Those countries that we sell arms to are, in actuality, part of long-term U.S. foreign policy plans and goals in order to gain power over those countries for the benefit of multinational corporations in a diversity of industries. Keep in mind that in nearly every coup around the world, the U.S. has armed that country’s military beforehand (notably, look to Central & South America), since coups are generally the military takeover of a country’s leadership. U.S. meddling to “defend our interests” brings increased poverty and political repression wherever it occurs.
- Saudi Arabia: $13.9 Billion
- UAE United Arab Emirates: $10.4 Billion
- Egypt: $7.8 Billion
- Taiwan: $6.6 Billion
- Australia: $6.4 Billion
- Iraq: $5.6 Billion
- Pakistan: $4.1 Billion
- UK United Kingdom: $4.o Billion
- Turkey: $3.8 Billion
- South Korea: $3.8 Billion
[Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) and Dayton Business Journal.] Additional data may be found at OpenCRS. Keep in mind that the data we have available is only that which has been unclassified. Also see: U.S. scores record for war-mongering for a more updated, detailed report. Note that arms sales tend to be correlated to the country’s human rights record… we sell the most arms to those with the worst human rights records. Our foreign policy has nothing to do with our officially stated human rights goals, the two are alienated from one another. And isn’t it interesting that our State department routinely issues human rights report cards on other countries each year, but refuses to issue one for our own country. In fact, we refuse to recognize the one report card issued on U.S. human rights each year by China.
The link between politics and the arms trade can result in the development of what US President Dwight D. Eisenhower described as a military-industrial-congressional complex, where the armed forces, commerce, and politics become closely linked. The European defense procurement is more or less analogous to the U.S. military-industrial complex. Various corporations, some publicly held, others private, bid for these contracts, which are often worth many billions of dollars. Sometimes, such as the contract for the new Joint Strike Fighter, a competitive tendering process takes place, where the decision is made on the merits of the design submitted by the companies involved. Other times, no bidding or competition takes place.
The U.S. government has become increasingly concerned about pumping up arms sales to India, countries in the Middle East and Asia, as its own defense spending levels decline. The government argues that such sales will help strengthen ties with allies and make it easier to fight future wars together. – [Reuters]
And that quote is pretty meaningless in context, considering the increasing Blue on Green shootings going on right now in Afghanistan. When the State Department announces new arms shipments as a reward for such-and-such country’s achievements in human rights and democracy, it surely has access also to the record of atrocities compiled by leading international human rights organizations. It chooses to ignore the U.S. role in establishing and maintaining regimes of terror and oppression. The pattern hardly ever varies, as can be readily verified.
Throughout these grim years, nothing has been more inspiring than the courage and dedication of those who have sought to expose and overcome the culture of fear in their respective suffering countries. Nearly all have Leftist martyrs, whose voices have been silenced by the powerful — yet another crime.