The U.S. and Europe Must Stop Arming the World's Dictators

by Betty Williams, 1976 Nobel Peace Prize Winner in the July 13, 1997 San Francisco Examiner

The House of Representatives approved historic legislation last month, the "Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers." It is intended to stop the sale of deadly weapons - such as fighter planes, helicopters, tanks and M-16s - to countries ruled by undemocratic, repressive regimes.

The House and Senate in conference will consider this legislation, which impacts on democratic struggles throughout the world.

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Burlingame, who spoke eloquently on behalf of the code of conduct in the International Relations Committee this year, is likely to be a key player.

During the Cold War, the United States and other major Western powers too often extensively armed dictators such as Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire and Saddam Hussein in Iraq only to see those weapons used to kill civilians and to threaten world peace.

Six years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the time is ripe for curbing this dangerous proliferation of weapons throughout the globe.

Senate conferees should embrace this opportunity to stop runaway arms sales, transforming the United States from its place as the world's No.1 arms trafficker to the most principled advocate of arms sales restraint.

I, and more than a dozen other Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, have endorsed an international version of the code of conduct, which is modeled after this U.S. legislation.

Arias has long championed the belief that a more regulated arms trade will contain regional arms races and nurture global security.

"Imagine what we could do if a portion of world military spending was redirected toward investing in human development," he urged during a formal signing of the International Code of Conduct in New York City in May.

"In 1995, world military spending totaled nearly $800 billion. If we redirected just $40 billion of those resources over the next 10 years to fighting poverty, all of the world's population would enjoy basic social services, such as education, health care and nutrition . . ."

Unfortunately, more than half the world's governments devote more resources to military spending than to health programs - a disgraceful record.

Traditionally, the U.S. arms industry has made the argument, "If we don't sell the weapons, someone else will," so why bother with restrictions?

Now, however, the new Labor government in Britain has proclaimed support for strict regulations on arms sales - regulations based on human rights. The European Union also has been pushing for a common system of restrictions. Together, the United States and Europe produce 80 percent of the world arms trade.

Over the last decade, the United States has sold more weapons than the rest of the world combined. If we enact our own code of conduct, we will be in a position to persuade other major suppliers to follow suit.

U.S. leadership was critical to implementation of international controls on ballistic missiles and anti-personnel land mines; it is time for this country to lead the way again.

The code of conduct resolution is co-sponsored by Reps. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, and is supported by more than 300 national and regional organizations in the United States - ranging from major Protestant denominations and the U.S. Catholic Conference to the Vietnam Veterans of America, Amnesty International and World Centers of Compassion for Children.

Such broad public support is based on the obvious failings of U.S. arms export policies:

Fueling repression

More than 84 percent of U.S. exports go to countries that our State Department deems undemocratic; this amounts to some $10 billion in weapons deliveries per year.

Turkey, for example, which receives 80 percent of its arms imports from the United States, has used these weapons to depopulate and destroy more than 3,000 Kurdish villages in the course of a government campaign to eliminate the PKK, a militant Kurdish opposition group. An estimated 22,000 people have died in the 13-year conflict.

Endangering U.S. forces

The last four times the United States has sent troops overseas in significant numbers - in Panama, Iraq, Somalia and Haiti - they faced adversaries armed with weapons stamped "Made in the U.S.A."

Taxpayers foot the bill

In 1995, the U.S. government spent $7.6 billion in subsidies to help weapons manufacturers promote, market and finance overseas arms sales. If these government subsidies continue, more than half of all foreign arms sales over the next decade will be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, not foreign arms buyers.

Most Americans are shocked to learn that billions in taxpayer monies are spend each year to help the arms industry market its wares overseas.

Ninety percent of Americans oppose the sale of U.S. weapons to undemocratic, repressive governments, according to a poll conducted by the nonpartisan National Security News Service.

But in Washington, public opinion often is drowned out by other powerful interests. Last year, the top 25 arms exporting companies alone doled out a record $10.8 million to influence votes in Washington.

Congress should be careful not to allow U.S. foreign policy and global security considerations to be hijacked by the narrow economic interests of U.S. arms makers, especially when democratic principles, human rights and the lives of our most precious resource - the children of the world - are at stake. (c)1997 San Francisco Examiner