The Daily Clarity

Against the clamor of the US Presidential election, drowned out by the calls for “Joe the Plumber” and “Change”, the US foreign policy of select military sales and assistance continues. This is the foreign policy strategy that doesn’t get discussed in the debates, it isn’t delineated in either candidates’ policies, and yet, is one of America’s most potent foreign policy techniques.  Regardless of who wins the election, how much will be done about the arms proliferation and the proxy military technology sales that drive the foreign policy engine? While many talk of diplomacy, and laud the visits of US personnel to other countries, how often are these state visits used to negotiate new arms deals and not a process for peace?

In 2007, according to a report produced by Congressional Research Services, the US gave $3 Billion of military aid to Israel. That would seem to be in keeping with the US stated support of the country. What doesn’t gather much discussion is that Israel is the third largest arms exporter in the world. In 2006, for example, Israel exported $4.2 Billion worth of arms to other countries. Also, Israel doesn’t just get military aid from the US though that it its largest partner, Britain and other European countries also pursue the same sort of agreements so the total military aid supplied will be much higher in total. Given that Israel is viewed as a besieged nation and would not sell arms to its neighbors, naturally, where do these exports go? Israel arms exports go to other hot spots in the world. A partial list includes South Africa, Argentina, China, Singapore, Turkey, India and Ethiopia. It is a nice trade for Israel with $3 billion plus coming in each year to help them defend themselves and over $4 billion going out as they on-sell the military arms and technology to others. The US is by proxy selling arms to China and others  countries it distrusts . There is an irony here, as the US often finds itself facing its own armaments in countries where it moves to intercede, such as Afghanistan. Israel, in addition to the government aid, also gets $1.5 billion a year in private donations from individuals or foundations in the US. All this for a country with a population of less than 8 million. On a per head basis, a great deal of Israeli wealth relies on the transfer in and out of military technology.

The US also buys a lot of co-operation from other partners through the granting of arms sales. Again ironic, that the US has committed to provide Egypt with $13 billion of arms sales over the next ten years. At the same time it agreed to sell $20 billion worth to Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf states. The US also has less public deals with Turkey and Jordan. All these countries are now, at least temporarily, friends of the US. If times change however, these arms sales might come back to hurt Israel directly, and US interests in the region indirectly. Given that these arms contracts are multi-year commitments that easily outlast a Presidential term, how much can a new US President really shape foreign policy? If a new incumbent was to cancel these contracts he would be faced with unhappy partners and a severing of critical foreign relations. One can also see how countries such as Iran surrounded by recipients of US military largesse are somewhat unwilling to slow down their own arms growth. They search for alternate suppliers like China and Russia. If you follow the circle – the US sells to Israel, who export to China, who then sell to Iran. By proxy, whether intentional or not,  the US just assisted Iran to escalate its military capacity. This is the underbelly of foreign policy and one that a four year term US President will have real difficulty in affecting. So though the US people call for and are promised “Change”, how much change they will really get is questionable.