In the Arms of Dictators: America the Great… Global Arms Dealer
By: Andrew Gavin Marshall
The American imperial system incorporates much more than supporting
the occasional coup or undertaking the occasional war. Coups, wars,
assassinations and other forms of overt and covert violence and
destabilization, while relatively common and consistent for the United
States – compared to other major powers – are secondary to the general
maintenance of a system of imperial patronage. A “stable” system is what
is desired most by strategic planners and policy-makers, but this has a
technical definition. Stability means that the populations of subject
nations and regions are under “control” – whether crushed by force or
made passive by consent, while Western corporate and financial interests
have and maintain unhindered access to the “markets” and resources of
those nations and regions. Since the 19th century development
of America’s overseas empire, this has been referred to as the “Open
Door” policy: as in, the door opens for American and other Western
economic interests to have access to and undertake exploitation of
resources and labor.
As the only global imperial power, and by far the world’s largest
military power, America does not merely rely upon the “goodwill” of
smaller nations or the threat of force against them in order to maintain
its dominance, it has established, over time, a large and complex
network of imperial patronage: supplying economic aid, military aid (to
allow its favoured regimes to control their own populations or engage in
proxy-warfare), military and police training, among many other
programs. These programs are largely coordinated by and between the
Defense Department, State Department, and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID).
Arms sales are a major method through which the United States – and
other powerful nations – are able to exert their hegemony, by arming and
strengthening their key allies, directly or indirectly fueling civil
wars and conflicts, and funneling money into the world’s major weapons
manufacturers. The global economic crisis had “significantly pushed down
purchases of weapons” over 2009 to the lowest level since 2005. In
2009, worldwide arms deals amounted to $57.5 billion, dropping 8.5% from
the previous year. The United States maintained its esteemed role as
the main arms dealer in the world, accounting for $22.6 billion – or 39%
of the global market. In 2008, the U.S. contribution to global arms
sales was significantly higher, at $38.1 billion, up from $25.7 billion
in 2007. In 2009, the second-largest arms dealer in the world was Russia
at $10.4 billion, then France at $7.4 billion, followed by Germany,
Italy, China and Britain.[1]
There are two official ways in which arms are sold to foreign
nations: either through Foreign Military Sales (FMS), in which the
Pentagon negotiates an agreement between the U.S. government and a
foreign government for the sale and purchase of arms, and through Direct
Commercial Sales (DCS), in which arms manufacturers (multinational
corporations) negotiate directly with foreign governments for the sale
and purchase of arms, having to apply for a license from the State
Department.
Between 2005 and 2009, U.S. arms sales totaled roughly $101 billion,
with direct commercial sales (DCS) accounting for more than half of the
total value, at $59.86 billion, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
accounting for $40.85 billion. The top seven recipients of U.S. arms
sales between 2005 and 2009 were: Japan at $13.14 billion, the United
Kingdom at $8.32 billion, Israel at $8 billion, South Korea at $6.53
billion, Australia at $4.17 billion, Egypt at $4.07 billion, and the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) at $3.98 billion.[2]
The United States experienced a slight decline in global arms sales
over 2009, though it maintained its position as the world’s number one
arms dealer, holding 30% of the global market. However, the Obama
administration in 2010 decided to change certain “export control
regulations” in order to make arms deals easier and increase the U.S.
share of the global market. The stated reason for the legal change was
“to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies,” though it had the
added benefit of “generating business for the U.S. defense industry.”
The U.S. National Security Advisor at the time, General James Jones,
claimed that without the changes, the existing system of arms sales
“poses a potential national security risk based on the fact that its
structure is overly complicated.”[3]
In early 2010, the Obama administration began pressuring Saudi Arabia
and other Gulf dictatorships (aka: “allies”) to increase their
purchases of U.S. arms, upgrade their defense of oil installations and
threaten Iran with overwhelming military superiority. In the lead were
Saudi Arabia and the UAE in undertaking a regional “military buildup” –
or arms race – resulting in more than $25 billion in U.S. arms sales to
the region over the previous two years. A senior U.S. official in the
Obama administration commented: “We’re developing a truly regional
defensive capability, with missile systems, air defense and a hardening
up of critical infrastructure… All of these have progressed
significantly over the past year.” Another senior official stated, “It’s
a tough neighborhood, and we have to make sure we are protected,”
adding that Iran was the “number one threat in the region.”[4]
Of course, Iran is actually a nation that exists within the region, and thus has the right to defend
itself, whereas the United States cannot “defend” itself in a region in
which it does not exist. But then, geographical trivialities have never
been a concern to imperialists who believe that the world belongs to
them and it was a mere accident of history that all the resources exist
outside of the empire’s home country. Therefore, with such a
rationalization, the United States – and the West more broadly – have a
“right” to “defend” themselves (and their economic and political
interests) everywhere in the world, and against everyone in the world.
Any other nation which poses a challenge to Western domination of the
world and its resources is thus a “threat” to whichever region it
belongs, as well as to U.S. “national security.”
Iran is of course not the only competition for the United States and
the West in its unhindered access to and control of the world, but China
is another and arguably much more significant threat (though not an
officially sanctioned U.S. enemy, as of yet). Around the same time the
U.S. was pushing for increased arms sales to the Persian Gulf
dictatorships (no doubt, to advance the causes of “democracy” and
“peace”), the Obama administration secured an arms deal with Taiwan
worth over $6 billion, incurring the frustration of China. The deal
included the sale of 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters,
and communications equipment for Taiwan’s fleet of F-16s, with the
possibility of future sales of F-16 fighter jets.[5]
The Chinese vice foreign minister expressed “indignation” to the U.S.
State Department in response to the arms deal, adding: “We believe this
move endangers China’s national security and harms China’s peaceful
reunification efforts [with Taiwan]… It will harm China-U.S. relations
and bring about a serious and active impact on bilateral communication
and cooperation.” In response, the U.S. National Security Advisor
General James Jones stated that the announcement shouldn’t “come as a
surprise to our Chinese friends.”[6]
In September of 2010, the Obama administration announced the
intention to undertake the largest arms deal in U.S. history, the sale
of advanced aircraft to Saudi Arabia worth up to $60 billion for fighter
jets and helicopters (84 F-15s, 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks, and 36
Little Birds), as well as engaging “in talks with the [Saudi] kingdom
about potential naval and missile-defense upgrades that could be worth
tens of billions of dollars more,” according to the Wall Street Journal,
with “a potential $30 billion package to upgrade Saudi Arabia’s naval
forces.” The stated objective was to counter the role of Iran in the
region, though no agreement had been initially reached. The U.S. was
selling the idea to Congress as a means of creating “jobs,” a political
euphemism for corporate profits. One official involved in the
talks noted, “It’s a big economic sale for the U.S. and the argument is
that it is better to create jobs here than in Europe.”[7]
The arms deal would purchase equipment and technology from Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and United Technologies. In recent years,
Saudi Arabia had been purchasing more European and Russian-made arms
from companies like BAE Systems. U.S. officials were also attempting to
ease the fears of Israel while massively building up the arsenal of a
close neighbor, ensuring that the planes sold to the Kingdom wouldn’t
have long-range weapons systems and further, that the Israelis would
purchase the more advanced F-35 jet fighters. The Israeli ambassador to
the United States, Michael Oren, commented, “We appreciate the
administration’s efforts to maintain Israel’s qualitative military
edge.” The potential $60 billion arms deal with the Saudis would be
stretched out over several years, though there was talk that the Saudis
might only guarantee a purchase of at least $30 billion, at least,
initially.[8]
The Financial Times reported that the Arab dictatorships in
the Gulf “have embarked on one of the largest re-armament exercises in
peacetime history, ordering US weapons worth some $123 billion as they
seek to counter Iran’s military power.” Saudi Arabia’s $60 billion was
the largest, with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) signing arms deals
worth between $35 and $40 billion in purchases of a “high altitude
missile defence system” known as THAAD, developed by Lockheed Martin, as
well as purchasing upgrades of its Patriot missile defense systems,
produced by Raytheon. Oman was expected to purchase $12 billion and
Kuwait $7 billion in arms and military technology. The CEO of Blenheim
Capital Partners, a consultancy firm which helps arrange arms deals,
noted that Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries were replacing
Western European nations as the largest arms purchasers, adding: “They
are the big buyers.”[9]
Anthony Cordesman from the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) said that the United States was seeking to create a “new
post-Iraq war security structure that can secure the flow of energy
exports to the global economy.” These massive arms sales would then
“reinforce the level of regional deterrence” – or in other words, expand
American hegemony over the region through local proxy powers and
dictatorships – and thus, “help reduce the size of forces the US must
deploy in the region.” As a Saudi defense analyst noted, “[t]he Saudi
aim is to send a message especially to the Iranians – that we have
complete aerial superiority over them.”[10]
According to three of four members of an ‘Expert Roundup’ published
by the Council on Foreign Relations, the $123 billion arms deals with
the Arab dictatorships are “a good idea for the United States and the
Middle East.” One of the “experts” is Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A.
Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS, former director of intelligence
assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as having
served in several other State Department and NATO staffs, and has been a
regular consultant to the Afghan and Iraqi occupation commands, U.S.
embassies, and was a member of the Strategic Assessment Group which
advised General Stanley McChrystal in developing a new strategy in
Afghanistan for 2009. He also regularly consults with the U.S. State and
Defense Departments and the intelligence community. Cordesman wrote
that the US “shares critical strategic interests with Saudi Arabia,”
notably the control of oil for “the health” of the global economy.[11]
Cordesman also emphasized the role of pliant dictatorships in
carrying out U.S imperial objectives in the region, writing that the
U.S. “needs allies that have interoperable forces that can both fight
effectively alongside the United States and ease the U.S. burden by
defending themselves,” meaning, to defend America’s interests, which then become the interests of America’s proxies
– or “allies.” The arms sales would be a helpful counter to Iran in the
region, and secure a strong relationship between “the current Saudi
government as well as Saudi governments for the next fifteen to twenty
years,” the suggested timeline for delivery of all purchases, providing
Saudi Arabia with a “strong incentive to work with the United States”
over the long-term.[12]
Loren B. Thompson, the Chief Operating Officer of the Lexington
Institute, also participated in the Council on Foreign Relations
‘Roundup’ report, writing that the arms deal “appears to be a careful
reconciliation of Saudi requirements with Israeli fears, while also
offering a strategic balance against Iran.” Whatever the differences
between Saudi Arabia and the United States, he wrote, casting aside the
fact that the Kingdom is one of the most brutal and dictatorial regimes
in the world, “the Saudis have been reliable allies of America for
decades and have exercised a moderating influence on the behavior of
other oil-producing states.” Helping the Saudis, Thompson wrote, “means
helping ourselves.”[13]
F. Gregory Gause III, Professor and Chair of the Political Science
Department at the University of Vermont wrote that the arms deal “will
not buy much security in the long run in the Persian Gulf,” but, he
added, “there are no good reasons not to sell the Saudis those weapons,
and there are some potentially positive results (besides the economic
benefits to the US),” such as opposing the “Iranian regional challenge,”
with which he included Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Occupied
Territories of Palestine, “various Iraqi parties,” Syria, and “Shia
activists in the Gulf monarchies.” One could not object to the arms sale
on the basis of supporting a regime with a horrible record on
democracy, women’s rights, Islam, and human rights, Gause wrote, adding:
“Moral purity would be purchased at the price of reduced American
regional influence.” In other words, it’s a terrible regime, but it’s America’s
terrible regime, and thus, challenging or changing the nature of the
regime could undermine and erode America’s influence through the
dictatorship and over the region.[14]
William Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at
the New America Foundation, was another “expert” in the Council on
Foreign Relations ‘Roundup’ report, providing the one “cautionary note”
on the arms deal on the basis that it could amount to fueling an arms
race in the region, building up the forces of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf
monarchs, and Israel, thus providing pressure on Iran “to ratchet up its
own military capabilities.” The Saudi deal “consists primary of
offensive weapons,” though it is stated to be for defensive purposes,
and if Saudi Arabia were to undertake aggressive military actions in the
region, such as in Yemen (as it has), it would more likely “inflame
passions” against Saudi Arabia instead of solving security problems.[15]
The United States has for years dominated the arms market of the
Persian Gulf, supplying military equipment to Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait,
Oman, Qatar and Bahrain, all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC), a regional governance association. A Middle East “defense
analyst” with Forecast International, stated: “The U.S. arms sales to
these countries are meant to improve the defense capabilities of the
recipient nations, reinforce the sense of U.S. solidarity with its GCC
partners and, finally, create a semblance of interoperability with
American forces.” After the United States, the largest arms dealers to
the region are France, Russia, Britain and China. Russian and Chinese
arms mostly went to Iran, while Israel received $2.78 billion in U.S.
military aid in 2010.[16]
In October of 2010, the United States assistant secretary of state
for political-military affairs, Andrew Shapiro, formally announced the
intended Saudi arms deal for the U.S. Congress to approve for a program
to last from 15 to 20 years. Shapiro stated that, “This is not solely
about Iran… It’s about helping the Saudis with their legitimate security
needs… they live in a dangerous neighbourhood and we are helping them
preserve and protect their security.”[17]
For an average of $13 billion per year in arms sales between 1995 and
2005, the Department of Defense announced in 2010 that it intended to
sell up to $103 billion, though presumably achieving a lower number,
such as $50 billion, over the course of the year. A defense industry
consultant, Loren Thompson, stated that, “Obama is much more favorably
disposed to arms exports than any of the previous Democratic
administrations.” Jeff Abramson of the Arms Control Association stated
that there was “an Obama arms bazaar going on.” While the discussion
about the massive arms sales in most of the press and political
discourse was focused upon supporting 200,000 workers in the ‘defense’
industry, industry consultant Thompson was less ambiguous: “It’s about
U.S. allies, it’s about maintaining jobs, and it’s about America’s
broader role in the world – and what you have to do to maintain that
role;” the role being – of course – that of the global imperial
hegemon.[18]
Military contractors spread their factories and workforce out across
several U.S. states in order to use their leverage as “major employers”
with the U.S. Congress and other political powers. Boeing has facilities
in over 20 U.S. states, and the corporation’s head of business
development for military aircraft, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, was
previously responsible for overseeing arms exports for the Pentagon. The
entire industry of military contractors is entirely dependent upon
massive state subsidies to survive, doing 80-90% of their business with
the Pentagon. And, as CNN Money reported, “business recently has
been good,” with the U.S. more than doubling its military spending since
2001 to roughly $700 billion, nearly as much as the rest of the entire
world spends combined.[19]
Congress agreed in December of 2010 to spend $725 billion on
‘defense’ for 2011. Military contractors were largely seeking “growth” –
a euphemism for exploitation and profit – by turning to
foreign arms sales. The military contractor EADS sought to establish a
headquarters in Asia, Honeywell created a new “international sales”
division, and Lockheed Martin was planning to increase its revenue share
acquired outside the United States from 14 to 20% by 2012, Boeing aimed
to increase international sales from 17-25%, and Raytheon had the
largest percentage of revenue from overseas at 23%. But sadly, for the
arms dealers, it’s not so easy to sell weapons to foreign governments,
since each deal requires a license from the U.S. State Department, a
pesky barrier to “growth.” The countries with the “biggest appetite for
U.S weapons” are “oil-rich nations in the Middle East,” with roughly 50%
of foreign military sales by U.S. contractors between 2006 and 2009
being sold to countries in the region, with Boeing reaping the most
overall profits. Mark Kronenberg, the head of Boeing’s international
business development, noted: “The last time we had a period like this in
the Middle East was the early ‘90s,” during the lead up to and
aftermath of the first Gulf War, adding, “Here we are, 20 years later,
and they’re recapitalizing.”[20]
A report prepared by the U.S. Congressional Research Service and
published in December of 2011 detailed Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
agreements between the United States and other nations for the period of
2003 to 2010. Between 2003 and 2006, the top ten largest recipients of
U.S. arms through FMS (and excluding Direct Commercial Sales and Foreign
Military Aid programs) were: Egypt ($4.5 billion), Saudi Arabia ($4.2
billion), Poland ($4.1 billion), followed by Australia, Japan, Greece,
South Korea, Kuwait, Turkey, and Israel. For the years 2007 to 2010, the
top ten recipients were: Saudi Arabia ($13.8 billion), UAE ($10.4
billion), Egypt ($7.8 billion), followed by Taiwan, Australia, Iraq,
Pakistan, UK, Turkey, and South Korea. In 2010, the top ten purchases of
U.S. arms were: Taiwan ($2.7 billion), Egypt ($1.8 billion), Saudi
Arabia ($1.5 billion), followed by Australia, UK, Israel, Iraq, Jordan,
South Korea, and Singapore.[21]
In April of 2011, Leslie H. Gelb, the President Emeritus of the
Council on Foreign Relations, wrote that in light of “the possible
consequences of the new popular awakenings” across the Middle East, and
the fact that as dictatorships increasingly “crack down even harder
against the protesters… enabled by Western arms,” Americans “don’t like
thinking of themselves or having others think of them as merchants of
death.” The “nightmares” of Western policy-makers “comes from their
hopes for Arab democracy” – that is, the emergence of “stable
democracies over time” – and “their fears that fledgling Arab
democracies will go awry.”[22] So naturally, arms deals are a good means
to secure U.S. interests in the region.
In May of 2011, Andrew Shapiro, the Assistant Secretary of State for
Political-Military Affairs, spoke to the U.S. Department of State’s
Defense Trade Advisory Group, at which he said the “demand” for U.S.
arms and military technology “will remain strong because the U.S. has
longstanding defense commitments to allies around the world,” and “we
will remain very busy no matter the fluctuations of the global market.”
The “dynamic nature of the geopolitical landscape” would require the
U.S. “to adapt to changing situations.” Shapiro stated that, “we are
witnessing another geopolitical shift, which may have broad implications
for U.S. foreign policy,” referencing the popular uprisings across the
Middle East as “perhaps the most significant geopolitical development
since the end of the Cold War.” In his speech, Shapiro praised his
audience at the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) as “valuable” in
“giving us a formal channel to the private sector,” enabling the State
Department “to better evaluate U.S. laws and regulations, especially
during times of immense change.”[23]
The members of the DTAG included top executives and officials from
such companies as BAE Systems, ITT Defense, Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton,
EADS North America, Intel, General Electric, General Dynamics, United
Technologies, Tyco, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell International, Raytheon,
and Lockheed Martin, among a total of 45 individuals.[24] According to
its website, the DTAG advises the State Department Bureau of
Political-Military Affairs “on its support for and regulation of defense
trade to help ensure that impediments to legitimate exports are reduced
while the foreign policy and national security interests of the U.S.
continue to be protected and advanced.”
Shapiro told these corporate representatives that, “It is important
to emphasize that arms transfers are a tool to advance U.S. foreign
policy. And therefore when U.S. foreign policy interests, goals, and
objectives shift, evolve, and transform over time, so will our arms
transfer policy.” As always, stated Shapiro, “we urge you to provide
your thoughts and ideas over how we should move forward.” Foreign
military sales – especially to the Middle East – will continue as “a
critical foreign policy instrument” allowing the U.S. to “gain influence
and leverage, which can be used to help advance our foreign policy
goals and objectives.”[25]
As an example, the United States approved $200 million in military
sales from U.S. corporations to the government of Bahrain in 2010, just
months before pro-democracy protests erupted in the country, resulting
in “a harsh crackdown on protesters,” killing at least 30 and injuring
hundreds of more people in a matter of months.[26]
In December of 2011, Andrew Shapiro announced the formal signing with
Saudi Arabia to sell the dictatorship $30 billion in F-15 fighter jets
to be delivered by 2015, as well as other plans to sell $11 billion in
arms to Iraq. The Saudi deal was the result of extensive lobbying
efforts by top government officials, including Obama making several
phone calls to Saudi King Abdullah, and the U.S. National Security
Advisor, Thomas E. Donilon, twice traveling to Riyadh while Vice
President Joe Biden led a “high-level delegation” to a funeral for a
Saudi Prince in October of 2011.[27]
Embracing the World with Open “Arms”
In 2009, worldwide arms sales stood at $65.2 billion, dropping by 38%
to $40.4 billion in 2010, the lowest number since 2003, with the United
States contributing $21.4 billion – or 52.7% – of the global arms
deals, Russia in second place at $7.8 billion over 2010, followed by
France, Britain, China, Germany and Italy, according to a report by the
Congressional Research Service. Over 75% of global arms sales in 2010
were for ‘developing’ countries, with India in top place at $5.8 billion
in arms deals, followed by Taiwan at $2.7 billion, Saudi Arabia at $2.2
billion, Egypt, Israel, Algeria, Syria, South Korea, Singapore and
Jordan.[28]
This relative decline in global arms sales over 2010 was not to be
repeated for 2011, with the number skyrocketing to $85.3 billion, with
the U.S. contribution tripling to $66.3 billion, accounting for more
than three-quarters of global arms deals.[29] Russia stood in a distant
second place with $4.8 billion in arms sales.[30] While the United
States controls roughly 75% of the global arms trade, it would be wrong
to ignore the role of the other major players, though they are far from
even competing with the U.S.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported
that the rise in arms sales had increased by 60% in real terms since
2002, with the total sales of the top 100 arms companies reaching $411.1
billion in 2010. The arms industry is “increasingly concentrated” to
the point where the top ten firms account for 56% of all sales, with
Lockheed Martin at the top with sales of $35.7 billion in 2010, followed
by Britain’s BAE Systems at $32.8 billion, Boeing at $31.3 billion, and
Northrop Grumman at $28.5 billion.[31] Other major companies on the top
100 list of arms manufacturers include: General Dynamics, Raytheon,
EADS, L-3 Communications, United Technologies, Thales, SAIC, Honeywell,
Rolls-Royce, General Electric, KBR, Hewlett-Packard, and DynCorp.[32]
Following the beginning of the Arab Spring and the toppling of the
Western-backed dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, British Prime Minister
David Cameron continued with a pre-planned tour of the Middle East in
February of 2011, leading what the British Green Party leader called a
“delegation of arms traders,” with almost 75% of the businessmen
accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip to the region representing
the defense and aerospace industries.[33] As the first Western leader to
visit Egypt following the fall of Mubarak, Cameron praised the
pro-democracy movement: “Meeting the young people and the
representatives of the groups in Tahrir Square [in Cairo] was genuinely
inspiring,” adding: “These are people who have risked a huge amount for
what they believe in.” Immediately after praising Egypt’s revolution and
expressing his own ‘beliefs’ in democracy, Cameron flew to Kuwait with
his arms dealer delegation to sell weapons to other Arab dictatorships.
When criticized for the excessive hypocrisy of his democracy-praising
and dictatorship arms-dealing tour of the Middle East, Cameron simply
asserted that Britain had “nothing to be ashamed of,” as there was
nothing wrong with such transactions.[34]
As dictators across the region were becoming increasingly belligerent
toward protesters, seeking to violently crush resistance after the
successful examples of Tunisians and Egyptians toppling their
long-standing dictators, increasing arms shipments to the region’s
despots seemed to be only natural for Western imperial powers seeking
stability and control. Kevan Jones, the British Shadow Defence Minister
noted: “The defence industry is crucially important to Britain but many
people will be surprised that the prime minister in this week of all
weeks may be considering bolstering arms sales to the Middle East.”
Accompanying David Cameron on his trip were 36 corporate
representatives, including Ian King, the CEO of BAE Systems, as well as
Victor Chavez of Thales UK, Alastair Bisset of Qinetiq, and Rob Watson
of Rolls Royce. When questioned about his ‘arms dealer delegation,’
Cameron stated: “I have got a range of business people on the aeroplane,
people involved in infrastructure and people involved in the arts and
cultural exchanges. Yes, we have defence manufacturers as well. Britain
does have a range of defence relationships with countries in the region.
I seem to remember that we spent a lot of effort and indeed life in
helping to defend Kuwait. So it is quite right to have defence
relationships with some of these countries.”[35]
As Cameron was hopping around the region selling weapons, the largest
arms fair in the Middle East – the Index 2011 – was taking place in Abu
Dhabi, bringing thousands of arms dealers to an exhibition hall with
fighter jets flying overhead, tanks in the sand, with Predator drones
and assault rifles on display, models fully dressed in the latest riot
police outfits, and all choreographed to a hip-hop soundtrack.
Meanwhile, not very far from the booming arms fair, protesters in
Bahrain were being violently repressed by a dictatorship armed and
supported by the West. The British delegation to the arms fair was led
by the Defence Minister, Gerald Howarth, helping represent British
companies which were displaying and selling their latest tools for
‘crowd control,’ showcasing teargas grenades, stun grenades, and rubber
bullets.[36]
A British officer from the government’s Trade and Industry stand at
the arms fair was explaining the benefits of a particular fragmentation
bomb to a top military official from the Algerian dictatorship. Howarth
explained, “I am here as the minister for national security strategy,
supporting this important exhibition.” While in 2011 the British had to
revoke export licenses to Bahrain and Libya following the violence
erupting in both countries, over the previous year the British issued 20
licenses for exports of “riot control weapons,” such as teargas, smoke
and stun grenades, to Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and
Oman, as well as nearly 200 million pounds in “crowd control ammunition”
to the government of Libya.[37]
Weapons manufacturers stated that they felt the increased criticism
inflicted upon their industry following the start of the Arab Spring had
left them “battered and bruised.” One arms trader, commenting less than
two weeks after Mubarak was toppled, stated that, “[t]he Middle East
was a growing market until a few weeks ago,” while a representative from
BAE agreed that the market for arms was insecure: “It is too early to
say where it will end up… Given what is going on at the moment, nobody
is likely to be talking about how to spend their defence procurement
budget.” When a representative for the British arms exporter Chemring
was questioned about selling CS gas shotgun cartridges and stun
grenades, he explained, “we have an ethical policy in place and look
closely at the countries we are considering exporting to and see if they
fit that.” A representative for Primetake, a British firm selling
rubber ball shot, teargas, and rubber baton rounds, defended his firm:
“We are a very respectable organization and we take very careful advice
from the Ministry of Defense and the business department.”[38]
Between October of 2009 and October of 2010, the British exported
arms and military equipment to multiple countries in the Middle East and
North Africa, including over 270 million pounds in materials to
Algeria, including combat helicopters, roughly 6.4 million pounds in
arms deals with Bahrain, nearly 17 million pounds with Egypt, 477
million pounds with Iraq, 27 million pounds with Israel, 21 million
pounds with Jordan, 14.5 million pounds with Kuwait, 6.2 million pounds
with Lebanon, 215 million pounds with Libya, 2.2 million pounds with
Morocco, 14 million pounds with Oman, 13 million pounds with Qatar, 140
million pounds with Saudi Arabia, 2.6 million pounds with Syria, 4.5
million pounds to Tunisia, and 210 million pounds to the UAE. These
sales included assault rifles, tear gas, ammunition, bombs, missiles,
body armour, gun parts, gas mask filters, signaling and radar equipment,
armoured vehicles, anti-riot shields, patrol boats, military software,
shotguns, “crowd-control equipment,” tank parts, military cargo
vehicles, air surveillance equipment, armoured personnel carriers, small
arms ammunition, heavy machine guns, and a plethora of other products,
almost exclusively delivered to dictatorships (with the exception of
Israel).[39]
Germany, which stood as the world’s third-largest arms exporter in
previous years (after the US and Russia), had doubled its share of the
global arms trade over the previous decade to 11%, totaling roughly 6
billion euros in arms deals for 2008 alone, with companies like EADS,
Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch leading the way. Even Russia was
becoming a big customer for German military equipment, purchasing
armoured plating and tanks.[40]
In 2009, the European Union had established new export rules for arms
and military technology, much-praised as preventing the export of arms
that “might be used for undesirable purposes such as internal repression
or international aggression or contribut[ing] to regional instability.”
With the EU rules in place, member countries were free to completely
disregard them. A European Commission study leaked to Der Spiegel
in 2012 revealed that combined exports from EU nations made the
European Union “the world’s largest exporter of weapons” to Saudi
Arabia, delivering at least $4.34 billion in equipment in 2010 alone.
Sweden helped the Saudi dictatorship build a missile factory, Finland
delivered grenade launchers, Germany sold tanks and Britain provided
fighter jets. The arms exporters were unfazed by the fact that equipment
such as the tanks were used by Saudi Arabia in its “invitation” to
invade Bahrain and help the Bahraini dictatorship crush the
pro-democracy movement in early 2011. An official with the Swedish Peace
and Arbitration Society noted that the Swedish support for building a
missile factory in Saudi Arabia has meant that, “we are legitimizing one
of the most brutal regimes in the world.” Pakistan had meanwhile become
China’s biggest customer for arms exports, while India purchased 10% of
the world’s arms exports in 2010 “to defend itself against neighbor and
arch enemy Pakistan.”[41]
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke at the Munich Security
Conference in 2011, she mentioned the “obligation to pursue value-based
foreign policy,” and has often argued that “no compromises” can be made
on issues of human rights. As part of Merkel’s respect for “human
rights” and “value-based foreign policy,” weapons sales have increased
as a significant factor in Germany’s foreign policy strategy, quietly
changing the rules for arms exports to increase weapons sales to “crisis
regions” as “a major pillar of the country’s security policy.” The
objective would be to strengthen countries within “crisis regions” and
therefore reduce the possibility that the German military would itself
have to participate in “international missions.”[42]
The German publication Der Spiegel referred to this as the
“Merkel doctrine” of “tanks instead of soldiers.” Among the key
countries to support, identified by Merkel and eight other ministers who
met behind closed doors under the aegis of the Federal Security
Council, were Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Qatar, India, and Angola. Merkel
explained her doctrine in a speech at an event in Berlin in September of
2011 where she stated that if the West lacks the will and ability to
undertake direct military intervention, “then it’s generally not enough
to send other countries and organizations words of encouragement. We
must also provide the necessary means to those nations that are prepared
to get involved. I’ll say it clearly: This includes arms exports.”
This, of course, Merkel added, would nicely manifest as a foreign policy
“that is aligned with respect for human rights.”[43]
As part of the “Merkel doctrine” of engaging in a “value-based
foreign policy” with “respect for human rights,” Germany increased its
arms sales to the Algerian dictatorship from 20 million euros in 2010 to
nearly 400 million euros in 2012, with German military manufacturer
Rheinmetall planning to produce 1,200 armored personnel carriers for
Algeria over the next ten years.[44] According to published European
Union documents, over 2011, the top five arms exporting countries in the
EU were France, the U.K., Germany, Italy, and Spain, collectively
exporting over 80% of 37.5 billion euros in arms from EU countries. The
European Union, winner of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, increased its arms
exports by 18.3% since the previous year, with an increase in export
licenses to Asia, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa. There were
arms licenses issued to Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and over
300-million euros-worth of arms for Egypt. The EU increased its arms
exports to “areas of tension,” including India, Pakistan, and a record
465 million euros in arms to Afghanistan, “a country still under partial
arms embargo.”[45] However, ‘partial’ is apparently debatable.
With the United States reaching a record-breaking $60 billion in arms
deals over 2011, Andrew Shapiro at the State Department stated that
2012 was set to be an equally – if not larger – bonanza for arms
dealers. Revealing the role of diplomats and top government officials as
glorified lobbyists and corporate representatives, Shapiro told a group
of defense writers in the Summer of 2012: “We’ve really upped our game
in terms of advocating on behalf of U.S. companies,” adding, “I’ve got
the frequent-flyer miles to prove it.” Shapiro had traveled to more than
11 countries over 2012 promoting arms deals, noting that sales were at a
record level for the third quarter of 2012, already passing $50
billion. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had made “advocacy” for arms
dealers “a key priority” for U.S. diplomats and State Department
officials who “were now expected to undertake such efforts on all trips
abroad.” Shapiro and others had been lobbying for American military
contractors in deals ranging from Japan’s $10 billion purchase of
aircraft from Lockheed Martin to India’s increased arms purchases, where
Shapiro saw “tremendous potential” for U.S. arms sales, and to Brazil,
where Boeing was competing with France’s Dassault company for a
multibillion-dollar defense contract, of which Shapiro stated, “We’re
eager to make the best possible case for the Boeing aircraft, and we’re
hopeful that it will be selected.”[46]
By March of 2013, the world’s five largest arms exporters were the
U.S., Russia, Germany, France, and China overtook the UK for the first
time in fifth place, having increased its arms exports by 162% between
2008 and 2012, increasing its share of the global arms trade from 2 to
5%, over 50% of which are delivered to Pakistan, with other large
recipients being Myanmar, Bangladesh, Algeria, Venezuela and
Morocco.[47] Li Hong, the secretary-general of the China Arms Control
and Disarmament Association noted: “Military exports are one way for
China to increase its international status,” explaining that, “China
needs to increase its influence in regional affairs and from that
perspective it needs to increase weapons exports further.” As China
increased its own military budget in recent years, it had turned to
developing its own weapons industries, thus moving from being the
world’s number one arms importer (of conventional weapons) between
2003-2007 to taking second place behind India in the 2008-2012 period,
acquiring roughly 69% of its arms imports from Russia.[48]
British Prime Minister David Cameron again traveled to the Middle
East, accompanied by his Defense Secretary Philip Hammond and another
delegation of arms dealers in 2012, seeking to sell up to 100
Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, built by EADS and
marketed by BAE, competing with France’s cheaper Rafale strike jet made
by Dassault Aviation. The increased – and increasingly profitable – arms
race in the Middle East was largely facilitated by America’s policies
toward Iran. William Cohen is a former U.S. Secretary of Defense in the
Clinton administration, current Counselor and Trustee to the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), former member of the board
of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1989 to 1997,
current Vice Chairman of the U.S.-China Business Council, on the board
of directors of CBS Corporation, and is Chairman and CEO of The Cohen
Group, an international business consulting firm. Commenting on the
growing arms race in the Middle East, Cohen repeated the usual American
propaganda, stating that there was “A very legitimate concern about Iran
being a revolutionary country,” though also adding that terrorism,
cyberattack threats, and “the implications of the Arab Spring” spurred
each country in the region “to make sure it’s protected against that.”
Cohen added that military contractors, information technology firms and
other corporations “have an enormous opportunity” in the region.[49]
When British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond traveled to Indonesia
to promote arms deals for British military contractors like BAE Systems
and Rolls-Royce, he explained that increasing military ties with
notoriously corrupt Indonesia, posed “manageable” risks. He commented:
“From the companies I have talked to, they recognize that there is a
challenge but they think that it is manageable, and they can operate
here successfully while observing the UK and US legal requirements to
address anti-corruption issues.” This statement came amid accusations of
Rolls-Royce engaging in bribery to acquire business in China,
Indonesia, and elsewhere. Hammond noted that in light of the U.S.
“pivot” to Asia, Britain was “looking east in a way we have not done
before.” Indonesia had recently purchased F-16 fighter jets and Apache
helicopters from the U.S., Sukhoi fighters from Russia, missile systems
from China, anti-aircraft missiles, Hawk jets and small arms from
British companies.[50] Prime Minister David Cameron defended arms sales
to oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, declaring it to be
“completely legitimate and right.”[51]
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a major
think tank, projected that defense spending in Asia would overtake that
of Europe for the first time in 2012, noting that Asia was in the midst
of an arms race between China and other states in the region. The
expenditure of European members of NATO on defense spending over 2011
was just under $270 billion, whereas in Asia it had reached $262 billion
(excluding Australia and New Zealand). As China announced increased
defense spending, the United States announced a “shift in military
strategy” which treats the Asia-Pacific region “as one of the Pentagon’s
priorities at a time when forces in Europe are being sharply cut.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that large and rising powers
like China “have a special obligation to demonstrate in concrete ways
that they are going to pursue a constructive path.” Leon Panetta, the
U.S. Defense Secretary, noted that America’s “military posture in Asia
will be increased.”[52]
Indeed, in 2012, Asian defense spending surpassed that of Europe for
the first time, reaching a record level of $287.4 billion, though the
United States continued to account for 45.3% of total global military
spending, meaning that the United States spends almost as much on
military expenditures than the rest of the entire world combined.[53]
The United States, as part of its Pacific ‘pivot’ in military strategy,
increased its arms sales to countries neighbouring China and North
Korea. Fred Downey, vice president of the U.S. trade group, Aerospace
Industries Association, which includes top U.S. military contractors,
noted that the Pacific pivot “will result in growing opportunities for
our industry to help equip our friends.” U.S. arms sales to the region
increased to $13.7 billion in 2012, up more than 5% from the previous
year. There were 65 individual notifications to the U.S. Congress over
the previous year regarding total foreign military sales brokered by the
Pentagon with a collective value exceeding $63 billion. The State
Department, responsible for issuing licenses for direct commercial sales
between military contractors and foreign governments, noted that 2012
saw a new record increase with more than 85,000 license requests.[54]
As Obama set a new record for arms sales to the Middle East in 2012,
Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro noted, “If countries view
the United States unfavorably, they will be less willing to cooperate on
security matters,” and for this reason, “the current administration has
sought to revitalize U.S. diplomatic engagement, especially relating to
security assistance and defense trade.” The growth in arms sales, noted
Shapiro, speaking to the Defense Trade Advisory Group in November of
2012, “has been truly remarkable,” that in spite of the global economic
crisis, “demand for U.S. defense sales abroad remains robust” with
“significant growth both in direct commercial sales and in foreign
military sales.”[55]
As part of America’s Pacific ‘pivot,’ the United States announced a
$5.9 billion arms deal with Taiwan in 2011, upgrading the country’s
fleet of 145 F-16 fighter jets. Zhang Zhijun, a Chinese Vice-Foreign
Minister, commented: “The wrongdoing by the US side will inevitably
undermine bilateral relations as well as exchanges and co-operation in
military and security areas.” Upon the announcement of the arms deal,
Zhijun summoned the U.S. ambassador to China, Gary Locke, and informed
him that, “China strongly urges the US to be fully aware of the high
sensitivity and serious harm of the issue, [to] seriously treat the
solemn stance of China, honor its commitment and immediately cancel the
wrong decision.” A top Obama administration official replied, “We
believe that our contribution to the legitimate defense needs of Taiwan
will contribute to stability across the Taiwan Strait.”[56] The Chinese
Ministry of Defense warned that the arms deal “will create a serious
obstacle to developing normal exchanges between the two militaries” and
that the “U.S. has ignored China’s firm opposition and insisted on
selling arms to Taiwan.”[57] Obviously, there are different definitions
of “stability” at play.
In April of 2012, the Pentagon announced an arms deal with Japan of
four F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft with an option to purchase an
additional 38 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin at an estimated cost of $10
billion.[58] In late 2011, Japan announced its intention to relax a ban
on weapons exports which dated back to 1967, which, the Financial Times
reported, could open “the way for Japanese companies to participate in
the international development and manufacture of advanced weapon
systems.” Japan’s largest business lobby, the Keidanren, praised the
move as “epoch-making.”[59] Following the “relaxing” of controls, Japan
and Britain announced that they would jointly develop weaponry, the
first time that Japan would work with another country (apart from the
United States) on constructing military equipment.[60]
In October of 2012, the United States announced an arms deal in which
South Korea would get longer-range missiles capable of striking
anywhere in North Korea, “altering” (or violating) a 2001 accord which
barred the U.S. “from developing and deploying ballistic missiles with a
range of more than 300km (186 miles),” in order to avert a regional
arms race. Obviously, a decision was made to create a regional
arms race, so the accord was “altered” and the US agreed to sell South
Korea missiles with a range of 800km. South Korea’s defense ministry
praised the new deal, stating that they would then be able to “strike
all of North Korea, even from southern areas.” The 2001 accord also
ensured that the U.S. would not deploy or develop missiles for the South
with a payload of more than 500 kg (1,100lbs), since the “heavier a
payload is, the more destructive power it can have.” So obviously, that
pesky restriction also had to be “altered,” and while long-range
missiles maintain the 1,100lb payload, missiles with shorter ranges will
be permitted to hold much more. South Korea will also be able to
operate U.S.-supplied drones, permitted to hold payloads up to 5,510lb
with a range of more than 300km, and no payload restrictions on drones
with a flying distance less than 300km. South Korea can also acquire
cruise missiles with unlimited range, and some media reports suggested
that South Korea had already deployed cruise missiles with a range of
more than 1,000km, though officials “refused to confirm” if that were
true. The South Korean Defense Ministry reported that North Korea had
missiles that could reach South Korea, Japan, and Guam, a Pacific
territory of the United States.[61] Thus, the United States intends to
counter the “threat” of North Korea by instigating a massive arms race
in the region.
Arms Trade Diplomacy: “Chief Commercial Officer” or Ambassador?
As the massive release of diplomatic cables from Wikileaks
revealed, U.S. and other diplomats are often little more than glorified
lobbyists and salesmen for the Western arms industry. Lockheed Martin
got help from the U.S. State Department in selling C-130 military
transport planes to the government in Chad starting in 2007. The U.S.
Embassy in Chad noted that the government likely could not afford the
aircraft, not to mention that it would probably use the aircraft “to
defend the regime against a backlash provoked by its refusal so far to
open its political system and provide for a peaceful democratic
transition.” In other words, the government of Chad wanted to use the
military equipment to crush a pro-democracy movement. Nevertheless,
noted the U.S. Embassy, we “would concur in allowing the sale to go
forward.”[62]
With Chad’s air force chief, its ambassador to the U.S. and a
representative from Lockheed Martin promoting the deal with the State
Department, the Embassy noted that the sale “would provide a healthy
boost to U.S. exports to Chad” and “strengthen U.S. military
cooperation.” While Chad told the State Department that it wanted the
aircraft “to go after terrorists or help refugees,” the U.S. Embassy
noted that in reality, “it needs them to support combat operations
against the armed rebellion in eastern Chad,” and commented: “A decision
to approve the sale would be met with dismay by many Chadian supporters
of peaceful democratic change.” Our conclusion, noted a U.S. Embassy
cable, “is that, like it or not, our interests line up in favor of
allowing the sale in some form to go forward.” However, the U.S. would
have to promote the sale with full knowledge of how Chadians will
perceive it, and will have to undertake “a strategy to counter these
perceptions.”[63]
Ben Berkowitz wrote for Reuters that Wikileaks cables painted
“a picture of foreign service officers and political appointees willing
to go to great lengths to sell American products and services,” where,
“in some cases, the efforts were so strenuous they raise the question of
where if anywhere the line is being drawn between diplomacy and
salesmanship.” A State Department spokesperson said in response that the
U.S. government “has broad, though not unlimited, discretion to promote
and assist U.S. commercial interests abroad.” Such practice became
official policy shortly after the end of the Cold War when U.S.
Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger introduced a bill which gave
corporations a direct role in foreign policy. One former U.S. diplomat
in Asia noted, “Until (then), U.S. diplomats were not particularly
encouraged to help U.S. business. They were busy fighting the Cold War.”
Suddenly, he noted, “we were given new direction: if a single U.S.
company is looking for business, we should advocate for them by name; if
more than one U.S. company was in the mix, stress buying the American
product.” The former diplomat added: “It was great to see how
influential the right word from the U.S. ambassador was.”[64]
Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero had informed the
U.S. Embassy, “to let him know if there was something important to the
(U.S. government) and he would take care of it,” according to a 2009
diplomatic cable. The embassy took up the offer when General Electric
was bidding against Rolls-Royce to sell helicopters to the Spanish
Ministry of Defense (MOD), with GE informing the U.S. Embassy that if it
did not get the contract, it would close part of its business in Spain.
The U.S. Embassy passed the information along to Zapatero’s economic
adviser, and, although there was “considerable” evidence that the
government was going to award the contract to Rolls Royce, the
Zapatero’s office “overturned the decision and it was announced that GE
had won the bid,” and the U.S. Ambassador was “convinced that Zapatero
personally intervened in the case in favor of GE.”[65]
The U.S. Embassy in the United Arab Emirates promoted the interests
of Halliburton to participate in a joint venture with the Abu Dhabi
National Oil Co. in 2003, a time at which Halliburton’s former CEO, Dick
Cheney, was Vice President of the United States. The contract was
eventually awarded to Halliburton. The U.S. Ambassador to the UAE at the
time, Marcelle Wahba, noted, “I can’t think of a time when a month went
by when a commercial issues wasn’t on my plate… Some administrations
put more of an emphasis on it than others, but now I think, regardless
of who’s in power you really find it’s become an integral part of the
State Department mandate.”[66]
Tom Niles, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada, the European Union and
Greece, as well as former president of the “pro-trade group” the U.S.
Council for International Business, stated: “By the time I was retired
from the Foreign Service, which was 1998, things had changed
fundamentally and being an active participant in the commercial program
and promoting trade using the prestige of the ambassador and receptions
held at the ambassador’s residence was an important part of what I did.”
Niles suggested that a U.S. ambassador was as much a “chief commercial
officer” for corporations as a diplomat. “We might have been a little
bit late to the game. The Europeans understood the crucial role of
foreign trade in the growth and development of their economies before we
did.” A former ambassador to the UAE noted: “Oftentimes European
ambassadors, that’s all they’re there for.” Of course, that’s only
logical, considering that European ambassadors do not have to be
concerned with managing the world in the same way the United States
does. Therefore, their interests are specific: economic.[67]
In the Arms of America
With all the flowery rhetoric of “democracy” and “freedom,” American –
and the Western world’s – hypocrisy can easily be revealed with a brief
look at the global arms trade: supporting ruthless and repressive
dictatorships, as well as creating and supporting regional arms races
which increase instability and the threat of war. The objective is
simple, and from the imperial perspective, very practical: support
regional proxy states to do our dirty work for us. If this happens to
increase regional instability and even lead to war, well, such things
are inevitable within and as a result of an imperial system. So long as
the final result is that the United States and the West maintain their
“access” to and control over regions, resources, and populations, the means are incidental.
To put it another way: if our nations were actually interested
in concepts and ideas of “democracy” and “freedom” for all people,
around the world, why do we sell billions of dollars in weapons and
military technology to the countries which most enthusiastically crush
democracy and prevent freedom?
The answer to that question reveals the true nature of our society.
Notes
[1] Thom Shanker, “Bad Economy Drives Down American Arms Sales,” The New York Times, 12 September 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/world/13weapons.html
[2] Matt Sugrue, “GAO Report on U.S. Arms Sales, 2005-2009,” Arms Control Now, 29 September 2010:
http://armscontrolnow.org/2010/09/29/gao-report-on-u-s-arms-sales-2005-2009/
[3] Maggie Bridgeman, “Obama seeks to expand arms exports by trimming approval process,” McClatchy, 29 July 2010:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/29/98337/obama-seeks-to-expand-arms-exports.html
[4] Joby Warrick, “U.S. steps up weapon sales to Mideast allies,” The Washington Post, 31 January 2010:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2010-01-31/world/36894203_1_gulf-states-obama-administration-united-arab-emirates
[5] Helene Cooper, “U.S. Approval of Taiwan Arms Sales Angers China,” The New York Times, 29 January 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30arms.html
[6] Ibid.
[7] Adam Entous, “Saudi Arms Deal Advances,” The Wall Street Journal, 12 September 2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621204575488361149625050.html
[8] Ibid.
[9] Roula Khalaf and James Drummond, “Gulf states in $123bn US arms spree,” The Financial Times, 20 September 2010:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ffd73210-c4ef-11df-9134-00144feab49a.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn
[10] Ibid.
[11] Anthony H. Cordesman, et. al, “Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good
Idea?” Expert Roundup, the Council on Foreign Relations, 27 September
2010:
http://www.cfr.org/defensehomeland-security/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea/p23019
[12 – 15] Ibid.
[16] “U.S. dominates Middle East arms market,” UPI, 28 December 2010:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/12/28/US-dominates-Middle-East-arms-market/UPI-52831293559959/
[17] “US confirms $60bn Saudi arms deal,” Al-Jazeera, 20 October 2010:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/10/20101020173353178622.html
[18] Mina Kimes, “America’s hottest export: Weapons – Full version,” CNN money, 24 February 2011:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/news/international/america_exports_weapons_full.fortune/index.htm
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Richard F. Grimmett, “U.S. Arms Sales: Agreements with and
Deliveries to Major Clients, 2003-2010,” U.S. Congressional Research
Service, 16 December 2011, page 3.
[22] Leslie H. Gelb, “Mideast Arms Sales Not So Bad,” The Daily Beat, 12 April 2011:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/04/12/mideast-arms-sales-soar-but-the-west-isnt-worried-for-now.html
[23] Andrew J. Shapiro, “Remarks: Defense Trade Advisory Group
Plenary,” Dean Acheson Auditorium, U.S. Department of State, 3 May 2011:
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/162479.htm
[24] DTAG Activity 2010, “2010-2012 Membership,” The Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG), U.S. Department of State:
http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/dtag/index.html
[25] Andrew J. Shapiro, “Remarks: Defense Trade Advisory Group
Plenary,” Dean Acheson Auditorium, U.S. Department of State, 3 May 2011:
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/162479.htm
[26] Agencies, “US arms sales to Bahrain surged in 2010,” Al-Jazeera, 11 June 2011:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/06/2011611144528164171.html
[27] Mark Landler and Steven Myers, “With $30 Billion Arms Deal,
U.S. Bolsters Saudi Ties,” The New York Times, 29 December 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/with-30-billion-arms-deal-united-states-bolsters-ties-to-saudi-arabia.html
[28] Thom Shanker, “Global Arms Sales Dropped Sharply in 2010, Study Finds,” The New York Times, 23 September 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/global-arms-sales-dropped-sharply-in-2010-study-finds.html
[29] Harry Bradford, “U.S. Arms Sales Tripled In 2011 To $66.3 Billion: Report,” The Huffington Post, 27 August 2012:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/us-arms-sales-2011_n_1833602.html
[30] Thom Shanker, “U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market,” The New York Times, 26 August 2012:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
[31] Richard Northon-Taylor, “Arms sales rise during downturn to
more than $400bn, report reveals,” The Guardian, 29 February 2012:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/29/arms-sales-rise-downturn-military
[32] Ami Sedghi, “Arms sales: who are the world’s 100 top arms producers?,” The Guardian Data Blog, 2 March 2012:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers
[33] “Cameron Middle East visit ‘morally obscene’ says Lucas,” BBC News, 23 February 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12582723
[34] Benjamin Bidder and Clemens Hoges, “Democracy or Dollars?:
Weapons Sales to the Arab World under Scrutiny,” Der Spiegel, 1 April
2011:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/democracy-or-dollars-weapons-sales-to-the-arab-world-under-scrutiny-a-754224.html
[35] Nicholas Watt and Robert Booth, “David Cameron’s Cairo visit
overshadowed by defence tour,” The Guardian, 21 February 2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/21/cameron-cairo-visit-defence-trade
[36] Robert Booth, “Abu Dhabi arms fair: Tanks, guns, teargas and trade at Index 2011,” The Guardian, 21 February 2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/21/abu-dhabi-arms-fair-idex-2011
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Simon Rogers, “UK arms sales to the Middle East and North
Africa: who do we sell to, how much is military and how much just
‘controlled’?” The Guardian, 22 February 2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/feb/22/uk-arms-sales-middle-east-north-africa
[40] Benjamin Bidder and Clemens Hoges, “Democracy or Dollars?:
Weapons Sales to the Arab World under Scrutiny,” Der Spiegel, 1 April
2011:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/democracy-or-dollars-weapons-sales-to-the-arab-world-under-scrutiny-a-754224.html
[41] “Weapons Exports: EU Nations Sell the Most Arms to Saudi Arabia,” Der Spiegel, 19 March 2012:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-makes-controversial-weapons-sales-to-saudi-arabia-a-822288.html
[42] Ulrike Demmer, Ralf Neukirch and Holger Stark, “Arming the
World for Peace: Merkel’s Risky Weapons Exports,” Der Spiegel, 30 July
2012:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-s-risky-weapons-sales-signal-change-in-german-foreign-policy-a-847137.html
[43] Ibid.
[44] “Tanks in the Desert: Germany Plans Extensive Arms Deal with Algeria,” Der Spiegel, 12 November 2012:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-arms-sales-to-algeria-have-increased-dramatically-a-866690.html
[45] Press Release, “Large increase in EU arms exports revealed,” Campaign Against Arms Trade, 10 January 2013:
http://www.caat.org.uk/press/press-release.php?url=20130110prs
[46] Andrea Shalal-Esa, “U.S. government advocacy said boosting foreign arms sales,” Reuters, 27 July 2012:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-defense-exports-idUSBRE86Q1FL20120727
[47] Michael Martina, “World’s Top 5 Arms Exporters: China Replaces UK In Weapons Trade,” Reuters, 18 March 2013:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/worlds-top-5-arms-exporters_n_2899052.html
[48] Jamil Anderlini and Victor Mallet, “China joins top five arms exporters,” The Financial Times, 18 March 2013:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c7215936-8f64-11e2-a39b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn
[49] “Defense contest over major gulf arms buys,” UPI, 20 November 2012:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/11/20/Defense-contest-over-major-gulf-arms-buys/UPI-49931353436670/
[50] Ben Bland, “UK defence minister bullish on arms sales,” The Financial Times, 16 January 2013:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5377e148-5fb8-11e2-8d8d-00144feab49a.html#axzz2OOPsqPsh
[51] “David Cameron defends arms deals with Gulf states,” The Telegraph, 5 November 2012:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9656393/David-Cameron-defends-arms-deals-with-Gulf-states.html
[52] FT Reporters, “Asia defence spending to overtake Europe,” The Financial Times, 7 March 2012:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0aab435c-6846-11e1-a6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn
[53] Myra MacDonald, “Asia’s defense spending overtakes Europe’s: IISS,” Reuters, 14 March 2013:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-security-military-iiss-idUSBRE92D0EL20130314
[54] “US Arms Sales to Asia Set to Boom on Pacific ‘Pivot’,” Reuters, 2 January 2013:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100347792
[55] “Obama set record in 2012 for Mideast defense exports,” World Tribune, 4 December 2012:
http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/12/04/obama-set-record-in-2012-for-mideast-defense-exports/
[56] Richard McGregor, “US agrees $5.9bn arms deal with Taiwan,” The Financial Times, 21 September 2011:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/55a1c47c-e488-11e0-92a3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn
[57] Kathrin Hille, “China hits at US over Taiwan arms deal,” The Financial Times, 22 September 2011:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2ae01e5c-e4f4-11e0-9aa8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn
[58] “U.S. Government Says Japan’s Cost to Buy 42 F-35s Around $10 Billion,” Ottawa Citizen, 2 May 2012:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/05/02/u-s-government-says-japans-cost-to-buy-42-f-35s-around-10-billion/
[59] Mure Dickie, “Japan relaxes weapons export ban,” The Financial Times, 27 December 2011:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ab812ee0-3079-11e1-b96f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn
[60] Reuters, “Japan and Britain ‘set to agree arms deal’,” The Telegraph, 4 April 2012:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9185080/Japan-and-Britain-set-to-agree-arms-deal.html
[61] AP, “South Korea to get longer-range missiles under new deal with US,” The Guardian, 7 October 2012:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/south-korea-longer-range-missiles
[62] 07NDJAMENA43, “C-130’s for Chad?”, 12 January 2007, Wikileaks Diplomatic Cables:
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/07NDJAMENA43.html
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ben Berkowitz, “Wikileaks reveals extent of State
Department’s involvement in arms sales, oil deals,” Reuters, 4 March
2011:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/04/wikileaks_reveals_extent_of_state_department_involvement_in_arms_sales/
[65-67] Ibid.