the war of words between the two countries. In London, Chavez said that the arms embargo "does not matter to us at all. The final hours of the North American empire have arrived." On Tuesday Chavez said, "We are very worried because your imperialist and warlike government is dangerously eroding the possibility of peace and life in the world." The new chilling between Russia and the United States looms in the background of the State Department's decision. In his weekly radio address, Chavez praised Russian made jets as "100 times better than F-16s," and announced his plans to visit Moscow this summer. Additionally, Chavez publicly threatened to sell off Venezuelan F-16 fighter plans to Iran or Cuba. While such a move is much easier said than done, it was a bold rhetorical stroke and a surefire headline grabber that underlines the fact that weapons have a way of outlasting political alliances by years and often decades. RESOURCES: IN DEFENSE OF VENEZUELA AN AUDIENCE WITH CHAVEZ: CIA World Factbook
On March 30th, ATRC Update compared saber-rattling U.S. rhetoric on Iran with the reality that there is no viable military option for eliminating Tehran's nuclear program. Our conclusion was that like it or not, the administration would eventually be forced to choose genuine diplomacy over reckless military action. In the interests of being "fair and balanced," as Fox News would put it, we will use this update to look at a wider set of views on the future of U.S.-Iranian relations. For example, Joseph Cirincione, formerly of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and now at the Center for American Progress, believes that despite the logic of the case against attacking Iran, there are forces in the Bush administration poised to do so. He set out his views in a web exclusive article for the March/April edition of Foreign Policy magazine, and in a related interview for the Council on Foreign Relations web site. We will draw on a few key passages from his April 4th CFR interview that give the flavor of Cirincione's argument. In answer to a question about why he thinks a U.S. military attack on Iran is a primary option for Bush administration officials, he said the following: "I previously dismissed talk about U.S. military strikes as left-wing conspiracy theory and the kind of stuff that bloggers are chattering about on the internet. But in just the past few weeks I've been convinced that at least some in the administration have already made up their minds that they would like to launch a military strike against Iran. What convinced me were conversations with some of my friends who have close connections with the White House and the Pentagon who tell me that there is already active discussion and even planning of such strikes." Pressed further on why he felt this way, Cirincione cited the parallels in current administration statements with the "coordinated campaign that we saw before the Iraq war": "You have cabinet officials, the president, and the vice president giving major speeches on the subject. They're labeling Iran the central or main threat. They try to link Iran to the war on terror, or even to 9/11 itself, by talking about Iran as the central banker for terrorism* Officials have leaked information to the press in just the past couple of weeks that claims that the Iranian program is further along than it really is* and there seems to be a concerted effort to convey this threat as imminent*" Taking all of this into account, Cirincione says "it is now my working hypothesis that at least some members of the administration, including the vice president of the United States, have made up their mind that the preferred option is to strike Iran and that a military strike will destabilize the regime and contribute to their longtime goal of overthrowing the government of Iran." This by no means implies that Cirincione thinks a U.S. attack on Iran is inevitable, just that opponents of this approach have to take the possibility seriously and demand, for example, that intelligence estimates of Iran's capabilities be made public so that the debate over this dangerous potential direction for U.S. policy can at least take place on a level playing field. In an April 25th commentary for the International Herald Tribune, former Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski echoes Cirincione's concern about the parallels with Iraq: "American policy should not be swayed by a contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the intervention in Iraq." As you may recall, President Bush maintained up until the eve of the war in Iraq that he was willing to 'give diplomacy a chance.' The only way to call the administration's bluff this time around is to demand that they engage in direct talks with Iran that include assurances that the United States will no longer threaten nor act in ways that threaten the future of the Iranian government. This administration (and possibly the next) also need to give the talks time to work - years if necessary, not months. To do so, we need to try to stem the climate of fear that is being instilled in America and beyond by the Bush administration's PR campaign. Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons, but if so its actions are far from an "imminent threat." There is time to talk, as Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon is at least five to ten years off, according to a consensus of U.S. intelligence estimates. And, as Martin Creveld has noted, writing in the April 21st edition of the Forward, Iran could be even further away from getting the bomb: "Those of us who have followed reports on the development of Iran's nuclear program know that the warnings from American and other intelligence agencies about Tehran building a bomb in three to five years have been made again and again, for more than 15 years. For 15 years, the intelligence agencies have been proven dead wrong. And to these gross exaggerations of Iran's true intentions and capabilities must be added the fairy tales by the same intelligence agencies have been feeding the world regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction." In short, we have nothing to fear (yet) but fear-mongering itself. RESOURCES ON IRAN REGIME CHANGE REDUX: OPERATION REGIME CHANGE TIME FOR CLEAR PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
OF IRANIAN THREAT DO NOT ATTACK IRAN KNOWING WHY NOT TO BOMB IRAN
IS HALF THE BATTLE WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT IRAN
A. PMCs TARNISH U.S. REPUTATION In their Annual Report, Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) highlights the role of private military contractors in the U.S. government's current system for outsourcing key military detention, security and intelligence operations. The report argues that such outsourcing fuels serious human rights violations and undermines accountability. "The United States has become a world leader in avoiding human rights accountability; a case in point is the reliance of the United States government on private military contractors, which has helped create virtually rules-free zones sanctioned with the American flag and fire power," said Larry Cox, AIUSA's executive director. "Business outsourcing may increase efficiency, but war outsourcing may be facilitating impunity. Contractors' illegal behavior and the reluctance of the U.S. government to bring them to justice are further tarnishing the United States' reputation abroad, hurting the image of American troops and contributing to anti-American sentiment. These results are a distressing return on the U.S. taxpayers' billion-dollar- plus investment and undermine what remains of U.S. moral authority abroad." In recent weeks, AIUSA has contacted 14 private military companies to urge that they improve their human rights practices. Three companies have issued written replies, and one has met with AIUSA in person. AIUSA has concluded that no major private military companies currently implement adequate human rights policies. For more information, visit http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport/2006/overview.html B. BLACKWATER'S DIRTY JOBS Along those same lines, The Nation's Puffin Writing Fellow Jeremy Scahill is following Blackwater Security very very closely– much more closely than they would like him to follow them. His most recent article, IN
THE (BLACK)WATER, tracks how the private security firm is benefiting
from the billions allocated to rebuild New Orleans and other Gulf
areas. Earlier, Scahill wrote BLOOD IS THICKER THAN BLACKWATER in the May 8 issue. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/scahill C. THE SHADOW COMPANY A new documentary explores the world of private military corporations in Iraq. This year thousands of private soldiers will be deployed in conflicts worldwide. These individuals, known as private security contractors, are changing the face of modern warfare. But to those at home, their world and influence remains a mystery. Who are these security contractors? What do they do? Why do they do it? Shadow Company, by Nick Bicanic and Jason Bourque, is the groundbreaking feature-length documentary that reveals the origins and destinations of these modern-day mercenaries. See the trailer and learn where the film is playing online at http://www.shadowcompanythemovie.com/ THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION EXPORTS
STAR WARS FOOLISHNESS "Go ahead and build that shield," said Gen. Yuri N. Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian military's general staff. "You have to think, though, what will fall on your heads afterward. I do not foresee a nuclear conflict between Russia and the West. We do not have such plans. However, it is understandable that countries that are part of such a shield increase their risk." We covered President Bush's push for a "virtual fence" at the U.S. Mexican border in our Secure Border Initiative Issue Brief, asserting that it would be a bonanza for military corporations like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. The Brief was widely circulated and led to us meeting (at least by phone and e-mail) Joseph Richey, a journalist who has written for Mother Jones, The Chicago Tribune and other publications. His BAD FENCES MAKE BAD NEIGHBORS
is online at http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/35508
. The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade. www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms To sign up for our monthly email Updates, please contact Frida Berrigan.
Reports | Recent News Coverage | Updates
|
 |