jueves, 15 de marzo de 2012
Aumenta compra de armas Mexico
Aumenta México compra de armas a la UE
El equipo convencional comprado a la Unión Europea es de uso exclusivo del Ejército y no policiaco, explica experto
Inder Bugarin / Corresponsal
Bruselas, Bélgica (8 marzo 2012).- La compra de armas de México a la Unión Europea (UE) alcanzó en 2010 su máximo histórico, según el más reciente informe del Consejo Europeo sobre la exportación de armas convencionales, al que tuvo acceso REFORMA.
El valor de las exportaciones europeas autorizadas a México en 2010 ascendió a 355 millones 335 mil euros, una cifra récord desde la puesta en marcha del Acuerdo Global con la UE en el 2000.
Con esta operación, México duplicó el valor de sus compras realizadas en 2009 (154 millones de euros) y se colocó como el segundo mayor socio armamentista de la UE en América Latina, después de Brasil.
México desplazó a dos clientes tradicionales de las casas de armas europeas, Chile y Venezuela, sostiene el informe publicado por la máxima institución de la UE, el cual no brinda detalles sobre el tipo de armamento adquirido.
Para el Instituto Internacional de Estudios Estratégicos (SIPRI, por sus siglas en inglés), las compras responden a la estrategia de expandir las capacidades de defensa en la lucha contra el narcotráfico basándose en el modelo de la Iniciativa Mérida.
"La mayoría son helicópteros y aeronaves de transporte, equipo que entra en el marco de la Iniciativa Mérida y que potencialmente puede ser usado en operaciones militares, policiacas y antinarcóticos", explicó a REFORMA Mark Bromley, experto en transferencias militares del SIPRI.
De acuerdo con el investigador, el material de defensa adquirido por México no es exclusivo de Europa, por lo que pudo haber acudido a otros proveedores militaristas, como Israel, Qatar, Rusia, Estados Unidos y Canadá.
Pero lo que está claro es que el equipo convencional comprado es de uso exclusivo del Ejército y no policiaco, ni utilizado en Europa para actividades de combate a la delincuencia.
Las principales operaciones correspondieron a la compra en España de tres aviones turbohélice de transporte táctico y patrulla marítima CASA-235, y munición de artillería, por un valor de 57.7 millones de euros, según cifras de la Secretaría de Estado de Comercio Exterior.
También destacan cuatro aviones de transporte táctico C-27J Spartan provenientes de la Fuerza Aérea Italiana, que utiliza este tipo de aeronaves en las misiones de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN) en Afganistán.
Por otra parte, el Reino Unido autorizó decenas de licencias para la transferencia de rifles de asalto, fusiles de francotirador, chalecos antibalas, lanzagranadas, cascos militares, pistolas semiautomáticas, cámaras de visión nocturna, equipo para la intercepción de comunicaciones y software criptográfico.
En tanto que México gastó en Holanda 181 mil euros para hacerse de equipo como radares de vigilancia portátiles, cartuchos de bala de fabricación coreana calibre 5.56 y 7.62 y placas de blindajes para vehículos.
El experto del SIPRI, una organización independiente creada en 1966 por iniciativa del entonces Primer Ministro Tage Erlander para proyectar con sus estudios la tradición pacífica de Suecia, aclara que las adquisiciones mexicanas son de material moderno, pero no de alta tecnología.
"El equipo no es de tecnología de punta, pero cumple perfectamente con la función para la que han sido adquiridos, para el patrullaje marítimo y el movimiento rápido de tropas por el País", dijo Bromley.
Hora de publicación: 00:00 hrs.
lunes, 7 de noviembre de 2011
Campaign Against Arms Trade. ONG
Campaign Against Arms Trade
Campaign Against Arms Trade
Founded 1974
Location London, United Kingdom
Focus Opposition to arms trading
Website www.caat.org.uk
Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) is a UK-based NGO and campaigning organisation working towards the abolition of the international arms trade. Founded in 1974 by a broad coalition of peace groups, CAAT is united in opposition to the military industrial complex and the growth of the private military industry. It argues that these organisations reinforce global militarism whilst undermining attempts by civil society and the United Nations to resolve disputes peacefully. CAAT's main focus is to end the influence of arms companies over the UK government, and works together with similar organisations in other countries to the same end. CAAT has grown in stature in recent years as a result of several high profile campaigns, particularly its legal challenge against the Serious Fraud Office's decision to suspend a corruption investigation into BAE Systems in 2007.
Current Issues
BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia Corruption Inquiry
BAE Systems formerly British Aerospace, is the world's third largest weapons trader. In September 1985 BAE was a signatory to the UK's largest ever arms deal, the Al Yamamah contract to provide military planes as well as servicing provisions to the government of Saudi Arabia. This ongoing contact has evolved through several phases to the present day and has thus made the company £43 billion pounds.
Shortly after the contract was signed however, corruption allegations began to surface concerning bribes paid to Saudi officials through a £60 million pound slush fund. On 12 September 2003 the Serious Fraud Office began an investigation into possible corruption. BAE are also the subject of four active SFO investigations for its dealings in Romania, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Tanzania, calling into question the general operating conduct of its agents. However on the 14th December 2006 the Government discontinued the Al Yamamah probe on the grounds that its conclusions may embarrass the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and threaten Britain's national security.
CAAT in conjunction with the Corner House, an anti-corruption NGO, mounted a legal challenge to this decision, to assess if in curtailing the Serious Fraud Office's investigation the Government had acted illegally. Thus on 9 November 2007 the High Court in London granted a request for a judicial review of the decision. Subsequently, on the 10 April the conclusion of this review stated that the Government had indeed acted illegally in stopping the corruption investigation. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the Government had capitulated under intimidation from the government of Saudi Arabia and that "no-one whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of justice." BAE Systems continue to deny any impropriety stating the court had failed "to distinguish between a commission and a bribe."
Subsequently the SFO launched an appeal that was heard before the Appellate committee of the House of Lords on 7 and 8 July 2008. On the 30th July the House of Lords overturned the High Courts' ruling, and decreed that the SFO had acted lawfully in the interest of national security. Senior Peer Lord Bingham of Cornwall stated that "the director's decision was one he was lawfully entitled to make" but the ruling incited a chorus of condemnation from Nick Clegg in the House of Commons. The leader of the Liberal Democrats characterised the verdict as "a legal licence for international blackmail." The ruling also provoked considerable ire among anti-corruption campaigners and a string of NGO's. CAAT spokesman Symon Hill commented "BAE and the government will be quickly disappointed if they think that this ruling will bring an end to public criticism. Throughout this case we have been overwhelmed with support from people in all walks of life. There has been a sharp rise in opposition to BAE's influence in the corridors of power. Fewer people are now taken in by exaggerated claims about British jobs dependent on the arms trade. The government has been judged in the court of public opinion."
In response to the judicial review the Government has drafted a controversial clause of the Constitutional Reform Bill. This will grant the attorney-general the power to quash any further such investigations with immunity from judicial interference. CAAT and the Corner House have both condemned any such legislation as a perversion of justice which will erode the accountability of the executive and threaten the rule of law.
Closure of DESO
The Defence Export Services Organisation was an adjunct of the Ministry of Defence concerned with procuring contracts for private military companies to export arms to foreign governments. The closure of DESO had been a core campaigning aim of CAAT since its inception in 1974, and was their main focus in 2006.
CAAT brought considerable pressure on the government concerning the ethics of some such trading, given that in 2004, UK arms export licenses were granted to 13 of the 20 'major countries of concern' identified by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in its 2005 Human Rights Annual Report. CAAT also alleged that DESO unfairly privileged the interests of the arms companies and helped facilitate bribes to foreign officials. In response to this on 25 July 2007 Gordon Brown announced that DESO would indeed be shut down. Chief Executive of BAE Systems Mike Turner condemned the decision by citing the damage it would do to Britain's export trade. CAAT argued that the closure of DESO is a step forward in transparency for the government. As a result it will be less hamstrung by lobbyists seeking to manipulate its human rights and budgetary policies.
In future export promotion will be the responsibility of UK Trade and Investment, the body that supports all UK exports. On 1 April 2008 the UKTI Defence and Security Organisation, which will be responsible for some of DESO's previous functions, was formed. The current head of UKTI DSO is Richard Paniguian CBE, a former BP executive. CAAT has pledged to monitor UKTI to make sure that military exports, (less than 2% of total UK exports in 2004), do not monopolise a disproportionate amount of its resources.
DSEi: Reed Elsevier Campaign
Defence Systems and Equipment International is one of the largest arms fairs in the world which takes place in London bi-annually, the last occurring in September 2007. From 2003 to May 2008 the DSEi was organised by Reed Elsevier, a publishing and information company, who acquired the previous organisers Spearhead in 2003.
As CAAT is opposed to the existence of arms fairs, it campaigned to encourage Reed Elsevier to extricate itself from the arms industry. There followed a sustained and concerted effort from academics, doctors and writers that use the company's products, who demanded they end their involvement with arms fairs on ethical grounds. This culminated in Reed's decision to sell its arms fairs to Clarion Events in June2007, a sale which was completed in May 2008.
However, CAAT intends to continue campaigning for the overall closure of DSEi and other arms fairs.
Clean Investment Campaign
From universities to local authorities CAAT has consistently sought to highlight areas where public bodies hold shares in companies trading in arms. On 9 July CAAT released research that 75 local authorities in the UK held such investments through their pension funds. It has argued that many council employees reject the notion that they should help to prop up such companies and continues to advocate a more ethical investment strategy.
The long standing Clean Investment campaign has had many successes in the past, one of the most significant occurring in 2001. In response to pressure from the CAAT Christian Network the Church of England redefined its investment criteria and confirmed it will no longer invest in arms companies. Despite excluding arms company holdings, the Church remained, in 2005, the second best performer of more than 1,000 funds over the previous decade.
Furthermore, from 2005 the CAAT Universities Network has met with considerable success in its campaign to advocate ethical investment across the UK. A report entitled 'Study War No More' has highlighted military funding and involvement within 26 British universities. CAAT facilitates research into the details of university investment portfolios which has helped students to mount their own campaigns for clean investment. This has resulted in many universities divesting their shares in the arms industry, whilst many more campuses continue to campaign for similar action to be taken.
Private military companies
Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the use of 'private military companies' has become standard practice for countries such as the UK and the US. CAAT considers these contractors to be modern-day mercenaries. The Geneva Convention may classify as a mercenary a civilian contractor who is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party".
Private military companies have become big business, with an estimated turnover world wide of $100 billion, and their use is set to rise.
The UK Government's Green Paper of 2002 on Private Military Companies prompted a debate on the privatisation of a whole range of military services which has been taking place with little comment, high profile cases such as Sandline in Sierra Leone notwithstanding.
CAAT seeks an end to all mercenary activities. If this cannot be achieved at this point, the following controls are its minimum immediate requirements:
a ban on all combat activities
all dealings between Government departments and agencies and the military companies, other than operational details, to be in the public domain
any contract entered into between a military company and a foreign government to stipulate a cash fee and no other benefit. No other business sharing directors or offices with the providers of security should be allowed to have any dealings with the foreign government concerned for a period of, say, five years. The ownership of the military companies should be made transparent.
companies to be made responsible under UK law for any breaches of human rights or the laws of war that may be committed by their employees
CAAT is also committed to publishing research on the issue in order to raise public awareness of the ever increasing role mercenaries play in modern conflict zones.
Campaign Against Arms Trade
Founded 1974
Location London, United Kingdom
Focus Opposition to arms trading
Website www.caat.org.uk
Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) is a UK-based NGO and campaigning organisation working towards the abolition of the international arms trade. Founded in 1974 by a broad coalition of peace groups, CAAT is united in opposition to the military industrial complex and the growth of the private military industry. It argues that these organisations reinforce global militarism whilst undermining attempts by civil society and the United Nations to resolve disputes peacefully. CAAT's main focus is to end the influence of arms companies over the UK government, and works together with similar organisations in other countries to the same end. CAAT has grown in stature in recent years as a result of several high profile campaigns, particularly its legal challenge against the Serious Fraud Office's decision to suspend a corruption investigation into BAE Systems in 2007.
Current Issues
BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia Corruption Inquiry
BAE Systems formerly British Aerospace, is the world's third largest weapons trader. In September 1985 BAE was a signatory to the UK's largest ever arms deal, the Al Yamamah contract to provide military planes as well as servicing provisions to the government of Saudi Arabia. This ongoing contact has evolved through several phases to the present day and has thus made the company £43 billion pounds.
Shortly after the contract was signed however, corruption allegations began to surface concerning bribes paid to Saudi officials through a £60 million pound slush fund. On 12 September 2003 the Serious Fraud Office began an investigation into possible corruption. BAE are also the subject of four active SFO investigations for its dealings in Romania, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Tanzania, calling into question the general operating conduct of its agents. However on the 14th December 2006 the Government discontinued the Al Yamamah probe on the grounds that its conclusions may embarrass the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and threaten Britain's national security.
CAAT in conjunction with the Corner House, an anti-corruption NGO, mounted a legal challenge to this decision, to assess if in curtailing the Serious Fraud Office's investigation the Government had acted illegally. Thus on 9 November 2007 the High Court in London granted a request for a judicial review of the decision. Subsequently, on the 10 April the conclusion of this review stated that the Government had indeed acted illegally in stopping the corruption investigation. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the Government had capitulated under intimidation from the government of Saudi Arabia and that "no-one whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of justice." BAE Systems continue to deny any impropriety stating the court had failed "to distinguish between a commission and a bribe."
Subsequently the SFO launched an appeal that was heard before the Appellate committee of the House of Lords on 7 and 8 July 2008. On the 30th July the House of Lords overturned the High Courts' ruling, and decreed that the SFO had acted lawfully in the interest of national security. Senior Peer Lord Bingham of Cornwall stated that "the director's decision was one he was lawfully entitled to make" but the ruling incited a chorus of condemnation from Nick Clegg in the House of Commons. The leader of the Liberal Democrats characterised the verdict as "a legal licence for international blackmail." The ruling also provoked considerable ire among anti-corruption campaigners and a string of NGO's. CAAT spokesman Symon Hill commented "BAE and the government will be quickly disappointed if they think that this ruling will bring an end to public criticism. Throughout this case we have been overwhelmed with support from people in all walks of life. There has been a sharp rise in opposition to BAE's influence in the corridors of power. Fewer people are now taken in by exaggerated claims about British jobs dependent on the arms trade. The government has been judged in the court of public opinion."
In response to the judicial review the Government has drafted a controversial clause of the Constitutional Reform Bill. This will grant the attorney-general the power to quash any further such investigations with immunity from judicial interference. CAAT and the Corner House have both condemned any such legislation as a perversion of justice which will erode the accountability of the executive and threaten the rule of law.
Closure of DESO
The Defence Export Services Organisation was an adjunct of the Ministry of Defence concerned with procuring contracts for private military companies to export arms to foreign governments. The closure of DESO had been a core campaigning aim of CAAT since its inception in 1974, and was their main focus in 2006.
CAAT brought considerable pressure on the government concerning the ethics of some such trading, given that in 2004, UK arms export licenses were granted to 13 of the 20 'major countries of concern' identified by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in its 2005 Human Rights Annual Report. CAAT also alleged that DESO unfairly privileged the interests of the arms companies and helped facilitate bribes to foreign officials. In response to this on 25 July 2007 Gordon Brown announced that DESO would indeed be shut down. Chief Executive of BAE Systems Mike Turner condemned the decision by citing the damage it would do to Britain's export trade. CAAT argued that the closure of DESO is a step forward in transparency for the government. As a result it will be less hamstrung by lobbyists seeking to manipulate its human rights and budgetary policies.
In future export promotion will be the responsibility of UK Trade and Investment, the body that supports all UK exports. On 1 April 2008 the UKTI Defence and Security Organisation, which will be responsible for some of DESO's previous functions, was formed. The current head of UKTI DSO is Richard Paniguian CBE, a former BP executive. CAAT has pledged to monitor UKTI to make sure that military exports, (less than 2% of total UK exports in 2004), do not monopolise a disproportionate amount of its resources.
DSEi: Reed Elsevier Campaign
Defence Systems and Equipment International is one of the largest arms fairs in the world which takes place in London bi-annually, the last occurring in September 2007. From 2003 to May 2008 the DSEi was organised by Reed Elsevier, a publishing and information company, who acquired the previous organisers Spearhead in 2003.
As CAAT is opposed to the existence of arms fairs, it campaigned to encourage Reed Elsevier to extricate itself from the arms industry. There followed a sustained and concerted effort from academics, doctors and writers that use the company's products, who demanded they end their involvement with arms fairs on ethical grounds. This culminated in Reed's decision to sell its arms fairs to Clarion Events in June2007, a sale which was completed in May 2008.
However, CAAT intends to continue campaigning for the overall closure of DSEi and other arms fairs.
Clean Investment Campaign
From universities to local authorities CAAT has consistently sought to highlight areas where public bodies hold shares in companies trading in arms. On 9 July CAAT released research that 75 local authorities in the UK held such investments through their pension funds. It has argued that many council employees reject the notion that they should help to prop up such companies and continues to advocate a more ethical investment strategy.
The long standing Clean Investment campaign has had many successes in the past, one of the most significant occurring in 2001. In response to pressure from the CAAT Christian Network the Church of England redefined its investment criteria and confirmed it will no longer invest in arms companies. Despite excluding arms company holdings, the Church remained, in 2005, the second best performer of more than 1,000 funds over the previous decade.
Furthermore, from 2005 the CAAT Universities Network has met with considerable success in its campaign to advocate ethical investment across the UK. A report entitled 'Study War No More' has highlighted military funding and involvement within 26 British universities. CAAT facilitates research into the details of university investment portfolios which has helped students to mount their own campaigns for clean investment. This has resulted in many universities divesting their shares in the arms industry, whilst many more campuses continue to campaign for similar action to be taken.
Private military companies
Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the use of 'private military companies' has become standard practice for countries such as the UK and the US. CAAT considers these contractors to be modern-day mercenaries. The Geneva Convention may classify as a mercenary a civilian contractor who is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party".
Private military companies have become big business, with an estimated turnover world wide of $100 billion, and their use is set to rise.
The UK Government's Green Paper of 2002 on Private Military Companies prompted a debate on the privatisation of a whole range of military services which has been taking place with little comment, high profile cases such as Sandline in Sierra Leone notwithstanding.
CAAT seeks an end to all mercenary activities. If this cannot be achieved at this point, the following controls are its minimum immediate requirements:
a ban on all combat activities
all dealings between Government departments and agencies and the military companies, other than operational details, to be in the public domain
any contract entered into between a military company and a foreign government to stipulate a cash fee and no other benefit. No other business sharing directors or offices with the providers of security should be allowed to have any dealings with the foreign government concerned for a period of, say, five years. The ownership of the military companies should be made transparent.
companies to be made responsible under UK law for any breaches of human rights or the laws of war that may be committed by their employees
CAAT is also committed to publishing research on the issue in order to raise public awareness of the ever increasing role mercenaries play in modern conflict zones.
Reducing Gun Violence
Reducing Gun Violence through Enforcement Strategies
Jens Ludwig
University of Chicago Crime Lab
February 1, 2011
Firearms facts
q~250 million in private hands,
1/3 handgun
q Ownership quite concentrated
q1/3 of households, ¼ of adults
qAnnually: 30,000 gun deaths, 80,000 injuries, 500,000 gun crimes
qGuns: 52% of suicides,
68% of homicides,
25% of personal robberies
Cargando...
The challenge for research & policy
•Whatever you think of current regulations politics make big changes unlikely
•State / local regulations undermined by across-state gun transfers
•Federal politics are what they are
•Courts striking down gun bans in DC and Chicago, uncertainty w/ other regulations
•What can we actually do that would help?
Alternative strategies for reducing gun use in violence
If guns are going to become more prevalent, what steps are available to reduce negative consequences?
Two general strategies:
USE: Change incentives for using a gun
ACCESS: Make it harder for youths and criminals to obtain guns and ammo
Cargando...
USE: Make guns a liability to criminals (swift, certain punishment)
1.Anti-gun policing (key role of gun carrying)
1.Most homicides in US involve guns, most victims discovered outside
2.NYPD does a lot of this, studies of Pittsburgh (Cohen & Ludwig) suggests this helps reduce gun violence
3.But challenging to implement appropriately
2.Swift, certain punishment for carrying guns
1.Police complains about slap on wrist for illegal gun carrying (“real crime” vs. probabilistic harm)
2.Seems like promising margin but little direct evaluation evidence (& implementation?)
USE: Make guns a liability to criminals (swift, certain punishment)
1.Rewards for tips about guns
1.Venkatesh: Lots of teens carry guns for status
2.Rewards for tips inverts incentives to show off
3.NYPD pilot project, but never evaluated
2.Direct communication of gun priority to gang members, group sanctions (Boston)
1.Is this as promising as we hope? (And can it work in areas w/ weakly organized gangs / drug mkts?)
3.Less promising: Long prison terms
1.All people short sighted (criminals especially)
ACCESS: friction and price
Surprise: many high-risk people have difficulty in obtaining guns (the Chicago story, from Cook / Ludwig / Venkatesh / Braga 2007 Economic Journal)
1.Large price mark-ups relative to legal mkt.
2.Substantial wait times
3.System of “retail brokers” has developed
4.Large share of purchase attempts unfulfilled
1.Different for guns than drugs b/c durable goods?
Tactics for increasing
friction / price in gun market
•Reduce theft through locks & liability
•Investigate “point” sources (both FFL and in the underground market
•ATF trace data important for this activity
•Provide arrestees with incentives to share information @ gun sources (NJSP)
•Don’t bother with gun buybacks
Jens Ludwig
University of Chicago Crime Lab
February 1, 2011
Firearms facts
q~250 million in private hands,
1/3 handgun
q Ownership quite concentrated
q1/3 of households, ¼ of adults
qAnnually: 30,000 gun deaths, 80,000 injuries, 500,000 gun crimes
qGuns: 52% of suicides,
68% of homicides,
25% of personal robberies
Cargando...
The challenge for research & policy
•Whatever you think of current regulations politics make big changes unlikely
•State / local regulations undermined by across-state gun transfers
•Federal politics are what they are
•Courts striking down gun bans in DC and Chicago, uncertainty w/ other regulations
•What can we actually do that would help?
Alternative strategies for reducing gun use in violence
If guns are going to become more prevalent, what steps are available to reduce negative consequences?
Two general strategies:
USE: Change incentives for using a gun
ACCESS: Make it harder for youths and criminals to obtain guns and ammo
Cargando...
USE: Make guns a liability to criminals (swift, certain punishment)
1.Anti-gun policing (key role of gun carrying)
1.Most homicides in US involve guns, most victims discovered outside
2.NYPD does a lot of this, studies of Pittsburgh (Cohen & Ludwig) suggests this helps reduce gun violence
3.But challenging to implement appropriately
2.Swift, certain punishment for carrying guns
1.Police complains about slap on wrist for illegal gun carrying (“real crime” vs. probabilistic harm)
2.Seems like promising margin but little direct evaluation evidence (& implementation?)
USE: Make guns a liability to criminals (swift, certain punishment)
1.Rewards for tips about guns
1.Venkatesh: Lots of teens carry guns for status
2.Rewards for tips inverts incentives to show off
3.NYPD pilot project, but never evaluated
2.Direct communication of gun priority to gang members, group sanctions (Boston)
1.Is this as promising as we hope? (And can it work in areas w/ weakly organized gangs / drug mkts?)
3.Less promising: Long prison terms
1.All people short sighted (criminals especially)
ACCESS: friction and price
Surprise: many high-risk people have difficulty in obtaining guns (the Chicago story, from Cook / Ludwig / Venkatesh / Braga 2007 Economic Journal)
1.Large price mark-ups relative to legal mkt.
2.Substantial wait times
3.System of “retail brokers” has developed
4.Large share of purchase attempts unfulfilled
1.Different for guns than drugs b/c durable goods?
Tactics for increasing
friction / price in gun market
•Reduce theft through locks & liability
•Investigate “point” sources (both FFL and in the underground market
•ATF trace data important for this activity
•Provide arrestees with incentives to share information @ gun sources (NJSP)
•Don’t bother with gun buybacks
jueves, 3 de noviembre de 2011
What you should know about Arms Trade. THE ECONOMIST
From the blog Prospero from The Economist
ANDREW FEINSTEIN is our inaugural host for "Quick study", a new series on Prospero that offers a crash course in a particular subject, delivered by an expert in the field, with some suggestions for further reading. Mr Feinstein is the author of the new book "The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade", out this week in Britain and America. A former South African MP, he resigned in 2001 in protest against the government's refusal to allow an investigation into a corrupt £5 billion arms deal. His 2007 political memoir, "After the Party: A Personal and Political Journey Inside the ANC" (reviewed by The Economist here), became a bestseller in South Africa. Mr Feinstein lives in London and he co-directs Corruption Watch, an anti-corruption organisation. Here he answers a few questions about the global arms trade.
What is the first thing I need to know about the arms trade?
We estimate that armed conflict was responsible for 231m deaths last century. That figure has probably continued proportionally, if not increased. I’m not saying that the arms trade has caused 231m deaths, but I’m saying that the nature of the arms trade intensifies these conflicts. Often the conflicts are far more bloody because of the easy availability of weapons.
Global military expenditure is estimated to have totalled $1.6 trillion in 2010. That is $235 for every person on the planet.
Suggested reading: The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook offers incredibly impressive figures on exactly who buys and sells what.
Why?
I think because the United States has become so militarised and militaristic. It spends $1 trillion a year on national security—as much as the rest of the world put together. That really came to a head during the George W. Bush administration. The Obama administration has simply continued this. Defence spending under Obama has actually risen.
Is that because he doesn’t want to seem weak, or is he secretly more hawkish than he appears?
It is very difficult for a president who wants to win another election to appear soft on national security. [Then there] is the power of "the iron triangle"—that is, the Pentagon, the defence contractors and Congress. At a time of some economic difficulty for the United States, the country is still pressing ahead with the development of a jet fighter called the F-35, which will cost the country over $380 billion. It is virtually irrelevant to the current conflicts in which the US is engaged.
In 2010 84% of retiring generals in the Pentagon went into employment with the big defence contractors. Lawmakers seldom vote against any of these gargantuan projects. They get a lot of campaign contributions from the large defence contractors, and the contractors ensure that there are jobs on these contracts in every single congressional district, even if it’s just a couple of people sitting around a table surfing the internet. This means that anyone who votes against these projects is accused by the lobby of voting against jobs in their own constituency. A Pentagon whistleblower I interviewed, Chuck Spinney, describes the system as a self-licking ice cream.
Suggested reading: William Hartung’s "Profits of War" (2010). This is a history of Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest defence contractor. Lockheed Martin was at the forefront of global arms-trade corruption in the 1960s and 1970s until the US cleaned up its act with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977), which is now under threat from the US Chamber of Business.
Presumably there is then the illicit arms trade complicating things further?
The boundaries between the formal arms trade and "the shadow world" are extremely fuzzy. Someone like Viktor Bout [now on trial in New York] has actually done logistics work for the US and the UN. There is often a relationship between a country’s departments of defence and the big arms producers, but also between their intelligence agencies and the illicit dealers. There was an Interpol warrant out for Bout’s arrest for nine years, and during that time the US was using him in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why?
He had an ability to take weapons and military material anywhere in the world, regardless of conditions on the ground. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Bout bought up massive military transport planes that are incredibly dangerous to fly. He paid pilots to land these gargantuan beasts anywhere in the world. He also had access to surpluses of former Soviet weaponry. Bout armed elements of the Taliban, elements of the Northern Alliance; in Liberia and Sierra Leone he was involved in weapons dealing around the blood-diamond phenomenon. There were al-Qaeda elements involved in those transactions, so he’s also an intelligence asset.
And a risk.
Yes. The American academic Chalmers Johnson refers to the unintended consequences of the arms trade as "blowback". These weapons land up in places you don’t want or expect them to. In Libya the NATO forces were destroying a lot of weaponry that the NATO countries had sold to Qaddafi, especially since 2004. Now a whole lot of those weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, are turning up on the black market around the world.
Suggested reading: Richard Bausch's novel "Peace" (2009). It’s about a small group of soldiers in Italy in 1944 dealing with the moral consequences of the behaviour of their little unit leader. It’s one of the most powerful things I’ve ever read about the arms trade.
What about straightforward corruption?
The industry is hardwired for corruption. The last figures on the arms trade, up to the end of 2003, show that it is responsible for 40% of all corruption in world trade. The arms trade undermines accountable democracy in both buying and selling countries. UK police investigating the largest-ever arms deal, the al-Yamamah deal between the UK and Saudi Arabia, estimate that around £6 billion of commissions were paid on that deal alone. Mark Thatcher received £12m as an agent on the deal and al-Yamamah became known in certain circles as "Who’s Your Mama". Tony Blair intervened to ensure that that investigation was closed down. Similar things happen in the buying countries. The South African deal with BAE Systems [1999] has had a devastating impact on South Africa’s democracy. Until ten days before he was elected President, Jacob Zuma was facing 783 counts of corruption, fraud and racketeering in relationship to this deal. So, they disbanded the country’s two anti-corruption bodies.
Suggested Reading: Nicholson Baker’s "Human Smoke" (2008). It’s 400 pages of quotes and radio reports taken in the lead up to the second world war. It’s a remarkable compilation of the contradictions in how we are governed and how we find ourselves in wars like the second world war.
What needs to be done?
This is a matter of political will. The imperatives of national security and commercial confidentiality legitimately conceal some aspects of these deals, but they’re also used to hide the malfeasance that takes place. There needs to be greater transparency, particularly around the use of middlemen. Secondly, we need far stronger regulation of an industry that quite literally counts its costs in human lives and is highly under-regulated. There are negotiations in the UN at the moment for an international arms-trade treaty, but it will have to be tough with meaningful enforcement methods. I would also suggest that no weapons manufacturer should be allowed to make any political contributions.
More reading about the campaign against the arms trade can be found at Amnesty International, Control Arms and Oxfam. Mr Feinstein's book "The Shadow World" is published by Hamish Hamilton in Britain and FSG in America, and out this week.
Recommend
29
Submit to reddit
inShare
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Add a comment (up to 5,000 characters):
ANDREW FEINSTEIN is our inaugural host for "Quick study", a new series on Prospero that offers a crash course in a particular subject, delivered by an expert in the field, with some suggestions for further reading. Mr Feinstein is the author of the new book "The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade", out this week in Britain and America. A former South African MP, he resigned in 2001 in protest against the government's refusal to allow an investigation into a corrupt £5 billion arms deal. His 2007 political memoir, "After the Party: A Personal and Political Journey Inside the ANC" (reviewed by The Economist here), became a bestseller in South Africa. Mr Feinstein lives in London and he co-directs Corruption Watch, an anti-corruption organisation. Here he answers a few questions about the global arms trade.
What is the first thing I need to know about the arms trade?
We estimate that armed conflict was responsible for 231m deaths last century. That figure has probably continued proportionally, if not increased. I’m not saying that the arms trade has caused 231m deaths, but I’m saying that the nature of the arms trade intensifies these conflicts. Often the conflicts are far more bloody because of the easy availability of weapons.
Global military expenditure is estimated to have totalled $1.6 trillion in 2010. That is $235 for every person on the planet.
Suggested reading: The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook offers incredibly impressive figures on exactly who buys and sells what.
Why?
I think because the United States has become so militarised and militaristic. It spends $1 trillion a year on national security—as much as the rest of the world put together. That really came to a head during the George W. Bush administration. The Obama administration has simply continued this. Defence spending under Obama has actually risen.
Is that because he doesn’t want to seem weak, or is he secretly more hawkish than he appears?
It is very difficult for a president who wants to win another election to appear soft on national security. [Then there] is the power of "the iron triangle"—that is, the Pentagon, the defence contractors and Congress. At a time of some economic difficulty for the United States, the country is still pressing ahead with the development of a jet fighter called the F-35, which will cost the country over $380 billion. It is virtually irrelevant to the current conflicts in which the US is engaged.
In 2010 84% of retiring generals in the Pentagon went into employment with the big defence contractors. Lawmakers seldom vote against any of these gargantuan projects. They get a lot of campaign contributions from the large defence contractors, and the contractors ensure that there are jobs on these contracts in every single congressional district, even if it’s just a couple of people sitting around a table surfing the internet. This means that anyone who votes against these projects is accused by the lobby of voting against jobs in their own constituency. A Pentagon whistleblower I interviewed, Chuck Spinney, describes the system as a self-licking ice cream.
Suggested reading: William Hartung’s "Profits of War" (2010). This is a history of Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest defence contractor. Lockheed Martin was at the forefront of global arms-trade corruption in the 1960s and 1970s until the US cleaned up its act with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977), which is now under threat from the US Chamber of Business.
Presumably there is then the illicit arms trade complicating things further?
The boundaries between the formal arms trade and "the shadow world" are extremely fuzzy. Someone like Viktor Bout [now on trial in New York] has actually done logistics work for the US and the UN. There is often a relationship between a country’s departments of defence and the big arms producers, but also between their intelligence agencies and the illicit dealers. There was an Interpol warrant out for Bout’s arrest for nine years, and during that time the US was using him in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why?
He had an ability to take weapons and military material anywhere in the world, regardless of conditions on the ground. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Bout bought up massive military transport planes that are incredibly dangerous to fly. He paid pilots to land these gargantuan beasts anywhere in the world. He also had access to surpluses of former Soviet weaponry. Bout armed elements of the Taliban, elements of the Northern Alliance; in Liberia and Sierra Leone he was involved in weapons dealing around the blood-diamond phenomenon. There were al-Qaeda elements involved in those transactions, so he’s also an intelligence asset.
And a risk.
Yes. The American academic Chalmers Johnson refers to the unintended consequences of the arms trade as "blowback". These weapons land up in places you don’t want or expect them to. In Libya the NATO forces were destroying a lot of weaponry that the NATO countries had sold to Qaddafi, especially since 2004. Now a whole lot of those weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, are turning up on the black market around the world.
Suggested reading: Richard Bausch's novel "Peace" (2009). It’s about a small group of soldiers in Italy in 1944 dealing with the moral consequences of the behaviour of their little unit leader. It’s one of the most powerful things I’ve ever read about the arms trade.
What about straightforward corruption?
The industry is hardwired for corruption. The last figures on the arms trade, up to the end of 2003, show that it is responsible for 40% of all corruption in world trade. The arms trade undermines accountable democracy in both buying and selling countries. UK police investigating the largest-ever arms deal, the al-Yamamah deal between the UK and Saudi Arabia, estimate that around £6 billion of commissions were paid on that deal alone. Mark Thatcher received £12m as an agent on the deal and al-Yamamah became known in certain circles as "Who’s Your Mama". Tony Blair intervened to ensure that that investigation was closed down. Similar things happen in the buying countries. The South African deal with BAE Systems [1999] has had a devastating impact on South Africa’s democracy. Until ten days before he was elected President, Jacob Zuma was facing 783 counts of corruption, fraud and racketeering in relationship to this deal. So, they disbanded the country’s two anti-corruption bodies.
Suggested Reading: Nicholson Baker’s "Human Smoke" (2008). It’s 400 pages of quotes and radio reports taken in the lead up to the second world war. It’s a remarkable compilation of the contradictions in how we are governed and how we find ourselves in wars like the second world war.
What needs to be done?
This is a matter of political will. The imperatives of national security and commercial confidentiality legitimately conceal some aspects of these deals, but they’re also used to hide the malfeasance that takes place. There needs to be greater transparency, particularly around the use of middlemen. Secondly, we need far stronger regulation of an industry that quite literally counts its costs in human lives and is highly under-regulated. There are negotiations in the UN at the moment for an international arms-trade treaty, but it will have to be tough with meaningful enforcement methods. I would also suggest that no weapons manufacturer should be allowed to make any political contributions.
More reading about the campaign against the arms trade can be found at Amnesty International, Control Arms and Oxfam. Mr Feinstein's book "The Shadow World" is published by Hamish Hamilton in Britain and FSG in America, and out this week.
Recommend
29
Submit to reddit
inShare
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Add a comment (up to 5,000 characters):
miércoles, 31 de agosto de 2011
Spratlys feuds fuel Asian arms race and US industry
Spratlys feuds fuel Asian arms race and US industry
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:37 AM
This article deals principally with the military repercussions of the renewed territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the profits they bring to the U.S. war industry. It does not, therefore, discuss China's military modernization and its impact on the SCS territorial tensions.
Just as the post-9/11 "war on terror" was used to justify the U.S.' increased militarism in Asia Pacific and elsewhere in the world, the heightened territorial disputes in the South China Sea are now being spun to boost the Pentagon's China encirclement strategy. The tension triggered by the territorial disputes is giving the U.S. grounds for strengthening and expanding its security relationships with traditional allies, vassal states, and other countries in the region. The immediate beneficiary of this enhanced militarism is America's arms trade involving weapons suppliers and military training providers. Pushing their war industry is President Barack Obama's new arms exports strategy in the region including Southeast Asia.
At a time when peaceful and diplomatic approaches may help defuse the tensions in the South China Sea triggered by the conflicting territorial claims, this renewed war environment is even stimulating an arms race among major states in the region thus further enhancing their dependency on the U.S. weapons supply chain.
In the first six months of 2011, various reports pointed to Chinese incursions in parts of the Spratly Islands claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, and four other countries including China. Although Beijing denied the allegations, the reported incidents ignited diplomatic protests with at least one of the claimants – the Philippines – calling on U.S. protection by invoking the cold war-vintage 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). Amid the tension, bilateral war exercises have been held by the U.S. with the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries even as China likewise enhanced its maritime surveillance in the South China Sea (SCS) capped by the launching of its first aircraft carrier.
Described as the "mother of all territorial disputes," the SCS is also claimed as the "second Persian Gulf" presumed to be rich in oil, gas, and other sea-based minerals, aside from being one of the world's richest fishing grounds. Being the world's busiest maritime superhighway, over 50 percent of global merchant fleet and supertanker traffic traverse its waters particularly in the Malacca Strait. The SCS along with the Spratly Islands is claimed by China dating back to 2 BC although its first official sovereign claim was made in 1951. China's claim was subsequently followed by other countries notably the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Note, however, that the overlapping territorial claims on the Spratlys are just one of other flashpoints in the region that include Taiwan (China claim), the Korean peninsula, Senkaku Islands (Japan vs China), Sacotra Rock (South Korea vs China), Sabah (Philippines vs Malaysia), Hibernia reef (Australia vs Indonesia), Kanang Unarang (Indonesia vs Malaysia), Doi Lang (Burma vs Thailand), not to mention unresolved disputes between India and Pakistan, and between China and India.
'Core national interest'
With its fast growing economy and in reaction to the counter-claimants, China has become more assertive of its sovereign claims. Last year, China described the SCS as a "core national interest" at par with Taiwan and Tibet, adding that its territorial rights are "indisputable." Such a determination can also be explained by the fact that 75 percent of China's energy needs (it is now the biggest oil importer) are currently supplied through the SCS. The SCS is also China's gateway to the Indian Ocean and other trade routes for its energy supplies sourced from various continents of the world where it has become a major investor.
To counterbalance China-targeted U.S. militarism in Asia-Pacific, Beijing has opened energy exploration and development in the SCS to leading U.S. oil companies. Through the China National Petroleum Corporation – touted as the 10th largest of the world's top 50 petroleum companies – it had attempted to buy Unocal. It awarded an oil exploration deal covering some 9,700 sq. m. to Denver-based Crestone Energy Corporation on an area known as Vanguard Bank located southeast of Vietnam.
Citing statements from some member-countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that China's "bullying" warranted an active defense role of the U.S. in the SCS, Washington assumed new superpower posturing when last year it identified the Sea likewise as a "national interest." While recent reports of Chinese incursions elicited policy reactions from the U.S. calling for "restraint" and "multilateral talks," it has in no ambiguous terms continued to realign its military forces in the region while forging new defense partnerships, holding more war exercises, and opening new basing facilities. This network of treaties, access arrangements, forces and facilities is embedded in the U.S. Pacific Command with its 7th Fleet as well as the Central Command (Cencom) that have ensured America's imperial presence in Asia Pacific for several decades.
Although security partnerships, expansion, and armed aggression have been embedded into the U.S. empire's bid for continuing global supremacy, current conflicts and tensions not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in the SCS "arc of instability" boost the trade of arms and military services. All these in turn earn huge profits for U.S. weapons manufacturers, military training providers, and other foreign suppliers. The U.S. military-industrial complex is very much in business.
Arms shopping
Tensions building up in the SCS since last year until today have led to unprecedented arms shopping in the U.S. particularly by claimant-countries including:
Philippines: Under President Benigno S. Aquino III, the purchase of U.S. naval equipment including a second-hand Hamilton class cutter, for patrolling the Spratly waters. Used for 50 years, the cutter was actually decommissioned as a museum piece by the U.S. Navy. The Aquino government bought it for PhP400 million. Furthermore in April 2011, Aquino transferred PhP8 billion (U.S.$183 million) for the deployment and training of naval personnel assigned to secure oil and gas explorations off Palawan and Mindanao. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), part of the funds was to go to Blackwater, a notorious U.S.-based security firm. Aquino's energy department also announced the purchase of three blue-water ships from the U.S. as well as helicopters and radar systems in support of oil projects in Palawan and Mindanao, southern Philippines.
Taiwan: A leading arms importer and military aid recipient of the U.S., Taiwan in 2010-2011 was set to buy new models of F-16 combat aircraft and two other purchases, all worth $20 billion. U.S. arms manufacturers received $16.5 billion of arms orders from Taiwan in 2007-2010 alone. Taiwan ranks fourth among U.S. arms customers worldwide behind Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
Indonesia: Indonesia recently planned to buy fighter and cargo aircraft from the U.S. costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The U.S. also pledged $35.7 million in 2010-2011 to help modernize the Indonesian military (TNI).
Aside from Indonesia, arms sales to Malaysia also increased significantly in recent years while Singapore became the first country in Southeast Asia among the top 10 arms buyers worldwide.
By the end of 2011, U.S. arms traders would have amassed $46 billion in military sales worldwide, nearly doubling the 2010 figures. Of the world's 10 largest arms vendors, seven are American: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, and United Technologies. As the world's biggest weapons supplier controlling more than 30 percent of the market, the U.S. main customers are, in descending order, Asia Pacific (39 percent), the Middle East (36 percent), and Europe (18 percent). Southeast Asia has been eyed by the Obama administration for major expansion of arms sales.
Obama's arms export policy
A new U.S. presidential policy makes this possible. In July 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the relaxation of arms export restrictions aimed at expanding the U.S. market share so that by 2015, he said, U.S. weapons exports would have doubled. Obama's new national security strategies and quadrennial defense reviews have essentially retained Bush's war on terrorism-inspired unilateralist and pre-emptive doctrines that also give primacy to arms transfers all over the world.
As the U.S. reels from a prolonged economic recession, the arms trade remains lucrative to the military-industrial complex. Profits reaped from weapons sales are guaranteed in regions gripped by tension and risks of war and armed conflicts. Thus the tensions arising from the territorial disputes in the South China Sea (SCS) have made it expedient for the U.S. to expand its military presence in the region capitalizing on revived xenophobia and anti-China bashing to justify the Pentagon's strategic encirclement of China not only by strengthening its current security partnerships but also by exploring new alliances and realigning its forward-deployed forces and weapons especially nuclear missile systems. In turn, the enhancement of U.S. interoperability of its network of alliances opens new grounds for more frequent joint war exercises and military training that are packaged into weapons sales and transfers. The captive market guarantees long-term profitability for the arms suppliers.
Arms sales or transfers are transacted especially with U.S. strategic allies and partners through government-to-government schemes and commercial military sales. Through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, about 79 percent of arms exports are financed by client countries and organizations with the balance funded by U.S. aid programs. Other programs that facilitate the arms trade are those managed by the State Department or the Department of Defense (DoD) such as Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Coalition Support Funds, and the Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA). In recent years, these programs were used by the U.S. as leverage for securing preferential access to oil and other strategic resources and for ensuring support to its wars of aggression. In particular, FMF and IMET help expand and deepen U.S. regional influence with its allies while the ESF, among other objectives, promotes U.S. engagement with ASEAN toward enhancing U.S. security objectives in the region.
U.S. security arrangements
The security issues sparked by the territorial disputes coupled with the much-hyped threats posed by China's military modernization are now being used by the U.S. to strengthen treaty alliances and access agreements with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Zealand. Key U.S. "geo-strategists" now point to the "diversification" of America's military infrastructure across the Asia-Pacific, including plans for Okinawa, expanding the base in Sasebo, transforming Guam into a military "hub", possible alliances with Indonesia, Vietnam, and India, and congressional support to expand the Navy to deal with threats from Asia. While potential defense partnerships are being explored with India – which maintains military hostility with China - and Indonesia, plans for joint war exercises with Vietnam are also afoot.
Parallel to moving forward the new U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral security initiative are plans for the U.S. to deploy new forces and missile systems in existing military bases west of Australia. Part of moves by the U.S. for the ASEAN to check Chinese "hegemonic ambitions" in the SCS are plans to establish a NATO- or SEATO-type regional alliance force in the region. In no uncertain terms, these moves are clearly targeted supposedly to check an emerging "military hegemon" in China. The new security and basing rearrangements pursued by the U.S. enhance the military dependency of many countries in the region and, hence, reliance on the U.S. war industry for arms exports.
Alarmingly, the arms strategy that the U.S. pursues in the region and elsewhere in the world bolsters the militarist and repressive tendencies of its traditional allies and defense partners who then adopt war-like policies even as peaceful and diplomatic mechanisms are in place that promote the resolution of territorial disputes. Repressive regimes among America's allies and vassal states comprise the permanent ring of arms buyers and consumers for U.S. war profiteers or merchants of death. The U.S. arms strategy is consistent with the agenda of the military-industrial complex that, since the end of World War 2, has begun to cobble a permanent war economy.
Entrenched in the top echelons of America's social and political order, the financial oligarchs behind the military-industrial complex make sure that the armaments industry continues to thrive and profit under the permanent environment of instability and war scares, most of which are contrived anyway by ideologues, media monopolies, and neo-conservative think tanks. They capitalize on the much-touted claim that the military offers the largest and most secure jobs program. In collaboration, the U.S. Congress leaders agree that weapons production is currently the No.1 industrial export product of the U.S. Thus, they continue to support "the military industrial complex gravy train for their communities." – GMA News
Bobby M. Tuazon is a co-author and editor of the book, Unmasking the War on Terror (2002, CAIS). A member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines in Manila, Tuazon has also written special reports, journal articles, and analytical studies on national security, foreign policy, and international politics. He has also co-authored and edited other books dealing with human rights, corruption, political parties, elections, and on Bangsamoro.
Back »
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:37 AM
This article deals principally with the military repercussions of the renewed territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the profits they bring to the U.S. war industry. It does not, therefore, discuss China's military modernization and its impact on the SCS territorial tensions.
Just as the post-9/11 "war on terror" was used to justify the U.S.' increased militarism in Asia Pacific and elsewhere in the world, the heightened territorial disputes in the South China Sea are now being spun to boost the Pentagon's China encirclement strategy. The tension triggered by the territorial disputes is giving the U.S. grounds for strengthening and expanding its security relationships with traditional allies, vassal states, and other countries in the region. The immediate beneficiary of this enhanced militarism is America's arms trade involving weapons suppliers and military training providers. Pushing their war industry is President Barack Obama's new arms exports strategy in the region including Southeast Asia.
At a time when peaceful and diplomatic approaches may help defuse the tensions in the South China Sea triggered by the conflicting territorial claims, this renewed war environment is even stimulating an arms race among major states in the region thus further enhancing their dependency on the U.S. weapons supply chain.
In the first six months of 2011, various reports pointed to Chinese incursions in parts of the Spratly Islands claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, and four other countries including China. Although Beijing denied the allegations, the reported incidents ignited diplomatic protests with at least one of the claimants – the Philippines – calling on U.S. protection by invoking the cold war-vintage 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). Amid the tension, bilateral war exercises have been held by the U.S. with the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries even as China likewise enhanced its maritime surveillance in the South China Sea (SCS) capped by the launching of its first aircraft carrier.
Described as the "mother of all territorial disputes," the SCS is also claimed as the "second Persian Gulf" presumed to be rich in oil, gas, and other sea-based minerals, aside from being one of the world's richest fishing grounds. Being the world's busiest maritime superhighway, over 50 percent of global merchant fleet and supertanker traffic traverse its waters particularly in the Malacca Strait. The SCS along with the Spratly Islands is claimed by China dating back to 2 BC although its first official sovereign claim was made in 1951. China's claim was subsequently followed by other countries notably the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Note, however, that the overlapping territorial claims on the Spratlys are just one of other flashpoints in the region that include Taiwan (China claim), the Korean peninsula, Senkaku Islands (Japan vs China), Sacotra Rock (South Korea vs China), Sabah (Philippines vs Malaysia), Hibernia reef (Australia vs Indonesia), Kanang Unarang (Indonesia vs Malaysia), Doi Lang (Burma vs Thailand), not to mention unresolved disputes between India and Pakistan, and between China and India.
'Core national interest'
With its fast growing economy and in reaction to the counter-claimants, China has become more assertive of its sovereign claims. Last year, China described the SCS as a "core national interest" at par with Taiwan and Tibet, adding that its territorial rights are "indisputable." Such a determination can also be explained by the fact that 75 percent of China's energy needs (it is now the biggest oil importer) are currently supplied through the SCS. The SCS is also China's gateway to the Indian Ocean and other trade routes for its energy supplies sourced from various continents of the world where it has become a major investor.
To counterbalance China-targeted U.S. militarism in Asia-Pacific, Beijing has opened energy exploration and development in the SCS to leading U.S. oil companies. Through the China National Petroleum Corporation – touted as the 10th largest of the world's top 50 petroleum companies – it had attempted to buy Unocal. It awarded an oil exploration deal covering some 9,700 sq. m. to Denver-based Crestone Energy Corporation on an area known as Vanguard Bank located southeast of Vietnam.
Citing statements from some member-countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that China's "bullying" warranted an active defense role of the U.S. in the SCS, Washington assumed new superpower posturing when last year it identified the Sea likewise as a "national interest." While recent reports of Chinese incursions elicited policy reactions from the U.S. calling for "restraint" and "multilateral talks," it has in no ambiguous terms continued to realign its military forces in the region while forging new defense partnerships, holding more war exercises, and opening new basing facilities. This network of treaties, access arrangements, forces and facilities is embedded in the U.S. Pacific Command with its 7th Fleet as well as the Central Command (Cencom) that have ensured America's imperial presence in Asia Pacific for several decades.
Although security partnerships, expansion, and armed aggression have been embedded into the U.S. empire's bid for continuing global supremacy, current conflicts and tensions not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in the SCS "arc of instability" boost the trade of arms and military services. All these in turn earn huge profits for U.S. weapons manufacturers, military training providers, and other foreign suppliers. The U.S. military-industrial complex is very much in business.
Arms shopping
Tensions building up in the SCS since last year until today have led to unprecedented arms shopping in the U.S. particularly by claimant-countries including:
Philippines: Under President Benigno S. Aquino III, the purchase of U.S. naval equipment including a second-hand Hamilton class cutter, for patrolling the Spratly waters. Used for 50 years, the cutter was actually decommissioned as a museum piece by the U.S. Navy. The Aquino government bought it for PhP400 million. Furthermore in April 2011, Aquino transferred PhP8 billion (U.S.$183 million) for the deployment and training of naval personnel assigned to secure oil and gas explorations off Palawan and Mindanao. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), part of the funds was to go to Blackwater, a notorious U.S.-based security firm. Aquino's energy department also announced the purchase of three blue-water ships from the U.S. as well as helicopters and radar systems in support of oil projects in Palawan and Mindanao, southern Philippines.
Taiwan: A leading arms importer and military aid recipient of the U.S., Taiwan in 2010-2011 was set to buy new models of F-16 combat aircraft and two other purchases, all worth $20 billion. U.S. arms manufacturers received $16.5 billion of arms orders from Taiwan in 2007-2010 alone. Taiwan ranks fourth among U.S. arms customers worldwide behind Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
Indonesia: Indonesia recently planned to buy fighter and cargo aircraft from the U.S. costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The U.S. also pledged $35.7 million in 2010-2011 to help modernize the Indonesian military (TNI).
Aside from Indonesia, arms sales to Malaysia also increased significantly in recent years while Singapore became the first country in Southeast Asia among the top 10 arms buyers worldwide.
By the end of 2011, U.S. arms traders would have amassed $46 billion in military sales worldwide, nearly doubling the 2010 figures. Of the world's 10 largest arms vendors, seven are American: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, and United Technologies. As the world's biggest weapons supplier controlling more than 30 percent of the market, the U.S. main customers are, in descending order, Asia Pacific (39 percent), the Middle East (36 percent), and Europe (18 percent). Southeast Asia has been eyed by the Obama administration for major expansion of arms sales.
Obama's arms export policy
A new U.S. presidential policy makes this possible. In July 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the relaxation of arms export restrictions aimed at expanding the U.S. market share so that by 2015, he said, U.S. weapons exports would have doubled. Obama's new national security strategies and quadrennial defense reviews have essentially retained Bush's war on terrorism-inspired unilateralist and pre-emptive doctrines that also give primacy to arms transfers all over the world.
As the U.S. reels from a prolonged economic recession, the arms trade remains lucrative to the military-industrial complex. Profits reaped from weapons sales are guaranteed in regions gripped by tension and risks of war and armed conflicts. Thus the tensions arising from the territorial disputes in the South China Sea (SCS) have made it expedient for the U.S. to expand its military presence in the region capitalizing on revived xenophobia and anti-China bashing to justify the Pentagon's strategic encirclement of China not only by strengthening its current security partnerships but also by exploring new alliances and realigning its forward-deployed forces and weapons especially nuclear missile systems. In turn, the enhancement of U.S. interoperability of its network of alliances opens new grounds for more frequent joint war exercises and military training that are packaged into weapons sales and transfers. The captive market guarantees long-term profitability for the arms suppliers.
Arms sales or transfers are transacted especially with U.S. strategic allies and partners through government-to-government schemes and commercial military sales. Through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, about 79 percent of arms exports are financed by client countries and organizations with the balance funded by U.S. aid programs. Other programs that facilitate the arms trade are those managed by the State Department or the Department of Defense (DoD) such as Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Coalition Support Funds, and the Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA). In recent years, these programs were used by the U.S. as leverage for securing preferential access to oil and other strategic resources and for ensuring support to its wars of aggression. In particular, FMF and IMET help expand and deepen U.S. regional influence with its allies while the ESF, among other objectives, promotes U.S. engagement with ASEAN toward enhancing U.S. security objectives in the region.
U.S. security arrangements
The security issues sparked by the territorial disputes coupled with the much-hyped threats posed by China's military modernization are now being used by the U.S. to strengthen treaty alliances and access agreements with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Zealand. Key U.S. "geo-strategists" now point to the "diversification" of America's military infrastructure across the Asia-Pacific, including plans for Okinawa, expanding the base in Sasebo, transforming Guam into a military "hub", possible alliances with Indonesia, Vietnam, and India, and congressional support to expand the Navy to deal with threats from Asia. While potential defense partnerships are being explored with India – which maintains military hostility with China - and Indonesia, plans for joint war exercises with Vietnam are also afoot.
Parallel to moving forward the new U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral security initiative are plans for the U.S. to deploy new forces and missile systems in existing military bases west of Australia. Part of moves by the U.S. for the ASEAN to check Chinese "hegemonic ambitions" in the SCS are plans to establish a NATO- or SEATO-type regional alliance force in the region. In no uncertain terms, these moves are clearly targeted supposedly to check an emerging "military hegemon" in China. The new security and basing rearrangements pursued by the U.S. enhance the military dependency of many countries in the region and, hence, reliance on the U.S. war industry for arms exports.
Alarmingly, the arms strategy that the U.S. pursues in the region and elsewhere in the world bolsters the militarist and repressive tendencies of its traditional allies and defense partners who then adopt war-like policies even as peaceful and diplomatic mechanisms are in place that promote the resolution of territorial disputes. Repressive regimes among America's allies and vassal states comprise the permanent ring of arms buyers and consumers for U.S. war profiteers or merchants of death. The U.S. arms strategy is consistent with the agenda of the military-industrial complex that, since the end of World War 2, has begun to cobble a permanent war economy.
Entrenched in the top echelons of America's social and political order, the financial oligarchs behind the military-industrial complex make sure that the armaments industry continues to thrive and profit under the permanent environment of instability and war scares, most of which are contrived anyway by ideologues, media monopolies, and neo-conservative think tanks. They capitalize on the much-touted claim that the military offers the largest and most secure jobs program. In collaboration, the U.S. Congress leaders agree that weapons production is currently the No.1 industrial export product of the U.S. Thus, they continue to support "the military industrial complex gravy train for their communities." – GMA News
Bobby M. Tuazon is a co-author and editor of the book, Unmasking the War on Terror (2002, CAIS). A member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines in Manila, Tuazon has also written special reports, journal articles, and analytical studies on national security, foreign policy, and international politics. He has also co-authored and edited other books dealing with human rights, corruption, political parties, elections, and on Bangsamoro.
Back »
domingo, 3 de julio de 2011
La ayuda militar de EU es negocio para unas cuantas empresas
Firmas de EU ganan con guerra al narco
Autor: Doris Gómora
Dom, 03 Jul 2011, 06:20
Cinco empresas privadas de Estados Unidos obtienen la mayor tajada en el combate contra el narcotráfico al concentrar 57% de los 3.1 mil millones de dólares que el gobierno estadounidense destinó para la lucha antidrogas en Latinoamérica y en el caso de México, el gobierno estadounidense ha gastado 170.6 millones de dólares en contratos con esas compañías, señala un reporte del Subcomité de Seguridad Interna del Senado de ese país.
El reporte de 15 páginas, fechado en junio del 2011, cuya copia tiene EL UNIVERSAL, precisa que en realidad el gobierno federal gastó más en contratos para México que lo que se ha reportado en el periodo de 2005 a 2009, debido a que no se ha informado todavía de los contratos de 2010.
Dyncorp, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, ITT y ARINC, son las cinco empresas que se han beneficiado con los contratos de contranarcóticos del gobierno estadounidense y de acuerdo con el reporte del Senado, es Dyncorp la que mayores contratos ha recibido.
Las cinco empresas declinaron hacer algún comentario a EL UNIVERSAL sobre el reporte y sobre los contratos, objetivos, proyectos en el marco de la Iniciativa Mérida o los programas que tiene el gobierno de Estados Unidos en materia de combate narcotráfico.
El reporte destaca que ni el Departamento de Defensa, ni el Departamento de Estado cuentan con seguimientos de los acuerdos y, además, 840 millones en contratos, que representan 27% del total, se han otorgado sin las adecuadas licitaciones.
Se está tirando el dinero
Se está gastando impuestos y se está tirando el dinero sin conocer lo que se está obteniendo por ello, dijo la senadora Claire McCaskill, quien es la autora y el líder del reporte del Subcomité Seguridad Interna del Senado de Estados Unidos.
McCaskill precisó que entre 2005 y 2009, el gasto anual del gobierno de Estados Unidos en contratos contranarcóticos en Latinoamérica se ha incrementado 32%, al pasar de 482 millones de dólares en 2005 a 635.8 millones de dólares en 2009.
En total, el gobierno ha gastado más de 3.1 mil millones de dólares en contratos contranarcóticos en la región durante este periodo. En 2008, el gasto alcanzó los niveles más altos al llegar a 715 millones de dólares, indica el reporte del subcomité.
Sin embargo, para McCaskill y para el Subcomité de Seguridad Interna del Senado de Estados Unidos, mientras que la confianza del gobierno ha aumentado en los contratistas, no se ha realizado una revisión de los contratos adquiridos, el desempeño de las empresas y el seguimiento de las metas, como también lo señaló en su reporte de mayo pasado la Oficina de Contraloría (GAO, por sus siglas en inglés) del Congreso estadounidense.
Incapaces de rastrear adquisiciones
Ni el Departamento de Defensa ni el Departamento de Estado tienen una base de datos centralizada o un sistema con la capacidad de rastrear contratos contranarcóticos, refirió.
El reporte destaca que tanto el Departamento de Defensa, como el Departamento de Estado, carecen de seguimientos de los contratos y, además, 840 millones de dólares en contratos se han otorgado sin las adecuadas licitaciones.
En el reporte se detalla que 52% de los contratos son gastados para adquirir bienes y servicios relacionados con la aviación, ya que son usadas aeronaves para ubicar plantíos de drogas o erradicar cultivos de estupefacientes.
En éste rubro, entre los años de 2005 y 2009 el gobierno de Estados Unidos gastó aproximadamente 1.6 mil millones de dólares sólo en el mantenimiento de aeronaves, logística, apoyo, equipo y entrenamiento.
El gobierno federal también gastó aproximadamente 345 millones de dólares en contratos para equipo y abastecimiento, 317 millones de dólares en contratos para inteligencia, vigilancia y servicios de reconocimiento, otros 237 millones de dólares en contratos para tecnologías de información y equipo de comunicaciones y servicios, 352 millones de dólares para apoyo de bases de operaciones, construcción y servicios de logística, y unos 228 millones de dólares para personal, técnicos, y expertos en servicios, precisa el reporte del Subcomité de Seguridad Interna del Senado de Estados Unidos.
Autor: Doris Gómora
Dom, 03 Jul 2011, 06:20
Cinco empresas privadas de Estados Unidos obtienen la mayor tajada en el combate contra el narcotráfico al concentrar 57% de los 3.1 mil millones de dólares que el gobierno estadounidense destinó para la lucha antidrogas en Latinoamérica y en el caso de México, el gobierno estadounidense ha gastado 170.6 millones de dólares en contratos con esas compañías, señala un reporte del Subcomité de Seguridad Interna del Senado de ese país.
El reporte de 15 páginas, fechado en junio del 2011, cuya copia tiene EL UNIVERSAL, precisa que en realidad el gobierno federal gastó más en contratos para México que lo que se ha reportado en el periodo de 2005 a 2009, debido a que no se ha informado todavía de los contratos de 2010.
Dyncorp, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, ITT y ARINC, son las cinco empresas que se han beneficiado con los contratos de contranarcóticos del gobierno estadounidense y de acuerdo con el reporte del Senado, es Dyncorp la que mayores contratos ha recibido.
Las cinco empresas declinaron hacer algún comentario a EL UNIVERSAL sobre el reporte y sobre los contratos, objetivos, proyectos en el marco de la Iniciativa Mérida o los programas que tiene el gobierno de Estados Unidos en materia de combate narcotráfico.
El reporte destaca que ni el Departamento de Defensa, ni el Departamento de Estado cuentan con seguimientos de los acuerdos y, además, 840 millones en contratos, que representan 27% del total, se han otorgado sin las adecuadas licitaciones.
Se está tirando el dinero
Se está gastando impuestos y se está tirando el dinero sin conocer lo que se está obteniendo por ello, dijo la senadora Claire McCaskill, quien es la autora y el líder del reporte del Subcomité Seguridad Interna del Senado de Estados Unidos.
McCaskill precisó que entre 2005 y 2009, el gasto anual del gobierno de Estados Unidos en contratos contranarcóticos en Latinoamérica se ha incrementado 32%, al pasar de 482 millones de dólares en 2005 a 635.8 millones de dólares en 2009.
En total, el gobierno ha gastado más de 3.1 mil millones de dólares en contratos contranarcóticos en la región durante este periodo. En 2008, el gasto alcanzó los niveles más altos al llegar a 715 millones de dólares, indica el reporte del subcomité.
Sin embargo, para McCaskill y para el Subcomité de Seguridad Interna del Senado de Estados Unidos, mientras que la confianza del gobierno ha aumentado en los contratistas, no se ha realizado una revisión de los contratos adquiridos, el desempeño de las empresas y el seguimiento de las metas, como también lo señaló en su reporte de mayo pasado la Oficina de Contraloría (GAO, por sus siglas en inglés) del Congreso estadounidense.
Incapaces de rastrear adquisiciones
Ni el Departamento de Defensa ni el Departamento de Estado tienen una base de datos centralizada o un sistema con la capacidad de rastrear contratos contranarcóticos, refirió.
El reporte destaca que tanto el Departamento de Defensa, como el Departamento de Estado, carecen de seguimientos de los contratos y, además, 840 millones de dólares en contratos se han otorgado sin las adecuadas licitaciones.
En el reporte se detalla que 52% de los contratos son gastados para adquirir bienes y servicios relacionados con la aviación, ya que son usadas aeronaves para ubicar plantíos de drogas o erradicar cultivos de estupefacientes.
En éste rubro, entre los años de 2005 y 2009 el gobierno de Estados Unidos gastó aproximadamente 1.6 mil millones de dólares sólo en el mantenimiento de aeronaves, logística, apoyo, equipo y entrenamiento.
El gobierno federal también gastó aproximadamente 345 millones de dólares en contratos para equipo y abastecimiento, 317 millones de dólares en contratos para inteligencia, vigilancia y servicios de reconocimiento, otros 237 millones de dólares en contratos para tecnologías de información y equipo de comunicaciones y servicios, 352 millones de dólares para apoyo de bases de operaciones, construcción y servicios de logística, y unos 228 millones de dólares para personal, técnicos, y expertos en servicios, precisa el reporte del Subcomité de Seguridad Interna del Senado de Estados Unidos.
sábado, 26 de febrero de 2011
STOP ARMS TRADE
There are a number of absurd situations in the World. One of them is the production and trade of weapons. There is general agreement that killing or hurting people as well as destroying property and infrastructure should not be allowed. Nevertheless it is obvious that the only purpose of weapons is to kill, hurt and destroy. Why is that arms trade is thriving instead of being vanished? Some of the reasons are:
1. It is big business. The hundred largest companies that produce arms worldwide, had sales for 385 billion dollars in 2009, equivalent to a third of Mexioco´s GDP.
2. It is a significant portion of countries expense budgets. Military expenditures all over the world in 2009 represented 2.7% of the World´s GDP equivalent to 1.5 trillion dollars. Only ten countries concentrate 75% of these expenditures.
3. Generate employment. Only in the United States the defense and industrial military complex generate more than 3 million employees.
4. They have legitamate usage. Weapons are used to protect countries of external threats or to suppress internal unrest. Police forces need them to combat criminals.
5. It's trade is legal. Production and trade of arms in general is legal, with some restrictions.
6. Promote innovation. Development of new arms has helped develop new technologies that are also used successfully for civil applications.
In spite of these reasons it is not acceptable, from an humanitarian point of view, the production and sales of instruments whose only purpose is to kill or hurt people. Neither acceptable that millions of people are employeed in arms production, acting as non-thinking machines oblivious to the consequences derived from the things they produce. Also absurd that other people participate as shareholders of companies in these dead seeking industries, looking only for profits without regard for the consequences related to the goods produced in those factories.
There are certain cases in which arms are needed. For instance, police forces need them to combat criminals. However this would not be necessary if criminals did not have access to weapons in the first place. But since there is great availability of weapons around the World, this situation provoques an arms race between criminals and police forces. Regarding countries and their defense needs, it is true that there are some regional conflicts that are fought around the world. However, with the end of the Cold War, the number of conflicts derived form the confrontation between the two largest military powers in the world, dissappeared.
Nevertheless, countries such as the United States have an enormous and unjustified military expenditure. For instance, in order to combat a few hundred talibans in Afghanistan, the U.S. has a presence of near 100,000 troops in that country. This, even though it is obvious that the talibans do not represent a threat to the U.S. and that the terrorist threat is very small if compared with the amount of resources being spent in order to contain that threat. What it's true is that these expenditures represent a great benefit for the U.S. industrial military complex.
I believe that a key element to improve the quality of life in the World and stop the harm and damage that weapons produce is to stop the production and trade of all type of arms and weapons. In order to achieve this I propose:
1. That shareholders of the companes that produce arms ask their Board of Directors to get out of the arms business and into other industries.
2. That shareholders sell their holdings of those companies that refuse to stop arms production
3. That employees of these companies realize that they are producing instruments of dead and seek employment in other industries.
4. That governments stop promoting the manufacturing and sales of arms in their countries and to other countries.
5. That defense budgets are reduced and that those resources are shifted toward programs that improve lives of people.
6. That the search for innovation is focused in other technology fields such as energy conservation, health improvement, combat poverty, nutrition improvement and so many others where innovation is likely to thrive.
7. That available weapons are destroyed worldwide.
8. That arms production and trade are made illegal in all countries.
I believe it could be done. Will you support it?
______________________________________________________
Estoy en: www.heraldo.com/columnas/todo-terreno.html. Twitter: @octaviodiazg, Blog //octaviodiazgl.blogspot.com. Correo: octaviodiazgl@yahoo.com.mx.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)