Tons o' Guns

As always, there is a firestorm of news and protest surrounding U.S. foreign arms sales. And, of course, the countries involved are potential flashpoints for future conflicts.

From Iraq comes news that the Defense Department is bolstering its foreign military sales staff in Baghdad. In a program that was already plagued with problems of corruption and mismanagement, the problems were further compounded when the program realized the ridiculous leap in funding levels, from $200 million to $3 billion in only one year. The corruption in the acquisition process already has the potential to sour relations with our NATO ally, Turkey, as weapons bound for Iraqi troops have showed up in the hands of militant fighters fighting for an independent Kurdistan. However, due to the personnel shortage that accompanied the increased workload, the Iraqi government was forced to buy weapons from other countries. Now, members of Congress reportedly want to know whether American money was used to buy Chinese weapons for the Iraqi Army.

Arms sales, in fact, also provide one of the main sticking points between the United States and China, mainly weapons sales to the island of Taiwan. The economic problems that are the most prominent in the domestic, national discourse in U.S. relations with the PRC have been "underlined by the U.S. for years." However, the issue of Taiwan and the foreign arms sales are the basis for the other point of contention between the two superpowers. In fact this year, Section 1206 in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2007, the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee establishes some pretty firm policies. Emphasis has been added by author.

More importantly, the committee believes that
maintaining a balance of power across the Taiwan Strait is critical
to ensuring deterrence and preserving peace, security, and stability
in Asia. China’s National People’s Congress adopted an anti-secession
law that essentially authorizes China’s Central Military Commission
to use non-peaceful means against Taiwan if the latter declares
independence. The committee is concerned that this law, in
conjunction with an excessive military build-up by China, may signal
a weakening of deterrence across the Taiwan Strait. The committee
believes that the exchange program, by helping to strengthen
Taiwan’s defenses, would help preserve and strengthen deterrence,
thereby encouraging China and Taiwan to resolve their differences
peacefully.

Considering that Chinese military spending is growing to make the PLA one of, if not the, strongest land forces in the world, the logic of the policy is almost self-defeating. The amount of equipment and money necessary to maintain the vision of deterrence expounded by this doctrine is well beyond the means of the United States. Look for this policy to cause problems in the future, as the U.S. is left groping for a new tact to maintain the stability in the region that is so vital to the international shipping lanes. The real question that would help one in thinking of this problem is, what event could happen that would leap the PRC's political elite to abandon the current Nash Equilibrium enjoyed by all parties in the region, in favor of a military strike? To which, the U.S. is bound under law to look upon with "grave concern," as per the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.

There is a new arms race brewing in South Asia, although not the usual type. In this case, the developed countries of the world are falling over themselves to provide India with the next generation of military equipment. Looking at potential spending reaching $40 billion dollars, it's not hard to imagine why countries would feel interested in the competition. Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs feels so strongly about the subject of U.S.-Indian ties that he wrote an article for the current issue of Foreign Affairs. I particularly enjoy who he actually tries to make the article sound sincere in believing that ideology trumps the buying power of the Indian rupee. Again, the subtext to the entire discussion is long-term ties with India, in the fact of a emerging threat from China in Asia.



Before going onto the next topic, enjoy a little video goodness.
















Now, the JDAM is going on sale to countries in the Gulf region, specifically Saudi Arabia, which has caused quite a bipartisan reaction on Capital Hill. One should consider, though, that Israel and its lobby aren't protesting the sale in and of itself, only the fact that sales of this type reduce the strategic and technological edge enjoyed that enforced deterrence and brought stability to the region. The sale is practically dead on arrival.

Finally, in Pakistan, an assassin has taken the life of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, but that shouldn't stand in the way of ever-stronger ties developing between the U.S. and Pakistan. In particular, this event will not interfere in anyway with the proposed $2.1 billion arms deal in progress. Pakistan is slated to purchase 18 F-16s of the C and D variants.

The end result of all of this is that American foreign policy, especially in the case of Pakistan, is being pulled into a cycle of arming one side to counter another threat that may or may not be of its own creation. And while arms sales and military relations reach new highs, things such as civil society and rule of law tend to be left by the way side. The Military Industrial Complex isn't exactly a democratic institution, after all. Those who are in a strong position to regulate this very important facet of foreign policy are focusing on other priorities, to say the least. Instead of controlling the number of arms distributed internationally, they are worried about the transfer of sensitive information, and the ramifications of Globalization on the MIC, but more on that later.