| ARMS
TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
CURRENT
UPDATES: October 7, 2003
Dear Friends,
Two years ago today, the "war on terrorism" began in earnest. What have we gained since then? What have we lost?
In this issue of our email update, Senior Research Associate Michelle Ciarrocca takes a look at the "Gold Plated" Supplemental to pay for war Congress is debating and shares an article from our friend Jim Lobe on U.S. weapons sales to the Third World.
Peace,
Arms Trade Resource Center
In this update:
Money, Money, Money
U.S. Dominates Arms Sales to Third World
Money, Money, Money
By Michelle Ciarrocca
From $6,000 radio and phones to $50,000 prison beds and $9 million zip codes, the costs involved in rebuilding Iraq are adding up. In his nationally televised address in early September, President Bush set the stage for his $87 billion supplemental request, saying, "We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own nation more secure."
Bush's request for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the largest supplemental ever sought -- has been the center of congressional hearings and debates over the past week. The bulk of the request, $66 billion is for ongoing military and intelligence efforts, with the remaining $21 billion is for reconstruction in Iraq.
While most members of congress are hesitant to vote against the President's request, a number of amendments, compromises and alternatives are being sought. The Boston Globe aptly noted, "as the mission in Iraq shifts from being a decisive military victory to a financial burden, many lawmakers in both parties are now reluctant to approve new spending that is unpopular with the public and would add to the U.S. deficit."
Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) suggested covering the costs of the $87 billion supplemental by scaling back tax cuts for the top 1% of American taxpayers. Brimming with optimism he said, "I am hopeful by the end of this appropriations process we will have funds to pay for it with the tax cut." A number of Democrats and Republicans are hoping to turn the $20 billion in reconstruction grants into loans. As Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) argued, "I don't see why we can't structure a long-term loan to Iraq."
The majority of the $20 billion reconstruction money will be used to fund and equip new police and military units, rehabilitate Iraq's electric grid, upgrade water and sewer systems, and improve Iraq's oil industry.
According to the Coalition Provisional Authority budget request, some of the specific projects include:
1. Four-week business course for 2,000 Iraqis, $20 million ($10,000 per pupil).
2. Forty new garbage trucks, $2 million ($50,000 per truck).
3. Imported petroleum, including kerosene and diesel, $900 million.
4. Funding to bring in 100 prison-building experts for six months, $10 million ($100,000 per expert).
5. Seven planned communities to include 3,258 houses, roads, an elementary school, two high schools, a clinic, and a place of worship and market for each community, $100 million.
6. Witness protection program for 100 families averaging five persons per family, $100 million ($200,000 per person).
7. New curriculum to train the Iraqi army, $164 million.
8. Two 4,000-bed prisons, $400 million ($50,000 per bed).
9. Funding for 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity, $100 million ($200,000 per expert).
10. Protection for 400 judges and prosecutors, $20 million ($50,000 per person).
11. Begin work on a $500 million to $700 million children's hospital, $150 million.
12. Overhaul business practices of Iraq's postal service, including start of ZIP code system, $9 million.
13. Computer study of the Iraqi postal service, $54 million.
The Center for American Progress put together a list of "real-life" comparisons to put the $87 billion figure in perspective.
$87 billion is ...
· More than the combined total of all state budget deficits in the U.S.
· Roughly the total of two years worth of all U.S. unemployment benefits
· Enough to pay the 3.3 million people who have lost their jobs $26,363 each
· More than double the total amount the government spends on homeland security
· About 9 times what the federal government spends on special education
· Enough to give every man, woman and child in America $300
For the full list, go to www.tompaine.com
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif), ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, noted, "The tradeoffs are real." He further added, "The president talks about making sacrifices for Iraq, but so far the people paying the sacrifice - in addition to the troops in the field - are poor children in schools." Republican Senator Voinovich echoed similar concerns saying, "I'd like to see a public-works project in our country ... It's hard to say we don't have the money for sewers, roads, and schools here, but we are able to put our money over there."
In addition to the supplemental, current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing U.S. taxpayers close to $5 billion a month. The previous supplemental and the new request total $166 billion. Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-AND) who visited Iraq last month pointed out, "The rebuilding of Iraq will be significantly more expensive, more dangerous and take longer than the American people have been prepared for."
Resources:
· Americans Questioning Bush Request for $87 Billion, by James Kuhnhenn, Knight-Ridder, September 25, 2003.
· Here and There: A Comparison of the Bush Administration's Iraq Reconstruction Package, Produced by the Center for American Progress based on data from the U.S. Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
· Potential Amendments to $87 billion Supplemental, from the Council for a Livable World.
Take Action!!!!
With the Senate home this week, MoveOn, True Majority, and Working Assets are organizing citizen visits to tell Senators that they shouldn't give President Bush a blank check for Iraq. You can learn more about the visits and sign up for one near you at: MoveOn.org
U.S. Dominates Arms Sales to Third World
by Jim Lobe, Published on Thursday, September 25, 2003 by the Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON -- Washington accounted for close to one-half of all new arms transfer agreements concluded during the year, as well as actual arms deliveries.
Altogether, arms sales from all sources to developing countries made up about two-thirds of arms sales worldwide during 2002, according to the report, which is based on the most comprehensive data compiled by the U.S. government.
New arms agreements with developing nations totaled 17.7 billion dollars, a 10 percent increase over new deals in 2001. Of that total, U.S. sales came to 8.6 billion dollars, or almost 48 percent of all arms transfers to Third World countries, up from 41 percent the previous year.
Washington was followed by Russia, which sold 5.7 billion dollars worth of arms; Ukraine (1.6 billion dollars); Italy (1.5 billion dollars); and Germany and France (1.1 billion dollars each).
China was the leading recipient of conventional arms transfers in 2002, accounting for 3.6 billion dollars in purchases; followed by South Korea (1.9 billion dollars); India (1.4 billion dollars); and Oman (1.3 billion dollars).
Of the 10 top recipients, five were in the Middle East -- Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, in addition to Oman -- and four in Asia, with Malaysia ranking eighth behind China, Korea and India.
Chile, which ranked tenth on the strength of a major purchase of advanced fighter jets from the United States, was the only country outside the other two regions, which have been the developing world's biggest customers for conventional arms for the past decade.
While the Middle East proved the bonanza market of the 1980s -- particularly when warring Iran and Iraq, as well as Saudi Arabia, were making huge purchases -- Asia, particularly China and India, was the big buyer of the last seven years, according to the report, 'Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1995-2002'.
In that period, China ranked number one, with 17.8 billion dollars worth of purchases; the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked second at 16.3 billion dollars; and India third at 14.1 billion dollars, suggesting the emergence of a new arms race between the world's two most populous nations that could dominate the market for some time, particularly if purchases in the Middle East continue to decline in relative terms.
The United States, which has sharply upgraded its military relationship with India in the last several years, particularly since the beginning of Washington's ''war on terrorism'', has made little secret of its hopes of integrating Delhi into a containment strategy against Beijing.
The 84-page report, whose graphs and tables are ritually pored over by intelligence analysts around the world to glean key trends and possible future military threats to their governments, tracks both actual deliveries of arms, as well as new agreements that will result in eventual deliveries.
The time between the signing of an agreement and actual delivery can stretch beyond a decade, depending on many factors.
In addition to covering the value of sales and deliveries each year and over periods as long as seven years, the report also tracks the transfer by various countries and categories of countries of specific weapons systems.
It found, for example, that a total of 60 surface-to-surface missile systems were transferred last year, none of which was supplied by the United States, Russia, China, the four major West European countries (France, Britain, Germany, and Italy) or "all other European countries''.
Suppliers of the missiles were found in a category called ''all others'', which includes North Korea, South Africa, and Israel.
The report does not identify the individual suppliers in a category because that information remains classified.
In the introduction, Richard Grimmett, who has authored the report since it was first published some two decades ago, stressed that the overall trend in arms purchases by the developing world has been downward since the early 1990s, when countries that could afford them bought large quantities of advanced U.S. weapons systems that were displayed during the 1991 Gulf War.
While arms transfers were up in 2002 compared to the previous year, the 17.7 billion dollars in new agreements was still the second lowest in the last seven years.
Grimmett stressed that it was still too soon to assess the impact, if any, of the ''war on terrorism'', including the ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and this year's war in Iraq. Economic conditions in specific countries as well as the state of the world economy continued to be a major factor constraining arms buying, according to Grimmett. ''Economic as well as military considerations have factored heavily in (developing country) arms purchasing decisions, a circumstance likely to continue for some time,'' he wrote.
This has benefited both wealthier developing countries vis-à-vis their rivals, as well as those arms suppliers that can provide credit or are willing to provide offset arrangements or joint-production ventures with buyer states in what has become a more competitive market.
The report noted that Russia, which has encountered strong competition for the number two spot on the arms suppliers' list since 1995, intends to offer more flexible credit and payment arrangements than it has in the past in order to secure its ranking.
While China has been the fourth biggest supplier over the same period, ''its role is more as a consumer than a buyer'', Grimmett told IPS, noting that over the past seven years, the combined sales of the big four European suppliers rival Russia's sales.
Indeed, as a group, the four countries claimed 12 percent of total sales in 2002, up from 5 percent in 2001.
Two major buyers of the past decade -- Saudi Arabia and Taiwan -- are fading as consumers in more recent years, the report says. Riyadh has faced financial constraints and, in fact, is still absorbing weapons systems worth some 64.5 billion dollars that it purchased in the early 1990s. Taiwan, which ranked second to Saudi Arabia with respect to deliveries since 1995 (20 billion dollars) has dropped out of the top 10 in purchasers, much to the frustration of anti-China hawks in the Bush administration.
Different suppliers also penetrated different regional markets over the same seven-year period. Asia -- particularly China, India, and Malaysia -- accounted for 82 percent of Russia's arms sales, or about one-half of all arms sold to the region.
U.S. sales to Middle Eastern clients accounted for 76 percent of its total arms sales since 1999 and about the same percentage of all sales to the region in that period. It also became the dominant supplier to Latin America in the last three years, primarily on the strength of the warplanes for Chile.
Germany (due to a big sale to South Africa) and Russia were the biggest single arms sellers to Africa in the last three years, at 16 percent and 15 percent, respectively. By contrast, Washington accounted for only one percent of sales to that continent.
On the other hand, ''all other European'' countries -- mainly Central and Eastern Europe -- accounted for a whopping 37 percent of total weapons transfers to Africa, and a clue as to the source of small arms that are fueling the region's many civil conflicts, according to Grimmett.
The report, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1995-2002, is available online.
Reports
  |  Recent News Coverage  
|  Updates
|