By Marc Jampole
President Obama has issued a number of executive orders over
the past two years that have overridden the obstructionist Congress to give
Americans what they voted for: a left-looking centrist administration. Among
other things, he has negotiated an historic treaty with Iran that stops nuclear
proliferation, tried to end the stalemate over creating a path to citizenship
for illegal aliens, issued new regulations that help address climate change,
and extended overtime pay to millions of Americans.
But in foreign policy and national defense, it’s the same
old same old that we’ve had since World War II. President Obama, someone who
claims he’s seeking peace, is lifting sanctions on the sale of lethal arms to Vietnam.
How could selling arms to yet another country help the cause of world peace?
The standard answer to that question for the past 70+ years
has been that arming a nation serves as a deterrence to other nations. As
applied to Vietnam, the argument goes something like so: China will be less
willing to push its weight around the South China Sea and will draw Vietnam
closer to the United States, both militarily and economically. The big issue in
the mainstream media is not whether we should be selling arms, but if we extracted enough in
return in terms of prodding Vietnam to increase press freedom and
political expression.
On closer inspection, this argument makes no sense. How can
arming a totalitarian government that allows no press freedom and little
dissent make the region or the world more secure? And how does Vietnam fit into
a strategy of military containment of the Chinese? What would such a strategy
look like? Or are we building up the fire power for the next regional
conflagration, between Vietnam and China or a Chinese ally serving as proxy?
The United States is
the leading supplier of arms to the rest of the world and has been for many
decades. We account for almost 53% of the $40.4 billion in total world trade in
arms. In second place, with a mere 19.3% of world arms trade, is Russia. Our
guns help keep the flames of conflict alive in many regional war zones. If
Obama were interested in a real turn in American foreign policy, he would stop
all sales of American arms to other countries. The objection that other
countries would step into the vacuum and develop arms businesses of their own doesn’t
hold water, because if their governments could afford to subsidize weapons
industries the way the U.S. government does, they would have done so long
ago.
Making and selling military grade weapons are a big business for a
handful of American manufacturers who have had their claws into Congress and
both political parties since World War I. Often the organization making military
grade equipment is affiliated with a company that sells guns to U.S. consumers.
By ending the arms embargo to Vietnam, President Obama is making the world
safe—safe for American military businesses that is!
One could cynically interpret the Iran nuclear agreement as about
opening Iranian markets to a wide range of U.S. goods and services. It could
serve as the foundation for the two countries to move closer together, which
always results in America supplying the former enemy turned friend with arms.
Even as the Obama Administration makes deals to benefit American arms
manufacturers, it has also proposed spending a trillion dollars to create a new
generation of smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons. The
administration’s costly plan would rebuild the entire U.S.
nuclear arsenal, including the warheads, and the missiles, planes and
submarines that carry them. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these
plans will cost $348 billion over the next 10 years, but the National Defense
Panel, appointed by Congress, found that the price tag could reach
$1 trillion.
I thought Obama wanted to end the use of all nuclear
weapons. What easier, or less expensive way, to do so than to let our aging
nuclear arsenal grow obsolete and not replace it? The sad and simple truth is
that only a madman would use a nuclear weapon, because of the damage that it
inflicts not just on the site that is bombed but on the rest of the world through
raised levels of radiation leading to more cancers and other diseases. Some
predict that the next generation of nuclear weapons will release less
radiation, but the operative word here is “less,” which is not “none” or “less
than five years’ worth of dental x-rays.” Remember, too, our military will be
less reluctant to use weapons they think are “safer.”
What the President doesn’t seem to understand is that you
end nuclear weapons by getting rid of them, not by developing new ones. And you
end war not by supplying arms to other countries, but by stopping arms sales
and encouraging negotiations.
The scary thing is that Obama and Hillary Clinton are
relative doves when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Led by presumptive nominee
Donald Trump, all the Republicans are talking about increasing military
budgets. All say they would be faster to send soldiers into foreign lands and slower
to remove them once in. Obama merely wants to sell arms and develop new nuclear
weapons to subsidize our military industries. The Republicans, under the
leadership of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, were
willing to start a war to help a broad range of military contractors, including
suppliers of mercenary forces. Now Trump even said he would keep the option of
a first-strike use of nuclear weapons on the table.
I understand the focus that progressives have placed on
economic issues this election cycle, especially in support of the candidacy of
Bernie Sanders. But even as we continue to move Hillary Clinton and mainstream Democrats
further left on economic and social issues, we can’t forget that under both
Democrats and Republicans, we have long had an anti-democratic, immoral and
ineffective foreign policy that helps no one but large international
corporations and military contractors.
No comments:
Post a Comment