U.S. Post-Sept. 11 Arms Trade Policy

CIAO DATE: 09/04

U.S. Post-Sept. 11 Arms Trade Policy

Victoria Garcia

August 2004

The U.S. response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been clear and concise: "If you're not with us, you're against us." When the United States began to develop its international coalition against terrorism, the administration of President George W. Bush looked for partners who were willing and able to take part in the military, political, economic, and diplomatic efforts deemed necessary to stamp out the terrorists and their networks. In one aspect, however, an alarming trend has emerged. The United States is more willing than ever to sell or give away high technology weapons to countries that have pledged assistance in the global war on terror, regardless of past behavior or current status. In some cases, these recipients of U.S. military goods and services are weak, failing, and failed states. Moreover, the Bush administration has expressed a willingness to provide weapons to countries that in the past have been criticized for human rights violations, lack of democracy, and even support of terrorism, even though it is a standing tenet of U.S. policy that weapon exports should not undermine long-term security and stability, weaken democratic movements, support military coups, escalate arms races, exacerbate ongoing conflicts, cause arms build-ups in unstable regions, or be used to commit human rights abuses.

The countries that have had their sanctions lifted are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Yugoslavia. While these countries have been identified as key allies in the global war on terror, each has troubling recent pasts, which led to them being placed on the list in the first place. Not only is each country involved in inter- and intra-state conflicts, India and Pakistan have been criticized for their evolving nuclear weapon's programs, Pakistan's military government attained power as a result of a coup, Azerbaijan has been embroiled in disputes with Armenia, the stability of Tajikistan remains questionable, and Yugoslavia remains unstable and a possible "hot spot" for future conflict.

To examine these trends, CDI has developed a regular series in which countries that have a unique role in the "war on terror" are examined. Each country is described in terms of the context of the political situation, the type of government, the human rights situation, the infant mortality rate, the military expenditures, the amount spent on conventional arms transfers, and the total armed forces. Infant mortality, democracy, and trade openness have been identified as the most important indicators of state failure by the State Failure Project. These above issues are particularly noteworthy because they are all variables that are also of concern to existing restrictions on arms sales.

While the dollar value of the increased support for some of these countries is minimal (especially when you compare it to the billions of dollars in military assistance to countries like Israel and Egypt), the shift from virtually nothing to something is significant. For the most part, no other country has been selling these countries weapons and training their militaries. The U.S. defense industry often relies on initial sales in order to make the most money, on new parts, maintenance, consulting, upgrades, etc. These sales represent only the beginning of U.S. military and defense industry ties. Under the guise of the "war on terrorism," these normally undesirable bedfellows have gotten their feet in the door and will maintain a long-term relationship with the United States.

The following are categories of military assistance provided by the United States described in the case studies:

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) are government-to-government sales negotiated by the Pentagon.

Excess Defense Articles (EDA) are surplus or obsolete U.S. weapons that are given away for free or at a dramatically reduced cost to foreign governments.

Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) are negotiated by U.S. companies and foreign buyers

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is Congressionally appropriated grants to finance the purchase of American-made weapons, services and training by foreign governments. The Economic Support Fund (ESF) is a program established by Congress "to promote economic and political stability in strategically important regions where the United States has special security interests. The funds are provided on a grant basis and are available for a variety of economic purposes, like infrastructure and development projects. Although not intended for military expenditure, these grants allow the recipient government to free up its own money for military programs." (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/aidindex.htm#Budget%20Requests)

International Military Education and Training (IMET) "grants are given to foreign governments to pay for professional education in military management and technical training on U.S. weapon systems. Over 2,000 courses are offered, including some on human rights and civil-military relations. This program is said by its proponents to promote positive military-to-military contacts, thereby familiarizing foreign officers with "U.S. values and democratic processes," though critics argue there is too much emphasis on military skills and not enough on human rights. The Expanded IMET program offered to certain states only focuses on the latter." (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/aidindex.htm#Budget%20Requests)

Non-Proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) "provides resources in support of a variety of security-related foreign policy objectives. Funds go to nuclear non-proliferation programs, anti-terrorism aid, demining activities, and a new item in FY 2001 small arms destruction programs." (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/aidindex.htm#Budget%20Requests)

The Freedom Support Act (FSA) was passed in Congress on Oct. 24, 1992 with the goal of providing the states of the former Soviet Union funds that support free market and democratic reforms through demilitarization, humanitarian and technical assistance. The bill particularly endorses American investment and trade through enterprise funds, small business programs and access to credits for purchases of U.S. food exports. The FSA also provides funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs and activities, as well as the dismantlement and destruction of biological, chemical and conventional weapons, and humanitarian aid, including health and human services programs. After Sept.11, 2001, the FSA was amended to authorize the waiver of restrictions on FSA funding for Azerbaijan. (102nd Congress, 2nd Session, Public Law 102-511, Section 907 passed in Congress on Oct. 24, 1992)