US arms sales to dangerous countries -- seeding the next Iraq?

Great Debates
1

From the New York Times:

I admit, I’m getting uneasy flashbacks to the Reagan administration selling WMDs to Saddam Hussein in the '80s…

Can the US honestly claim to be “spreading democracy” and “fighting dictators” while doing stuff like this? Does this make a lick of sense to anyone? Or are we (meaing the US) just going to end up with a nasty case of blowback when one or more of these “allies” of ours goes nuts with the toys we’ve given them?
(Uzbekistan, especially, looks like it’s a prime candidate to be the next Iraq; President Islam Karimov has been called a “brutal dictator” who’s into torturing prisoners, with such fun tactics like boiling people to death. Just two weeks ago, government troops machine-gunned on a crowd of civilian protesters, killing anywhere from 130 to over 1,000 people, and the government is resisting calls for an investigation into the matter. And, of course, it’s sitting on a nice trove of natural gas and petroleum. Deja vu, oy vey…)

2

At a certain level I actually agree with you on this one rjung, hard as that probably is for both of us to believe. I think its a mistake to sell weapons to any nation without a stable government at the least…and in an ideal world, a stable, Democratic nation that is responsive to its people AND has a good human rights record.

That said though, the US is scrambling for allies to help us out in this whole WoT thingy. For good reasons or poor we have moved apart from our traditional allies in Europe, with few exceptions. I’m not going to point fingers, but reality is reality, and I can see Bush et al scrambling for someone who is willing to help us out (and the cynical part of me says also someone who we can more easily control and direct…well, in theory anyway).

In addition, even were Europe fully on board, we’d need allies in that region…nations willing to side with us and assist us in keeping the pressure on the various terrorist groups over there. The only way we are going to get such allies in the region is to basically bribe them. And if you’ve taken a good hard look at the region lately, there aren’t many shining examples of democracy for us to chose from as an ally (and one of the two possible exceptions, Turkey, we’ve managed to piss off as well. Even there they aren’t exactly what you’d call perfect on their own human rights record).

Its called realpolitik…and nation states have to do it all the time, especially major powers. Like I said, I agree with you…I think its stupid and short sighted. Yet another huge mistake that Bush is making, and one we will probably pay for in the years to come. However, I can certainly see WHY they are doing it.

-XT

3

And pictures like the ones here are surely going to come back to haunt the US in years to come. Rumsfeld’s never met a dictator he didnt like apparently.

4

No it’s called hypocrytical bullshit. Unfortunately we have a history of that kind of thing. Actions and choices that are described as “realworld” decisions that are bereft of integrity. There are consequences for these kinds of choices. While we watch our wide screen satellite HDTV and grumble about how much gas costs our goverment is putting things in motion that our kids and grandkids will have to deal with. Aren’t we supposed to be the smart and good people?

5

Well, no, in a word.

Look at Iraq. Little of his stuff came from the USA. Soviet and Chinese tanks, French air defense, Italian land mines, South African artillery. Cite me some US stuff.

While you are at it, cite me an example of Americans supplying WMDs to Iraq. (I presume this was simply hyperbolae on your part.)

Further, the USA suppling stuff to a country gives the US a veto over many military operations. If the Turks want to invade Cyprus (again) they can do it without US spare parts for their aeroplanes. (That is why the Turks and some other countries try to avoid buying American.)

The danger of a ‘Blue-on-Blue’ war is a real one and one that is a concern to the Pentagon. So far we have managed to avoid arming our enemies.

6

From the 1994 Riegle Report to the Senate:

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning “disease producing”), toxigenic (meaning “poisonous”), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction

(Following is an extract from the same source, it goes on for many pages but this will communicate the gist of it)

Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms:[56]

Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease producing bacteria identified by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress, as being a major component in the Iraqi biological warfare program.

Anthrax is an often-fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced, antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins remain, despite the death of the bacteria.

Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache, fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.

Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superficially resembling tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, an influenza-like illness and an acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins. Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.

Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatigue, loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.

Clostridium Perfringens: highly toxic bacteria, which cause gas gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause a systemic illness.

In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E.Coli) and genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.

The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issuance of an export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department: [57]

Date : February 8, 1985
Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Agency
Materials Shipped:

Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup

Date: February 22, 1985
Sent to: Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136) Class III pathogen

Date: July 11, 1985
Sent to: Middle and Near East Regional A
Materials Shipped:

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136) Class III pathogen
Date: May 2, 1986
Sent to: Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:

Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10)
Batch # 08-20-82 (2 each)
Class III pathogen.
Bacillus Subtitles (Ehrenberg) Con (ATCC 82)
Batch # 06-20-84 (2 each)
Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502)
Batch# 07-07-81 (3 each)
Class III Pathogen
Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et al (ATCC 3624)
Batch# 10-85SV (2 each)
Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051)
Batch# 12-06-84 (2 each)
Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC 6223)
Batch# 05-14-79 (2 each)
Avirulent; suitable for preparations of diagnostic antigens.
Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441)
Batch 03-94 (3 each)
Highly toxigenic.
Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 9564)
Batch# 03-02-79 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
Clostridium tetani (ATCC 10779)
Batch# 04-24-84S (3 each)
Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 12916)
Batch# 08-14-80 (2 each)
Agglutinating Type 2.
Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 13124)
Batch# 08-14-80 (3 each)
Type A, alpha-toxigenic, produces lecithinase C.J. Appl,
Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14185)
Batch# 01-14-80 (3 each)
G.G. Wright (Fort Detrick) V770-NPI-R. Bovine anthrax,
Class III pathogen
Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14578)
Batch# 01-06-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen.
Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14581)
Batch# 04-18-85 (2 each)
Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14945)
Batch# 06-21-81 (2 each)
Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 17855)
Batch# 06-21-71
Class III pathogen.
Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 19213)
Batch# 3-84 (2 each)
Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 19397)
Batch# 08-18-81 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
Brucella abortus Biotype 3 (ATCC 23450)
Batch# 08-02-84 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
Brucella abortus Biotype 9 (ATCC 23455)
Batch# 02-05-68 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
Brucella melitensis Biotype I (ATCC 23456)
Batch# 03-08-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
Brucella melitensis Biotype 3 (ATCC 23458)
Batch# 01-29-68 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 25763)
Batch# 8-83 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
Clostridium botulinum Type F (ATCC 35415)
Batch# 02-02-84 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

7

I think they would have profited more from selling conventional weapons to Iraq… but that of course would have been too “open”. Iraqis crossing into Iran using M-16s and M-60 would make for bad press.

Buying US arms isn’t usually good for most countries that might be “controversial”. US politicians love using weapons deliveries as political pressure.

8

If its ‘hypocrytical bullshit’ then I suppose the US is in good company, since nearly every nation on earth plays the realpolitik game. We certainly have a history of providing weapons to or proping up dictators or other unsavory regimes. We did so because said regime would support us in something we (well, the US government anyway) thought was of importance to our national security. You make it sound like the US is alone in this, while the converse is certainly more true. In fact, Paul in Saudi gave some good examples of some nations who certainly are much worse at the game than the US. Generally when we sell weapons systems or other such gear to an unsavory regime its because we want something (basing rights, support, etc)…when todays Russia or France sells such things (they sold to the Iraqis much more than we did) they do it strictly for the money. And they are much less choosy in WHAT they sell than the US. We don’t exactly sell our top of the line equipment to these kinds of places you know? More like either stripped down versions or even older surplus stuff.

All that said, I still agree…its not wise for the US to do this and were it in my power we wouldn’t anymore, despite the unsavory necessity in some cases. But then I’m more an isolationist at heart, at least in terms of US military power. Were it up to me we probably wouldn’t support anyone militarily unless the US had a vital and immediate national need to do so.

-XT

9

Exactly. When the US sells weapons we attach a lot of strings to them. Better to buy from nations that are less fussy about selling to you.

-XT

10

That’s like saying “Every other kid in the class cheats on his test, so it’s okay for me to cheat too.” Heck, replace “cheating” with “steroids in sports” or “insider trading,” and you’ve got instant headline news.

Is this one of those “tradtional values” our national leaders keep harping on about?

11

For the last 200 years including every single US president? I suppose it is what they keep harping about, sure. To me its naive to the point of total disassociation with reality to think that any nation state isn’t going to play the realpolitik game or do distasteful things that it thinks is in its best interests. Basically since every major nation does this (at least I can’t think of a single example otherwise), what you are really railing at and beating your chest over is human kind itself…you are just projecting it on the US to take out your frustration.

-XT

12

Quite often it isn’t about national security it’s about MONEY. So betraying the principles and ideals that our founding fathers laid down so that select US corperations can profit, is just real world?Supporting the violation of human rights to the point of murder, for a profit is just real world. That’s more hypocritical bullshit.

I made it sound like nothing of the kind. I said nothing at all of other countries. If you want to ask a question, “do you think the US is alone in this?” then ask. PLease don’t put words in my mouth in an attempt to read between the lines. I am well aware that power and money corrupts and world leaders make compromises to do what they think is “best” for their country. Accepting that as fact doesn’t change what it actually is.

What amazes me is the incredible short vision of those we call leaders. How many times does history have to repaet itself before we adopt some other method?

13

Again, it’s unfortunate to have dishonesty and greed be presented as "realworld"and people who desire a little integrity and principle told they are naive and unrealistic. If thats true I choose naive and unrealistic. No doubt no matter which way our leaders choose there will be “bad guys” to deal with and real threats. So why not try to live the principles that your own goverment is based on? Do you think actually trying to live according to the ethics and principles we give lip service to would make us less secure as a nation? Until we attempt to do just that we will never know

14

So then we are agreed. The OP is wrong. The US never sold WMD to Iraq. The US sold medical items to be sold to Iraq. The Iraqis could have misused these items to make WMDs, but they were not WMDs.

Of course the OP must be wrong since it is pretty well proved that Iraq had no WMDs.

Neither did Iraq have large amounts of American rifles, machine guns, tanks, artillery, ammunition, airplanes, radars, trucks, uniforms (a guy in Florida went to jail for selling military uniforms to Iraq), or any other sort of military supplies to Iraq.

15

You did read post #6 in this thread didn’t you? Medical items?

16

Promoting stability in a region often times requires one to make deals with monsters. Remember that next time someone talks about stability.

Marc

17

http://www.poorschmuck.net/archives/003383.html

“In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq; more reprehensibly the UK sold $330 million-worth of arms. Of much greater interest are the arms export totals to Iraq of the four countries most against military action: Germany with $995 million, China $5,500 million, France $9,240 million, and the Russians a massive $31,800 million. So the claim that we armed Saddam has to be treated with a degree of care, particularly by those who would award the moral high ground in this debate to the leaders of nations such as Germany, France and Russia”

You also have to take into account that only 2/3 of the worlds countries are democracies anyway, so selling to countries where only half are democratic is in part due to the fact that only 2/3 of the world’s countries are democratic anyway. But yeah, I can see the opposition to selling to countries with internal civil wars.

What i’m wondering is why no condemnation for other countries?

I am by no means a France basher. I love the political culture of France, they are a liberal democracy who do alot to look out for the well being of their citizens and the Frence deserve alot of respect. But:
France supplied Iraq with a nuclear reactor that the Iraqis were going to use to make nuclear bombs that they probably would’ve dropped on Iran and maybe Israel. Not only that but if Iraq had nukes we’d have a north Korea situation where they can do whatever they want and play the nuke card. Had Israel not destroyed the reactor Iraq probably would’ve had nukes.

France sold Iraq 1848 times as much arms as the US did dollar for dollar (9240 million vs. 5 million).

When the opportunity to replace Saddam with a liberal democracy came up in 2003, France did everything they could to stop it.

So why say America is supporting dictators like Saddam and not attack France for doing it? These unfair standards get in the way of legitimate foreign policy discussion and human rights discussion. Alot of countries play a role and they should be chastized accordingly for it.

The Uzbekistan issue bothers me too. The US is immoral and hypocritical on that one. But I guess human rights are just one aspect of US foreign policy, not the sole/main aspect of it. I don’t think Uzbekistan will be the next Iraq though, to my knowledge it isn’t run by an expansionist trying to overthrow his neighbors like Saddam did.

18

Please stop. France said it wouldn’t support a resolution that was in fact a rubberstamp to a unnessesary and possibly illegal war. The war was going to go ahead one way or the other no matter what the happened in the UN. France just didn’t want any part of that war. It said that if the weapons inspectors came back and said that Iraq was indeed harbouring WMD that it would indeed fight. Imposing democracy or any other form of rule by force on countries is not and never should be the remit of the UN or any nation. The charter to which the US was a major player in forming specifically disallows it.

I would guess that since the OP is American he’s more interested in his own countries actions than France’s. France and a lot of other countries were in the wrong here but that doesn’t lessen the US involvement. It was what it was. I don’t think you’d get much debate from rjung on France being wrong as well.

Well since Bush and Blair dodge the WMD route to war and now push the internal human rights angle it becomes more obvious that they were and stil are in fact full of hypocritical shite.

19

I think your general point that comparitively the US didnt supply a lot of arms is correct but also a little misleading.

First your 5m figure may greatly understate the quantity involved. This site lists 200m as the US figure here

Secondly, much aid was supplied that while it was useful to the Iraqi war machine didnt directly count as arms. There was considerable squeamishness in Congress about the idea of supplying Saddam with anything, so some sleight of hand was required. The Reagan administration sold 70 ‘civilian’ Bell and Hughes helicopters to Iraq although it was understood that “selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance” . The US helicopters were used to kill kurds, and fitted with dispensers were the delivery system for the chemical warfare attack on Halajba.

Similarly, with US authorisation, americans arms and technology were also sent to Iraq by Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt.

In addition to the assistance to the Iraqi WMD program already cited (see post #6), the US also sold computers to the Saad 16 ballistic missile research centre and approved exports for the Iraqi SCUD missile modification agency. And hundreds of licences for the export of dual-use items of use to the WMD program were granted. One US company even twice approached the Commerce Department “with concerns their product could be used for nuclear weapons”. The Commerce Department made Saddam swear hand on heart that was not his intention and the sale proceeded.

20

The tail end of this thread title is highly misleading, as others have already said the United States is one of the least complicit great powers in arming Iraq. The title makes the obviously false and hyperbolic (and Michael Moorish) connotation that the United States basically “created” the military that we destroyed in 3/2003. When in fact that bears little resemblance to the real situation (almost no major equipment the Iraqis used was American.)

As it is, selling weapons internationally just to make a profit financially is highly inappropriate. Despite all the claims thrown around here about how we’ve been doing this to fatten up U.S. companies I’ve seen little evidence that this is true. In virtually all the instance I think any of you can bring up where we sold weapons to third world countries/dictatorships we had some foreign policy goal going at the time, some type of influence we were trying for to enforce our international position. I can’t think of a single country we’ve sold weapons to just to fatten the pockets of U.S. corporations (excepting some of our close democratic allies to whom we may have sold weapons.)

Now, just because in the process of selling weapons for realpolitik purposes we’ve also made sure our defense industry gets fattened up doesn’t mean we’re engaging in arms trades simply to make money for U.S. corporations. Big corporations like the defense contractors are MNCs and that makes them important actors on the international stage just like NGOs and IGOs. So funneling money to them while we try to make political moves abroad certainly falls in line with a political move and not a commercial or financial move that was done for the sole purpose of fattening people up.

As it is, the way we humans have arranged our States all States must strive to be the best, get the upper hand. Cooperation is only entered in to when all States feel it is in their best interests (sort of why we have a UN but even on the most ethically pure peacekeeping missions a huge majority of the states sit on their hands or send a trife of support.) Everything in international relations is based on State self-interest.

In such a world the United States has to engage in things that don’t quite fit with the idealism and propaganda that our founding fathers and subsequent generations have used to create the “American ideal.” Any other choice on our behalf would be nothing short of State-suicide.