Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

The Cost of Peddling Arms in the Middle East

by Patricia Morris [contact information]

One way to increase U.S. revenue is to rapidly increase international arms sales. Congress approved $102.5 billion in proposed conventional arms transfers with 28 governments, as documented by the Arms Control Association’s Jeff Abramson. This amount is $27.5 billion more than the Pentagon asked for from Congress in 2008 and four times the 2000-2009 ten-year average of $27 billion in actual sales. At a December 2010 ceremony celebrating a $900 million sale of six C-130J Super Hercules turboprop planes to India, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Beth McCormick stated that increased sales were because the U.S. was “responding to demand” for U.S. arms. It was not due to “some big crusade.”

The Obama administration has stated that bolstering the weapons industry could contribute to job-creation in the U.S., but less publicly, they also view arms sales as integral to augmenting U.S. influence abroad. Former head of the Department of State’s arms transfers program, Gregory Suchan, explained that national interests play a large role in arms sales because, by arming countries abroad, the U.S. can reinforce national security, facilitate the security of its allies and retain influence in their affairs.

However, the use of arms sales as a tool of U.S. foreign policy should not escape scrutiny.

Instability and Arms Races

The largest requests for U.S. arms in 2010 came from the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and Egypt, and accounted for 75% of the 2010 proposed arms sales. Saudi Arabia’s requests alone accounted for $60 billion. Though Russia, the world’s second largest supplier, has been a regular supplier to the region and China’s arms exports are growing, the United States is by far the greatest supplier of conventional arms to the Middle East, surpassing Russia by almost 150%.

The increase in arms sales to U.S.-friendly regimes in the Middle East over the past two years is designed to counter-balance Iran’s growing power and deter it from nuclear weapons acquisition. The sales are also a way to promote sharing the burden of conflict and terrorism prevention in the region.

However, this strategy seems shortsighted and likely to backfire, considering the arms recipients and the region’s history. That Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Yemen, Syria, Kuwait and Bahrain are ten of the top twenty defense spenders in the world (as percent of GDP) should serve as a red flag to the U.S. Such high levels of military spending are a marker of deep instability in the region and are correlated with increased risk of renewed conflict.

The growth of defense spending in the Middle East could result in a security dilemma or even an arms race. According to Robert Jervis, an international relations and security expert, a security dilemma can occur when an increase in state A’s military defenses causes alarm and uncertainty in state B, encouraging B to upgrade its own defenses, and a cycle ensues. By arming Middle Eastern states, and not all equally, the U.S. is contributing to regional tensions and possible insecurity, rather than promoting and cultivating conflict prevention capabilities.

Who will be the Targets of U.S. Weapons?

In February 2011, The Economist argued that U.S. ties to the Egyptian military through training, aid and arms sales enabled a peaceful solution to popular protests in Egypt. The theory is that the close relationship made it possible for Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen to directly contact their equivalents in the Egyptian military during the protests. When the Egyptian army did not use force against the protesters, U.S. arms transfers deserved some credit.

However, at the beginning of the protests, the Egyptian military used U.S-made tear gas and drove U.S. tanks through Cairo to quell the protesters. More recently on April 10, the military responded violently to one of the largest protests since Mubarak resigned, sentencing dissenting soldiers and civilians alike to military trials.

With protests erupting all over the Arab world, many U.S. allies face significant domestic opposition. For example, though thought to be one of the most reform-oriented governments in the Middle East, the Khalifa royal family in Bahrain sanctioned brutal attacks on protesters in Manama in February. The Saudi Arabian army also intervened in Bahrain and used force to suppress Bahraini protests. Both the Bahraini and Saudi armies were supplied with U.S. arms. The Pentagon needs to show more regard for the present human rights records of its arms recipients.

Congress is also not giving enough attention to the unintended consequences and future costs of arms sales, as it recently approved a $29.4 billion sale of F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. Conventional wisdom among U.S. policymakers and the public has been that we only arm the “good guys” and other states – China and Russia– irresponsibly arm rogue states. However, U.S. arms sold during the Cold War to the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Shah of Iran and anti-communist guerrillas in Afghanistan are now used for purposes that are inimical to both U.S. interests and global human rights norms.

At What Cost to Human Rights?

Not only is the U.S. increasing foreign arms sales, but it is also circumventing legislation that limits arms sales to certain countries. The Leahy Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from funding foreign militaries implicated in "gross violations of human rights" unless those governments take appropriate action to address the abuses. Human Rights Watch has consistently demonstrated that Saudi Arabia violates human rights through such acts as upholding a juvenile death penalty, abusing migrant workers and systematic violations of women’s rights. Another bill, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act forbids military assistance and arms sales to countries in which government armed forces or government supported armed groups use or recruit child soldiers. Though in violation of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, President Obama exempted Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Yemen from the bill’s prohibition on military assistance for one year, in order to continue military training and counter-terrorism programs. This action undermines U.S. human rights and human security work all over the world.

Richard Grenaille, Deputy Director of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, said that he and colleagues are reviewing arms sales in light of recent protests in the Middle East. Each proposed sale will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, he added, and some proposed sales have already been pulled. While this is an important step forward, arms sales have always been reviewed on a “case-by-case basis” so it’s not clear whether any new restraints have been put in place. The U.S. government has seen these scenarios play out before and knows the dangers of selling arms, so, unfortunately, restraint seems unlikely.