CURRENT UPDATES: December 9, 1999

In this update:
THE WTO AND THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE ARMS INDUSTRY
THE OSCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN TURKEY
MILITARY AID TO COLOMBIA
SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS PROTEST

Since our last update, there have been two major international meetings that bear directly on the issues of the arms trade and military spending -- the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle on November 30th through December 3rd and the summit meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Istanbul on November 18th-19th.  There have also been important developments relating to the delivery of U.S. weaponry and military training to Latin America,including continuing efforts to step up military aid to Colombia under the guise of fighting the "war on drugs" and a major protest against the U.S. Army's School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia (an institution with a long and dishonorable history of training Latin American military personnel who have been involved in death squads, military takeovers, torture, and systematic human rights abuses).

Unless you were stranded on a desert island or in an isolation tank for the first week of December, you no doubt saw pictures and heard reports of the protests that shut down the first day of the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle.  The demonstrations -- which involved tens of thousands of union, environmental, student, consumer,and peace activists from all over the world -- cast a cloud over the Clinton administration's efforts to paint the WTO as a forward-looking organization that will spread the benefits of free trade to all the participants in the global economy, from shareholders at Boeing to peasants in Bangladesh.  As we will discuss below, the operations of the WTO are relevant not only to issues like child labor and environmental protection, but also to issues like weapons proliferation and military spending which are central to the work of the peace and arms control communities. The actions in Seattle may also provide an opportunity to move towards building a diverse progressive coalition that can address some of the root causes of global conflict, from economic inequality to the degradation of natural resources.

"We've got No Voice, No Seat. Listen to the people marching in the street."

The thrust of the protests against the WTO -- a 134 nation international organization charged with developing and enforcing uniform trade rules -- was the charge that it is a profoundly anti-democratic institution with the power to undermine labor, environmental, and consumer rights without consulting the people and organizations that will be most effected by these changes. Operating in secret, the WTO allows countries to challenge each other's laws and regulations on labor, environment, human rights and consumer protection as "non-tariff trade barriers" which limit corporate profit.  Below are just a few examples of the impacts of WTO decision making:
 

• The WTO forced the EU to open its markets to hormone treated beef, after the United States' challenged their ban on the product.
• Each year in France, at least 2000 workers die of asbestos-related cancer. When the French tried to ban all forms of asbestos, they were told their law protecting their workers, violated WTO rules.
• The WTO ruled that the U.S. Clean Air Act which required gas refineries to produce cleaner gas was an unfair barrier to Venezuela's gas trade.

If there are any questions about who reaps the greatest benefits from the WTO, a look at who sponsored the Seattle meeting is instructive.  In return for their $9.2 million in donations, major multinational corporations were given privileged access to the WTO proceedings (at least the ones that weren't canceled due to the protests!).  Major weapons contractors Boeing and Allied Signal/Honeywell both ponied up $250,000 or more to be *Emerald level* sponsors, entitling them to five seats at the Host Organization's opening and closing receptions and to an exclusive ministerial dinner. Boeing CEO Phil Condit was a co-chair of the Host Committee for the WTO meeting, along with Microsoft's ubiquitous Bill Gates.  "Emerald" sponsors also received four seats at the private sector conferences< arranged by the Host Organization, and were given briefing updates on the ministerial's progress, assistance with room reservations, media assistance and hospitality service. In short, while the people in the streets protested their exclusion, well-connected corporate officials were welcomed with open arms.

The WTO Agenda: What's In It for Weapons Makers?

Companies like Nike that use child labor in the Third World aren't the only beneficiaries of the WTO's slanted approach to making rules for the international trading system.  Arms makers are also interested in the WTO agenda because they are in the process of becoming truly multinational companies, dependent on exports to boost their profit margins and willing to enter into joint ventures, partnerships, and even mergers with companies in other countries. The Pentagon, which spends $75 to $80 billion per year on weapons procurement, research, and development, is still by far the biggest market for U.S. weapons makers. But the end of the Cold War may have marked the beginning of the end for the notion of a strictly "national" defense industry, as mergers and cross-border alliances have begun to make weapons manufacturing a global industry.  Major U.S. weapons conglomerates like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon are the product of a wave of U.S.-government subsidized mergers that were promoted during this decade, and the merger wave is striking Europe as well, where British Aerospace just joined hands with GEC Marconi to create the world's second largest arms-making company (after Lockheed Martin).  All of these new mega-companies have stressed increasing their exports as priority number one.

Just as car manufacturers were enthusing in the 1980s about the the "world car" with components built in many different countries, in the 1990s weapons manufacturers and the governments of the major military powers have laid the groundwork for the "world fighter plane."

Components of Lockheed Martin's F-16 fighter plane are now built in a dozen different countries, including major assembly lines in Israel, South Korea, Turkey, and Taiwan.  Boeing and Textron have invested in weapons firms in the Czech Republic and Romania in hopes of using them as platforms for cashing in on the Central European arms market in the wake of NATO expansion.  The Pentagon's next generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be developed by U.S./British corporate partners for sale to the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marines and  the British Navy and Air Force.  Other possible "partner countries" that have been mentioned for the JSF include Germany, Israel, and Turkey (each of which would get a share of production in exchange for committing to buy a certain number of the planes for their own armed forces).

In Europe, multinational projects like the proposed JSF have resulted in a "least common denominator" approach to marketing the resulting weapons system -- for example, if one partner nation has laws that allow the sale of weaponry to a major human rights abuser then the weapons produced by the partnership can be sold to that nation (even if the laws of other partner nations would normally prohibit sales to that country).  As of this writing, the Pentagon is busy trying to rewrite U.S. arms export regulations to make them more "user-friendly" to exporting companies, in part to address concerns that U.S. companies will have a harder time forming partnerships and joint ventures with European firms unless the U.S. lowers the standards entailed in its arms export process.

It's no surprise that Boeing, which makes $13 billion per year selling missiles, combat aircraft, and other weapons systems  ($3 billion in arms exports, with the rest going to the Pentagon), would be a prime sponsor of the WTO meeting.  Boeing has been a strong advocate of WTO membership for China, which provides a huge market for the company's airliners.  And the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), of which Boeing is a member, has been pressing for "normal" trade relations with China, a code word for reinstating the U.S. arms trade with China that was suspended after the Tiananmen Square massacre.  The AIA has also taken a stand against "unilateral" trade sanctions, a position which would undermine efforts to limit weapons sales to repressive regimes like the Suharto regime in Indonesia or the current government in Turkey.  The arms industry position on trade sanctions is in keeping with the spirit and substance of the WTO rulemaking process: when peace and human rights activists persuaded Massachusetts to pass a law prohibiting government contracts with companies doing business with the military junta in Burma, Japan and the European Union challenged the law as a violation of the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement. Japan and the EU also joined a U.S. business lobbying group to challenge the Massachusetts law in U.S. courts.  If these efforts succeed, peace and social justice activists will lose an important tool for mobilizing opposition to dictatorships (imagine, for example, if the U.S. anti-apartheid movement had been prohibited from promoting divestment and boycott measures against companies doing business in South Africa).

As Steven Staples of the Council of Canadians noted in a speech >on "WTO and the Global War System" which he delivered in Seattle on November 29th, arms corporations derive a double benefit from the WTO system: not only do they profit from the elimination of environmental, health, and labor standards generated by the WTO process, but their own activities in the military sphere -- including massive  research and export subsidies from their home governments -- are EXEMPT from challenge under WTO rules.  Staples cites Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade -- the main WTO governing document -- which states that a country can't be prevented from taking any action "it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests . . relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition, and implements of war and such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment (or) taken in time of war or other emergency in nternational relations."  This "security exception" gives governments a perverse incentive to invest in the military sector at the expense of >civilian projects.  Recently, a Canadian government program that subsidizes the military and aerospace industries was struck down precisely because the program had been opened up to include civilian products like regional airliners; when the program was restructured to cover only military equipment, it passed muster with the WTO. Similarly, the government of South Africa made a multi-billion dollar weapons purchase this year justified in part on exaggerated claims of the offsetting investments that European arms manufacturers would make in South Africa as a condition of the sale -- these sorts of quid pro quos (known as "offsets") would be subject to challenge if they were done as part of a civilian procurement effort, but they are allowed under the WTO's "security exception."

Mike Sears, president of Boeing's Military Aircraft and Missiles division, summed up the military sector's support for the WTO model for managing world trade when he said, *No restrictions should be imposed on our ability to find the best solutions for our customers.*  But what if the customer is the Turkish government, which has used U.S. attack helicopters to bomb and strafe Kurdish villages, or the Indonesian military, which gave U.S.-supplied rifles to the right-wing militias that slaughtered thousands of people in East Timor?  Should the international community step aside and let arms companies come up with the best "solutions" for these kinds of customers?

Peace and human rights activists have proposed a different set of rules to govern international weapons companies that would be MORE restrictive than the regulations that apply to civilian endeavors, not LESS restrictive as the WTO model appears to be.  In the United States, the European Union, and at the United Nations, leaders such as Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Nobel Laureate Dr. Oscar Arias of Costa Rica (joined by 18 fellow Nobel laureates) have pressed for a Code of Conduct that would restrict arms sales to dictators and human rights abusers. The U.S. version of the Code suggests that no government should receive U.S. arms and training unless it meets the following standards:

• a democratic form of government
• respect for basic human rights of its citizens
• non-aggression (against other states)
• full participation in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms.

The main lesson for the peace movement from the WTO protests is that  international networks (like the one that successfully promoted an international treaty banning anti-personnel land mines) are essential to bringing about meaningful reforms.  The most important development in Seattle was the involvement of labor unions and activists in the same coalition with students, environmentalists, and other progressives. If the peace and arms control movements are to become full partners in this exciting new coalition, it will be necessary to do some concerted outreach to labor and find some points of commonality. Opposition to "offset" arrangements that export military technology and jobs, the fight against trading arms and other technology to regimes that violate labor rights, and a critique of WTO rules that favor government spending on the military over job-creating public investments in the civilian sector would be some good places to start.

• Ann R. Markusen and Sean S. Costigan, editors, "Arming the Future: A Defense Industry for the 21st Century," (Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1999) provides up-to-date analyses on the globalization of the weapons industry, the trend towards mergers and military "mega-firms," and the impacts of these developments on weapons proliferation.  Details on how to get the book and  research papers from the Council's study group on the arms trade and the  transnationalization of the defense industry are at http://www.foreignrelations.org/public/armstrade
• The Arms Sales Monitoring Project of the Federation of American Scientists has the best site for data on arms sales, including extensive links to other sites and the text of "The Arms Trade Revealed," which provides detailed guidance on how to research the arms trade and arms companies, at www.fas.org/asmp/.
• The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is one of the weapons industry's largest and most effective lobbying groups.  Its agenda is set out in some detail on its web page, at www.aia-aerospace.org. Despite the use of euphemisms, some jargon, and a certain amount of spin control, the site gives a good overview of the AIA's main interests. It also has links to the web pages of key members like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.
• A Citizen's Guide to the World Trade Organization,* published by the Working Group on the WTO/MAI. You can download it at www.citizen.org/pctrade/activism/activist.htm.
• Corporate Watch,  has great analysis of the corporate agenda at the WTO ministerial, access it at www.corpwatch.org
• Mother Jones magazine, as usual, has great coverage. Check them out at www.motherjones.com.

THE OSCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN TURKEY

President Clinton's visit to Turkey to attend the summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Istanbul on November 18th-19th was viewed as a prime opportunity to raise questions regarding the impact of U.S. arms sales on human rights in Turkey (during the Clinton years, the U.S. has sold over $5 billion worth of armaments to the Ankara regime).  Since the OSCE's main goals are to  prevent and resolve conflicts, foster economic opportunity, and promote human rights and the rule of law, Turkey's use of U.S. weaponry to destroy Kurdish villages and abuse the human rights of citizens throughout Turkey was certainly germane to the basic purposes of the summit.  International human rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International sent representatives to Istanbul to raise these issues, and numerous Turkish non-governmental organizations were allowed to participate in events related to the summit.

In the U.S., the World Policy Institute and the Federation of American Scientists issued a new report "Arming Repression: U.S. Arms Sales to Turkey During the Clinton Administration." In addition, the Washington Kurdish Institute and the Congressional Human Rights Caucus organized a briefing on human rights in Turkey featuring remarks by Rep. John Porter (R-IL and chairman of the caucus) and representatives of FAS, Amnesty International, and the U.S. Committee for Refugees (which has issued its own new report, The Wall of Denial: Internal Displacement in Turkey).  Details on the Wall of Denial are available at www.refugees.org.. As it turned out, Turkey's human rights record did not receive the attention it deserved, in part due to the understandable desire of the participants to address Russia's ongoing bombing campaign in Chechnya, and in part due to the efforts of the Clinton administration and the Turkish government to dance around the issue.  Clinton gently raised the issue of human rights in remarks to the Turkish parliament, stating optimistically that "avenues are opening for the Kurdish citizens of Turkey to reclaim that most basic of rights -- a normal life" and referring to Turkey's need to "realize the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."  In a joint press conference with President Clinton, Turkish President Suleyman Demirel acknowledged that "torture exists" in Turkey, but he neglected to mention that many of the most severe incidents of torture involve Turkish military and security personnel who are rarely brought to justice.   But as a November 15th Reuters dispatch noted, Clinton's "call for free speech was marred by police beatings of anti-Clinton protesters."

Clinton was praised in some quarters for making an important symbolic gesture by meeting with Turkish non-governmental organizations while pointedly avoiding any meetings with Turkish military leaders. But the bottom line of Clinton's five-day visit was decidedly not  to put concrete pressure on the Turkish government to make human rights improvements.  In addition to the prestige that accrued to the Turkish authorities from Clinton's visit, he pledged to support Ankara's candidacy for the European Union.  In addition, while Clinton was there a $350 million deal was finalized to sell eight Sikorsky Sea Stallion helicopters to Turkey; Turkish officials were invited to attend an upcoming planning conference on theater missile defense hosted by the Pentagon; and a declaration was signed to support the longstanding U.S.-Turkish goal of constructing a $2.4 billion pipeline to carry Caspian sea oil through Turkey (rather than the other proposed routes through Russia or Iran).  In the mean time, Turkey's human rights record did not merit even one word  in the summit's final declaration.

There was some irony involved in President Clinton's address to the delegates at the summit, which focused primarily on a critique of Russia's military operations in Chechnya.  At one point, he suggested that "in order to isolate and undermine the terrorists [in Chechnya] there must be a political dialogue and a political settlement, not with terrorists but with those who are willing to seek a peaceful resolution."  This advice could apply equally to Turkey's handling of the Kurdish issue, in which they have defined virtually all supporters of Kurdish rights as "terrorists" or "criminals" and have pursued military victory even as they have jailed journalists, human rights activists, and members of Kurdish political parties.  But Clinton made no such public appeal to his Turkish hosts.  In a further irony, Russian President Boris Yeltsin defended Russia's brutal bombing campaign in Chechnya with reference to NATO's bombing of Kosovo, which was initiated without United Nations approval.

Despite the lack of progress on arms and human rights in Turkey, there were a number of positive developments at the summit, as expressed in the official resolutions such as the Istanbul Summit Declaration, the Charter for European Security, and the revised treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (to access the OSCE Summit Documents go to
http://www.osce.org/index-e.htm.)
 

• The Istanbul Summit Declaration proposes to expand the scale and substance of OSCE efforts and strengthening security and cooperation of member states.  It also lays out new goals of the OSCE, including the rebuilding of a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo, support for free elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina next year, reconciliation in Croatia, working with Central Asian States to combat international terrorism and organized crime, reducing Russian military equipment in Georgia, and acknowledging the territorial integrity of Russia.  The only specific reference to Turkey is with regard to OSCE handling of and response to natural disasters.  Unfortunately, as noted above, the OSCE summit declaration is silent on the Kurdish conflict and human rights in Turkey.
• The Charter for European Security outlines the OSCE commitments and challenges for the 21st century, including strengthening its role in monitoring human rights, conflict prevention and mediation, and postwar reconstruction.  In order to meet these challenges the OSCE has agreed to form Rapid Expert Assistance and Co-operation Teams (REACT).  These teams will be made up of civilian experts in elections, law, media and administration that would be ready to assist OSCE member countries in preventing or recovering from conflict.
• A revised Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty was signed by leaders from 30 nations on the final day of the OSCE summit, thereby further reducing limits on the number of combat aircraft, battle tanks, artillery and other conventional weapon systems throughout Europe. There was evidently much doubt as to whether Russia would sign the treaty because of the ongoing conflict in Chechnya, which involves substantial Russian troop deployments in the Caucasus beyond the limits set out in the new accord. In the end, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov signed the revised treaty.

The OSCE member states also agreed to create the Forum on Security Cooperation (FSC), which will work to reduce the transfer of licit and illicit small arms within the OSCE region.  In a separate declaration, the Balkan states of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia and Turkey agreed to seize illicit transfers of small arms, "destroy small arms and light weapons which they hold under their control in excess of their legitimate needs," and "to invite the OSCE to monitor the destruction of weapons." For further analysis of the summit, go to
BASIC's web site at www.basicint.org/eurosce/

MILITARY AID TO COLOMBIA

While peace negotiations in Colombia have been reinitiated and President Pastrana has called for a month-long "Christmas truce" with the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), the FARC have responded with their own requests, among them a halt to U.S. military aid. Unfortunately, with what the Washington Post called a "string of military defeats," coupled with increased cocaine and heroin production, Washington has made anti-drug aid to Colombia a high priority.

In October Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA), with the support of Senators DeWine (R-OH) and Grassley (R-IA), introduced S.1758 - referred to as the Alianza Act of 1999. A summary of the bill reads: "To authorize urgent support for Colombia and front line states to secure peace and the rule of law, to enhance the effectiveness of anti-drug efforts that are essential to impeding the flow of deadly cocaine and heroin from Colombia to the U.S., and for other purposes."  And, as usual, the aid continues to focus primarily on military equipment and training for the Colombian armed forces and police, forces with a well-documented record of corruption and human rights abuses.

The $1.5 billion aid package - the largest military package in history for South America - calls for two more counter-drug battalions (to be setup, trained and funded by the U.S.), up to 15 Black Hawk (or comparable) helicopters, stepped up efforts for eradicating illicit crops, additional airborne and ground-based radar and surveillance aircraft for interdiction efforts.  A small portion of the aid will go for human rights, justice reform, police training and crop substitution programs.

With Congress set to adjourn until January, this bill will be temporarily stalled, nevertheless, drug Czar Barry McCaffrey said the President has asked his cabinet officials to be prepared for the possibility of a supplemental aid package for Colombia as soon as Congress reconvenes.  Likewise, Colombian officials are concerned that a delay in U.S. aid will further weaken Pastrana's control over the country. Depending on the type of aid agreed upon, however, the U.S. risks being drawn even further into Colombia's brutal civil war.

No one disputes the need for U.S. support for an end to the conflict and democratic stability in Colombia, but the continuing influx of U.S. military equipment and training to Colombia to fight the drug war should be last on the list.  The U.S. has taken the militarized approach for the past two decades, focusing heavily on eradication and interdiction efforts, devoting more than $1 billion to Colombia in the last decade alone, and seems to have learned surprisingly little from the results. In the U.S., drugs are more potent and more readily available than ever before while drug treatment and prevention programs are woefully underfunded.  In Colombia, cocaine production has increased 26% (despite record increases in acres fumigated); heroin crops have also experienced a boom in recent years.  The war between the guerrillas, paramilitaries, and the Colombian Armed forces has intensified with more than 35,000 Colombians killed in the last 10 years and close to 1.5 million displaced, while extortion and kidnappings have become a daily occurrence.  Journalist Ana Arana noted "Colombians are disheartened by the current situation.  Nearly 60,000 left their country during the first three months of this year . . . Not even in the early 1990s, when Pablo Escobar was placing bombs and kidnapping people, did I find a country as frightened and somber about its future as it is now."

But there is hope.  On October 24th over 200 non-governmental organizations, with the support of President Pastrana, planned Colombia's largest demonstration ever.  More than 10 million Colombians joined across the country to march for peace with signs demanding "No Mas."  Francisco Santos, one of the organizers of the demonstration, said, "We're fed up with all this violence . . .. We want all the men of violence to cease armed actions against unarmed citizens," which represent the majority of the victims of the war.

The U.S. is right to want to increase aid to Colombia, yet the U.S. must learn from the past.  The former and current favored tactics have proven completely ineffective in combating the drug trade and must be abandoned.  An alternative approach is long overdue.  The recent passing of the foreign aid appropriations bill, which includes $7 million for human rights assistance for Colombia and funding to ensure human rights conditions of the Leahy Law are enforced, are certainly steps in the right direction.  And with that, increased support for >drug treatment and prevention programs at home coupled with humanitarian aid, crop substitution programs, and strengthening of civilian institutions in Colombia must make up the bulk of any new assistance.  Most importantly, the U.S. needs to be supportive of the peace process in Colombia, in the long run, this approach will benefit both Colombians and Americans alike.

• The Washington Office on Latin America
• Latin America Working Group
• Colombia Support Network

SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS

On November 21, 4,408 people crossed the line at the School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, GA, They carried crosses inscribed with the names of the thousands killed in Latin America by the soldiers and military personnel trained at the School in subjects like counter-insurgency, infantry tactics, military intelligence, anti-narcotics operations, and commando operations.

While the School maintains that its role it to "professionalize" Latin American militaries and forge stronger ties, their list of notorious graduates begs the question, "If this is professional..." Dictators Manuel Noriega of Panama, Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia and Roberto Viola of Argentina were all educated at the School. Those responsible for the assassination of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero and the massacre of 900 villagers in El Mozote are also graduates. Because of its notorious graduates, the School has been dubbed "The School of Assassins."

The more than 12,000 protestors who gathered at the gates of Ft. Benning commemorated the tenth anniversary of the assassination of the six Jesuits and their two companions at the University of Central America in San Salvador. The soldiers responsible were members of an elite battalion trained by the SOA.

To head off criticism the School of the Americas announced reforms and changes to its charter a week before the protest, but organizers say that is not enough. They want the U.S. taxpayer funded School closed down.  Every year the demonstrations at Ft. Benning have grown larger and larger, and there is huge momentum for closing the School. One of the most exciting developments has been the involvement and leadership of students and young people. A bill to close the School came within seven votes of passing last >year, and in September, a bill to cut $2 million from the SOA's budget passed in the House with a vote of 230 to 197 in favor, but in the House-Senate conference committee they voted 8 to 7 to restore funding. Currently there are bills before Congress to close the School of the Americas,  HR 732 sponsored by Rep. Moakley (D-MA) and S.873 sponsored by Senator Durbin (D-IL). To find out more about what you can do to help close the School of the Americas, visit www.soaw.org.
 
 

 top

Reports   |  Recent News Coverage   |  Updates