No. 30 (20 July 1995)
It would probably surprise most Americans to learn that their government licenses instruments of torture for export to countries around the world.
From September 1991-December 1993, the Commerce Department approved over 350 export licenses, worth more than $27 million, for torture and police equipment under commodity category 0A82C. According to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, this broad-ranging category includes: "saps, thumbcuffs, thumbscrews, leg irons, shackles, and handcuffs; specially designed implements of torture; strait jackets, plastic handcuffs, police helmets and shields; and parts and accessories." (See p.2)
Another export category, 0A84C, combines electric shock batons and cattle prods with shotguns and shells. Over 2,000 licenses were granted for these items. We obtained the information under a Freedom of Information Act request for data on gun exports. These licenses represent the government's permission for the export to go forward; they do not indicate actual delivery.
By lumping controversial items (like thumbscrews) together with non-controversial ones (like helmets) into broad general categories, Commerce effectively frustrates public oversight. This makes many suspect the worst, especially when these commodities are licensed for export to governments with well-documented records of human rights abuse. For example, Commerce approved $10.5 million to Saudi Arabia, where government officials "continued to torture and otherwise abuse detainees, including citizens and foreigners," according to the State Department's latest human rights report.
Commerce and State cite section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act to block information. This law states that "information obtained for the purpose of consideration of, or concerning, license applications...shall be withheld from public disclosure unless the release of such information is determined by the Secretary to be in the national interest." This provision presumably is intended to safeguard deals in the works. Why the information would remain proprietary after the sale has been won and the commodities have been shipped is far from clear.
For over a year, the ASM Project has sought information from all three departments on exports of light arms (e.g., guns and ammunition, light artillery and mortars). These weapons are a staple of recent and on-going regional and civil wars, yet because they are cheap, they fall well below the $14 million threshold for Congressional oversight.
In response to our request under the Freedom of Information Act, the Pentagon promptly released detailed and disaggregated information on deliveries of such weapons during the time we requested (1980-1993).
Commerce initially provided us with only highly aggregated data—the total number and dollar volume of relevant licenses which they approved to all countries during 1991-1993. Upon appeal, Commerce released country-specific information on licenses for this same time period. However, the data are still so aggregated that it is impossible to know what specifically was approved for export.
The State Department has interpreted section 12(c) to mean that it does not have to divulge any information about exports it has licensed.
Turkish and foreign press have long reported the use of American-made weapons in the war, which has claimed an estimated 15,000 lives. In June the State Department acknowledged that Turkey is using U.S.-supplied arms in attacks on civilians (see box).
In response to the cross-border attack, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and South Africa suspended military assistance and/or arms exports to Turkey. Austria and Switzerland had done so previously.
The U.S. State Department and White House, while not happy about the latest chapter in the war, have stood by Turkey, maintaining that the $450 million of military loans and $100 million grant economic aid requested for the coming year are still merited. According to the administration's budget documents, these programs are necessary for Turkey to "support U.S. goals" and to allow Turkey to "defend its own borders."
Congress has taken a harder line. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) introduced legislation to block U.S. aid to Turkey unless Turkey cooperates with human rights monitors, pulls its forces from Cyprus, ends the blockade of Armenia, and ends the harassment of Christian communities. Andrews also opposed the sale of Harpoon missiles to Turkey in March.
Rep. John Porter (R-IL), a dogged critic of Turkey's human rights record, also sought to eliminate military aid to Turkey. In a 4 April hearing, Porter blasted U.S. policy. Members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee---Democrats and Republicans---lined up to associate themselves with his eloquent and impassioned comments (see Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations for 1996, part 3, US GPO: 1995).
In the end, the House appropriated $21 million in economic aid and $320 million of military loans. The Senate will vote on aid to Turkey in August or September.
Why we need to sell them more arms at a time when they are using our arms in ways that are against our law in repressing their own people and killing innocent people is beyond me, and I can't understand how this administration can possibly support it.
---Rep. John Porter, 4 April 1995
[T]here is no question that Turkey's human rights record is very bad....That said, for us to base our policies solely on Turkey's human rights record would be very shortsighted.
---Walter Slocombe,
Under Sec. of Defense, 4 April 1995
"U.S.-origin equipment, which accounts for most major items of the Turkish military inventory, has been used in operations against the PKK during which human rights abuses have occurred. It is highly likely that such equipment was used in support of the evacuation and/or destruction of villages. However, we have no evidence that verifies reports of torture and extrajudicial killings involving U.S. equipment....
According to Turkish government figures, as of October 1, 1994, 1,046 villages and hamlets had been evacuated.... Most NGOs now estimate the total number of evacuated villages and hamlets at around 2,000. Various sources estimate that over two million have left their homes. Village evacuations have been a significant contributing factor to this....In some instances evacuations of villages have been accompanied by burning, bombing, shelling or other de- struction....In a number of instances reported by U.S. human rights NGOs and others, eye witnesses have identified the equipment involved as U.S. models.
The USG finds the evidence for the use of this equipment these three instances highly credible....
Extrajudicial killings and so-called `mystery killings' occurred at a high rate until the end of 1994....The total over the past three years now exceeds 2000."
Guatemala's long-abysmal human rights record has recently received attention by the mainstream media due to sensational revelations by Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) that a Guatemalan colonel, on the payroll of the CIA, was involved in the 1990 murder of a U.S. citizen and in the 1992 torture/murder of a guerrilla married to a U.S. citizen. During the past three decades, the Guatemalan army has razed hundreds of villages, killed over 100,000 civilians---mostly Mayans---and tortured countless numbers in an effort to eradicate the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG).
Since 1977, when Guatemala refused to accept human rights conditions on military aid, the Defense Department has maintained minimal ties with the country's armed forces, principally through the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. IMET was canceled in March (see ASM No. 29 p. 6). Unclassified data we received from the Defense Department shows no sales of small arms to Guatemala during fiscal years 1980-1993.
As recent press coverage made clear, however, even after the Bush
administration supposedly cut off all military aid to Guatemala in 1990, the
CIA continued to channel about $5-7 million to the Guatemalan military
annually
In addition, the Commerce Department approved over $2.5 million of export
licenses for shotguns, buckshot and shock batons and $170,771 of police and
torture equipment to Guatemala during 1991-1993 (see p. 2). According to
information presented at a Senate Government Affairs subcommittee hearing in
June 1994, the State Department granted 141 licenses for exports of pistols,
revolvers, and rifles totaling $6.7 million during 1989-1993.
Despite all of the bad press of late, the Guatemalan military has a friend
in Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). In a recent speech on the House floor, Burton
asserted that "a prolonged terrorist campaign, conducted by elements of the
communist URNG...has provoked violent military responses to its attacks and
assassinations." Burton claimed that if the U.S. didn't resume aid to the
Guatemalan armed forces, we "would thereby be aligning ourselves with the
terrorist URNG in the peace process"
In a letter to Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), the State Department reported that
"Tighter government budgets have reduced employment opportunities for young
Saudis, frozen wages and slowed the private sector.... The short term
economic downturn has colored popular perceptions of the government's
financial management and sharpened the distinctions among the social groups.
These economic strains have added to the resentment over the advantages
enjoyed by the very large Saudi royal family."
Since 1990, the United States has signed over $29 billion in Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) contracts with Saudi Arabia. Hamilton asked the State
Department whether U.S. efforts to boost sales of advanced weaponry and
aircraft have contributed to the Saudis' financial woes and whether the
burden of these payments contributes to anti-American sentiment. "We are
aware that the high profile of some U.S. commercial successes has generated
critics of the U.S. in sectors of Saudi society which believe incorrectly
that the U.S. has pressed the Saudi government to make unwanted or unneeded
purchases," said the State Department. "It is the Saudis alone who have
defined their import priorities. Thus, it is misleading to suggest that U.S.
companies are responsible for Saudi economic problems."
Actually, the United States has been helping Saudi Arabia define its
military needs for over fifty years. In 1991, Lt. Gen. Dennis Malcor
completed the most recent DOD assessment of Saudi Arabia's security needs,
which presumably laid the groundwork for recent U.S. sales of Patriot
anti-aircraft missiles, F-15E bombers and M-1A2 tanks. According to recent
reports, the Pentagon is now recommending that the Saudis buy several
Aegis-class destroyers and cruisers at $1 billion each.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently investigated the matter and
found that, although forms of support vary somewhat, the U.S. arms industry
enjoys support similar to that provided by France, Britain and Germany. The
report, "Military Exports: A Comparison of Government Support in the United
States and Three Major Competitors," considered financing, high level
government advocacy, and bureaucratic support for arms exports.
Financing: According to GAO, Britain, France and Germany finance weapons
sales through official export credit guarantees, which insure that the
selling government will repay commercial loans if the purchaser defaults.
Britain's Export Credits Guarantee Department backed $2.9 billion of loans
for arms in 1993-1994. The report provided no information on the amount of
French or German-backed loans.
The U.S. government, on the other hand, primarily finances arms exports with
grant aid and direct loans. In fiscal year 1994, the government financed
sales of nearly $4 billion of weapons: $3.1 billion through grants and $800
million through loans. In addition, the GAO points out, legislation passed
last year allows the Export-Import Bank to guarantee loans for non-lethal
military exports, if the primary use is to be non-military. The Ex-Im Bank
may also finance lethal military exports for counter-narcotics purposes.
Finally, the report notes that several state governments—most notably
California—guarantee loans for exports from local weapons manufacturers.
Advocacy: The GAO reports that Britain and France have historically sent
high-level government officials to persuade foreign buyers to buy their
weapons. Germany has not done so. Citing several recent successes, the
report says "High-ranking U.S. officials have been increasingly willing to
intervene to influence competitions in favor of U.S. defense companies."
Recent cases in point: William Perry attended his first arms bazaar as
Secretary of Defense in March, when he dropped by the IDEX show in Abu
Dhabi; Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, accompanied by several arms industry
CEOs, toured the Persian Gulf in March.
Bureaucratic support: The GAO reports that "France and the UK have a single
organization within their defense ministries with responsibility for
identifying defense export opportunities abroad, promoting and facilitating
defense exports, providing assistance with defense equipment demonstrations
and trade shows, and providing advice to industry regarding offsets." A $7
million annual budget employed roughly 200 people in France's Delegation for
International Relations, while Britain's Defence Export Services
Organisation had a 1992-93 budget of $25.9 million, with a staff of 350.
GAO notes that U.S. industry enjoys a panoply of bureaucratic support for
arms sales in the Commerce, Defense and State Departments; however, the
report provides no comparable budgetary and manpower data. According to
this year's budget documents, the Defense Security Assistance Agency spent
$332 million in fiscal year 1994, employing over 9,000 people.
Former White House chief of staff (and Friend of Bill) Thomas "Mack" McLarty
led the U.S. delegation. McLarty said President Clinton "recognized early
that international trade is the key to economic growth and the key to the
creation of high-skill and high-wage jobs in the American work force"
As such, the government spent an estimated $500,000 of public money to
transport 20 advanced aircraft and associated personnel to the marketing
show. Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocombe justified the expenditure
to Congress in a letter on 7 March:
"Display of U.S. weapons and technology will demonstrate superiority of U.S.
weapons systems and serve to promote rationalization, standardization, and
interoperability with our NATO allies and potential coalition defense
partners [East Europe]....With the drawdown of U.S. forces worldwide,
particularly the closing of facilities in Europe, the U.S. needs to show
that the security of Europe remains a top national security priority....We
recognize that economic competitiveness is an integral part of our national
security and that U.S. industry faces formidable competition from other
nations [i.e., European] which are actively marketing their equipment globally."
On 14 June Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) attempted to strike a provision of the
DOD authorization bill establishing new loan guarantees. He was defeated
152-277.
If the Senate passes the provision, NATO members (which includes credit
risky Turkey), major non-NATO allies (Israel, Egypt) and 17 members of the
Asian Pacific Economic Council would be eligible for U.S.-backed loans on
terms similar to those offered by the Export-Import Bank for commercial
exports. There is no cap on the amount of loans which could be guaranteed
annually.
Supporters advertise it as a "no cost measure," since no government
appropriation would be required. Instead, either the purchasing country or
the selling corporation would pay into a Pentagon fund to cover the risk
assessment for market-rate loans. But taxpayers will be liable for repayment
of the principal and interest in case of default.
Since 1990 industry has sought additional financing for arms sales (see ASM
No. 26 p. 4), claiming that European firms with access to loan guarantees
have an unfair advantage. Government guarantees will allow countries with
poor credit ratings to obtain affordable commercial loans for weapons
purchases.
Citizens for a Sound Economy, a fiscally-conservative group representing
250,000 taxpayers, endorsed Berman's effort to block the program, as did
more than 30 Republican deficit hawks. The administration also opposed new
loan guarantees, saying they are "unnecessary, given the availability of
existing authority for transactions of this type and the substantial
American presence in international markets for military equipment.
The Senate will vote on the matter in the DOD authorization bill in late
July/early August.
Recoupment fees are currently required by law on FMS to recover from the
purchasing country part of the cost to U.S. taxpayers of researching and
developing the weapon. The fees were also applied to industry-negotiated
sales until 1992, when President Bush ended this requirement. The money
collected goes to offset the federal deficit.
Lt. Gen. Thomas Rhame, the Director of the Pentagon's arms sales agency,
testified before the House International Relations Committee on 30 March:
"There is no logical basis for applying a different recoupment policy to
Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales. Therefore, we ask you
to support the restoration of a common policy by repealing the Foreign
Military Sales requirement."
Of course, there are two ways to restore a common policy. Citizens Against
Government Waste, which represents 600,000 taxpayers, wrote the House in
May: "repealing all recoupment fees would reduce Treasury receipts by $200
million a year. The playing field should be leveled for the American
taxpayer by reinstating "recoupment fees" for direct sales of arms."
On 11 May, in the Committee's markup of the foreign aid/State Department
authorization bill, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) and Mark Sanford (R-SC)
offered an amendment to do just that. They lost by a very narrow margin (20
nos/18 yeas) in a nearly party-line vote.
Sanford, a freshman who ran on a pledge to eliminate the deficit, argued
that "a subsidy is a subsidy" and that the U.S. can't and needn't afford
this one. Opponents argued that the fee would price U.S. firms out of the
market, resulting in layoffs that would offset the revenue brought in from
the fee. Such arguments overlook the fact that the United States' massive
market dominance counts only FMS, which currently include recoupment fees.
Berman, Sanford and Rep. Peter deFazio (D-OR) were set to offer their
amendment when the bill came to the floor of the House, but the debate
expired before they could do so.
Meanwhile, the House DOD authorization bill contained a provision to
eliminate the fees on FMS. Behind the scenes, Rep. John Kasich (R-OH),
chairman of the Budget Committee, stripped the provision out of the bill.
Senator David Pryor (D-AR), the ranking Democrat on the Government Affairs
subcommittee with jurisdiction over government consultants, is concerned
about the stacked advice the State Department is receiving. Last year he
queried the State Department on the number of export licenses DTAG members
have received (see box). (The State Department hastened to say there is no
connection between export licenses and membership in DTAG.)
In a June 28 letter to Under Secretary of State Lynn Davis, Pryor wrote: in
order to obtain "fairly balanced" advice on U.S. arms export policies, that
would seem to call for either a broadening of the DTAG to include persons
critical of U.S. arms export policies or the formation of another advisory
committee that will not have such a restrictive charter. I do not believe
that the American public would agree that it is sufficient for State to be
advised on arms export matters by representatives from companies receiving
hundreds of export licenses."
In March, in response to pressure from Pryor, the State Department asked for
names of people knowledgeable about U.S. conventional arms export policy. We
sent names of 37 people with a variety of perspectives—moral/religious, arms
control/security, human rights, development and conversion. We are unaware
of any follow-up.
Proliferation Panel Nearing Completion
On 12-13 June, the "President's Advisory Board on Arms Proliferation Policy"
(see ASM No. 28 p. 3) held its first and only open session and invited input
from several non-governmental policy organizations. The Board met
previously on 16 May and 18 April in closed sessions with government
attendees. A final meeting is planned for July, when the board wraps up its
proceedings. It will submit a report to the President in early fall.
She estimated the arms market to be "something on the order of $334 billion"
for 1991-2000. Bumbera said due to the factors listed in the accompanying
view graph, "we are seeing more technology moving around the world, being
used at levels that are sufficient to build these weapons systems. We are
also seeing less and less controls on dual use but military-relevant
technology, making it tough for us to get a handle on where it is all going,
who is getting it, and what they are doing with it."
DIA's main intelligence function is to assess the threat posed to U.S.
forces by conventional arms.
region....Moreover, as countries' reliance on exports to maintain their
defense industrial base grows, pressures will increase to export advanced
conventional weapons and technologies to remain competitive with the United
States in the world's arms market."
In the Senate, Mark Hatfield (R-OR), chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, held a hearing on the Code of Conduct on 23 May with government
and non-government witnesses. He will offer the Code as an amendment to the
foreign aid appropriations bill in September.
"[N]ow that the Cold War is over, we can afford to take this decision making
process about what kind of countries we will be dealing with—especially
arming to the teeth—what kind of countries we will be selling our
sophisticated weaponry to."—Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 24 May
"This will allow us to seize the moral high-ground necessary to take the
lead in establishing a world-wide regime that reduces these
transfers."—Lawrence Korb, Assistant Sec. of Defense in the Reagan
administration, 23 May
"Proposals, such as the Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers, that would bring
greater openness and accountability to arms transfer decisions deserve
support."—U. S. Catholic Bishops, 16 June
According to a White House fact sheet, "Russia will retain the right to
complete its existing contracts with Iran....[The contracts will be ended
within a few years and will not provide Iran with new capabilities, do not
alter the military balance in the region, and do not compromise the ability
of the U.S. and our allies to protect our mutual interests."
Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernonomyrdin finalized this
understanding in late June in a confidential agreement.
The agreement removes the major hurdle to finalization of the new
(post-COCOM) regime, which will focus on conventional arms and advanced
technology transfers. Originally intended to be up and running on 1 April
1994, December 1995 is the new target date.
In June, charges that China is exporting missile technology to Iran and
Pakistan re-emerged. (See Sen.Hrg. 104-35 p. 24.) Arms Control & Disarmament
Agency Director John Holum was scheduled to fly to Beijing in July for
consultations on China's adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime
(MTCR) in follow-up to last September's agreement (see ASM No. 27 p. 6).
China canceled the talks on 28 May, however, in protest of the United
States' issuance of a visa to Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui.
At their meeting in late June, Vice President Gore and Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin cleared the way for formal Russian participation in the MTCR.
In late May, Hungarian Defense Minister Gyorgy Keleti announced that—with
American help—his country had destroyed all Soviet-made ‘Scud-B' missiles on
its territory. According to Keleti, `Scuds' are still deployed in other East
European countries.
President Clinton informed Congress that members of the MTCR agreed last
October to a "no undercut" policy on license denials. According to the
President, "Under this multilateral arrangement, denials notifications
received from MTCR members are honored by other members for similar export
license applications."
In an 18-page classified report in January, the State Department Inspector
General found that the Office of Defense Trade Controls (DTC) does not refer
all export license applications for missile-related items to the Department
of Defense as required by law. DTC also does not separately code license
applications for MTCR items in its computer system and is, therefore,
generally unable to track the applications and monitor their disposition.
In an April report ("Export Controls: Some Controls Over Missile-Related
Exports To China Are Weak"), the GAO also criticized U.S. controls on
missile-related technology to China, citing both inadequate license referral
to the Pentagon and inadequate end-use checks.
Concerning the treaty's landmine protocol, the Senate's resolution of
ratification encourages the administration to: expand the scope to include
internal armed conflicts; require all remotely delivered mines be equipped
with self-destruct devices; require that manually placed mines without
self-destruct features be placed only within controlled, marked, and
monitored fields; require that all mines be detectible by commonly
available technology; require that parties laying mines assume
responsibility for them; and establish an effective mechanism to verify
compliance.
A draft protocol banning blinding laser weapons—put forward by Sweden and
the International Committee of the Red Cross—will also be discussed at the
conference. The United States has not yet resolved its position on the
proposal. The DOD opposes it.
It also imposes a one year moratorium on the use by U.S. troops of
antipersonnel landmines, except along international borders in monitored
minefields. The moratorium would not go into effect until three years after
the bill is enacted, in order to give the Army time to prepare and devise
new strategies. In addition, the bill would block arms exports to any
country that continued to export antipersonnel landmines.
Sen. Leahy is expected to offer S.940 as an amendment to the DOD
authorization bill in late July/early August. As of 12 July, the bill had
46 cosponsors in the Senate and 35 in the House.
From mid-March to June, the administration notified Congress of the
following proposed government-negotiated Foreign Military Sales (FMS),
export licenses for industry-negotiated Direct Commercial Sales (DCS),
leases of equipment, and reduced cost or grant excess defense article (EDA)
transfers to the developing world. This list does not include all arms
sales; the Arms Export Control Act requires the administration to notify
Congress only of FMS and DCS valued at $14 million or more. Congress has 30
days within which to block these proposed sales (15 days for NATO members
and major non-NATO allies). To do so, both houses of Congress must pass a
resolution by a two-thirds majority. None of the following sales were
contested, meaning that an FMS contract may be signed or a DCS license
issued. In the case of EDA transfers, the Pentagon notifies Congress 15
days before it is authorized to deliver the items.
[Table deleted]
Sources: House International Relations Committee. DOD Excess Defense Article
Bulletin Board
"Ballistic and Cruise Missile Forces of Foreign Countries, CRS Report for
Congress, Robert Shuey with Craig Cerniello, 5 June 1995, 27 pp.
"Chinese Missile and Nuclear Proliferation: Issues for Congress," CRS Issue
Brief, Robert Shuey and Shirley Kan, 6 July 1995, 15 pp.
Congressional Presentation for Foreign Operations for Fiscal Year 1996,
Department of State, April 1995, 537 pp. [Annual budget justification
document for foreign development and security assistance.]
The DISAM Journal of International Security Assistance Management, vol. 17
no. 3 (Spring 1995), Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management.
European Diversification and Defense Market Assessment: A Comprehensive
Guide for Entry into Overseas Markets, Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Export Administration, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security,
June 1995.
Export Administration Annual Report 1994 and 1995; Report on Foreign Policy
Export Controls, Department of Commerce, March 1995, 147 pp.
Export Controls: Concern Over Stealth-Related Exports, General Accounting
Office [NSIAD-95-140], May 1995, 26 pp.
Export Controls: Some Controls Over Missile-Related Exports To China Are
Weak, General Accounting Office [NSIAD-95-82], April 1995, 28 pp.
Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales and Military
Assistance Facts (as of 30 September 1994), Defense Security Assistance
Agency, June 1995, 120 pp.
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations
for 1996, Parts 1-4 (hearings before the House Appropriations Subcmte. on
Foreign Operations during 1995), US GPO: 1995. [This series contains the
administration's request for foreign military and police aid, justifying
documents and congressional testimony for FY 1996.]
Human Rights Situation in Africa (hearing before the House International
Relations Subcmte. on Africa, 22 February 1995), US GPO: 1995.
Intelligence Briefing on Smuggling of Nuclear Material and the Role of
International Crime Organizations, and on the Proliferation of Cruise and
Ballistic Missiles (closed hearing before the Senate Armed Services Cmte.,
31 January 1995), US GPO: 1995, 33 pp.
Military Exports: A Comparison of Government Support in the United States
and Three Major Competitors, General Accounting Office [NSIAD-95-86], May
1995, 32 pp.
Military Exports: Recovery of Nonrecurring Research and Development Costs,
General Accounting Office [NSIAD-95-147], May 1995, 18 pp.
National Military Strategy: A Strategy of Flexible and Selective Engagement,
Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. GPO: 1995.
National Security: Impact of China's Military Modernization in the Pacific
Region, General Accounting Office [NSIAD-95-84], June 1995, 50 pp.
Pacific Rim Diversification and Defense Market Assessment, Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Export Administration, Office of Strategic Industries
and Economic Security, May 1995, 131 pp.
Report to Congress on Allegations of Human Rights Abuses by the Turkish
Military and on the Situation in Cyprus, Department of State, May 1995.
United States Central Command 1995 Posture Statement, U.S. Central Command,
1995, 63 pp. [An overview of the Persian Gulf.]
United States Security Strategy [on Europe, Asia and the Middle East],
Department of Defense, Office of International Security Affairs, 1995.
The Weapons Proliferation Threat, Central Intelligence Agency,
Nonproliferation Center, March 1995, 16 pp.
World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1993-1994, Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, February 1995, 172 pp.
Worldwide Intelligence Review (hearing before the Senate Intelligence Cmte.,
10 January 1995), US GPO: 1995, 192 pp.
SAUDIS GO FOR BROKE ON U.S. ARMS
In May the State Department acknowledged that the economic downturn in Saudi
Arabia—in part due to large-scale arms purchases—is undermining political
stability in the sheikdom. Low oil prices, a $60 billion tab for the 1991
Gulf War, and over $30 billion of new weapons have led to large budget
deficits for the past several years. As a result, the Saudi government is
now engaged in painful budget cutting, including substantial reductions in
popular public subsidies for gas, electricity and water.
GAO: `UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD' IS A MYTH
American firms captured more than 70 percent of the global arms market in
1993, while our four largest West European competitors—Britain, France,
Germany and Italy—together garnered less than 14 percent PARIS AIR SHOW
Government officials, industrialists and the media from dozens of countries
flocked to the 41st biannual Paris Air Show during 10-18 June to see, be
seen and sell! More than 200 aircraft from 37 nations were displayed.
CONGRESS CONSIDERS NEW SALES FINANCING
Despite the fact that the U.S. has written off $9 billion in military loans
in the past five years, the House of Representatives voted in June to place
the full backing of the government behind unlimited amounts of commercial
loans for weapons exports.
WEAPONS LOANS GONE BAD
HOUSE BEATS BACK REPEAL OF "RECOUPMENT" FEES
The arms industry and its allies in the administration made repealing
"recoupment fees" on government-negotiated Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
their number one legislative priority this year (see ASM No. 29 p. 1). In
May-June, an unusual coalition of liberal arms controllers and conservative
deficit hawks thwarted the initiative in the House of Reps. The measure is
still pending in the Senate.
"GUCCI SHOES" CALLING THE SHOTS
Whenever and wherever arms export policy is being made, financially
self-interested representatives of the arms export lobby are at the table.
The government even facilitates this special interest access through
advisory committees at the State, Commerce and Defense Departments.
DTAG Member Licenses Licenses
Company Received Received
in FY92 in FY93
Boeing 141 200
Bulova 24 49
Corning 2 5
E-Systems 167 148
General Dynamics 351 167
General Electric 591 456
General Motors 89 78
Grumman 63 72
Hughes Aircraft 345 703
Litton 1,101 1,068
Lockheed 177 693
LTV Aerospace 69 3
Martin Marietta 121 336
McDonnell Douglas 356 339
Motorola 958 987
Northrop 107 138
Pratt & Whitney 33 9
Raytheon 365 358
Rockwell 50 856
SAIC 43 37
Smith & Wesson 609 597
Smiths Industries 139 94
Teledyne 325 411
Varian 134 171
Westinghouse 204 149
Source: A Review of Arms Export Licensing, Sen.Hrg. 103-670.
CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS... [DELETED]
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) must have given some briefing to the
Senate Armed Services Committee in January. Their presentation on
conventional arms proliferation was almost totally excised from the record
published in June (Senate Hearing 104-35). Only seven of 62 view graphs
which DIA representative Dee Bumbera presented made it by the censor.
THE WEAPONS PROLIFERATION THREAT
"The acquisition of advanced conventional weapons and technologies by
hostile countries could result in significant casualties being inflicted on
U.S. forces or regional allies in future conflicts. Purchases of advanced
conventional weapons also have the potential to rapidly change military
capabilities in a region and may have threat implications that extend
outside of the
—CIA Non-Proliferation Center, March 1995
STRONG SHOW OF SUPPORT FOR CODE IN THE HOUSE
On 24 May Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) offered the Code of Conduct on Arms
Transfers Act (see ASM No. 28 p.6 ) as an amendment to the fiscal year 1996
foreign aid authorization bill. The House rejected the measure 157-262. The
Clinton administration opposed the amendment, and 56 Democrats, including
Lee Hamilton (IN), former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, voted
against it. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (MO) and party Whip, David
Bonior (MI ), supported the Code, as did 16 Republicans—including Reps.
Chris Smith (NJ), Dana Rohrabacher (CA) and dark horse Presidential
candidate Robert Dornan (CA).
LOOK WHO'S TALKING
"I think we need to be more serious about who we are willing to sell arms
to. Arms sales ought to be conditioned and human rights ought to
matter."—Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), 24 May
POST-COCOM REGIME MOVES FORWARD
At their summit in Moscow on 10 May, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin signed a
joint statement reaffirming that Russia will make no new arms sales to Iran
and that it will participate in founding the post-COCOM multilateral export
control regime (see ASM No. 27 p. 6).
MISSILE CONTROLS
Efforts to limit the spread of ballistic and cruise missiles have been a
mixed bag of late.
CONVENTION ON CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS
On 24 March the Senate unanimously ratified the Inhumane Weapons Convention,
allowing U.S. participation in the treaty's review conference in late
September.
LANDMINE MORATORIUM VOTE SOON
In mid June, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) introduced
"The Landmine Use Moratorium Act of 1995" (S.940/H.R.1876). The bill calls
on President Clinton to support international negotiations to achieve his
stated goal of the eventual elimination of antipersonnel landmines.
Recent Government Documents
You may reproduce and cite this publication freely. A first class
mail or
airmail subscription is available from the FAS Fund at 307 Mass. Ave., NE,
Washington, DC 20002
phone: (202) 675-1018 FAX: (202)675-1010
e-mail: llumpe@fas.org
FAS Homepage |
Arms Sales |
Arm Sales Monitor |
Index |
Search |
Join FAS