Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: arms sales

  • Arms Trade Code of Conduct

    As of this writing, about 33 wars are raging across the world and 90% of their casualties are civilians. Over 25 million people have been killed in conflicts since the end of World War II. Yet rather than pursuing real disarmament, governments are spending over $2 billion every single day on armies and weapons. And regimes that abuse human rights are eagerly supplied by the world’s arms producers.

    A global Arms Trade Code of Conduct would prohibit the world’s arms producers, virtually all developed countries, from providing military assistance and conventional arms transfers to foreign governments that do not meet certain requirements. These requirements would include democratic governance, respect for human rights, non-involvement in acts of armed aggression, and participation in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, which was established on December 1991.

    Conventional arms include more than rifles and submachine guns. Also included are battle tanks, missiles and landmines. The conventional arms category is broad and ambiguous because it groups many types of dangerous weapons together under the category of “conventional” arms! Sensitive military and dual-use technologies are also included, such as telecommunications systems, sensors, lasers and sophisticated satellites that monitor and prevent unforeseen attacks from other countries. Also, military and security training for expertise in the use of such weapons, munitions, sub-components and sensitive technologies are considered conventional arms. All this can be supplied with little restraint to developing countries, some of which disregard democracy and blatantly abuse human rights.

    The United States is the world’s number one arms exporter. As a democratic nation, it has a responsibility to take the lead in curbing the weapons trade. In 1996, thirty three nations including the Russian Federation, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (but not China) signed the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Technologies. This agreement was an important step toward the control of the arms trade. The Wassenaar Agreement was set up to contribute to global security and stability by promoting “transparency” of arms exports. The Agreement requires clear and detailed information about arms exports and imports for each country once a year. The problem is that the Wassenaar Arrangement has been signed by only a few nations. The world needs a global Code of Conduct.

    In the United States, the Executive Office approves which countries receive military assistance and arms. Once a year, the President gives Congress a list of countries which will receive arms shipments from U.S. manufacturers. All U.S. arms transfer decisions take into account the multiple U.S. interests involved in each arms transfer. Sales are approved by the Executive Office on a case-by-case basis. All U.S. arms transfer decisions take into account certain criteria including; “Appropriateness of the transfer in responding to legitimate U.S. and recipient security needs”, “Consistency with international agreements and arms control initiatives”, and “The human rights, terrorism and proliferation record of the recipient and the potential for misuse of the export in question” (Criteria for Decision-making on U.S. Arms Exports, The White House, Feb. 17, 1995).

    Nevertheless, 85% of U.S. arms transfers during 1990-95 went to the nations that did not meet the proposed Code’s criteria. In fact, they went to the Middle East (Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel and Lebanon) and to 43 of the 53 countries in Africa, the continent with the most violent conflicts. In President Clinton’s first term, over two-thirds of all arms Wes agreements with the Third World went to dictatorships which are still violating human rights. In 19917 Clinton approved $83 billion in military assistance to dictatorships, an all-time record even during the Cold War years.

    More than half of U.S. weapons sales are now being financed by taxpayers instead of foreign arms purchasers. During fiscal year 1996, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in agreements for new international arms sales. The largest single subsidy program for U.S. weapons exporters is the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. Another Pentagon’s subsidy is the Defense Export Loan Guarantee (DELG) fund. Furthermore the Pentagon has also been leasing or giving away massive quantities of highly capable U.S. weapons that have been declared “surplus” relative to current needs. In addition to Pentagon programs, other agencies provide subsidies for sales of weapons. After the Pentagon’s FMF program, the second largest subsidy comes from the Economic Support Funds (ESF) program administered by the Agency for International Development. The “Dual Use” Funding of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) is another source of funding for military exports. In addition the Senate and House Armed Services Committees are working hard to increase the Pentagon spending encouraged by the “Big Three’ weapons contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.

    Besides the United States, there are other countries that export conventional arms to countries violating human rights. France, for example, sent arms to Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and Rwanda. Human Rights Watch and media reports indicate that the French government continued to supply arms to Rwanda for at least two months after international news reports of genocide became public knowledge and after the imposition of an international arms embargo on May 17, 1994. Later, during hearings in March-June 1998, Bernard Debré, who was France’s Minister of Cooperation in 1994, acknowledged that the French government had continued to supply arms to the Rwandan government “ten days after the massacres started,” explaining lamely that this was “because France didn’t immediately realize what was happening.”

    Sales of conventional arms bolster repressive dictatorships at the expense of the poor. In Togo and Rwanda, populations are crying out for schools and doctors, not for guns and military training. In July 1999 more than 100 bodies were found along the coastline of West Africa just after Togo’s June elections, during which opposition party members allegedly were shot and dumped into the sea. Their bodies washed up on the shores of neighboring Benin. They were killed with conventional arms, in this case, rifles or hand guns. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, the AK-47 assault rifle can be purchased on the black market for as little as $6.

    Jose Ramos-Horta, a Nobel Peace Laureate form East Timor”, was affected personally by the danger of arms sales. In August 1977 his 21-year old sister, Maria Ortencia, along with at least 20 young children in a remote village in East Timor, were killed by Indonesian Air Force pilots. His sister and these children were only a few of more than 200,000 civilians who were killed in East Timor from December 1975, when Indonesia invaded and illegally annexed the newly independent land, to 1979. Indonesia waged this war — and continues to wage this war — using an arsenal of weapons imported from the United States and Europe.

    Nevertheless, there are still some people who think that an Arms Trade Code of Conduct is not necessary. Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), for example, believes that a Code of Conduct “hamstrings the President of the United States in his conducting of foreign policy.” He argues, “If anybody believes that a country that wants to buy weaponry is going to not buy it simply because they cannot buy them from the United States, they are just barking up the wrong tree.” Congressman Mat Salmon (R-AZ) declared that the Code of Conduct is “not about human rights, and is not about foreign policy. This … is about a philosophical difference that exists within the Congress.” I wonder if Jose Ramos-Horta believes that the Arms Trade Code of Conduct is only a big philosophical pillow-fight in Congress!

    There is a boomerang effect on U.S. interests, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) explained, citing that the U.S. spends twice as much to fight against countries like Yugoslavia, which was initially armed by U.S. arms exporters. McKinney is the Sponsor of the Code of Conduct bill (HR2269), a bill now pending (Nov 99) in the House International Relations Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. (Contact your legislator)

    There are a growing number of people who agree with the establishment of a global Arms Trade Code of Conduct, people who have a very realistic view of the world. Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica and 1987 Nobel Peace Prize winner, argues against a “military-dominated mind-set that prevailed throughout the Cold War.” He also states, “It is embarrassing that five permanent members of the UN Security Council are responsible for the largest quantity of arms sales to the developing world. The very countries that should be maintaining world peace and security are the ones most responsible for promoting war and insecurity by producing and selling weapons.”

    I believe that the United States now has an unprecedented opportunity to take the lead in this international effort. In my opinion, if the U.S. leads the way for the establishment of a Code of Conduct, other arms exporters will follow.

    In 1994 alone, the U.S. taxpayer paid more to subsidize weapons sales than they paid for elementary and secondary education programs. The original meaning of the word “subsidize” derives from the Latin word subsidium which means to help each other. To spend billions in weapons subsidies and billions more to fight against soldiers armed with these same weapons is simply bad policy. I agree with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who pointed out, “All of us whose nations sell such weapons, or through whose nations the traffic flows, bear some responsibility for turning a blind eye to the destruction they cause. And all of us have it in our power to do something in response.” U.S. foreign policy should mirror this statement and reduce weapons sales in order to establish programs that will benefit not only U.S. citizens but also citizens of the global community.

    * Stefania Capodaglio was the 1999 Ruth Floyd Intern in International Law and Human Rights at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. Presently she is completing a Political Science degree at the Catholic University of Milan, Italy.

  • McKinney-Rochrabacher Amendment

    Amendment offered by Ms. McKinney

    Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

    The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the amendment one of those specifically listed in the order of the House of June 5, 1997?

    Ms. McKINNEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.

    The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.

    The Clerk read as follows:

    Amendment offered by Ms. McKinney: At the end of the bill add the following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

    DIVISION C–ARMS TRANSFERS CODE OF CONDUCT

    TITLE XX–ARMS TRANSFERS CODE OF CONDUCT

    SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the `Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers Act of 1997′.

    SEC. 2002. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following:

    (1) Approximately 40,000,000 people, over 75 percent civilians, died as a result of civil and international wars fought with conventional weapons during the 45 years of the cold war, demonstrating that conventional weapons can in fact be weapons of mass destruction.

    (2) Conflict has actually increased in the post cold war era, with 30 major armed conflicts in progress during 1995.

    (3) War is both a human tragedy and an ongoing economic disaster affecting the entire world, including the United States and its economy, because it decimates both local investment and potential export markets.

    (4) International trade in conventional weapons increases the risk and impact of war in an already over-militarized world, creating far more costs than benefits for the United States economy through increased United States defense and foreign assistance spending and reduced demand for United States civilian exports.

    (5) The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms can be an effective first step in support of limitations on the supply of conventional weapons to developing countries and compliance with its reporting requirements by a foreign government can be an integral tool in determining the worthiness of such government for the receipt of United States military assistance and arms transfers.

    (6) It is in the national security and economic interests of the United States to reduce dramatically the $840,000,000,000 that all countries spend on armed forces every year, $191,000,000,000 of which is spent by developing countries, an amount equivalent to 4 times the total bilateral and multilateral foreign assistance such countries receive every year.

    (7) According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States supplies more conventional weapons to developing countries than all other countries combined, averaging $11,889,000,000 a year in agreements to supply such weapons to developing countries for the six years since the end of the cold war, 58 percent higher than the $7,515,000,000 a year in such agreements for the six years prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    (8) Since the end of the cold war, 84 percent of United States arms transfers have been to developing countries are to countries with an undemocratic form of government whose citizens, according to the Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices do not have the ability to peaceably change their form of government.

    (9) Although a goal of United States foreign policy should be to work with foreign governments and international organizations to reduce militarization and dictatorship and therefore prevent conflicts before they arise, during 4 recent deployments of United States Armed Forces–to the Republic of Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, and Haiti–such Armed Forces faced conventional weapons that had been provided or financed by the United States to undemocratic governments.

    (10) The proliferation of conventional arms and conflicts around the globe are multilateral problems, and the fact that the United States has emerged as the world’s primary seller of conventional weapons, combined with the world leadership role of the United States, signifies that the United States is in a position to seek multilateral restraints on the competition for and transfers of conventional weapons.

    (11) The Congress has the constitutional responsibility to participate with the executive branch in decisions to provide military assistance and arms transfers to a foreign government, and in the formulation of a policy designed to reduce dramatically the level of international militarization.

    (12) A decision to provide military assistance and arms transfers to a government that is undemocratic, does not adequately protect human rights, is currently engaged in acts of armed aggression, or is not fully participating in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, should require a higher level of scrutiny than does a decision to provide such assistance and arms transfers to a government to which these conditions do not apply.

    SEC. 2003. PURPOSE. The purpose of this title is to provide clear policy guidelines and congressional responsibility for determining the eligibility of foreign governments to be considered for United States military assistance and arms transfers.

    SEC. 2004. PROHIBITION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND ARMS TRANSFERS TO CERTAIN FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. (a) Prohibition: Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), beginning on and after October 1, 1998, United States military assistance and arms transfers may not be provided to a foreign government for a fiscal year unless the President certifies to the Congress for that fiscal year that such government meets the following requirements:

    (1) Promotes democracy: Such government–

    (A) was chosen by and permits free and fair elections;

    (B) promotes civilian control of the military and security forces and has civilian institutions controlling the policy, operation, and spending of all law enforcement and security institutions, as well as the armed forces;

    (C) promotes the rule of law, equality before the law, and respect for individual and minority rights, including freedom to speak, publish, associate, and organize; and

    (D) promotes the strengthening of political, legislative, and civil institutions of democracy, as well as autonomous institutions to monitor the conduct of public officials and to combat corruption.

    (2) Respects human rights: Such government–

    (A) does not engage in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including–

    (i) extra judicial or arbitrary executions;

    (ii) disappearances;

    (iii) torture or severe mistreatment;

    (iv) prolonged arbitrary imprisonment;

    (v) systematic official discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, or political affiliation; and

    (vi) grave breaches of international laws of war or equivalent violations of the laws of war in internal conflicts;

    (B) vigorously investigates, disciplines, and prosecutes those responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights;

    (C) permits access on a regular basis to political prisoners by international humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross;

    (D) promotes the independence of the judiciary and other official bodies that oversee the protection of human rights;

    (E) does not impede the free functioning of domestic and international human rights organizations; and

    (F) provides access on a regular basis to humanitarian organizations in situations of conflict or famine.

    (3) Not engaged in certain acts of armed aggression: Such government is not currently engaged in acts of armed aggression in violation of international law.

    (4) Full participation in U.N. register of conventional arms: Such government is fully participating in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. (b) Requirement for Continuing Compliance: Any certification with respect to a foreign government for a fiscal year under subsection (a) shall cease to be effective for that fiscal year if the President certifies to the Congress that such government has not continued to comply with the requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (4) of such subsection. (c) Exemptions:

    (1) In general: The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to a foreign government for a fiscal year if–

    (A) subject to paragraph (2), the President submits a request for an exemption to the Congress containing a determination that it is in the national security interest of the United States to provide military assistance and arms transfers to such government; or

    (B) the President determines that an emergency exists under which it is vital to the interest of the United States to provide military assistance and arms transfers to such government.

    (2) Disapproval: A request for an exemption to provide military assistance and arms transfers to a foreign government shall not take effect, or shall cease to be effective, if a law is enacted disapproving such request. (d) Notifications to Congress:

    (1) In general: The President shall submit to the Congress initial certifications under subsection (a) and requests for exemptions under subsection (c)(1)(A) in conjunction with the submission of the annual request for enactment of authorizations and appropriations for foreign assistance programs for a fiscal year and shall, where appropriate, submit additional or amended certifications and requests for exemptions at any time thereafter in the fiscal year.

    (2) Determination with respect to emergency situations: The President, when, in his determination, it is not contrary to the national interest to do so, shall submit to the Congress at the earliest possible date reports containing determinations with respect to emergencies under subsection (c)(1)(B). Each such report shall contain a description of–

    (A) the nature of the emergency;

    (B) the type of military assistance and arms transfers provided to the foreign government; and

    (C) the cost to the United States of such assistance and arms transfers.

    [Page: H3619] SEC. 2005. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS. It is the sense of the Congress that the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate should hold hearings on–

    (1) controversial certifications submitted under section 2004(a);

    (2) all requests for exemptions submitted under section 2004(c)(1)(A); and

    (3) all determinations with respect to emergencies under section 2004(c)(1)(B).

    SEC. 2006. UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND ARMS TRANSFERS DEFINED. For purposes of this title, the terms `United States military assistance and arms transfers’ and `military assistance and arms transfers’ mean–

    (1) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to military assistance), including the transfer of excess defense articles under section 516 of that Act ;

    (2) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to international military education and training); or

    (3) the transfer of defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services under the Arms Export Control Act (excluding any transfer or other assistance under section 23 of such Act ), including defense articles and defense services licensed or approved for export under section 38 of that Act .

    Ms. McKINNEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.

    The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Georgia?

    There was no objection.

    Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 8 minutes.

    The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Georgia?

    There was no objection.

    Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to offer the McKinney-Rohrabacher amendment, which I believe is a significant enhancement to the legislation we are now considering, the State Department authorization bill.

    This is no longer a controversial amendment. Significant compromise and change have been incorporated into this new version of the Arms Trade Code of Conduct that I am introducing today. In the first version of the bill, the President would certify countries at the beginning of each fiscal year that comply with the code of conduct. If the President wanted to sell weapons to a noncomplying government, then the President would have to come to Congress requesting an exemption and have that exemption approved by a vote in Congress.

    The administration and some Members of Congress felt this gave too much authority to Congress and deprived the President of his ability to make foreign policy. In the spirit of compromise, we have stripped the original bill of this language and now all that remains are the underlying values that motivated this bill in the first place, and that is that the United States ought not be in the business of supplying weapons to dictators.

    Gone is the automatic trigger that some objected to. And so now the piece of legislation before us asks us to make the fundamental assertion of what we stand for in the world and whose side we are on. Is it that the United States of America that speaks eloquently on the subject of respect for human rights and democracy and democratic traditions is only paying lip service to these ideals when confronted with a hungry client wanting our advanced technology only to enhance their ability to torture and abuse their own population? Or do we stand with those people around the world who are victims of the world’s tyrants, who have no voice in the international arena and who only have the conscience of the world to help them?

    This legislation helps to give the United States a conscience for the leaders around the world who do not have one. This legislation helps to give a voice to those people around the world who cannot speak out in their own countries. And finally, this legislation puts the international behavior of the United States in sync with our words, our beliefs, and our fundamental values.

    The initial opponents of this bill did us a favor, really, by asking us to remove and cut certain sections of the bill, because what is left is the fundamental answer to the question, `Will we sell weapons to dictators?’

    This bill is no longer about Presidential prerogatives being impinged on. This bill is no longer about too much congressional authority in the area of foreign policy-making. This bill is simply about whether we will apply the standards to our guns and tanks and missiles and bombs that we apply to computers and chemicals.

    In this country, even a car is considered a lethal weapon, and we apply certain standards on who can operate a car. So getting a driver’s license and keeping that license subjects us all to certain competency requirements, certain standards. If we lose our license, then we fail to meet the requirements for operating the car. Do we not consider it important who purchases our rifles, tanks, guns, and bullets? We even have laws that govern and restrict the flow of certain information and knowledge. Should we not at least be concerned about who gets our weapons that kill people?

    At home, after much struggle, we have come up with standards on who can buy a gun. Convicted felons and the mentally ill cannot buy guns legally in this country. Thank goodness we were able to pass the Brady bill so that we could stop certain purchases of guns. Passing the Brady bill was done, though, only after the unreasonableness and extremism of the NRA was demonstrated to the American public.

    Unfortunately, the code of conduct has its own equivalent to the NRA which, I believe, is not only extreme but also reckless in its disregard of what happens when these weapons are delivered to our dictator clients.

    In 1964, the United States made a decision to support Mobutu Sese Seko, who became a tyrant and a dictator to the people of Zaire. Over the course of the decades of our support for his dictatorship, we shipped almost $170 million of weapons to him. We provided $18 million of training to the military; 1,356 officers, virtually the entire Zairian officer corps, received officer training. A total of $187 million of U.S. military aid went to Zaire.

    What was that aid? 2,500 riot control kits; 2,000 military vehicles for crowd control; 2,000 rifles; $2 million worth of ammunition, and 24 military aircraft.

    What we gave Mobutu was not military assistance to defend his country from outside intervention. What we gave to Mobutu was the means to control dissent and demonstrations. What we gave Mobutu was the means to control his own population and hence, to keep himself in power. As a result, we are complicit in how he used his military, trained and supplied by us.

    This is the kind of end use that concerns us. This is the kind of end use that compelled Dr. Arias and four other Nobel Peace Prize winners to come together 2 weeks ago in New York to declare their support for the code of conduct. Dr. Oscar Arias brought together Jorge Ramos-Horta of East Timor, Betty Williams of Northern Ireland, His Excellency the Dalai Lama of Tibet, and our own Elie Wiesel. Organizations that have won the Noble Peace Prize were also represented at this press conference: Amnesty International, the American Friends Service Committee, and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Dr. Arias also had letters of support from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Lech Walesa, and several others who were not able to attend. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] attended the press conference and was moved to a standing ovation after the remarks of Elie Wiesel.

    So, people who have been recognized in the international community for their dedication to peace have come together to say that this legislation is necessary. How will history record those who do not support this legislation?

    Member states of the European Union have already agreed to eight common criteria governing their own arms transfers. There is growing support for European Union-wide code of conduct among all of Europe’s governments. Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Ireland are all leading this fight. But the boldest steps have been taken by Tony Blair’s Britain. The New Labour Government has declared that centrality of human rights in its weapons sales is central to its decisions.

    So we are not alone, those of us who want the United States to stand on the opposite side of whatever dictator is there with ready cash for our guns and bullets. History teaches us that those weapons do not end up in a remote depot, they end up either intimidating or `in’ people who want a better way of life and who dare to say so; who want freedom of expression and who dare to act; who want to live in a democracy as we do in this country and who dare to confront tyranny.

    We are not alone at home either, even in this administration. The recently-confirmed CIA director, George Tenet, on May 6, 1997, at a session of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the following:

    `But the proliferation issue–and particularly the proliferation of ballistic missiles–and conventional weapons–we often ignore what the proliferation of conventional weapons means for U.S. forces–this issue is probably the greatest threat to U.S. forces and our men and women who deploy overseas than any other’ issue.

    The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms.McKinney] has expired.

    (By unanimous consent, Ms. McKinney was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

    [Page: H3620] Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot say it any better than our CIA director. The issue before the Congress today is a national security issue and a moral issue. Seldom are we given such a stark opportunity to be on the right side of both issues. The Arms Trade Code of Conduct is just such an opportunity.

    I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and let us be known by the values we espouse and not the weapons of oppression that we supply.

    Mr. Chairman, U.S. weapons are currently being used in 39 of the world’s current 42 ethnic and territorial conflicts.

    In the past 4 years, 85 percent of U.S. arms sales to the Third World have gone to undemocratic governments. The United States is responsible for 44 percent of all weapons deliveries in the world. The United States is unqualifiedly the arms dealer to the world, and the merchant for death to the world’s dictators.

    Language requiring Congress to approve an arms sale to a dictator before it’s been made has been modified to give the President an automatic waiver for national security purposes which Congress could block after extensive debate.

    A total of 453 American soldiers have been killed by armies strengthened by our own weapons and military training: Iraq, Saddam Hussein; Panama, Manuel Noriega; Somalia, Siad Barre, and Haiti, the Duvalier family.

    In fiscal year 1994 $7 billion of taxpayer money went to subsidize U.S. arms exports. In fiscal year 1995, that figure jumped to $7.6 billion. After agricultural price supports, this represents the largest subsidy program for business in the entire Federal budget–Welfare for Weapons dealers.

    Our Government employs nearly 6,500 full time personnel to promote and service foreign arms sales by U.S. companies.

    U.S. subsidies for arms transfers are scheduled to increase. The international market for U.S. arms is estimated to be around $12 to $16 billion per year. Therefore, our foreign customers aren’t even paying for the weapons that they get. And more than half of U.S. weapons sales will be paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.

    In 1995, subsidies for arms exports accounted for over 50 percent of U.S. bilateral aid and more than 39 percent of total U.S. foreign aid. the emphasis on promoting weapons exports has come at the expense of programs designed to promote economic development and social welfare in these recipient nations. I’d much rather see us exporting tractors and seeds to dictators than guns and bullets.

    The American arms trade policy is killing our citizens, destroying worldwide democracy, and sending us spiraling down a path of economic ruin.

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, `There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends.’ We must help to stop the arms trade boomerang. Over 300 organizations support the No Arms to Dictators Code of Conduct. Among these organizations are: Vietnam Veterans Of America Foundation, Young Women’s Christian Association–the YMCA–of America, and Bread of the World, and organizations of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic churches.

    I would like to thank the hundreds of volunteers who have put thousands of hours into making the U.S. Code of Conduct our law.

    Each of us must be concerned about what happens when we sell weapons to dictators.

    I urge my colleagues to support the Arms Trade Code of Conduct.

    Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, the Arms Transfer Code of Conduct, and it will be the first major reform of U.S. arms transfer policy in almost two decades.

    The code of conduct highlights guiding principles on human rights and democracy, which I believe are important to America’s leadership role in the post-cold war era. This amendment would help stem the flow of U.S. weapons to countries that brutalize their own people.

    The code of conduct would make it clear that in the 21st century the United States of America intends not just to be a military and economic superpower but a moral superpower as well. It signals an end to business as usual for human rights violators.

    Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of all of our foreign military sales go to countries described by the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as human rights violators with undemocratic governments.

    Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I made a trip to Croatia when it was under siege. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], and I visited a city that was literally surrounded by tanks and by military, a place called Vukovar. Vukovar was finally leveled, but while we were there we saw the bomb casings and we saw the 500-pound bombs that were dropped. And I will never forget taking pictures of these bomb casings that had U.S. markings all over them.

    I will never forget also talking to President Milosevic and trying to ask him to stop that carnage that was going on in Croatia. Later on it was rolled out to Bosnia. Much of their military capability came from the United States and then was used in a slaughterhouse fashion against people who were unarmed, women and children and men who were civilians.

    Mr. Chairman, the code of conduct is not a threat to U.S. national security. It contains a provision for an emergency waiver that would allow the President to transfer arms to a country that does not meet the code’s criteria if U.S. national security really did require such a transfer, and it provides for an orderly process for Congress to consider other exceptions of nonemergency nature.

    Mr. Chairman, year after year in human rights hearings in the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I now chair, we hear there is a disconnect in U.S. foreign policy between human rights and other considerations. Amnesty International put it best when it said about this administration’s human rights policy, that `Human rights is an island off the mainland of U.S. foreign policy.’ This amendment is a step toward closing the circle, connecting things that ought to be connected.

    We must tell the world that freedom and democracy do matter. A good way to begin is by telling the world that the United States will not put deadly weapons into the hands of the enemies of freedom and democracy.

    Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Georgia, [Ms. McKinney], and the gentleman from California, [Mr.Rohrabacher], for their good work in crafting this amendment, and again I rise in very strong support of it.