Friday, May 27, 2005
"PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT?"
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/PRWaW052505.html
"New York, NY, May 25th—A new report by the New York-based World Policy Institute finds that a majority of U.S. arms sales to the developing world go to regimes defined as undemocratic by our own State Department. Furthermore, U.S.-supplied arms are involved in a majority of the world’s active conflicts."
"When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003 -- a full 80% -- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses"
"Arming repressive regimes while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues," argues Frida Berrigan."
The article continues to explore different possiblities to change these arms sales, and suggests that it is possible to do so through Executive Branch policy initiatives or legistlation( obviously). Now doesn't this make sense?---> "...arms sales policy would be to implement the underlying assumptions of U.S. arms export law, which call for arming nations only for purposes of self-defense and avoiding arms sales to nations that engage in patterns of systematic human rights abuses." I mean, this is a no brainer- we are trying to fight for freedom and liberty all around the world, but we tend to arm the nations that undermine our beliefs- Given the 2004 elections and the fact that many Americans voted on what is described as faith based issues like stem cell research and abortion, its funny how we could have possibly voted in an adminstration that could undermine the core of this country-
The arms sales are in large part as "rewards" to countries that lend military bases, or give their willingness to help in our fight against terrorism. The article also has a sugestion for this- "Equally important, the automatic assumption that arms transfers are the preferred "barter" for access to military facilities or other security "goods" sought from other nations should be seriously re-considered. Economic aid, political support and other forms of engagement should be explored as alternatives whenever possible."
"New York, NY, May 25th—A new report by the New York-based World Policy Institute finds that a majority of U.S. arms sales to the developing world go to regimes defined as undemocratic by our own State Department. Furthermore, U.S.-supplied arms are involved in a majority of the world’s active conflicts."
"When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003 -- a full 80% -- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses"
"Arming repressive regimes while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues," argues Frida Berrigan."
The article continues to explore different possiblities to change these arms sales, and suggests that it is possible to do so through Executive Branch policy initiatives or legistlation( obviously). Now doesn't this make sense?---> "...arms sales policy would be to implement the underlying assumptions of U.S. arms export law, which call for arming nations only for purposes of self-defense and avoiding arms sales to nations that engage in patterns of systematic human rights abuses." I mean, this is a no brainer- we are trying to fight for freedom and liberty all around the world, but we tend to arm the nations that undermine our beliefs- Given the 2004 elections and the fact that many Americans voted on what is described as faith based issues like stem cell research and abortion, its funny how we could have possibly voted in an adminstration that could undermine the core of this country-
The arms sales are in large part as "rewards" to countries that lend military bases, or give their willingness to help in our fight against terrorism. The article also has a sugestion for this- "Equally important, the automatic assumption that arms transfers are the preferred "barter" for access to military facilities or other security "goods" sought from other nations should be seriously re-considered. Economic aid, political support and other forms of engagement should be explored as alternatives whenever possible."
