[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S11197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SHUT DOWN THE U.S. ARMS BAZAAR

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the finest editorials I have 
read in recent months appeared in the Chicago Tribune, titled ``Shut 
Down the U.S. Arms Bazaar.''
  It is contrary to the security of the interest of the United States 
that we are the No. 1 arms merchant in the world. Not only are we the 
No. 1 arms merchant, but we subsidize what ultimately can prove harmful 
to our security.
  And it is not only a threat to our security.
  When I visit a place like Angola and see so many children going about 
with one leg missing or two legs missing and know that this has been 
caused, in part, by land mines built in the United States, or financed 
by the United States, I am troubled.
  Again and again, we are in a situation where we find American weapons 
used against our troops. That should teach us something, but it doesn't 
seem to.
  This is one editorial that every Member of the Senate and every staff 
member should read.
  I ask that the editorial be printed in the Congressional Record.
  The editorial follows:

                       [From the Chicago Tribune]

                     Shut Down the U.S. Arms Bazaar

       President Clinton spoke eloquently and probably expressed 
     the view of most citizens when, accepting the Democratic 
     Party's nomination in Chicago last month, he pledged that 
     U.S. foreign policy would be one that ``advances the values 
     of our American community in the community of nations.''
       Here's a place to start, Mr. President: End the outdated 
     and outrageously dangerous policy of encouraging sales of 
     American weapons abroad, particularly to countries in the 
     developing world, unless there is a compelling U.S. security 
     interest to be defended.
       What American value is represented by the fact that the 
     U.S. remains the largest exporter of weapons in a post-Cold 
     War world in which there is no monolithic enemy to be 
     contained?
       Although Russia made the news in recent days by 
     outstripping the U.S. in sales of arms to Third World 
     governments in 1995, a careful reading of the report showed 
     that this was an artifact of one transaction: a $6 billion 
     sale of fighter jets to China.
       Otherwise, however, Uncle Sam is boss of the arms bazaar, 
     with contracts for about half of all arms sales worldwide. 
     Year in and year out, America sells more weapons to the Third 
     World than any other country.
       Certainly these developing lands could put their scarce 
     financial resources to better use, namely to build or improve 
     schools, hospitals, sanitation and transportation systems.
       Aha, you say! If the U.S. stops selling these arms abroad, 
     someone else--Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Britain, the 
     Czech Republic, even--will rush in and snatch up the 
     lucrative contracts.
       So what? Of the 50 armed conflicts in this decade--mostly 
     vile ethnic, religious or tribal rivalries, guerrilla 
     uprisings and petty territorial disputes--45 were fought with 
     weapons stamped ``Made in the USA.''
       Should weapons sales be our ambassador of democracy? Is 
     increasing the efficiency of armed combatants, without regard 
     to vital U.S. interests, a value we choose to represent 
     America abroad?
       Even espousing a traditional sense of national security, 
     the U.S. can dominate the international arms market, 
     according to Sarah Walkling, a senior analyst with the Arms 
     Control Association. That's because NATO, the western 
     military alliance that is the backbone of American national 
     security and includes this nation's dearest allies, is the 
     largest market for U.S. arms, consuming 43 percent of 
     American weapons sales abroad at a cost of $3.9 billion. NATO 
     will continue to be the biggest client for American 
     weapons, which is a fine thing for all concerned.
       But now Chile wants U.S. F-16 jet-fighters. With no 
     international threat to the region, to what purpose would 
     those top-of-the-line attack craft be put? Only to act upon 
     territorial ambitions and border disputes and to spark a 
     wasteful hemispheric arms race.
       And then there's Indonesia. Indonesia is in the midst of a 
     crude crackdown on political dissent that is the antithesis 
     of values America wants to promote. Should Indonesia get the 
     F-16s it wants? Certainly not.
       Although Clinton pledged a values-driven foreign policy, a 
     Presidential Decision Directive he signed last year pushes 
     arms sales abroad to ``enhance the ability of the U.S. 
     defense industrial base, to meet U.S. defense requirements 
     and to maintain long-term military technological superiority 
     at lower costs.''
       That, in the words of William Hartung, a senior fellow of 
     the World Policy Institute at the New School for Social 
     Research, is nothing but welfare for big arms manufacturers 
     and weapons dealers.
       In order to help American firms get to a bigger share of 
     the world arms market, the U.S. government spent $7.6 
     billion--in 1995 alone--in subsidies, grants, guaranteed 
     loans and cash payments, and in the use of government 
     personnel to promote products and overseas air shows, Hartung 
     says.
       The argument that these arms sales abroad protect jobs at 
     home is no longer necessarily true, since many new purchasers 
     now demand, as part of the contract, the right to produce 
     these expensive weapons on their turf. Thus, Hartung says, 
     the biggest production line for the F-16 is no longer in the 
     U.S. but in Turkey.
       Even more sinister is the concept of ``blowback.''
       During the Cold War, a powerful argument for arms sales 
     abroad was to allow the United States leverage over foreign 
     powers and to give us inside knowledge about another power's 
     arsenal--to ``know what we're up against.'' Today, all bets 
     are off, and what American troops have come up against is the 
     finest American weapons wielded by opposition troops--in 
     Panama, in Iran, in Iraq, in Haiti, in Somalia and, to a 
     smaller extent, in Bosnia.
       America cannot control its weapons once sold. Allies whose 
     national security interests coincide with ours deserve our 
     trust and have earned the right to purchase American-made 
     weapons.
       But weapons sales motivated solely by a market opportunity 
     merely fuel conflict--conflict that may require America to 
     step in later with its diplomatic and military muscle.
       There is no profit in that.

                          ____________________