(Issue No. 11-12, January-February 1992)
Editorial Arms Sales Driving Threat Scenarios A 1990 GAO report found that the technology gap between developed and developing countries' military arsenals was narrowing quickly. The report noted that the military challenge posed by Third World nations no longer takes the familiar form of Soviet weaponry, but rather American and West European. GAO concluded, "If our weapons are to be effective against the equipment available to potential LIW [low-intensity warfare] opponents, they need to be designed to operate against sophisticated Western European- and US-designed hardware...." Thus, now that the evil empire is gone, US and US allies' arms sales policies perpetuate Third World arms races and instability, providing the new "threat" that justifies $300 billion military budgets and next generation weapons. During the past two months, intelligence and military officials have paraded before Congress testifying to the dangers of Russian, British, French and Chinese arms sales, while defending US sales as being "stabilizing," "legitimate" and "defensive." The United States is the leading vendor of weapons to the developing world---accounting for 45 percent of the market in 1990. Since not all arms selling states have the same view of which countries are "irresponsible" as does the US leadership---and since the US is selling arms at record-breaking levels---sales by the other major suppliers to Syria, Iran, Pakistan and other states of concern will continue. Only if the US shows some restraint can it ask that other countries slow or stop their arms sales to these countries. Recognizing this dilemma, Secretary of State Baker testified in February "It's very hard, of course, for us to say to these countries [Russia and East European], `You cannot sell conventional weapons,' if we ourselves want to retain the right to sell conventional weaponry. And to some extent, we do want to retain that right...." Andre Kokoshin, a high-ranking Russian military official, also understands this truth. He said recently of Russia's decision to continue arms sales, "I think if other countries would have started reducing arms deliveries, this would have had some effect, but it turned out that most democratic countries are not stopping arms sales, but increasing them." Sales in progress Thailand buys F-16s 1 January---Thailand signs an LOA with General Dynamics for 18 F-16 models A&B fighter aircraft, additional to the 18 they already have. Congress was notified of the $400 million deal last September. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in 1995.
Saudi Patriot sale set to be finalized 5 January---The official 30-day clock for Congressional action to block the proposed $3.3 billion sale of 14 Patriot anti-missile fire units and 758 Patriot missiles elapses, clearing the way for the LOA to be signed. Although Congress was in recess during the formal notification period, the administration had the approval and support of many influential voices in Congress for the sale (see ASM no. 9-10 p. 2). Congress receives "Javits List" 14 February---The DSAA sends the HFAC and SFRC its annual classified estimate and justification of arms sales for the year. The report is mandated by section 2765(a) of the AECA, which calls for a listing of all sales and licensed commercial exports of major weapons or weapons-related defense equipment valued at $7 million or more under consideration by the administration, with an indication of which sales and commercial exports are deemed most likely to result in the issuance of an LOA or an export license during the upcoming year. It also requires, among other things: estimates of total amounts of sales to each foreign nation; an explanation of the national security considerations involved in the sale; an analysis of the relationship between the sales being considered and arms control efforts involving the recipient state; and an analysis of the sales' impact on regional stability. The list is later reported by the AP to total $35 billion, most of it slated for countries in the Middle East. A $5 billion sale of 72 F-15 aircraft to Saudi Arabia, while mentioned as being under consideration in a cover letter to the list, was not contained in the list. (It is not clear whether the $35 billion figure includes this sale.) Of those planes, 24 reportedly would be model "F" and 48 would be the ground attack "E" variant. The model "E"---flown by the USAF---has not yet been sold abroad. If sent to Congress, the F-15E sale is likely to be highly controversial. Patriot missile sales under consideration reportedly account for nearly $16 billion of the list. Countries which have requested or expressed interest in Patriot missiles in the past year (and not yet received them) are Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey and South Korea. Chinese sanctions dropped for written MTCR pledge 21 February---The State Department lifts trade sanctions invoked against two Chinese companies last year because of missile-related technology transfers to Pakistan. Cancellation of the sanctions was a condition required by China for its written pledge to adhere to the MTCR export guidelines. The following week a report mandated by PL 101-510 (FY91 defense authorization) "on certain Chinese firms engaged in missile technology proliferation activities" is sent to Congress. Several transfers announced in late February 25-27 February---the DSAA notifies Congress of the Navy's intention to lease defense articles to Korea; the State Department proposes to license the export of "major defense equipment" to Greece, the UAE and Turkey Sales policy toward Iran and Syria altered 6 February---A notice placed in the Federal Register today announces the revision of the Export Administration Regulations to reflect changes made in the new Commerce Control List implemented last September.According to the new policy, applications for export to Iran and Syria of items subject to national security controls will generally be denied if the export is destined to a military end-user or for military end-use. Aircraft, missile, CBW and nuclear-relevant technologies "will generally be denied" to Iran and Syria. "Applications for non-military end-users or for non-military end-uses will be considered on a case-by-case basis." The notice also identifies countries currently designated by the State Department as "supporters of international terrorism": North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Speeches, letters, etc... Report on Iraqi ceasefire compliance 14 January---President Bush reports to the Speaker of the House on Iraqi compliance with the UN ceasefire, as required by the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq (PL 102-1). Iraq has not impeded efforts to destroy identified weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, Bush writes; however, "Iraq continues to be uncooperative and obstructive with respect to inspection of sites identified by the Special Commission and the IAEA (based on their own sources of information) as potentially involving clandestine, proscribed activities." Aspin's "Iraq equivalent" formula 22 January---HASC Chairman Les Aspin, issues the first of a flurry of papers on future US military choices, this one entitled "An Approach to Sizing American Conventional Forces for the Post-Soviet Era." In it, Aspin develops an "Iraq equivalent" system for assessing future Third World threats to the United States. "One Iraq equivalent is equal to the amount of offensive power that Iraq possessed prior to Desert Storm." According to his data, China would rate a 1.4 and present-day Iraq a .4. Based on this system, Aspin calculated the need for substantially reduced US force levels. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, defending the administration's "base force" plan, criticized Aspin's scheme, saying "Every year, we would have to go up [to Capitol Hill] and explain `Is Panama still .152 Iraqs or has it become 1.01 Iraqs'." Pressler amendment proliferation 24 January---Sen. Larry Pressler, just back from a trip to South Asia, where he discussed the practical implementation of the legislation he sponsored ("the Pressler amendment") which conditions US assistance to Pakistan on that country's not possessing a nuclear weapon, speaks on the Senate floor about moving "Toward a New Arms Control Regime." Pressler envisions a UN regime "whereby developing countries would be rewarded for reducing armaments and for showing substantial, certifiable results in reducing armaments." "This year," he says, "I plan to propose a series of amendments using the Pressler amendment approach to reduce weapons worldwide throughout the 1990s. ...There is no reason that the countries to which we give aid and extend favorable trade treatment should be increasing their armaments, be they nuclear or conventional. Under legislation I shall propose, the President would certify whether various nations are reducing their arsenals of nuclear, chemical and conventional arms. If they reduce their military, as we have reduced ours and are reducing ours, then they would be rewarded with more favorable US aid and trade relationships." US companies assisted Iraq with weapons programs 3 February---Rep. Henry Gonzalez, Chairman of the Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee says that, contrary to a heretofore undisclosed, classified report by the Bush administration, US firms did directly contribute to Iraq's conventional and unconventional weapons capabilities. His committee, which uncovered evidence of this cooperation during its investigation of the Banca Nationale del Lavoro (BNL), specifically found US companies' complicit in work on the Condor II missile under development in the 1980s. See the Congressional Record, pp. H208-15 for a very interesting and detailed account of the Committee's findings. "Third World Military Power"? 6 February---Senate Intelligence Committee members John Glenn and John Warner write to Secretary of Defense Cheney, urging that the DOD publish an annual, unclassified review of international proliferation developments, similar in concept to Soviet Military Power, which the Defense Intelligence Agency has published since 1981. They say publication of such a document would "help to strengthen our nonproliferation legislation, to assist in the development of effective responses to such threats, and to deter illicit nuclear trade. While we are aware that the public identification by a US intelligence organization of certain countries as either a confirmed or suspect proliferator could have certain diplomatic and political implications, we believe that disclosure of this information would, on balance, be a constructive contribution to the public policy debate." US arms sales to Mideast 19 February---Citing former President Jimmy Carter's 1976 statement that "The United States cannot be both the world's leading champion of peace and the world's leading supplier of the weapons of war," Rep. Timothy J. Penny enters into the Record the accounting of US arms sales to the Middle East prepared by Lee Feinstein of the non-governmental Arms Control Association in Washington. Feinstein found that in the 17 months since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the US administration has sold more than $17 billion of arms to the Middle East, about $6 billion of those sales transpiring since President Bush announced his Middle East Arms Control Initiative last May. Feinstein notes that: "Administration officials have described the transfers as consisting primarily of defensive weapons designed to promote stability in the region. The announced transfers, however, include weapons from each of the five categories of arms identified in the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) agreement as the primary weapons used for `launching surprise attack and for initiating large-scale offensive action.' These armaments include battle tanks, armored vehicles, heavy artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters." "Do as we say, not as we do" 26 February---In a floor speech Rep. Mel Levine says the apparent recent decision by the Russian government to use arms sales to facilitate its economic recovery "represents a significant failure for Bush administration policies toward arms control and the new republics of the CIS. The international community, particularly the newly liberated countries of Eastern Europe and the CIS, has turned to the United States for leadership on this issue. But the administration's policy toward US arms sales has sent the message that we approve of selling highly sophisticated weapons to unstable regions like the Middle East." "The Bush administration must back up its words on arms control with action. If the United States is to retain the leverage and influence necessary to dissuade other countries from making destabilizing sales, we must stop making destabilizing arms sales of our own," says Levine. Notes from some hearings CIA on The Threat 15 January---The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hears testimony on weapons proliferation in the wake of the Soviet Union's disintegration from Director of Central Intelligence, Robert Gates. Due to the increased (proportionally, anyway) threat of "proliferations," the CIA recently formed a "Nonproliferation Center," which Gates says will "better formulate and coordinate intelligence actions in support of the government's policy." Nuclear proliferation: Gates says press reports alleging that Soviet nuclear materials have been offered on the black market can not be corroborated. More alarming and realistic than this prospect, he says, is the potential for "brain-drain" of former-Soviet nuclear and other weapons scientists and technicians to developing countries of concern. "This is the area that causes us the greatest concern, more than a loss of materials or weapons and that sort of thing." Missile proliferation: Gates notes in passing that Saudi Arabia is "expanding [its] CSS-2 missile support facilities." These missiles, with a range of 2700 km, are by far the longest range missiles in the region. He also notes that Egypt has a missile production facility "that could begin operations at any time." North Korea has "modified its Scuds giving them a range greater than Iraq's and has sold them to Iran and Syria. Pyongyang is not far from having a much larger missile for sale, one with a range of at least 1000 km," he asserts. This is somewhat surprising, as no flight tests of a missile anywhere near this range have been reported in the press. Gates says "There is good news on the [missile] proliferation front. ...Israel has publicly announced that it will abide by the MTCR guidelines and, according to Israeli press, will not cooperate any longer with South Africa on BM development. Brazil has announced its space launch program has been placed under civilian control, and the Argentine government said that it is investigating the suspended Condor II program...." Threat to US: Correcting many misperceptions, Gates remarks that "Only China and the Commonwealth of Independent States have the missile capability to reach US territory directly. We do not expect increased risk to US territory from the special weapons of other countries--in a conventional military sense--for at least another decade." Chairman John Glenn asks how many Third World ballistic missiles will be able to reach the United States by the year 2000 and whether these would be countries threatening to the US. Gates' aide, Gordon Oehler, responds that those countries thought most likely to develop ICBMs are "Not any of the major Third World countries that we're interested in" for political reasons. Without naming names, he goes on to say that these are the "counties with the more advanced space-launch vehicle programs" [Israel, India, Brazil]. CBW proliferation: "Most of the major countries in the Middle East have chemical weapons development programs, and some already have stockpiles that could be used against civilians or poorly defended military targets. Most countries have not yet equipped their delivery systems to carry weapons of mass destruction...." However, Gates says, Syria "appears to be seeking assistance from China and Western firms for an improved capability with CW or BW warheads." Libya's CW program continues, Gates asserts, noting "It is estimated that the production facility at Rabta has produced and stockpiled as many as 100 tons of chemical agents." Iran, he notes, "says it has a right to chemical weapons in light of Iraq's use of CW against them; we believe it has exercised this option." Iraq still menacing: Gates says that although "there is no question that Desert Storm significantly damaged Iraq's special weapons production programs," Iraq still poses "a great challenge." Without UN ceasefire sanctions and inspections in place, Gates says the Iraqis would be able to produce nuclear weapons "in a few, rather than many, years"; "modest quantities of chemical agents [chemical warfare agents?] almost immediately, but it would take a year or more to recover the CW capability it previously enjoyed"; and "because only a small amount of equipment is needed, the Iraqis could be producing BW materials in a matter of weeks of a decision to do so." Pakistan-India nuclear arms race: The CIA has "no reason to believe that either India or Pakistan maintains assembled or deployed nuclear bombs," says Gates, but his assistant adds that "both countries have all of the parts or can make the parts on very short notice. ...But we believe that they would not want to assemble them for safety reasons." Glenn asks whether reports that Pakistan has converted F-16s for nuclear-weapons delivery are true. Gates defers, saying only "We have information that suggests that they're clearly interested in enhancing the ability of the F-16 to deliver [nuclear] weapons safely. But ... they don't require those changes, I don't think, to deliver a weapon." In a closed session, Gates says he will tell "precisely what they might be interested in doing to enhance the F-16." DIA on The Threat 22 January---Robert Gates and Lt. Gen. James Clapper, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Gates testimony echoes that of 15 January, although somewhat modified. Making much less-threatening predictions than are often heard, Clapper says that Pakistan and India "both may deploy short-range ballistic missiles by the end of the decade," and "based on the scope and pace of their efforts, we judge North Korea could have a nuclear weapon in two or three years." "I am concerned about the proliferation of conventional weaponry of ever-increasing sophistication to some of the most unstable parts of the world, causing a potential threat to our forces or those of our allies," Clapper says. HASC Defense Industrial Base Hearings 23 January---The Defense Industrial Base Panel of the HASC holds its third hearing on the impact of declining defense budgets on the ability of the US to maintain a viable defense industry. The previous two hearings, in Los Angeles and Oklahoma City, heard from industry, military, academic and community leaders about the local impact of budget cuts. Today's hearing features Jacques Gansler (The Analytical Sciences Corporation), Jack Nunn (Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress), James Blackwell (Center for Strategic and International Studies), Jeffrey Joseph and Gen. Clarence McKnight (US Chamber of Commerce). The panelists criticize the lack of strategy for a rational down-sizing of the arms industries. Nunn, one of the authors of the OTA report Redesigning Defense, urges Congress in his testimony "to consider the downside implications of using foreign sales to maintain production lines, including an assessment of the long-term risks to US national security from the proliferation of advanced conventional weapons throughout the world." On 5 February the Panel holds another hearing, this one with Nicholas Torelli (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Production Resources), Peter McCloskey (Electronics Industries Association), and Lt. Gen. (ret.) Lawrence Skibbie (American Defense Preparedness Association) testifying. Torelli defends the administration's new weapons procurement plan of "prototyping but not producing," and McCloskey, on behalf of much of the arms industry, criticizes it. State Department's Human Rights Report Critiqued 5 February---The subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee holds hearings on the State Department's just-released Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1991. Joseph Eldridge, Director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, says the staff of the Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Bureau of the State Department "deserve credit for their conscientious and professional undertaking of this important task." But, says "we are often hard pressed to discern the connection between the Country Reports' characterization of human rights conditions in a country and the conduct of US foreign policy toward that country." He cites the accurate descriptions in last year's report of abysmal human rights violations in Peru, Colombia and China, which did not preclude those countries receiving military aid or preferential trade status. Law being flouted: Citing the examples of Turkey and Guatemala, Eldridge contends that contrary to the law [see box] military aid has been routinely granted to countries deemed "strategically important" even though they are found by the administration to have egregious human rights records. Turkey, he notes, has taken some "positive formal steps" on human rights, including the ratification of the UN Convention against torture and the partial decriminalization of the use of the Kurdish language. Unfortunately, although "there is routine use of torture, directed against persons charged with common crimes, as well as political offenses," Turkey continues to receive a half a billion dollars in military aid a year. In Guatemala, Eldridge suggests that aid should be shifted from Economic Support Fund (ESF) grants---which are effectively blind grants---to Development Assistance grants, which are earmarked for specific projects. "This shift would enhance accountability and inhibit the Guatemalan government from simply using ESF funds to make up for cuts in military assistance," he says. Eldridge makes several good recommendations, among them: * Congress should undertake a comprehensive review of security assistance policies and practices and should demand compliance with existing laws. * The Annual Integrated Assessment of Security Assistance (AIASA) reports---yearly assessments of security needs prepared by the US embassy in potential recipient countries---should include an evaluation of the effect of security assistance on respect for human rights and should identify specifically the external threat to the aid-recipient country, as well as the United States' national security interest in providing assistance. * A high-level inter-agency group should be established to review and coordinate human rights policy decisions; the group's jurisdiction should include all US security assistance, arms sales and multilateral and bilateral economic aid. * The US should make greater use of arms and trade embargoes through the UN, CSCE, OAS, World Bank and IMF to influence human rights practices in member-states. Concluding, he notes that encouraging respect for human rights among allies is important since stable governments make the best allies. "Governments that allow freedom of association and freedom to participate in the political process are less likely to be governments that go to war or create international disorder." State Department biased: Holly Burkhalter, of Human Rights Watch, comments on the objectivity of the State Department in its human rights reporting. While last year's report on Peru was honest, this year's is "more accommodating" to Peru in order to release military aid being held up by Congress, she asserts. Burkhalter notes a disparity in tone used when the report describes very similar actions by the Sendero Luminoso and the Peruvian armed forces. "It is important to note that the armed forces engage in precisely the same practices: extreme torture, mutilation of bodies, gouging out of eyes, castration, decapitation, burnings, killing of small children, etc. ...Yet the State Department provides no such detail when it comes to the army." 5 February---Secretary of State James Baker makes the administration's annual presentation on foreign policy to the SFRC. (He testifies the next day before the HFAC.) Pressler amendment under assault: In answer to a question from Sen. Larry Pressler, Baker says that in the administration's legal opinion, the Pressler amendment (which prohibits military aid to Pakistan unless the administration can certify that Pakistan is not in possession of a nuclear weapon) does not apply to commercial arms sales or exports. "Having said that, I also would say that we limit the commercial sales and we don't approve any that contravene either the letter or the spirit of the Pressler Amendment." Baker goes forth from here to make the broader point that, in his view, the United States too often sacrifices economic prospects for foreign policy gains. The US "will only be strong politically, diplomatically, and militarily as long as we retain and maintain our economic strength. So I don't think that commercial sales that do not contravene the letter or spirit of the amendment are things that we ought not to permit to go forward." Bartholomew on Russian Arms Control 5 February---Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs Reginald Bartholomew and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Stephen Hadley testify before the SASC. Bartholomew reports on a trip he headed to Moscow, Kiev, Minsk and Alma Ata in January. Export controls: Russian officials are in the process of drafting national export control legislation. Bartholomew's delegation explained the legal basis for US export laws, and "urged Russia and the other newly independent states to place criminal sanctions on individuals or companies who provide assistance to irresponsible foreign nuclear or chemical weapons programs [irresponsible?]," which would parallel US laws and regulations. Following Bartholomew's trip, "President Yeltsin publicly announced that Russia will put in place export control laws, including controls on dual-use technologies." The delegation also briefed officials in Kiev, Minsk and Alma Ata on international export control norms and US policies. "We plan to follow up with additional meetings with all 11 CIS member states on non-proliferation, export controls, and arms transfers." MTCR, NPT and arms sales: "The Russians told us that Russia would continue the Soviet NPT obligations, including the depositary function, and was reviewing its position on full scope safeguards as a requirement for nuclear supply. They indicated interest in cooperating in regional non-proliferation efforts in South Asia and on the Korean peninsula. On MTCR, Russia reaffirmed the Soviet Union's 1990 Summit commitment to observe the MTCR guidelines." "In every capital, we stressed the common interest in ensuring that transfers of conventional weapons do not exacerbate instability, particularly now that there may be economic pressures to export arms. We specifically cited Iran, and the need not to build another Iraq. We received a positive response in each capital. The Russians specifically said they would continue the Soviet Union's commitment to the conventional arms transfer guidelines issued at the October 18 five-power meeting in London." Naval Intelligence on The Threat 5 February---Rear Admiral Edward Sheafer, Jr., Director of Naval Intelligence, delivers that office's annual classified overview to the Seapower, Strategic and Critical Materials Subcommittee of the HASC. The following is drawn from the 82-page unclassified version of his testimony. Sheafer describes a chaotic post-Cold War world where countries are no longer constrained by fear of evoking a superpower nuclear confrontation. "Students of history," he says, "recognize that there will never be a world totally free from challenges to US national interests or to the ability of the US Navy to carry out its assigned missions." Further, he muses, "it appears that about every 15 years we have a major crisis that evolves into conflict that involves US forces. ...In the future, such conflicts are likely to pose an increasing threat to other nations and to US military forces as more modern weapons proliferate throughout the rest of the world." Persian Gulf: Sheafer says that Iraq, despite UN sanctions, still maintains one of the largest/strongest military forces in the Gulf region. Iran, he says, has an ambitious weapons procurement program; it maintains an arms supply relationship with Russia, "with North Korea delivering Scud-Cs and China providing CSA-1 SAMs, F-7 aircraft, and artillery in 1991." Sheafer says that "despite vast expenditures on military forces, the Gulf Cooperation Council states are not prepared to defend themselves individually or collectively against their larger neighbors. The Saudis have long-term plans to expand their military with the purchase of equipment. Even in the long run, however, it is doubtful that the Saudis would be able to counter threats from Iran or Iraq completely. The United States, or a coalition, would have to be called upon again to provide protection or to repel aggression." Korean peninsula: "A new agreement, signed between the two Koreas in December 1991, replaces the 1953 North Korean-U.S. UN Armistice. The new agreement pledges reconciliation, nonaggression, and cooperation for the peninsula. ...[W]ithout a nuclear option, North Korea's military, with its growing general obsolescence, would be capable of little beyond defense and domestic regime preservation." Europe: "Western Europe, our closest military partner and one of our largest economic partners, poses no military threat to the United States except through export of arms that are roughly equal to ours in overall lethality and technical sophistication." Eastern European arms sales are also a problem: "Although economic conversion would benefit them far more over the long-term, few states can resist the short-term profits of arms production---partly because of newly-established democratic systems pressing governments to maintain employment. The region can supply medium-to-low technology and is positioning itself as a supplier of spares for ex-Warsaw Pact military equipment---a long-term market due to continued sales and the many copy/derivative systems employed by developed nations. Eastern Europe is also a potential source of chemical and biological weapons and their delivery systems, since virtually all of these countries have had military chemical and biological warfare programs and/or have produced the associated precursor chemicals." Latin America: He outlines the defense industries of various countries, saying "From a military standpoint, one of the most important developments in Latin America is the emergence of a modest high-technology base, a growing production infrastructure, and the economies of scale inherent in mass production. ... Chile produces increasingly sophisticated small arms, ordnance, aircraft and armored cars for export. Although exports are limited, the major firm, Cardoen, continued to expand its capabilities during 1991 when it purchased the world's leading midget submarine manufacturer from Italy." He notes, though, the many failures Latin American arms industries have had: Argentina has yet to complete any of the submarines licensed from Germany that it began producing in the early 1980s; two of Brazil's three major arms producing companies face bankruptcy. On the missile race once thought incipient in South America, Sheafer notes that "President Menem officially dismantled Argentina's long-range CONDOR II missile program in 1991. Brazil has made only limited progress with its SONDA IV ballistic missile, which will not be launched until at least the late 1990s." Naval threat: "Over the next ten years, China, the CIS, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden will remain the primary purveyors of conventional submarines to the ROW [Sheafer's acronym for "rest of the world"---other than CIS]. Aside from the United States and the CIS, some 40 states collectively possess nearly 400 submarines; about half of these submarines belong to our allies, friends and true neutrals. ...Overall, the number of submarines possessed by potentially hostile ROW states is expected to decline by about ten percent by the end of the century. Other than Iran, which has KILO class submarines on order from the CIS, few, if any, other developing countries are expected to become new seagoing submarine operators over the next decade." And of the Iranian naval threat, he says, "Particularly worrisome are statements by the Iranian Chief of Naval Operations to the effect that Iran has ordered submarines from the former USSR to aid in its goal of controlling the approaches to the Persian Gulf. ... Teheran's ambitions aside, it probably will be a long time before the Iranian Navy has more than a marginal capability to operate the submarines effectively." "With licensing agreements from British and German manufacturers, submarine-launched torpedoes are now being built in Indonesia, Chile, and, shortly, Turkey. ... No Soviet submarine-launched cruise missile system is in the hands of another country, and no foreign country has bought the submarine-launched version of the French EXOCET (SM-39). US supplied sub-launched HARPOON missiles have been sold to Japan, Pakistan, and Israel and will soon be aboard Egyptian, Turkish, and Greek submarines." Baker on Foreign Aid Request 24 February---Secretary of State Baker testifies before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee. Arms sales anxieties Concern over arms sales is voiced often in the Q&A. Chairman David Obey cites the pressures in Russia to sell weapons for jobs and notes that the US faces much the same problem in converting from a military to a civilian mode. "To put it in perspective, however, last year we converted one-fifth of one percent of our GNP from military to civilian production. The Soviets were faced with an effort to do about 25 times that much. ...What can we do, thinking in a really big way," Obey asks, "to create a worldwide strategy that moves all of us--not just the Soviets and the United States, but everybody--into a different path? ...If we cannot find a way to really convert the entire world to civilian economic activities rapidly ... the major result in the Third World of the end of the US-Soviet arms race is going to be a rapid escalation of arms races all throughout the Third World with disastrous consequences." Baker says: "I think you need to separate the problem that exists involving weapons of mass destruction and the problem that exists with respect to conventional weapons. ...There are a lot of things that are being done now with respect to weapons of mass destruction. ...I think the ratcheting down, if you will, of conventional weapons sales and transfers is something that's going to take a longer period of time and that ... we should and can afford to approach in a more measured way. ...Lastly, I would only say that I don't think the goal should be to abolish all arms sales. I think that there are reasonable and legitimate defensive needs that countries will have whether they are in the Third World or somewhere else." Obey persists: "Since the end of the Gulf War we have seen new arms sales to Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, aid to Jordan has been resumed, major additional sales of arms by the US in the billions are planned for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and other Middle Eastern countries, and in addition the US has encouraged the richer Arab states to help fund the purchase of US-supplied arms to Egypt, Morocco and Turkey." "I think that the public expects that with the end of the Cold War we are going to be able to reallocate resources within the foreign aid program and in some cases from foreign aid to other domestic areas. ...The problem, however, is that through some of these sales, financial commitments are being made which will lock the Congress into a long period of providing aid at a specific level and I don't think we can afford to let that happen to us." He is particularly referring here to the administration's proposed $2.8 billion sale of 80 F-16 aircraft to Turkey (see ASM no. 6 p. 1). "The US would be committed to a level of FMF funding [grant military aid] in the range of $425 to $500 million for Turkey through 1996, given the realities of the way those sales work. ...We cannot allow ourselves to be put in a box where we're going to be required for the next five years, because of cash flow realities, to be sustaining a level to a given country that we might not want to sustain." Baker defends the sale---and military aid to Turkey more generally---by saying that Turkey is strategically located at the crossroads of Central Asia and is also important for its NATO air bases and cooperation in the War against Iraq. China and the MTCR: In his opening statement, Baker says: "We welcome China's written commitment of February 1, confirmed publicly on Saturday, to abide by the MTCR guidelines and parameters as agreed by Foreign minister Qian and myself in Beijing last November. This important step, like China's agreement to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, constitutes real progress ...." Rep. Larry Smith questions the administration's recent decision to resume what he says are high technology transfers to China in return for "some kind of oral commitment." "They have proven time and again incapable of adhering to any coherent policy which we have espoused. As you know they shipped missiles secretly to Saudi Arabia [this is true] and others, and Syria before and during the Gulf War [this is not true]." Baker responds: "We're not promoting technology transfer to China. We're not shipping technology. What we're doing is lifting some sanctions that we put on last June that have to do only with proliferation concerns in exchange for China's written agreement to comply with the Missile Technology Control Regime, a very, very substantial and significant step forward if they will adhere to their commitment. If they don't, we will follow US law and there will be sanctions again." Baker mentions that the Chinese MTCR commitment specifically extends to transfers of the M-9 and M-11 systems, missiles that are often alleged to have been sold to Syria and Pakistan, but which the State Department maintains has not happened. What's up with Jordan? Obey in closing notes that the subcommittee has requested a GAO report on the provision of US military assistance to Jordan during and after the Gulf war. "We know now," he says, "that deliveries were allowed to resume seven days after the war; deliveries were made through the first two weeks of the war; and no one can verify whether equipment was actually stopped once the administration said that it had been, and the letter of stop and delivery went out one month after the war was over, as I understand it." He asserts that Jordan has consistently circumvented the boycott of Iraq, which Baker disputes, offering the subcommittee an intelligence briefing on this matter. Baker plugs the importance and non-controversial nature of the security assistance requested for Jordan---$30 million in economic support fund; $25 million in FMF; and $2 million in International Military Education and Training grants. Baker on Foreign Aid Request: II 25 February---The Secretary of State appears before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Foreign Operations subcommittee. Israeli loan guarantees dominate proceedings: Chairman Patrick Leahy notes that last year's (FY92) appropriation bill is still pending in this subcommittee. (The House passed its version in June.) Leahy says, "the 1992 foreign aid bill's fate hangs in the balance today," being inextricably linked to the Israeli housing loan guarantee issue. He will not support the Israeli loan guarantees "unless it is consistent with American policy of opposing further settlement building in the occupied territories prior to a negotiated resolution of the status of those territories," Leahy asserts. The alternative to passage of an FY92 appropriation is a new continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year. A continuing resolution passed in October is now providing foreign assistance policy guidance (see ASM no. 7-8 p. 5 for a refresher). Almost half of the hearing on US world-wide foreign assistance is devoted to the question of $10 billion in housing loan guarantees to Israel, but as in the House on the previous day, there is a great deal of anxiety expressed over conventional arms transfer policies. Russian arms sales: Sen. Mark Hatfield asks what the administration is doing to encourage and help Russia get out of the arms sales business. Baker says, "We are working with the Russian leadership and the leadership in these other new nations to assist them in converting their defense plants into civilian uses. It is a very difficult task, because so much of their GNP was devoted to the military industrial complex. It's going to take some time. It's not going to happen overnight with respect to conventional weapons. We see this in our experience with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that have democratized and wanted to move to the free market. Much of their former hard currency earnings came from weapons sales. I'm talking about countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia and to some extent Hungary and others. And it's very, very difficult. But it is a problem that we are focused on and working on. It's very hard, of course, for us to say to these countries, `You cannot sell conventional weapons,' if we ourselves want to retain the right to sell conventional weaponry. And to some extent, we do want to retain that right...." Military assistance to El Salvador? Hatfield notes that the administration's foreign aid submission requests $40 million in military aid to El Salvador, making that country the sixth highest recipient of such aid, while at the same time a UN peacekeeping force has been deployed there. Why, he asks, is the administration asking for lethal aid at this point? Baker responds that the aid request represents a 50 percent reduction over military assistance levels in past years. Maybe so, but Hatfield notes that this was during the war, which is ended now. Baker says peace "is going to result in the reduction of the military. A lot of people will be unemployed. ...So I really think that if we now send a signal that we're going to cut them loose here, that people that have been sort of muscled, if you will, to accept this peace process, that ... to cut [it] off cold turkey, rather than phasing it out, it would do great damage to the peace process there." Anyway, most of the military aid is "subsistence-type aid" ("uniforms and a lot of things like that") rather than lethal aid, Baker says. China! Sen. Don Nickles cites news reports claiming China has sold missile components to Syria. Why, he asks, should Congress vote to extend China's most-favored nation (MFN) trade status if this is true? Baker says that the administration feels "isolating China would be a mistake" and would result in greatly reduced leverage. He says the administration "got them to agree to observe the guidelines and parameters of the Missile Technology Control Regime. ...This is very, very important, because now they've committed to observe it. ...And if they don't live up to it, we're in a position to come in and to sanction immediately, or to take whatever other action we think is appropriate." Nickles asks "If they don't comply, is one of the sanctions on missile transfers the removal of MFN?" Baker, after a bit of confusion says no, free emigration is the only condition placed on MFN. The sanctions that could be invoked against China for violating the MTCR proscriptions are those that have just been lifted to encourage China to sign up! Baker notes that they could, of course, "be put right back on." Legislation passed and pending Because preservation of American jobs is now being used as a justification for increased overseas arms sales, this issue of the ASM highlights---as a better course to follow---conversion legislation introduced in the 102nd Congress. Emergency Anti-recession Act of 1992S.2137 Introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy on 21 January, and referred to the Appropriations Committee, the bill contains several conversion/economic adjustment measures under its "Subtitle B" on defense. S.2137 would appropriate $200 million in the Pentagon budget to the Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration to provide planning and adjustment assistance to communities that are, or are likely to become, adversely affected by base closures and/or DOD contract cancellations or reductions; it would appropriate $200 million for the DOD to transfer to the Small Business Administration to provide technical information, consultation, and financial assistance to small firms adversely affected by base closures or reductions or cancellation of DOD contracts; $200 million for DOD to transfer to National Institute of Standards and Technology to provide project support for civilian oriented research and development and generic technology projects to aid scientists, engineers and technicians in converting to the civilian sector; and $200 million from DOD to the Department of Labor for demonstration projects to encourage and promote innovative responses to worker dislocation and for training and reorganization efforts designed to avert layoffs due to DOD cuts/closures under the Job Training Partnership Act. The Defense Industrial Stabilization and Community Transition ActS.2133 Introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd on 27 November 91, and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, this bill would establish a Presidential Council on Economic Diversification and Adjustment within the Executive Office of the President. The Council would comprise working groups on technology; marketing; small business and job training. As one of its functions, the Council would be able to grant up to $50,000 to "alternative use committees" established at defense facilities for the purpose of exploring non-military production. The bill would also amend the Defense Production Act to permit the Executive branch to make or guarantee loans to arms manufacturing companies to aid conversion to commercial production. An economic adjustment trust fund would also be established, endowed by an amount equal to 10 percent of the estimated savings from defense budget cuts. The Defense Industrial Diversification Act S.2075 Introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman in November, this bill would permit firms which are at least 35 percent reliant on military contracts to place a portion of their profits into a tax free "defense industrial diversification account." This account may be drawn on for a 10 year period for the purpose of investing in new, non-defense plants and equipment. S.2075 would also create an Office of Small Business Diversification within the Small Business Administration to identify and coordinate efforts aimed at helping small firms cope with defense cuts. The Office would oversee a loan guarantee or loan program to assist qualified firms. The bill would also allow laid-off defense industry workers to withdraw money from their IRA without tax penalty to pay the rent, and require that they be given 90 days notification prior to being fired. The Defense Economic Adjustment Act H.R. 441 Introduced by Rep. Ted Weiss, this measure calls for the creation of "alternative use committees" at large arms production enterprises. To be made up of representatives of management and labor, each committee would establish a "conversion blueprint" for its facility. This Act would also require one year's advance notice of plans to cut back or terminate a military contract or to close a military base, and would provide adjustment assistance to both communities and individual workers while conversion is underway. In the past two months a number of innovative measures for curbing militarization in the developing world have been introduced. These bills are summarized here. Developing Countries Demilitarization Act of 1992S.2157 Introduced by Sen. Alan Cranston and referred to the SFRC on 23 January, this legislation would make a developing country eligible for US foreign assistance---including security assistance --only "if its total expenditures on the military during the preceding year do not exceed 3.6 percent of its gross national product for that year. ...A country's request for United States security assistance shall be included in its calculation of expenditures on the military during the preceding year." Similarly, no United States funds could be provided "as grants, loans, or collateral directly or indirectly, through any multilateral agency or organization" to such countries. "Developing countries" are defined as those with per capita incomes of $4,300 or less. A waiver may be exercised if the President decides and certifies that cutting off/denying aid would "cause grave harm to a democratic country facing armed aggression or the threat of armed aggression" from a hostile neighbor that a) is not a democracy or b) is a human rights abuser, or from a local insurgency that presents an immediate danger to the government's survival. 3.6 percent is the cutoff figure because, according to Cranston, "that is the amount the administration says it plans to spend on our military annually after 1995." This ceiling, he says, should lower as US spending comes down. This bill would ban the provision of security assistance to all of the United States' current top recipients, except Israel, which spends about 14 percent of its GNP on the military, but has a per capita GNP of around $10,000, well above the threshold for a "developing country" as defined in the bill. The Philippines and Portugal, two of the smaller military aid recipients, spend below 3.6 percent of their GNP on the military and so could continue receiving aid. The aid cutoff would become effective 90 days after enactment. Third World Development and Threat Reduction Act of 1992 S.2162 Introduced by Senators Mitchell, Harkin, Adams and Bingaman on 24 January, this bill would amend the International Financial Institutions Act, adding a new Title XXI, which says: "The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director to each international financial institution to oppose the making of any loan or the extension of any credit or guarantee by such institution to any developing country [defined as one with per capita income of $4,000 or less] whose military expenditures as a percentage of gross product are greater than its expenditures on health and education" combined. The financial institutions encompassed are: IMF, World Bank, African Development Fund, Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Accompanying the bill in the Congressional Record are a list of those countries which would currently be affected by this policy. They are: Mozambique, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Chad, Somalia, Gambia, Uganda, China, Yemen, Pakistan, Bolivia, Egypt, Sudan, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Zambia, Guyana, India, Honduras, North Korea, Cuba, Peru, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. International Peace and Security ResolutionH.Res.323 Introduced by Rep. Timothy Penny on 28 January and referred to the HFAC and Banking Committee, the resolution would note that it is the "Sense of the House" that the US should take steps to discourage high military expenditures, reduce levels of arms transfers, stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction in order to "promote peace and security and to ensure that more funds are available for social programs and economic development." Included among these measures are a 25 percent reduction in US military assistance by 1995, with a redirecting of these monies to the UN and other international peace keeping operations, economic conversion assistance in the US and development assistance for global hunger and poverty relief. The resolution would also prohibit sales of "offensive" arms to countries spending over six percent of their GNP on the military and "phase out" such sales over four years to countries spending three to six percent of the GNP on the military. --On arms sales to Arab countries S.Con.Res.93 Introduced by Senators Seymour and DeConcini on 21 February and referred to the SFRC, this measure states that the "President should withhold the submission to the Congress of any proposed sale of offensive military weaponry under section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (other than weaponry that may be required under emergency conditions) to any Arab nation of the Middle East until such nation establishes diplomatic relations with the State of Israel." "Offensive" weaponry is not defined. Seymour notes "every Arab nation with the exception of one [Egypt] remains in a state of war with the Israeli people. ...During a time when the United States has repeatedly expressed its concern about the world-wide proliferation of offensive weapons, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Arab world's refusal to accept the sovereignty of Israel stands as the major reason for the acquisition of long-range ballistic missiles by countries such as Libya, Syria, and Iraq. If the President announces that he will refrain from initiating major arms sales to aggressive Arab powers, they might realize the futility of rejecting America's only democratic ally in the region." Recent Congressional publications Arms Trade and Nonproliferation (Part I) (hearings of the Joint Economic Committee on 23 April and 21 Sept 91) USGPO: 1992 Congressional Presentation for Security Assistance Programs for FY 1993, Department of State and DSAA The Drug War: Counternarcotics Programs in Colombia and Peru T-NSIAD-92-9, 20 February 92 Export-Import Bank: Financing Commercial Military Sales CRS Issue Brief 3 January 92 IB91074, 12 pp. Nuclear Proliferation: Learning from the Iraq Experience (hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 17 and 23 October 91) USGPO: 1992, 58 pp. Middle East Arms Transfer Policy (hearing of the SFRC on 6 June 91) USGPO: 1991, 38 pp. National Military Strategy of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, January 1992, 27 pp. "Nuclear Proliferation in an Uncertain World," Chairman of the HASC, Les Aspin, 17 February 92 Security Assistance: Shooting Incident in East Timor, Indonesia GAO/NSIAD-92-132FS, 18 February 92 Soviet Military Conversion (hearing of the SASC on 19 September 91) USGPO: 1991, 114 pp. "Tomorrow's Defense From Today's Industrial Base: Finding the Right Resource Strategy for a New Era," Chairman of the HASC, Les Aspin, 12 February 92, 20 pp.