United States of America and sale of weapons - Essay Example

UNITED S FUEL INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS THROUGH SALE OF WEAPONS Introduction Many world leaders like the then Russia President Vladimir Puttin expressed their concerns that the US ideas of creating a uni-polar world was the main cause for increased arms race that seems to have reawakened since the era of the cold war. There have been other sentiments that the idea of US to arms its allies while it works hard to curtail their rights to develop defensive weapons is a world catastrophe that may explode to war at any time (Kriegers, 2001, p. 7). In most of the time, the arms transfer by the US has ended up in fuelling conflicts in the region where the arms are exported. There have also been a lot of abuses of human rights by the regime which acquires the arms. The high level of tension that is caused by these transfer have always escalated to conflicts. For example the recent decision by the US to provide F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan which has been upheld with an aim of providing compatible military hardware to threat of rivals like Indian have lead to a lot of tension between the two nations which is feared that it might soon escalate to conflicts. Rather than bring forces of stability in these regimes, US weapons sales has shown to serve as the source of power of conflicts, unstable and undemocratic regime which is detrimental to the US security in the world and the global security at large. There is already a big conflict between the two nations and India has expressed that the sell of F-16 jet to Pakistan is not meant to fight the Al-Qaeda as the US proposes but it is rather meant to fight India. It has been shown that the two countries have fought each other for more that 3 times and once one of the country acquired high tech weapons, the other will not feel safe and it is likely to acquire the same weapons in order to protect itself. Therefore the US may be creating a lucrative market for the jet since India is also likely to buy the same or other at a higher level (Deconde 2002, p. 534). The ABC of arms sales in the US There are two ways that have been used by the arms manufacturers in the US to sell their weapons to other nations. One of such way is the Foreign Military Sales which are government-to-government sales that are based on an agreement that has been negotiated by the two nations ostensibly involving the pentagon and the purchasing nation. The other one is the direct commercial sales which involves an agreement that it agreed between the manufacturing company and the country that wants to purchase the arms. This is then licensed the state department which gives the approval for the sale of the arms. (Gary 2003, p. 4) The US government in most cases can transfer from the stock of weapons that it is holding which can be for free or at a reduced price. This is usually implemented through the Excess Defense Articles (EDA). Allied government is also allowed to receive fast track grants of weapons in order to address crisis situation in their countries through the Emergency Drawdown Program. The above two departments are managed by the department of the Defense (Ohlson, 2006 p. 3). US is the top provide of weapons The US has consistently used the technologies that it has developed in its industries as the currency of friendly is not with the foreign nations where it has an interest to protect. It has been increasing its exports of deadly technology which helps to fuel conflicts in this nations rather than helping to bring peace and stability. With time, the US has been increasing its military export to regimes which are considered unstable like the Middle East and some parts of Africa. This has been against the pledge of President Bush of ending tyrannical in the world by fighting for the protection of democratic institutions and helping the world to come to peace with one another (Kriegers 2001, p. 121). The experience that US has had with Iran and Iraq has demonstrated that selling of arms to the strategic allies can sometimes backfire and work against the nations in case the regime changes. Fore example in the 1980s, the US supplied Iraq with cluster bombs and chemical weapons and watched as Saddam mercilessly butchered thousands of Kurds. But this was not being as it had to fight the same Iraq in 1991 and in 2003. Iran on the other hand purchased one third of its defense weapons from the United States in the 1970s but currently the two counties are at chilly and hostile relations with one another (Bacevich 2003, p. 86). Though US have criticized countries like China for selling weapons to countries at war like Sudan, it has also been the leading seller of weapons in the world. But its policy on sale of weapons has been discriminatory as it has been aimed on rewarding allies in war like the war on terror where the country has a lot of interest which it wants to protect. (Robert 2004, p. 98) According to an arms research that was carried out in 2006, the US was ranked as the highest purveyor of the weapon sale list. The research showed that in 2005 the US provided for about a half of all the weapons that were shipped to the militaries in the developing world. Most of these arms were shipped to the regions which were by then unstable and where conflicts were the order of the day. Apparently this was shown to be a high figure that had been running for eight years (Pierre 2007, p. 5). According to the assessment that was carried out at that time, the use arms shipment accounted for $8.1 billion worth of weapons to the developing nations. This was 45.8% of the world shipment as compared to Russia which was ranked second with 15% and Britain ranked third with 13% (Bender, 2006) This is a point in history of the US where majority of the arms sales has been considered illegal and non essential. They are no longer intended for the self-defense of these nations or for the purpose of guarding the interest of the United Nations as they have helped to fuel conflicts and tension in unstable areas. On the long term, they have been shown to lead to periods of conflict and loss of the interest that the US has been trying to guard (Vashee 2007, p. 4). In the same year for example, the US signed $6.2 billion deals for the sale of attach helicopters, missiles, and other weapons of war to developing nations like United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, and other. Most of these nations like Israel and Pakistan are countries in conflict and sale of weapons fuels mistrust between groups. Most of the contracts that the US has signed for arms transfer about 70 percent of them are directed to the developing nations. The mains concern has been the large acquisition of arms to these nations while they still remain at war with others or there are factional groups that have been fighting between themselves in the nation. (Pirages 2006, p. 54). American officials try their best to justify some of the arms sale. They have cited the recent war on terrorism as one of the most important reason why there has been increased transfer of arms from the US to the developing nations. Though it has not been officially communicated, the US has also been carrying out arms transfer in order to check the emerging nations like China which have been competing with the US on the global economic arena and exploitation of raw materials for their industries. For example, the recent sell of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan has been shown as one that has been led by the desire for the US to check on its arms race. For a long time, the US has been relying on the arms race or sale of arms in order to prop up allies or for the purpose of enhancing collective defense arrangements. Therefore sale of weapons has been one of the most important defense mechanism that has been used by the US in order to enhance the security of its interests in the foreign nations. It has also been an important point on the development of the foreign policies of the nations in areas of enhancing collective defense arrangements for its interests (Berrigan and Hartung, 2005). In another finding it was found that in 2003, the US transferred weapons to 18 countries which are among 25 nations that are involved in conflicts. For example there have been military weapon transfer in Angola, Chad, Ethiopia, Colombia, Pakistan and other like Philippines which have been implemented through the two larges US arms transfer program as mentioned above. Most of these nations have been in conflict and other like Colombia has been accused of massive violation of human rights (Shraeder, 2002, p. 5). In the same year of 2003, 13 of the 25 nations where the US transferred its weapons were reported to be undemocratic by the US department of Human Rights. Most of these nations were tyrannical in a way as the citizens were not given the right to access their government. This is the same policy that was used by these nations during the era of cold war. There was massive provision of conventional weapons to the friendly states that were providing support for the opposing sides. Provision of weapons was an important instrument of foreign policy which was used by the US and its allies. The Soviet Union upheld the same policy and transferred large number of weapons to the supporting nations which were a trigger to majority of conflict that have persisted until to date. It is evident that the sale of the weapons has gone beyond the reported purpose of protecting the interests of the nations. It has acquired a new dimension and turned to be about dollars and cents for the US military-industrial complex and other companies which have been manufacturing military equipment in the country. This has been a rising trend since the end of the cold war where the American, Europeans and Russian industries consolidated in preparation fro the competition for the sale of weapons in the world (Dhanapala 1999, p. 82). Before this consolidating, the principal motivation for the sale of arms by the foreign suppliers was to support the foreign policy objective. But this has changed today and it has turned to be based on the economic gains that would be made from this sale. There has been a trend in overlooking for the foreign policies and most the arms sold have been triggered by the need to make profit or to acquire a market as the battle for arms production completion shapes up. No one in these industries is ever concerned of the impact that the arms are having on the nations where they are sold. The desire to make profit has overlooked the utilitarianism outlook of the issue. The US has been living contrary to what it has been saying. While the US on its address to the United Nations conference on small arms stressed the need to come up with a policy that would lead to ban on the proliferation of the small arms, it was the only country in the UN's panel voted on putting in place a new treat that will regulate the sale of conventional arms in the world that voted no. although China and Russia were among the first nations that abstained from voting, the US had shown constant opposing of the sale of the policy citing the economic benefit that it would gain from the sale of weapons. Out of 166 nations that voted in the panel, it was only the US that voted no which was a clear indication of its unwillingness to have the treaty implemented (UN, 20001). The increasing powers of interest in the globe have led to violation of many arms agreement. For example, after the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, there was an agreement from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council including United States, Russian, Britain, France and China in which they pledged to reduce their arms shipment to the Middle East region. But more that ten years since then, there has not been fulfilled and the US is increasing its export to the regions (Robert 2004, p. 90). For example for the period between 1999 and 2006, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia were among the top five nations which had the largest share of arms transfer with the US. In 2007, the US announced that it had made a $20 billion in advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia and also to the neighbors of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The two countries have also been slated to be given advanced satellite-guided bomb technology to be known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions. On the other hand Kuwait and the United Arabs Emirates will also receive inter-allies which are an advanced Patriot Capability-3 and -2 missiles. The US is permanently stamping its influences in these countries since it will have to be consulted in the future in order to provide spare parts and other equipments for the maintenance of the security system. But the future prospect of peace in the region will primarily depend on the way the nation will relate with one another in light of the military power that is created by the US deal on some countries. However the $20 billion deal is not well within the requirement of what President Bush had given as a way to end tyranny in the world. The Saudi monarch has been one of those countries in the word that have shown a bad record of human rights abuse and it has not met the expectations of the world even with the accession of the King Abduly to the throne. The deals is one of those which demonstrate that the US is not clear on its policy on sale of arms and the liberation of the human suffering in the world. Further it is going to increase tension in the region where there is already a lot of conflicts in the nations. (Kegley 2002, p. 34) Conclusion Although the US has been calling fro the need to have transparent regimes in the world that respects the basic human rights and give freedom to individual, it has not lived to that dreams. President Bush has been calling for end of tyranny in the world but the country has not lived to that. Instead it has been using its power of military equipments to exert its authority in countries even when they are accused of abuse of human rights. Bibliography Bacevich, A 2003, Arms Transfer to Iran and Iraq, Frank Cass, London Bender, B 2006, US is top purveyor on weapons sales list, Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/13/us_is_top_purveyor_on_weapons_sales_list/page=2on 3rd June 2008 Berrigan, F. & Hartung, and D 2005, US weapons at war 2005: Promoting freedom or fueling conflict Retrieved from http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.htmlon 3rd June 2008 Deconde, A 2002, Arms Transfers and Trade, Charles Schribner's Sons, New York Dhanapala, J 1999, Overview of Global Trade in small and light arms, UN Institutes for Disarmament Research, 1999 Gary, L 2003, and Conventional Arms Transfers: Exploring security or arming adversaries Greenwood Press, Greenwood Kegley, W 2002, The new face of combat, Prentice Hall, New Jersey Kriegers, J 2001, The world politics and arms race, Oxford University Press Ohlson, T 2006, US policy on arms transfers to the third world, Oxford University Press, Oxford Pierre, A 2007, The Subterranean Arms Trade, Brookings Institution Press Pirages, C 2006, War, Weapons, and Sustainability in Post cold war era, Sharpe, New York Robert, R 2004, The Deadly Connection: small arms diffusion and world failure, Princeton University, Princeton Shraeder, P 2002, Development of Low-intensity Warfare Doctrine, Lynne Rienner, Bouder UN 20001, United States Briefing on small arms conference, Retrieved from http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2001/usarmsbrf.doc.htm on 3rd June 2008 Vashee, B 2007, An avalanche of guns in post cold war era, Pinter, London Read More