|
|
|
U.S. Sets Another Record on Defence Sales, Already
By Carey L. Biron
InterPress Service
June 15, 2012
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/u-s-sets-another-record-on-defence-sales-already/
WASHINGTON, Jun 15 2012 (IPS) - The United States is set
to far surpass previous records for defence sales this
year, according to U.S. officials.
"Despite the global economic strain, demand for U.S.
defence products and services is stronger than ever,"
Andrew J. Shapiro, an assistant secretary in the U.S.
State Department, said on Thursday.
He confirmed that the U.S., long the world's largest
weapons exporter, has already seen more than 50 billion
dollars in government-to-government military sales this
fiscal year.
"This represents at least a 20-billion-dollar increase
over fiscal year 2011, and we still have more than a
quarter of the fiscal year left," Shapiro said, speaking
with reporters. The current fiscal year will end in
September.
"To put this in context, fiscal year 2011 was a record-
setting year at just over 30 billion. This fiscal year
will be at least 70 percent greater."
Observers noted the administration's evident pride at
the high numbers.
"An Obama arms bazaar is going on - this is further
evidence of that," Jeff Abramson, director of Control
Arms, an international civil-society alliance based in
Washington, told IPS.
"This administration has made defence trade an economic
rather than just a security issue - part of the agenda
in terms of keeping the U.S. economy going. I think
human rights issues should trump those concerns. Selling
to countries such as Saudi Arabia, people need to ask
whether the U.S. is living up to its promises on rights
obligations."
Shapiro, who noted that the U.S. only allows a sale
"after we carefully examine issues like human rights",
spoke a week after the launch of the newest edition of
the 655 Report, an annual compilation of defence
products and services authorised for export.
Many have cautioned that the U.S. defence trade is
notoriously difficult to estimate, given the numerous
ways available to calculate the figure. Several point to
a lower number of 30 billion dollars worth of actual
transfers, rather than the larger sales number, not all
of which may ultimately take place.
The latest figures are particularly buoyed by two
contracts, with Saudi Arabia and Japan. The former was
particularly significant, accounting for 29.4 billion
dollars and including up to 84 advanced fighter
aircraft. The Japanese sale, also for fighter aircraft,
is worth around 10 billion dollars.
In a major priority for the U.S. government today,
Shapiro noted that the Saudi Arabia deal alone would
support more than 50,000 jobs.
The United States also recently concluded a first-of-
its-kind military trade agreement with the United
Kingdom, aimed at easing the bureaucratic red tape that
typically surrounds U.S. military deals.
A similar agreement is in the offing with Australia,
while new export plans being pushed by President Barack
Obama's administration could facilitate weapons sales to
a host of other countries.
Expanded marketplace
While old allies continue to form a backbone of U.S.
military sales, Washington diplomats appear to be
engaging in an aggressive campaign to land lucrative
arms deals with a host of rising economies.
"It's no longer just our ambassadors who promote U.S.
security cooperation abroad. Senior State Department
officials regularly advocate on behalf of the U.S.
bidders on foreign government and foreign military
procurements," Shapiro said.
"We have seen tremendous growth and sales with
developing countries and emerging powers such as Brazil
and India, and this speaks volumes about our diplomatic
efforts."
At this week's U.S.-India strategic dialogue here in
Washington, U.S. officials pressed their Indian
counterparts hard not only on increasing defence sales -
currently at nine billion dollars - but also on moving
forward on co-development and co-production of military
equipment.
In a joint communiqué, the two states "reaffirmed their
desire to strengthen defense cooperation through
increased technology transfer, collaborative joint
research and development, and co-production of defense
items."
Arms dealers around the world are said to be working
overtime to try to gain access to the Indian market.
Paul Holtom, a researcher with the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS
that SIPRI has named India "the world's number one arms
importer" between 2007 and 2011.
According to Control Arms' Jeff Abramson, "We're
definitely seeing the U.S. trying to move into new
markets that, in the past, the country didn't have as
much play in. In fact, all global suppliers are trying
to do that, trying to get into markets such as India.
This gets to the need for a strong Arms Trade Treaty."
Movement towards this treaty, known as ATT, has been
slowly taking place since 2003, when a group of Nobel
Peace Prize laureates highlighted that the vast majority
of international trade was more highly regulated than
the international arms trade.
According to Amnesty International, a watchdog group,
today it is easier to trade in weapons than in bananas.
In 2006, 153 countries at the U.N. General Assembly
approved initial discussions on the ATT. Final
negotiations are now supposed to take place over the
course of July at the United Nations in New York.
In an open letter sent in May, 50 NGOs called on
President Obama "to help reduce the human suffering and
instability caused by the lack of an effective
international legal regulatory framework on conventional
arms transfers."
While the Obama administration officially supports
passage of the ATT - a turnaround from the era of George
W. Bush - the letter highlights the need for the ATT to
cover small-scale ammunition, which the United States
currently opposes.
A recent report by Oxfam International, an advocacy
group, warns that if the ATT that does not control
ammunition, a 4.3-billion-dollar per year sector, the
treaty "will not achieve its purposes . The
international trade in ammunition is even less
accountable and transparent than the trade in arms."
___________________________________________
Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.
Submit via email: [log in to unmask]
Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3
Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq
Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe
Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive
Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives |
June 2013, Week 3 June 2013, Week 2 June 2013, Week 1 May 2013, Week 5 May 2013, Week 4 May 2013, Week 3 May 2013, Week 2 May 2013, Week 1 April 2013, Week 5 April 2013, Week 4 April 2013, Week 3 April 2013, Week 2 April 2013, Week 1 March 2013, Week 5 March 2013, Week 4 March 2013, Week 3 March 2013, Week 2 March 2013, Week 1 February 2013, Week 4 February 2013, Week 3 February 2013, Week 2 February 2013, Week 1 January 2013, Week 5 January 2013, Week 4 January 2013, Week 3 January 2013, Week 2 January 2013, Week 1 December 2012, Week 5 December 2012, Week 4 December 2012, Week 3 December 2012, Week 2 December 2012, Week 1 November 2012, Week 5 November 2012, Week 4 November 2012, Week 3 November 2012, Week 2 November 2012, Week 1 October 2012, Week 5 October 2012, Week 4 October 2012, Week 3 October 2012, Week 2 October 2012, Week 1 September 2012, Week 5 September 2012, Week 4 September 2012, Week 3 September 2012, Week 2 September 2012, Week 1 August 2012, Week 5 August 2012, Week 4 August 2012, Week 3 August 2012, Week 2 August 2012, Week 1 July 2012, Week 5 July 2012, Week 4 July 2012, Week 3 July 2012, Week 2 July 2012, Week 1 June 2012, Week 5 June 2012, Week 4 June 2012, Week 3 June 2012, Week 2 June 2012, Week 1 May 2012, Week 5 May 2012, Week 4 May 2012, Week 3 May 2012, Week 2 May 2012, Week 1 April 2012, Week 5 April 2012, Week 4 April 2012, Week 3 April 2012, Week 2 April 2012, Week 1 March 2012, Week 5 March 2012, Week 4 March 2012, Week 3 March 2012, Week 2 March 2012, Week 1 February 2012, Week 5 February 2012, Week 4 February 2012, Week 3 February 2012, Week 2 February 2012, Week 1 January 2012, Week 5 January 2012, Week 4 January 2012, Week 3 January 2012, Week 2 January 2012, Week 1 December 2011, Week 5 December 2011, Week 4 December 2011, Week 3 December 2011, Week 2 December 2011, Week 1 November 2011, Week 5 November 2011, Week 4 November 2011, Week 3 November 2011, Week 2 November 2011, Week 1 October 2011, Week 5 October 2011, Week 4 October 2011, Week 3 October 2011, Week 2 October 2011, Week 1 September 2011, Week 5 September 2011, Week 4 September 2011, Week 3 September 2011, Week 2 September 2011, Week 1 August 2011, Week 5 August 2011, Week 4 August 2011, Week 3 August 2011, Week 2 August 2011, Week 1 July 2011, Week 5 July 2011, Week 4 July 2011, Week 3 July 2011, Week 2 July 2011, Week 1 June 2011, Week 5 June 2011, Week 4 June 2011, Week 3 June 2011, Week 2 June 2011, Week 1 May 2011, Week 5 May 2011, Week 4 May 2011, Week 3 May 2011, Week 2 May 2011, Week 1 April 2011, Week 5 April 2011, Week 4 April 2011, Week 3 April 2011, Week 2 April 2011, Week 1 March 2011, Week 5 March 2011, Week 4 March 2011, Week 3 March 2011, Week 2 March 2011, Week 1 February 2011, Week 4 February 2011, Week 3 February 2011, Week 2 February 2011, Week 1 January 2011, Week 5 January 2011, Week 4 January 2011, Week 3 January 2011, Week 2 January 2011, Week 1 December 2010, Week 5 December 2010, Week 4 December 2010, Week 3 December 2010, Week 2 December 2010, Week 1 November 2010, Week 5 November 2010, Week 4 November 2010, Week 3 November 2010, Week 2 November 2010, Week 1 October 2010, Week 5 October 2010, Week 4 October 2010, Week 3 October 2010, Week 2 October 2010, Week 1 September 2010, Week 5 September 2010, Week 4 September 2010, Week 3 September 2010, Week 2 September 2010, Week 1 August 2010, Week 5 August 2010, Week 4 August 2010, Week 3 August 2010, Week 2 August 2010, Week 1 July 2010, Week 5 July 2010, Week 4 July 2010, Week 3 July 2010, Week 2 July 2010, Week 1
|
|