This is the biggest problem with American small arms sales. There is literally zero oversight. It really boils down to the cold war when the US built up such an excess of small arms and light weapons that they had no idea what to do with them. So why not just sell them to other countries? In fact, American embassies have been repeatedly caught in the act of "marketing" American weapons to surrounding populations and governments. The only monitoring that occurs is when a sale is above 14 million dollars, in which case the defense department is required to report the sale to Congress. Of course, the DoD just creates multiple sales that fall under the 14 million dollar threshold and consequently no one checks up on this. And to make matters worse, the US has consistently refused to sign onto any of the international protocols on small arms sales. The EU, for example, has a uniform code of conduct requiring oversight, and background checks on all potential clients. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, these types of agreements spur cooperation on monitoring and cracking down on illict arms trades that occur in many regions plagued by conflicts. Many times the weapons we sell are sold at or below their original price, only to be sold by some guerilla group at several times the original price on the black market. US small arms policy is a disaster and it doesn't look like it will change anytime soon.
Did anyone else watch Lord of War? It wasn't a feel good movie of the summer. I wonder how much our government has its hands on the black arms trade, and I wouldn't be surprised if the movie held more truth than it should.
Make no mistake about it, we need to export our 2nd Amendment first before we spread other ingredients of our democracy and values to the world.
Sad isn't it... I actually had the opportunity to talk to an official in the state department about this topic. And man was their response just comic relief. When asked why we were selling weapons to groups that may use them for malicious and even genocidal purposes, her answer wasn't the standard denial and claims that the government is overseeing sales.. Instead she gave two of the most ridiculous reasons imaginable. #1 - She actually cited 2nd amendment protections, saying that we can't regulate gun sales both domestically and internationally and that regulating international sales would spill over into excessive domestic gun control, which the administration opposes. #2 - And to top it off, she claimed that selling these groups and nations, small arms, deters them from getting bigger weapons and possibly, yes possibly, WMD. So apprently, if these African countries we sell weapons to, will develop chemical and biological weapons if we stop selling small arms. I felt the urge to call her and her position a bimbo, but instead it came out as "thank you for your time." I proceeded to give up entirely on this issue after that conversation. These bozos in the state and defense department just don't care and they probably won't start caring anytime soon.
we were going to invade them cause they were screwing us,we're the #1 customer. its about customer service right!? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia "Oil Crisis" (Embargoes and Invasions) The January 1, 2004, online edition of ABC News, Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1019087.htm) reported that documents (dated December 12, 1973 and marked 'UK Eyes Alpha') released by the British National Archives under the 30-year rule "show [that] British intelligence believed the United States was ready to take military action," i.e. invade, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1973 "to prevent further disruption to oil supplies" and "to secure control of their oil fields."[2] (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1018971.htm) "It followed the decision in October 1973 by the Arab nations to slash oil production, and send prices rocketing, while imposing a complete embargo on the Americans over their support for Israel. ... Although the war in the Middle East (Yom Kippur War) was over after three weeks, a secret assessment drawn up for government ministers by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), including the heads of MI5 and MI6, concluded the US would rather risk military action (including invasion (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1019087.htm)) than be held to ransom again by the Arabs."[3] (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1018971.htm) "The JIC calculated the US could guarantee sufficient oil supplies for themselves and their allies by taking the oilfields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf state of Abu Dhabi, with total reserves of more than 28 billion tons. ... It warned the American occupation would need to last 10 years, as the West developed alternative energy sources, and would result in the 'total alienation' of the Arabs and much of the rest of the Third World, as well as 'domestic dissension' in the United States."[4] (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1018971.htm) The papers "show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do ... after a warning from the then US Defence Secretary James Rodney Schlesinger to the British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer."[5] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm) "In an ironic twist on events of the past 13 years, the British report suggested that if the US seized Kuwait, neighbouring Iraq may try to mount a counter invasion to expel them."[6]
My brother in law who used to train Saudi troops said that the ordinary soldier dislikes the Royal Family, so a lot could go wrong.
Ah ha, can I give myself a pat on the back for "thinking" along the line of our honorable chick in the state department?
Huh? I can promise you that the ATF would disagree. If you try to sell small arms anywhere outside the United States without getting the proper license they will be all over your @ss.
That is like saying the government is out of control because there is nobody that has oversight over it. It's the freaking government. It has checks and balances. At some point you have to reach the point where there is no higher authority. All direct foreign sales by the government are under supervision of and reported directly to congress, which has legislative authority. The process is conducted through the Department of Defense, who doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation for keeping fiscal concerns in mind. In other words they are done for ideological reasons, not to make a buck. Of course, firearms manufacturers do sell directly, and we know they like cash. But the state department issues licenses for sales directly from companies, and the State Department discloses all of the sales. The congress has legislative authority over the State Department. But let me back track to the initial assumption, that American made small arms are proliferating the world. For an experiment, turn on the TV. Watch the evening news. Somewhere there are going to be rebels fighting some government. Take a close look at the small arms these people are carrying. I will bet you dollars to donuts that these people are holding Kalashnikovs. In other words the products of the former Soviet Union and it's 'client states'. If you don't believe me here is an article from Amnesty International which says the same thing. According to that report, American made firearms aren't even second on the list. The American M-16 places fourth, behind the AK-47, the German H&K G3 and the Belgian Fabrique Nationale FN-FAL. You also make vague references about United States Embassies getting caught selling arms under the table, but you provide no sort of source, and I can not find any reference to any such event. The United States government isn't the source of or force behind the proliferation of small arms around the world. Your heart is in the right place but I don't think the facts bear out your arguments.
Except that Congress only reviews sales by the DoD and State Department when they are above 14 million dollars. The fact is taht the DoD has repeatedly reported sales under 14 million in order to avoid any sort of oversight from Congress. I repeat, the system of checks and balances does not even come close to actually checking most sales by the DoD. Additionally, embassies have been caught repeatedly marketing weapons abroad and there is no system in check to monitor those actions as well. Hell, even the commerce department has had memos get leaked that have pushed embassies to try to sell small arms. Here's a source on this issue... Karen Charman, The Progressive, July 1998, Volume 62, Issue 7) The United States appears to be the world’s biggest supplier of small arms and light weapons, and it aggressively pushes this trade. A 1996 report by the Departments of State and Defense reveals that the U.S. State Department licensed more than $470 million in light-weapons exports. In 1995, the Commerce Department approved more than $75 million in shotgun licenses, according to a U.S. Commerce Department Bureau of Export Administration annual report. The Commerce department promotes trade by providing embassies with regional surveys assessing countries’ weapons needs. The surveys, called the Diversification and Defense Market Assessment, include information on the appropriate government officials to call. The Commerce Department actively assists American small arms and light weapons manufacturers also by writing letters to overseas embassy staff encouraging them to promote gun sales, according to Defense Daily. Small arms and light weapons leave the United States via five government routes: government-negotiated sales to foreign militaries; gifts or cheap sales of surplus Pentagon stock; direct commercial sales by manufacturers; covert government supply operations; and the black market. By law, Congress must receive a report of military and commercial sales exceeding $14 million. However, since most of the deals fall below the $14 million limit, they receive little or no scrutiny. Although the government is supposed to monitor military sales, a recent White House report, titled “End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles, Defense Services, and Related Technology”, reveals that U.S. embassies in receiving countries do not conduct inspections. The Pentagon still has a huge supply of surplus small arms from the Cold War. From 1995 until early this year, it gave away more than 300,000 small arms and light weapons, including M-16 assault rifles, M-14 rifles, pistols, machine guns, and grenade launchers. Recipients include Bahrain, Bosnia, Chile, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, the Philippines, and Taiwan. I don't care what the supposed "checks and balances" are, Congress has done little to nothing in actually enforcing any oversight responsibilities. I suppose so, but how is this responsive? The argument is that little to no action has been done by Congress to reign in the DoD and the State Department. Also, the DoD actually directly posses weapons that it sells abroad. These were large caches of weapons stored during the cold war that aren't being used anymore. And this is an argument against regulating US weapons sales? I realize old Soviet weapons are probably #1 but the US has no business having any of its weapons on that list. Fine, the former Soviet Union lacks the capacity to control its own weapons flows. That doesn't mean the US cant. I'll say it again. The US HAS NOT signed onto any international protocols on small arms sales. The EU has a uniform directive providing oversight and regulation on who and when weapons can be sold. Also, the EU cooperates with other nations to crackdown on illicit arms sales. Progress on this issue will go on as slow as molasses if the US doesn't take the lead and actually try to push for change on this issue. I suppose we can't control the sale of Kalishnikovs but I bet we can try having some higher level of accountability for our sales as well as having some credibility on the issue to push other countries to do the same. None of the things you said above were reasons not to put more regulation and oversight over American arms sales.
The sale has gone through...Up to 72 Typhoon fighter jets for more than $11 billion Saudi says signs deal to buy 72 Typhoon jets http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...modLoc=Home-C4-Business-ousiv-7&from=business RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia and Britain signed an agreement on Thursday for the Gulf state's purchase of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft in a deal analysts have said could be worth more than 6 billion pounds ($11.4 billion). A Saudi defense ministry statement, carried by the official SPA news agency, said "the agreement was signed ... for the purchase of 72 Typhoon aircraft." The brief statement, which did not give the value of the deal, said it also included a defense technology transfer. Sources close to the negotiations had said a deal signed in December was believed to have an option of up to 72 aircraft. The purchase is being carried out to replace British-made Tornados and other jets with the Typhoons. The multinational Eurofighter consortium that makes Typhoon jets includes British defense contractor BAE Systems Plc, European aerospace group EADS and Italy's Finmeccanica. BAE is expected to invest in local training for thousands of Saudi nationals. Saudi Arabia has a long history of buying arms from Britain dating back to the 1960s, and usually pays in oil.
How do you think the Saudi royal family has been able to maintain power? They see the **** storm that is brewing and they're going to need that hardware to keep it. When we're searching Saudi Arabia 10 years from now for "hidden WMD's" I hope we still have the sales receipt as proof they exist.
