TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 031891 / 0318006.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 6KB | 120 lines

<text id=91TT0550> <title> Mar. 18, 1991: Choose Your Weapons </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991 Mar. 18, 1991 A Moment To Savor </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> WORLD, Page 58 ARMAMENTS Choose Your Weapons </hdr><body> Will hope of reducing Middle East arsenals be doomed by a shopping spree for arms, especially those showcased in the gulf? By Richard Lacayo--Reported by Michael Duffy/Washington and Jon D. Hull/Jerusalem Any postwar calculation of power in the Middle East must now reckon with two contradictory axioms. One is that most countries in the area support some form of regional arms control. The other is that they all want billions of dollars' worth of additional weapons for themselves. Though the trauma of facing down Saddam's war machine made clear the folly of Western and Soviet arms sales to Iraq, it also left Arab nations and Israel no less apt to conclude that happiness--or at least security--is a warm gun. As he makes his swing through the Middle East this week, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker brings a further contradiction with him. In a region that is the most heavily armed in the world, the U.S. would like to see smaller arsenals on all sides. But Washington is poised to rearm its friends heavily, in some cases as the payoff for their membership in the alliance against Iraq. It doesn't help matters that Western arms dealers are ready to capitalize on a war that sometimes seemed like a giant trade show for smart bombs, Patriot missiles and F-16s. As the eager buyers reach out to the no less eager sellers, the chance for meaningful arms control slips away. For now, the Bush Administration seems content to discourage chemical, biological and nuclear arsenals while assisting the conventional buildup. Last week it tightened Commerce Department regulations restricting the export of materials that could be used to produce chemical and biological weapons and missile-delivery systems. The new rules also apply to "dual use" chemicals and equipment, which have legitimate commercial uses but might serve in making chemical and biological weapons as well. Two weeks ago, however, the White House informed Congress of its plans to sell advanced weapons worth $1.6 billion to Egypt, including 46 F-16 warplanes and 80 air-to-ground missiles. The Administration describes the sale as the final part of a 10-year series that was an element of the deal in which Egypt agreed to the 1978 Camp David peace accords. The White House has also submitted a classified report informing Congress that it is considering more than $18 billion in new military sales to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. Saudi Arabia alone would get a $10 billion wish list that includes 25 F-15 fighters, 36 Apache attack helicopters, 2,400 Maverick missiles and 235 M1A1 tanks. For American defense contractors, these sales promise an escape from the gloomy fate spelled out in the budget package adopted by Congress last fall, in which U.S. defense spending is slated to shrink 25% over the next five years. Israel is scheduled to receive more than $3 billion in military aid from the U.S. this year. Meanwhile, its supporters in Congress will be closely watching any sales to Arab countries of weapons that might be turned against Tel Aviv or Haifa. But the alliance between the U.S. and Arab states during the war against Iraq has complicated matters. Last fall Israeli officials remained uncharacteristically silent when the U.S. provided Saudi Arabia with a multibillion-dollar infusion of advanced arms. Though pro-Israel lobbyists do not yet plan to oppose the sale to the Saudis, they are beginning to raise questions. "The Iraqi military machine no longer exists," says one. "Yet we're still willing to sell the same amount of stuff to the Saudis." There are signs that Israel, hard pressed by the cost of absorbing hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jewish immigrants, is open to arms-limitation proposals that would help keep down its military outlays, which have already shrunk about 15% in the past three years. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has proposed a regional limitation on "nonconventional" weapons--presumably meaning chemical and biological--as a confidence-building measure between Israel and the Arab states. But so long as he gives no sign that Israel would bargain away its nuclear arsenal, Arab nations are unlikely to agree. The Bush Administration knows that the U.S. cannot impose conventional-arms limitations on its own and that coordinated restraint by the major arms-supplying nations is essential. But Western defense industries, particularly in Europe, have become heavily reliant on exports to finance research and development of new weapons systems. France, which once sent a third of its weapons exports to Iraq, is seeking new customers. Britain hopes to sell Challenger tanks and Tornado aircraft to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Though Soviet weapons were the duds of the gulf war, the Kremlin is also in the market to make arms sales. During a visit to Moscow last week, British Prime Minister John Major appealed to Mikhail Gorbachev for his cooperation. The Soviet leader is reported to have intimated that he would agree to an embargo against Iraq only for as long as Saddam remained in power. That may be the best anyone can hope for. Every major war in the Middle East has been followed by a major escalation in the regional arms race. This time, too, visions of a new world order may be no match for business as usual. </body></article> </text>