Saturday, June 11, 2016

Making The World A Safer Place

By Stan G. Kain
September 27, 2003

On a daily basis, government and the media remind us of the dangers to our world.  We search for weapons of mass destruction, fear terrorist attacks and eye nations posing a nuclear threat to their neighbors and the world.  Recently, we've taken the stance of "pre-emptive strike," which is political double talk for attacking first.  We're living in fearful times and many of us wonder why.  Are first world nations leading the way to peace, or to destruction?  The Federation of American Scientists, follow weapons manufacturing and sales around the world.  They aren't a political organization, merely data-gathering scientists.  A recent CRS Report of Congress may hold the answers to some of our questions.

This year's annual report provides unclassified quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries for the preceding eight years.  The principal focus is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world.  The report is sobering, at the very least.  Who are the arms dealers of the world?

From 1999 - 2002, the United States and Russia have dominated the arms market in the developing world.  These two nations rank first and second, both in arms agreements and delivery of weapons.  In this time period, the U.S. made $37.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, or about 41.9% of all such agreements.  Russia, the second leading supplier, accounted for $23 billion, or about 25.5% of the arms agreements.

In 2002, the U.S. gained ground in supplying the world with weapons of war.  Agreements amounted to $8.6 billion, or about 48.6% of all arms sales agreements.  Russia followed in second place, once again.  France was third, with 5.3% of the market.  The United Kingdom and Germany rank well on the list of world arms suppliers, as well.

Where do the weapons go?  Who are the buyers?  The list of developing nations, seeking to improve their arsenals is long.  The United States mainly supplies Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.  Russia trades with Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Syria, U.A.E. and Yemen.  Does anyone see a trend here?

Many would argue that the U.S. is only supplying "friendly" nations with weapons of war.  Incidentally, weapons of war include not only the weapons, but also parts and support.  Do we have any idea where the parts and technology go, once they have been delivered to our allies?  Can any of us feel comfortable with the arming of developing Middle Eastern nations today?  This is but a sampling.  Weapons are also sold to developing nations in Africa, the Near East and South America.

Okay, I will concede that the list doesn't include nuclear devices, merely conventional means of destroying one's neighbors.  I am concerned, however, as to where any of these weapons may be delivered in the future.  I'm also concerned as to the loyalty of our allies.  Will they remain allies in the future?  I don't have the answer and I don't believe anyone else has the answer, either.

Here's another interesting bit of information from the Federation of American Scientists.  We've heard enough about the chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, supposedly in the hands of Saddam Hussein.  Are we in a position to point our finger at anyone else?  Consider the following report and then decide for yourself.

A New York Times article, "U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limit," makes me wonder.  The article identifies three secret U.S. government projects, conducting research on biological weapons.  In the first project, the Pentagon planned to produce a genetically enhanced form of Bacillus anthracis to test the efficiency of the anthrax vaccine used by the military.  In a second project, the Pentagon constructed a germ production facility using commercially available materials in an effort to determine whether a terrorist organization could do the same without being detected.  The third project, run by the C.I.A., built and tested a model of a Soviet cluster bomb, designed to disseminate bacterial agents.  These secret projects serve to heighten suspicions around the world, as to our own compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention.

Incidentally, none of the above activities were declared in the annual information exchange on biological activities under the Biological Weapons Convention.  There is no escape clause in the convention, where development or acquisition of "weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict" are prohibited.

The C.I.A. also moved into the testing of aerosol delivery of biological agents.  This project was outside the formal Department of Defense bio-defense program.  The project was conducted, in collaboration with the DOD, in part at the DOD site, the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center in Maryland.  Edgewood has two aerosol facilities of enormous size.  One is for spray dispersion testing and the other is for explosive testing.  It is possible that the C.I.A.'s bomb has or will be used as one of the sources studied at one of the aerosol facilities.  The size and scope of the aerosol work is not readily seen as necessary for protective purposes.  Presumably the intent of the U.S. is defensive, but if the United States wants to avoid attack, it is important to set the right example to the rest of the world.

Following the discovery of the classified bio-defense projects, the U.S. Army admitted to manufacturing weapons-grand anthrax in small quantities, for defensive purposes.  The manufacturing of this anthrax is highly questionable under the Biological Weapons Convention.

Again, here are but a few examples of our own biological weapons work.  Could not this report sound like something we would hear when our own President was trying to gain support for attacking Iraq?  Oh, that's right!  We're the good guys and Iraq is the bad guy.  With weapons of this nature, against international treaty, there are no good guys or bad guys.  There are only governments playing with weapons, which could possibly be stolen and used against the citizens of this planet.

It is my opinion that the United Nations should be considering more than just how to rebuild Iraq.  The focus should be on how we can stop first world nations from building and supplying developing nations with the weapons of war.  Most of the weapons being used in these third world nations were not built there.  No, they were told to them by nations like the U.S., Russia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

I don't think there is anything as sad as young American men and women in uniform being killed in war.  It is even sadder, when they travel halfway around the world to be killed by weapons manufactured by their own government and the governments of their allies.

If we truly want world peace, it begins with us.  We must meet with other first world nations and agree to halt the sales of arms to these volatile nations.  We must keep our weapons of defense, for ourselves, rather than turning them into offensive weapons through arms sales.  We must find there is a higher good than the almighty dollar.

If you have questions or comments, please email Stan.

Copyright Stan G. Kain 2003

No comments:

Post a Comment