US pushing arms, reforming export controls

By John Feffer

7 Apr 2004

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell okayed the arms deal with a tap of a finger, unveiling the State Department's new D-Trade, a fast, paperless process for granting licenses to US military contractors for arms sales. After joking that State had only recently junked its last vintage Wang computer, Powell pushed one button to approve the sale of a pair of night-vision goggles to the United Kingdom. US government oversight of the arms trade had officially entered the virtual age.

The electronic licensing of D-Trade is only one of a range of pending reforms that would substantially recast and expedite the way the US government handles arms exports, from lowly and innocuous spare parts to the latest unmanned aerial vehicles. The implications for Asia are significant. The United States hopes to facilitate arms sales to such allies as Australia and South Korea, but also to expand new relationships with Pakistan and Indonesia. Taiwan was the world's largest arms importer in the late 1990s, and the US wants a bigger piece of this market. The Europeans, contemplating a lifting of the arms embargo against China, are eyeing an equally lucrative market.

The global arms market is fiercely competitive, and sellers are always looking for an edge. Although the US is the world's largest arms exporter, controlling nearly half of the international market of about US$30 billion a year, both the government and industry have been pushing for the better part of a decade to increase this market share. One way of boosting exports is to make it easier for sellers to get licenses. Every year, the US government processes more than 50,000 export licenses for military goods. Defense contractors frequently complain about bureaucratic delays, which they argue make the US less competitive against other high-ranking exporters such as Russia and France.

But what looks like a delay to one person is a justifiable concern about national security or proliferation to another. In streamlining the process of exporting arms and equipment, skeptics question whether the administration of President George W Bush is seizing market share at the expense of national security.

"Since the late 1990s, industry has been pushing the State Department to remove what they perceive are barriers to defense trade cooperation and US competitiveness in the international arms market," says Matt Schroeder, an arms-trade specialist with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). "The problem is that many of these barriers help to prevent military technologies from ending up in the wrong hands."

Cutting red tape on innocuous items
Joel Johnson of the Aerospace Industries Association disagrees. He lists various components - steering wheels, air conditioners, hydraulic hoses - that have been only very slightly modified from their commercial versions to serve military functions and yet require separate licenses. "There's still an awful lot in the system that shouldn't be there," he says. "Just give me an 'officer of common sense' - I'd hold [these components] up to him and he'd said, 'Nah, we're not interested in that, that's not what we have in mind.'"

The push for arms-export reform originated in the administration of former president Bill Clinton. As part of its geo-economic philosophy, his administration urged the defense industry to become more competitive, enter new markets such as Eastern Europe and Latin America, and ink global co-production agreements for the latest high-tech bomber, the Joint Strike Fighter. The Bush administration enthusiastically embraced this policy. After September 11, 2001, the administration used the "war on terrorism" to boost military aid to countries such as the Philippines and India and to provide anti-terrorism funding for the first time to such countries as Tajikistan and Indonesia.

Last month, the administration designated Pakistan a "major non-NATO ally". Once a pariah state because of its nuclear program with potential military uses, Pakistan now has access to a wide range of US military goods, even though it remains under a cloud for selling advanced military technology to such countries as North Korea and Libya.

The Bush administration also wants systemic change in the arms export system. For instance, the administration hopes to expedite sales to the UK and Australia by granting them exemptions from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The US provided an ITAR exemption to Canada but narrowed it in 1999 after the discovery of several cases of unauthorized re-export of US military goods.

The arms-control community is concerned that something similar will happen with the UK and Australia. Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information cites a high-profile cases of arms-trade violations in the UK, including the 1998 Sandline scandal in which the British government broke a United Nations arms embargo by supplying weapons to Sierra Leone. She also worries that US weapons, such as small arms bound for Australia, will end up in places such as Indonesia and the Philippines, which are fighting insurgencies and separatist movements that some label as terrorist. "I lose more sleep over the United Kingdom than Australia," Stohl says, "but because of the geographic position of Australia, we have to be concerned there as well."

Export of C-130 transports might be expedited
Also up for its rolling quadrennial review is the US Munitions List (USML). One possible item to be removed, according to a source in the arms-control community, is the C-130 transport plane, which Pakistan has been offered through a foreign military financing grant and which China also would like to acquire. The China military market, which the United States has not supplied since the 1980s, is particularly controversial.

"Changes to the Munitions List thus far have been modest and demonstrate an acute awareness of the security threats posed by decontrol of US defense articles," says Schroeder, the FAS arms-trade specialist. "We hope that changes to the remaining USML categories will reflect similar thinking and priorities."

The European Union, meanwhile, is debating lifting the arms embargo on China imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. According to Ian Anthony, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, "The embargo was never intended to be a permanent policy, and there does not seem to be a large volume of trade with China in those items of defense equipment that are not subject to the current embargo. The statements from the European and Chinese sides are that they do not anticipate any sudden increase in arms sales - rather the removal of a political impediment to improved EU-China relations." A 1998 code of conduct restricts EU arms sales to China that could be used for waging war or suppressing internal dissent.

The US sees this policy debate very differently. A State Department official confirmed that lifting the EU ban "cannot help but have a very negative impact" on winning congressional approval for facilitating arms trade with allies such as the UK, "even if the European Union views this only as a symbolic step".

The Bush administration has further assailed the EU on this issue by pointing to continued Chinese violations of human rights. Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information says the human-rights argument is a red herring. "We can't underestimate the power of competition behind these [US arms export] reforms," she points out. "Markets are very tight. The United States wants to make sure it has access to these new markets."

All-or-nothing controls make poor policy
Joel Johnson of the Aerospace Industries Association proposes a compromise on exports to China. "All-or-nothing controls are probably poor policy," he says. "We should be sitting down with our European brethren to talk about the high-end things we don't want exported to China."

The Bush administration was expected to push arms-trade reforms through more than a year ago. But a string of more critical events - September 11, the war in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq - have delayed the unveiling of plans to overhaul defense-trade relations with allies. According to one State Department official, "We're hoping to have it rolled out soon. It has not yet gone to the president."

The delays involve not only war but politics. The administration "might have gotten tripped up on its own rhetoric of 'you're either with us or against us'," says William Hartung, arms-trade expert and author of the recent book How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? Isolationists within the Republican Party are not happy with the idea of facilitating arms transfers to allies that may not always support US policy. As Hartung summarizes this argument, "If you can't trust them, it doesn't make sense to sell them everything on an open basis."

Although D-Trade is now up and running, the other elements of the reforms may wait until after the US elections in November. The State Department is optimistic. But Hartung predicts that if the Bush administration were smart, "it would wait until after the elections - to avoid being accused of loosening restrictions on the merchants of death". Joel Johnson also expects further delays. "We'll have to wait until after the elections. Congress will be sidetracked, the executive branch will be sidetracked. In the next administration, whether Bush or [Democratic presidential contender John] Kerry, lots of people will change and you'll have another shot at finding someone who thinks export controls need to be changed."

John Feffer (www.johnfeffer.com) is the author, most recently, of North Korea, South Korea: US Policy at a Time of Crisis.

 

~ Link ~

 

US Military-Industrial Complex Reigns Supreme

Arming for Armageddon

By John Stanton 

27 Jan 2003

In 2001, the US weapons industry controlled approximately 50 percent of the world arms market. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reports that for fiscal year 2001, the US government exported $12.2 billion in weapons and was awarded $13.1 billion in new foreign contracts through its Foreign Military Sales program.

That excludes the $36 billion in direct commercial sales by US weapons manufacturers to foreign nations. FAS indicate that the weapons industry is second only to the US agricultural industry in its receipt of US taxpayer subsidies.

Yet the weapons industry still whines about export restrictions and pesky public disclosure requirements that actually make them somewhat accountable to the US Congress and the American people. So it is no surprise that in 2003, the weapons industry will be busy lobbying the US Congress and the American public for more subsidies, fewer restrictions on what can be sold and to whom, and exemptions from public accountability and long-standing agreements.

The weapons industry storyline will include appeals to 9-11 and patriotism, free markets, job creation and level-playing fields, and global democracy -US style. But the reality behind the phony proclamations is, of course, profits and free rides. American taxpayers spend upwards of $10 billion a year in subsidies to the US weapons industry. American jobs are, in fact, exported along with the technology to countries like Turkey and Israel through offsets, which means that the importing country can build the systems themselves. US technology and know-how gets given away at no charge or at discounted rates through the Excess Defense Articles program. US foreign policy is regularly altered and human rights ignored to meet the needs of US weapons manufacturers. More chilling, though, is the observation of a weapons industry executive who mused: "there will come a day when we will have no allegiance to a nation-state. We will be viewed as neutral suppliers to all combatants." That day has arrived.

The American public would do well to take note of the weapons industry's activities in 2003 because as FAS report, "US-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over [...]. Of the active conflicts in 1999, the United States supplied arms or military technology to parties in more than 92% of them -39 out of 42. In over one-third of these conflicts -18 out of 42- the United States provided from 10% to 90% of the arms imported by one side of the dispute [...]. In Fiscal Year 1999, the United States delivered roughly $6.8 billion in armaments to nations which violate the basic standards of human rights [...].The costs to the families and communities afflicted by this violence are immeasurable. But to most arms dealers, the profit accumulated outweighs the lives lost. In the period from 1998-2001, over 68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence [rages...].The United States military has had to face troops previously trained by its own military or supplied with US weaponry in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and now in Afghanistan. Due to the advanced capabilities these militaries have acquired from past US training and sales, the US had to invest much more money and manpower in these conflicts than would have otherwise been needed."

Just recently, US weapons industry members were showing the flag and their fine products in October 2002 in Jordan at the annual SOFEX Conference and Exhibition. AM General, American Molds & Hickling Engineering, Environmental Tectonics, Harris Corporation, SAIC, JPS, Kollsman, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon and Sikorsky had products on display. Official delegations to that event included Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria and other nations that the Bush Regime says it wants to destroy. Yet, there they were -those patriotic Americans from the US weapons industry, selling the same American-made components and weapons that young US service men and women will likely use in the conflicts that are certain to come in 2003. And the Center for Defense Information reports that "some countries receiving US weapons and/or training continue to recruit children for their official armed forces. Thus, United States is supplying arms and military aid to countries where children are used as soldiers."

Hide Behind National Security

High on the US weapons industry 2003 to-do list is to gain full implementation of the 17 Defense Trade Security Initiatives that will allow, among other things, the weapons industry to be exempt from many provisions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations for both foreign military sales and defense services. In short, they are trying to remove US government oversight of arms sales. They are also seeking to fight the World Trade Organization's ruling that the US Extra Territorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 is an illegal subsidy to corporations by the US government. That Act allows the weapons industry to claim a tax credit on portions of its foreign weapons sales.

2003 will also see an intense lobbying effort in the US Congress to gain approval of measures that would prevent public disclosure of information relating to security incidents and business-sensitive data. That is code for a movement in the US weapons industry to broaden the classifications of Secret or Top Secret to include everything from timesheets and accounting records to reports of faulty test data and missing equipment. Revealing classified information, even if the information clearly shows the weapons maker cannot meet the government's requirement, can mean jail time and stiff fines. Classifying every document is a convenient way to keep employees quiet and make it tough for lawyers to get in and defend those who still have some measure of ethics. It is a surprise to the uninitiated to learn that the weapons makers in the "private" sector hold 98 percent of all US government classified information. It is normally the corporation or institution Facility Security Officer (FSO) that determines what gets classified and what does not. The US government typically provides classification guidelines in its contract award that the FSO must ensure are followed; but, ultimately, it is up to the business to make sure the correct classification is made.

Since the "death penalty" for a weapons maker is to have its facility clearance pulled by the agency granting it, the tendency is to be overly broad in classifying information. For example, over 11 years ago the US government terminated its contract with General Dynamics and Boeing (Boeing owns the original partner McDonnell Douglas) for failure to perform its obligation to build the US Navy an A-12 aircraft similar in design to the US Air Force F-117. The US government demanded $1 billion in repayment -now up to $2.3 billion and still on appeal- and, of course, the two companies sued the US government. During the discovery process that followed, roughly 80 percent of the weapons makers' documents turned out to be financial records such as timesheets and annual reports that were stamped Secret or Top Secret. Slowing that litigation process was the cumbersome requirement that staff on both sides of the lawsuit had to receive US government security clearances to the Top Secret level and, in some cases, beyond that designation. The clearance process can take up to a year and there is no guarantee of approval.

Damn Human Rights! Arm 'em All!

The US weapons industry is an equal opportunity death merchant. It supplies weapons to totalitarian and democratic regimes of all flavors, all over the world. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a customer as is King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz, custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and Head of State of Saudi Arabia. Tony Blair of the United Kingdom is an eager customer as is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. China, Cambodia, Kazakstan and Laos receive military assistance. Need weapons to quell that pesky domestic rebellion? The US weapons industry is there for you. For years it supplied weapons and gear to Indonesia to assist it in the killing of at least 100,000 East Timorese. Protestors all over the US have been subjected to weaponry and tactics developed by the US weapons industry and the US military. Need landmines? Human Rights Watch estimates that the US has stockpiled 11.2 million landmines for use in conflict. The Bush Regime has indicated it will use them in Iraq if necessary.

The power of the US weapons industry to influence foreign policy is perhaps best represented by its successful effort to expand NATO. According to William Hartung of the World Policy Institute, with the blessing of the Clinton Administration, "In 1994 several major US military manufacturers set up offices in the region to promote their products, and in 1996, defense giant Lockheed Martin organized a series of 'defense planning seminars' for officials in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, a soft-sell, relationship-building approach intended to demonstrate the benefits of buying American. In 1997 in the months leading up to public referendums, the Czech, Hungarian, and Polish governments, as well as US arms manufacturers, launched aggressive media campaigns to win public support. On Hungarian television, a popular sitcom suddenly had a new character, a military commander who spouted the virtues of NATO, while school libraries gave away slick pro-NATO CD-ROM games supplied by McDonnell Douglas [now owned by Boeing]. While lulled by propaganda, lured by the illusion of imminent EU membership, and lavished with new subsidized military hardware, the people of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, were given little concrete explanation of the potential costs or obligations of NATO membership. Majorities in both Hungary and the Czech Republic, however, correctly discerned that increased government spending on the military would come at the expense of education and health [...]."

One price of NATO membership is a requirement to set-aside 20 percent of their total defense budget for procuring US weaponry. The per capita income for Latvia is $3,013. According to Hartung, "the US share of a full-blown NATO expansion initiative -including military exercises and troop deployments, modernizing military bases and communications networks, and rearming the nations of East and Central Europe- could reach $250 billion between now and the year 2010." That $250 billion for NATO expansion excludes funds yet to be spent on US Homeland Security, National Missile Defense, the war In Afghanistan, the war on drugs, the war in Iraq, and, perhaps, World War III. Can the Latvians and other new entrants afford the increase in defense spending? Can Americans afford it and the mad designs of the US weapons industry and their friends in government? Can the world afford it?

The outlook is grim. Few in the US Congress will stand in the way of the US weapons industry and its supporters in the Pentagon and White House, including former members of Congress, which is just another way of saying that they'll get what they are looking for in 2003, particularly since they helped get many of them into office. It is unclear whether mass demonstrations and voting will make any difference in limiting the political power of the weapons manufacturers. Meanwhile, in the board rooms of the US weapons industry, the sun is shining, freedom is defended, democracy lives, and it is going to be a record profit-taking year in 2003.

~ Link ~

 

the death factory (2)

"...Halliburton has emerged as the poster child for much of what is wrong with the Bush administration because of its links to former CEO and current vice president of the United States Dick Cheney and because of KBR's incompetence and overbilling on defense-related projects in Iraq and elsewhere. KBR obtained a sweetheart $10 billion non-compete Pentagon contract for Iraq, and reports suggest that it assiduously overbilled and underperformed on the work it did, though it was far from unique in either regard. It has already paid the government some compensation for overbilling, and it reportedly continues to be the target of numerous government auditors who wonder where all the billions of dollars went.

But Halliburton and KBR are only symptoms of a much broader and deeper corruption that threatens more than the Pentagon's overgrown budget. In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself a former general, warned about the threat to the American Republic from what he described as the growing "military industrial complex." He deserves to be quoted at length:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Eisenhower saw the development of a symbiotic relationship between the Department of Defense and the defense contractors and politicians that would substantially alter the very nature of the United States, turning it from a country that went to war only reluctantly, where ploughshares could be beaten into swords and then back into ploughshares, to a country in which the political and social system would be in permanent thrall to a war economy and mentality. Eisenhower clearly understood that at a certain point, the defense contracting and the distinct economy that it fosters would gain control of the political process and would be able to dictate how the American people work and live. This process has come to fruition, and it has positively bloomed under the Bush administration, which now is speaking confidently of a "long war" that will last for generations.

But not even Eisenhower could have predicted how that military industrial complex would eventually form strategic alliances with foreign countries, support advocacy groups promoting perpetual war, and eventually bring about the downfall of the foreign policy consensus that has guided the United States since 1945. Nor would he have predicted just how the new order led by the so-called neoconservatives, largely funded by the defense industries, would be able to gain control of the federal government's decision-making process and lead the United States into a series of catastrophic wars, seemingly without end.

There is nothing benign about the arms industry. Companies that make armaments need war to be profitable. Constant war is even better, producing an unending flow of money. President George W. Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy [.pdf] is best of all – with its embrace of a vaguely defined preemptive war doctrine and the promise of a series of unilateral wars. To that end, the industry lobbies politicians to increase defense spending and supports ideologues with bellicose worldviews. Thus, the contractors who place full-page ads in leading newspapers featuring warriors using their weapons profit from the injury and death of American soldiers. If the national interest actually lies in peace, harmony, and international amity, as was envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, then the arms merchants are the enemy, however much they wrap themselves in the flag and proclaim themselves the arsenal of freedom.

The intentions of the defense contractors are clearly demonstrated by how they spend U.S. taxpayers' money. Few can doubt that think tanks and advocacy groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for a New American Century, the Hudson Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the National Institute for Public Policy led the rush to war against Iraq and are eager to do the same to Iran. Many of these think tanks receive funds from the five leading defense contractors – Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. On an individual level, many well-known neoconservatives have moved seamlessly between the contractors and the think tanks, filling their bank accounts along the way. They include all-too-familiar names such as William Kristol, Stephen Bryen, Richard Perle, Dov Zakheim, Robert Joseph, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Frederick Kagan. Vice President (and former Secretary of Defense) Dick Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have done the revolving door one better, moving from senior government posts to senior executive positions with the defense contractors, where they made millions of dollars before moving back into government at the highest levels. All told, at least 43 former employees, board members, or advisers for defense contractors are currently serving or have recently served in policy-making positions in the Bush administration.

And there are also the international interests of the defense contractors, concentrated primarily in Israel. Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's law firm, Feith & Zell, represented Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, while Richard Perle's connection with Trireme Partners provided business connections for U.S. and Israeli defense contractors, enriching Feith and Perle in the process. Both Feith and Perle have worked as lobbyists for Turkey, a major recipient of U.S.-made weapons. The multilateral relationship involving U.S. contractors, Israel's defense industry, and former U.S. and Israeli government officials is both incestuous and apparently frequently beyond the rules that govern international arms sales. FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has recently said that unsealing the Bureau's investigative reports on Perle, Feith, and former State Department number three Marc Grossman would reveal that they all engaged in what she describes as treasonous activity reportedly linked to illegal weapons sales.

The military industrial complex also sustains and feeds off the Bush administration's so-called "global war on terror," or GWOT. Most experts on terrorism would agree that the GWOT is largely a fiction created to simplify a multifaceted problem and heighten fear so that the flow of taxpayer money will continue unabated. Fighting terrorism worldwide, even where it does not exist, isn't cheap, particularly as the increasing reliance on contractors is much more expensive per man-hour than using full-time government employees. The $160 billion increase in the Pentagon budget since 2001 is dedicated to counter-terrorism (this number does not include Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been funded by separate appropriations). Add to that at least half of the intelligence budget ($20 billion) and at least half of the Department of Homeland Security budget ($20 billion). This means the astonishing sum of $200 billion, which does not include Iraq and Afghanistan, is being spent by the United States annually to deal with terrorism. No other country attacks terrorism in such a disproportionate fashion, and many of America's allies have successfully combated it using police and intelligence resources. If there are 5,000 active terrorists worldwide, and there are probably less than that, it would mean that the GWOT is costing the U.S. taxpayer $40 million per terrorist per year, with no end in sight. That's using an elephant to squash a fly. Considering that the fly can move a lot faster than the elephant, no victory is likely to happen soon, apart from the odd "Mission Accomplished" banner here and there..."

~ Link ~

 

the death factory

Weapons Industry

Introduction

At this stage of history, the weapons industry has emerged to become the worst source of terrorism that ever existed over the past six thousand years of recorded history. The lethal weapons it has developed over the past fifty years alone, have killed more people than were ever massacred over the past 2,500 years, going back to the time of the Persian, Greek and Roman empires. What is amazing is not the fact that such an industry has become the greatest terrorist organization in the world, but that it succeeded to hypnotize intelligent people from every walk of life and profession into believing that its product contributes to the protection and security of our respective nations.

– Weapons Industry: Source of Terrorism by Charles Mercieca, 03 July 2002.

Although arms sales to unscrupulous and undemocratic regimes have been going on since the beginning of arms manufactures, the information contained in this report truly ought to shock and offend anyone who is concerned with human life. Time and time again, history has proved that the unchecked arms trade, rather than making the world more secure, has led to millions of unnecessary deaths. In today's armed conflicts, 90 percent of casualties are civilians. When will we say that it is enough, and that producing more weapons only produces more death?

The loss of life is the most obvious of the pernicious effects of the arms trade. There are many others which also demand our attention. The manufacture and sale of ever more sophisticated weaponry promotes regional arms races that are costly, destabilizing, and entirely unnecessary. Arms which are sold to today's allies often boomerang back on the country who supplied them when that alliance no longer holds. American weapons have killed American soldiers in Panama, Somalia, and Iraq. Additionally, the sale of arms without regard to the record of human rights abuses by the buyers conveys a message of tacit endorsement of illegitimate regimes, as well as helping them to consolidate their power and extend their illegal rule. Such has been the case with dictator after dictator, supported with arms to defend against the "communist threat," when in reality what they were defending was only their own power to repress their people and murder with impunity.

The final consequence of arms trade out of control is perhaps the most invisible, and the most insidious. Spending on arms is the best way to perpetuate poverty. It is estimated that $780 billion was spent on military technology and training worldwide in 1999. Just 5 percent of that amount would be sufficient to guarantee basic education, health care and nutrition, potable water, and sanitation to all of the world's people. If the countries who endorse arms sales, either by their governments or by private merchants, were truly interested in defending and promoting democracy, they would make the much more sensible investment in eradicating the poverty which keeps half of the world's people in a de facto state of disenfranchisement. For it is grinding, absolute poverty that is the true enemy of both peace and democracy. Ask any child on the streets of India, Burundi, or Myanmar whether she would rather have bread to eat and a school to go to or a fighter jet to protect her, and you will have the obvious answer that national security means nothing in the absence of human security.

– Arms Trade: US Outsells All Others Combined from the Center for International Policy (CIP).

US arms sales

In 1999 the United States outsold all other countries combined, selling $11.4 billion in military hardware to Third World countries, according to a recent government report. No continent was spared. During 1996-99 (the last period for which the report differentiates by region), the United States sold $13 billion to Asia, $27 billion to the Middle East, $1.5 billion to Latin America, and even found the time to do $114 million to the threadbare countries of Africa. Again looking at the new figures for 1999, we see the other exporters trying hard: Russia with $2 billion; France, $2.2 billion; Great Britain, $3.9 billion; China, $300 million; Germany, $600 million, the rest of Europe $1.8 billion; and all others, $500 million. But all of them together could not match the United States' $11.4 billion. […]

• While the top destinations were the Middle East and Taiwan, in 1998 the United States also sold or trained in eight of the ten poorest countries in the world.
• The United States sold to or trained in seventeen of the twenty-four countries involved in major conflicts, including Israel, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Colombia, and Peru.
• The United States provided weapons or training to both sides of four different armed conflicts in 1998 involving ten countries.
• Sixty-three percent of all U.S. arms sales in 1998 were directed at the Third World. Of these Third World recipients, 54 percent were undemocratic based on criteria in the State Department human-rights reports.

– Arms Trade: US Outsells All Others Combined from the Center for International Policy (CIP).

Far from promoting democracy in eastern Europe, Washington is promoting a system of political and military control not unlike that once practised by the Soviet Union. Unlike that empire, which collapsed because the centre was weaker than the periphery, the new NATO is both a mechanism for extracting Danegeld from new member states for the benefit of the US arms industry, and also – ever since the promulgation of NATO's New Strategic Concept in April 1999 – an instrument for getting others to protect US interests around the world, including the supply of primary resources such as oil. It is, in short, a racket.

– The Prague Racket by John Laughland, 22 November 2002.

Small arms

With the end of the cold war, increased attention is being paid today to the devastation wrought by armed conflict around the world. Previously referred to by official Washington as "low intensity conflicts," these wars have resulted in the death of well over one million people this decade. The vast majority of these casualties – as many as 90 percent – are civilian victims of indiscriminate warfare.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has determined that small arms are the principal cause of death in conflicts. In fact, these arms are thought to be responsible for 90 percent of recent war casualties. Small/light arms are cheap and portable, and are used by all combatants – state militaries, militias, and insurgents. It is the prevalence – that is, the widespread proliferation – of these arms, combined with their indiscriminate use, that renders them responsible for so much of the killing.

In addition, small and light arms are used in crime and terrorist acts around the world.

– The Global Threat of Small Arms and Light Weapons from ASMP (Arms Sales Monitoring Project), 2000.

In a report released last year, the Eminent Persons Group, said the majority of small arms producers are located in the First World while the majority of victims of small arms are in the Third World. […] The Group pointed out that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, account for around 85 percent of the global arms trade.

– Global Campaign Launched To Battle Illicit Small Arms Trade by Thalif Deen, 09 January 2001.

The arms lobby

With so many former defense executives and government officials swapping roles, campaign contributions seem almost unnecessary. But ever since the Republicans took control of Congress in January 1995, major weapons contractors have favored them over Democratic candidates by a 2 to 1 margin, and this year is no exception. The Center for Responsive Politics lists the nation's top three weapons contractors among the top 50 overall donors in this election cycle. Lockheed Martin is at #35 with $1.35 million, Northrop Grumman is at #38, donating $1.26 million, and Boeing comes in at #42 with $1.2 million in campaign contributions.

– The Ties that Bind: Arms Industry Influence in the Bush Administration and Beyond by William D. Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, October 2004.

Main Players

Lockheed Martin: The company has a greater stake in nuclear weapons and missile defense work than any other U.S. arms maker. It is also one of the "big four" missile defense contractors, along with Raytheon, Boeing, and TRW. In all, eight current policymakers had direct or indirect ties to the firm before joining the administration. Officials with indirect connections to the company include Vice President Dick Cheney, whose wife Lynne Cheney served on the Lockheed Martin board from 1994 through January 2001, accumulating more than $500,000 in deferred director's fees in the process; and Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, who worked at Shea and Gardner, the powerhouse DC law firm that represents Lockheed Martin. [See Corporate State/Revolving Door/Lockheed Martin.]

Northrop Grumman: the nation's third largest defense contractor as the result of its acquisitions of Newport News Shipbuilding and Litton defense, follows closely behind Lockheed Martin with seven former officials, consultants, or shareholders in the Bush administration. The company's influence within the Air Force is reinforced by the presence of [now ex-] Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and Logistics Nelson F. Gibbs, who served as Corporate Comptroller at Northrop Grumman from 1991 to 1999. Other key company connections include [now ex-] Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [now ex-] Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim, and [now ex-] Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, all of whom had consulting contracts or served on paid advisory boards for Northrop Grumman prior to joining the administration. Last but not least, I. Lewis Libby, [now ex-] Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, and Sean O'Keefe, the [now ex-] director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, served as a paid consultant and a paid advisory board member, respectively, to Northrop Grumman.

General Dynamics: is a defense conglomerate formed by mergers and divestitures, and as of 2005 it is the sixth largest defense contractor in the world. Gordon England, the Bush administration's Secretary of the Navy, was a General Dynamics Vice President prior to taking his current post. Other administration officials with ties to the company include [now ex-] Secretary of State Colin Powell, who owned more than $1 million in General Dynamics stock before joining the administration, and Undersecretary of Defense [now Air Force Secretary] Michael Wynne, who was a Senior Vice President for International Planning and Development at General Dynamics before joining the administration.

Source: The Role of the Arms Lobby In the Bush Administration's Radical Reversal of Two Decades of U.S. Nuclear Policy by William D. Hartung, with Jonathan Reingold, May 2002. With some additional material from Wikipedia.

Further Reading

Promoting peace is for wimps - real governments sell weapons by George Monbiot, 24 August 2006. “Labour seems to see the escalating dangers in the Middle East as little more than an opportunity for business.”
Arms, Africa, and America's Inmate Industry by Ezrah Aharone, 13 January 2007.

The Arms Trade. A special report from the Guardian.
Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) ”is a broad coalition of groups and individuals in the UK working to end the international arms trade. This Trade has a negative effect on human rights and security as well as on global, regional and local economic development.”

~ Link ~

 

"Brain Food: The Natural Cure for Depression"

By Karin Evans

"...For those accustomed to the notion that therapy means talking through problems and getting a prescription for antidepressants, this may seem an unusual approach. But Cass, an expert in nutritional medicine and an assistant clinical professor at UCLA, long ago became convinced that no form of psychotherapy can be fully effective if the brain isn’t functioning properly. And to do that the brain needs optimal nourishment, something she says is increasingly hard to come by in the typical American diet. “Depressed, tired, overweight women are often told they need Prozac,” Cass says, “when in fact all they really need to get their brains and bodies on track is a steady supply of real food.”

She recommends that her patients drink lots of water and eat organic vegetables and fruits, whole grains, and lean protein. “Diets high in refined foods, sugars, and unhealthy fats can actually interfere with our natural brain chemistry,” says Cass.

Modern eating habits are part of what makes many people depressed, says Michael Lesser, a psychiatrist in Berkeley, California, who also bases his treatment on an evaluation of a patient’s diet and lifestyle. “Ironically, though we live in a wealthy society, our diets are deficient in crucial nutrients,” says Lesser, author of The Brain Chemistry Plan.

Nutritional deficiencies can contribute to chemical imbalances, like anemia and hypothyroidism, which in turn can lead to anxiety, insomnia—and depression. Cass has observed that people with depression are commonly diagnosed with low levels of zinc, magnesium, B vitamins, essential fatty acids, and amino acids. In fact, Lesser firmly believes that most cases of depression in this country are either caused or exacerbated by poor nutrition.

[ ... ]

Alternatives to Prozac
Many experts now believe that diet and supplements can make a big difference in treating depression, though not every type. People who can tie their sadness to a particular event, like the breakup of a relationship or a job loss, are much more likely to find success with mood-boosting supplements. “But if your depression is unexplained, you should be seeing a professional and asking serious questions—not just popping 5-HTP,” says Timothy Birdsall, director of naturopathic medicine for Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Depression might be the result of heart trouble that doesn’t allow enough oxygen to get to the brain, for instance, or an intestinal problem that prevents efficient absorption of vitamin B-12..."

~ full article ~

 

Deepak Chopra on Mike Myers and comedy

"..TVGuide.com: In the Iconoclasts episode, you and Mike Myers talk about the connection between comedy and consciousness. Where did that concept come from?
Deepak Chopra: Mike is an old friend of mine; I've known him for over 10 years, and we've always talked about how one measure of your [level of] enlightenment is your comfort with paradox or contradiction or ambiguity. A sign of expanding consciousness is a loss of self-importance, which means that you can laugh at yourself. One thing that Mike said that is very beautiful is, "Pain plus time is humor." When you can look back at your suffering and pain with experience, you can transcend it.

TVGuide.com: During the episode, you two gave a performance at the Magnet Theater in New York, and when you discussed death, the audience all laughed. Why does confronting our own mortality crack people up?
Chopra: I made Mike look behind his shoulder. I said, "Look! Death is stalking you." And he looked. And I said, "Look again! It's closer." You're on death row; the only uncertainty is the method of execution and the length of reprieve. That's when they started to laugh. I said, "We're talking about death, and you guys are laughing!" How else do you go beyond? The only way to transcend tragedy is to laugh. I'm writing a book, a parable. The main character is a comedian; his name is Mickey Fellows, and he is covering up his existential distress through humor till he finds out that that doesn't really do it; it [only] masks it for a while. You have to go on a spiritual journey and really face the fact of impermanence. At the same time, Mike is producing a movie called The Love Guru [due next June] where he's wanting to be Deepak or whatever.

TVGuide.com: You're appearing in The Love Guru, aren't you?
Chopra: It's a five-minute sort of thing. I'm doing it as a favor to him.

TVGuide.com: Do you find that TV and movies are an effective way of spreading your message?
Chopra: It reaches a different audience — not everybody reads books; a lot of people who come to my talks and seminars now are a different demographic. It used to be women who were 35-plus; now it's a lot of men, a lot of young people, who are very media-driven. I think we can reach a new audience. [Last December] I did the Colbert Report, and that got more responses than anything I'd ever done. They didn't expect me to be funny. [Laughs] I was going one-to-one with him, so it was a lot of fun. We got thousands of e-mails and it kept replaying on YouTube.

TVGuide.com: Do you believe that comedy has the ability to heal people?
Chopra: In 1995, the one and only time I was on Oprah, one thing I said — which is based on some research that had come out at that time — was that tears of laughter have a completely different chemical composition than tears of sorrow. Since then, there's a lot of research that says that when you experience peace or harmony or love, the body secretes antidepressants like serotonin, dopamine and opiates. The simultaneous secretion of these chemicals results in immunomodulation; it actually modulates the activity of your immune system. So laughter is definitely a healing experience, and we're not talking metaphorically, we're speaking absolutely literally. Laughter is one of the best medicines you can have.

TVGuide.com: In the Virgin Comics you work on with your son, you depict superheroes from diverse cultures as a way to bring the world together. What do you think of shows like Heroes?
Chopra: It's so funny you should mention that; I just spoke with Tim [Kring] this morning, the creator of Heroes. We're going to have lunch next week and we're meeting about just this very idea. [Laughs] We could create the Heroes club, where we have young people become members and we create new mythologies with transcultural heroes. We are the stories we tell ourselves — the world we see is our collective narrative.

TVGuide.com: Tell me more about your old friend Mike Myers.
Chopra: He has an insatiable curiosity. If you see only his public persona, you don't realize that he's one of the most articulate, most well-read, most well-informed people. He has found a medium where, through bringing the humor out in some very mundane, trivial [moment], he can give you sudden insight — which is brilliant..."

~ Link ~

 

Pakistan: JI forms committees to assist arrested protestors

Staff Report

KARACHI: Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Pakistan has announced the formation of legal aid and relief committees for legal assistance to those arrested by the police. These committees have been constituted in all four provinces and at district levels.

“The newly constituted committees would provide all imprisoned in Karachi, Hyderabad, Mirpurkhas, Larkana, Sukkur and other areas with food, bedding, clothing and other necessities. Meetings with family members would also be arranged,” JI Sindh Ameer and Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) Sindh President Maulana Asadullah Bhutto told Daily Times. He said these committees would function under the lawyers of JI’s legal wing Islamic Lawyers Circle (ILC). He appealed to the families to forward the details of arrested people to regional leaders of JI.

JI Deputy Secretary Information Sarfaraz Ahmed told Daily Times that in the last six days, more than 1,200 activists of JI, Shabab-e-Milli, National Labour Federation (NLF), Islami Jamiat Talba (IJT) and former and present nazims and councilors of Al-Khidmat Panel were arrested from Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur, Multan, Layya, Sialkot, Faisalabad, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Peshawar, Charsudda, Kohat, Quetta, Gawadar and other cities. More than 450 JI activists were arrested from Karachi alone. “The police is still raiding the residences of JI activists and arrests are being made,” Sarfaraz added.

~ Link ~

 

the death grin in our shampoo and deodorant

I'll Have My Cosmetics With a Side of Infertility, Please
By Heather Gehlert, AlterNet.

25 Oct 2005

Author Stacy Malkan reveals the dangerous truth about everyday products we put in our hair and on our skin.

Carcinogens in cosmetics? Petrochemicals in perfume? If only this were an urban legend. Unfortunately, it's a toxic reality, and it's showing up in our bodies.

In 2004, scientists found pesticides in the blood of newborn babies. A year later, researchers discovered perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, in human breast milk. Today, people are testing positive for a litany of hazardous substances from flame retardants to phthalates to lead.

In her new book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, Stacy Malkan exposes the toxic chemicals that lurk, often unlabeled, in the personal care products that millions of American women, men and children use every day.

AlterNet spoke with Malkan about these toxins and her five-year effort with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to get the beauty industry to remove them from its products.

Heather Gehlert: There are so many environmental issues you could've written a book about. Why cosmetics?
Stacy Malkan: I think cosmetics is something that we're all intimately connected to. They're products that we use every day, and so I think it's a good first place to start asking questions. What kinds of products are we bringing into our homes? What kinds of companies are we giving our money to?

It has something pretty interesting in common with global warming too.

It does. I think of it as global poisoning. I think that the ubiquitous contamination of the human species with toxic chemicals is a symptom of the same problem (as global warming), which is an economy that's based on outdated technologies of petrochemicals -- petroleum. So many of the products we're applying to our faces and putting in our hair come from oil. They're byproducts of oil.

Many cosmetic products on the market right now claim they are pure, gentle, clean and healthy. But, as you reveal in this book, they're far from it. Toxic chemicals in these products are showing up in people. What were some of the most surprising toxins you discovered in cosmetics?

Lead in lipstick was pretty surprising. We (the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics) just released that report last week. Many personal care products have phthalates, which is a plasticizer and hormone disruptor. That's why we started the cosmetics campaign -- because we know that women have higher levels of phthalates in their bodies, and we thought that cosmetics might be a reason. But, I think overall, the most surprising thing was to know that there's so much that we don't know about these products. Many, many chemicals are hiding in fragrance. Companies aren't required to list the components of fragrance. Products also are contaminated with carcinogens like 1,4 dioxane and neurotoxins like lead that aren't listed on the label. So it's difficult for consumers to know what we're using.

As a consumer I just want to know what ingredients to avoid, but you say in the book, protecting myself is not as simple as that. Why not?

There are no standards or regulations like there are in, for example, the food industry, where if you buy organic food or food labeled "natural," there's a set of standards and legal definitions that go behind those words. We might like to see those be stronger, but nevertheless, there are meaningful legal definitions. That's not the case in the personal care product industry, where companies often use words like "organic" and "natural" to market products that are anything but. And some of the most toxic products we've found actually had the word "natural" in their name, like natural nail strengtheners that are made with formaldehyde.

Generally speaking, risk assessment involves two factors: a hazard and people's exposure to that hazard. Could you explain some of the unique challenges to assessing risks with cosmetics?

That's a good question. Risk assessment is an extremely oversimplified way of pretending we have enough information to know how much chemicals we can tolerate in our bodies. A risk assessment equation will say, "How hazardous is a chemical, how much are we exposed to it from this one product, and is that harmful?" There's a lot of information left out of that picture: studies that haven't been done to determine impacts on fetuses, the fact that we're exposed to so many of these chemicals in so many places every day, and the fact there have been no -- or very few -- studies about chemical mixtures.

In chapter 2, you say that toxic cosmetics should raise concern for men too, regardless of whether they use any themselves. How so?

Well, men do, first of all, use personal care products. When I ask a group of people what products they've used today, the men will be keeping their hands down and eventually, reluctantly, raising their hands because they're using shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, cologne, lotion...

 

~ full article ~