U.S. Aim: Arms Dealer for the Americas

WASHINGTON — When President Clinton visits South America next week, here’s what he could propose to the region’s leaders: How about agreeing to a moratorium on buying new warplanes and other advanced military hardware?

Over the last few months, such an idea has been endorsed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias, the former president of Costa Rica, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter as a way of heading off the possibility of an arms race among the leading governments of Latin America.

In fact, however, it’s unlikely Clinton will do this. For the truth is that he and his administration have been moving in the opposite direction. Last summer, the White House reversed two decades of U.S. foreign policy by opening the way for the sale of sophisticated weapons systems, such as combat aircraft, to Latin America.

Clinton’s action enables U.S. defense industries to compete for some new sales. As it happens, the White House lifted the restraints on arms exports at just the time Chile is looking to buy new, more advanced warplanes, and when Lockheed-Martin (maker of the F-16) is eager to sell its jet fighters there.

“It seems to me that [U.S. arms manufacturers] have an influence on our foreign policy,” said Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who is trying, though without much success, to win congressional support for legislation that would effectively reimpose the arms-sale ban.

The White House shift on Latin America illustrates once again some larger points about the Clinton administration: Its foreign policy is far more oriented toward commerce than that of its predecessors. And arms sales are an integral part of the exports Clinton officials are so eager to promote.

Quite a few Americans still have an image of this country as a beleaguered superpower, too hampered by moral concerns and often outwitted by foreign competitors in the battles for contracts abroad.

A different view of the United States emerges from two recently released studies of international arms exports. One was issued by the Congressional Research Service, the other by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

What they show is that the United States dominates the international market for arms sales. This is especially true in the developing world, among the countries of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. (More than 70% of all arms exports go to the developing world, in large part because developed nations often produce their own weapons systems.)

The former Soviet Union once sold as much as or more than the United States in some years to developing countries, but such sales plummeted with its breakup into several nations after the end of the Cold War.

In 1996, the United States delivered nearly $13.8 billion in weapons and related military supplies to the rest of the world (that is, both developing and developed countries), or 46% of the total exports, according to the Congressional Research Service. America’s closest rival was Britain, which had slightly less than 20% of the market.

Even in Latin America, where newer and more advanced U.S. weapon systems have until now been off-limits, the statistics show that U.S. arms exporters have done quite well, thank you.

During the four-year period from 1993 to ‘96, the United States delivered $913 million in light military equipment to Latin American nations, or 25% of all arms exported to the region. America’s two nearest competitors, Russia and France, each had an 8% share of the market.

There is, however, always another contract worth having. And so when Chile’s Gen. Augusto Pinochet began making clear his desire to buy a new generation of fighter planes, U.S. defense companies successfully lobbied the Clinton administration to abandon the ban on sale of advanced weaponry to Latin America.

Thomas F. “Mack” McLarty, the administration’s point man for Latin America policy, has insisted the change in policy won’t open the way for an arms race in the region. McLarty is no doubt sincere, but it’s also worth pointing out that his background and career have been in promoting business, not arms control.

Others are not nearly so hopeful. Tom Cardamone of the Council for a Livable World, a Washington-based arms control group, says that if Chile buys new planes, others in the region--Argentina and Brazil, in particular--will likely feel compelled to compete by purchasing their own sophisticated hardware.

Last spring, the Carter Center in Atlanta, the institute headed by the former president, persuaded representatives of more than 20 Latin American governments to agree to a two-year moratorium on acquiring new advanced weapons systems. But Chile didn’t sign on, and neither did Argentina or Brazil, two of the countries Clinton is about to visit.

The trip would be a good chance for him to press hard for the moratorium, but he probably won’t. Arms exports, it seems, are pretty important to the Clinton administration.

Jim Mann’s column appears in this space every Wednesday.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Top Arms Sellers, Buyers

There are the leading suppliers of arms to developing nations, 1993 to 1996. Figures are in millions of current U.S. dollars.

Country: Deliveries

1) United States: $32,551

2) United Kingdom: $18,600

3) Russia: $8,200

4) France: $5,400

5) China: $3,000

6) Germany: $2,300

7) Israel: $1,800

8) Canada: $900

9) South Africa: $700

10) Czech Republic: $500

11) Spain: $500

These are the leading recipients of worldwide arms deliveries, 1993 to 1996. These figures are also in millions of current U.S. dollars.

Country: Deliveries

1) Saudi Arabia: $29,800

2) Egypt: $6,300

3) Taiwan: $4,900

4) Kuwait: $4,400

5) South Korea: $3,800

6) China: $3,000

7) Israel: $2,400

8) Iran: $2,300

9) U.A.E.: $2,300

10) Malaysia: $2,000

Source: Congressional Research Service (report by Richard F. Grimmett, “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1989-1996”)