REMEMBER YEMEN, OR THE GOP SHOW?

THE ABSURD TIMES

Remember Yemen, or the GOP show?

By

Tsar Donic

 

Does anyone remember Yemen?  It was described on several occasions by our current President as "our model for combating terrorism."  We should keep this in mind, not as an indictment of our current administration, but as an indication of how stupid our public and uninformed our press is about anything other than what they see on Television, and this does not mean the newscasts as they are simply one minor form of mass-communication used by our system.

Despite the fact that nearly 10,000,000 (that is ten million, just in case the commas give problems) children have been placed in a condition of near-starvation at best by actions there, the major issues today are Donald Trump, his comments as they relate to almost anything, especially women, and Heidi Cruz.  So, I suppose that needs clarification.

Donald Trump is an entertainer with no real position on anything other than what he sees as his audience that in this case is the Republican Party's public or possible public.  He wants as large an audience he can get and this accounts for his standing in the delegate count.  His positions, in fact, if anything, are less fascistic and sincere than those of his rivals.

Ted Cruz is his main opponent right now.  His supporters released a photograph of Trump's wife, nude or nearly so, right before the Utah primary.  If you don't realize the significance of this, you need to read a bit about the history of Utah.  Trump retaliated by re-tweeting (I suppose that is a word these days) a photo of Ted's wife, Heidi.  Ted took a manly posture to defend his wife and children, although those who have followed him even a bit know that he would send Heidi to the guillotine if it gained him enough votes.  Ted Cruz, despite that pose, otherwise believes most of what he says and that makes him far more onerous that Trump.  Kaschich is even more dangerous as his policies are just as evil, but he is able to appear actually human.

Remember Yemen? There has been precious little disseminated about it of late.  We supply Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars of weaponry and are in their command center as they attack Yemen.  The façade for the war is religious, Shia v. Sunni, but the reality is simply more weapons sales, as usual.  Al-Quaeda is expanding there, not ISIS.  ISIS is actually diminishing in attractiveness as young men are learning that membership in ISIS leads greatly to erectile dysfunction.  

So, here is a discussion of what is going on in Yemen for Democracy Now and Democracynow.org.  You can also get the videos there.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Yemen, where hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest the first anniversary of the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led offensive against the Houthi rebels. The protests were said to be the largest in Yemen since demonstrations in 2011 forced the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. This is one protester, Ibrahim al-Ubaidi, speaking at Saturday's demonstration.

IBRAHIM AL-UBAIDI: [translated] Today, all Yemenis, from all different sects and regardless of their political affiliations, came out today in the masses, a crowd of over a million, to show the world that the Yemeni people can never be shaken nor defeated.

AMY GOODMAN: Since the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led intervention began last March, more than 6,000 people have been killed in Yemen, about half of them civilians. According to UNICEF, nearly 10 million children are in dire need of humanitarian assistance, and 320,000 are at risk of severe acute malnutrition. Meanwhile, the U.S. launched air attacks on al-Qaeda in southern Yemen, killing 14 people described by local sources as suspected militants.

For more, we're joined by two guests. In Beirut, Lebanon, we're joined by Farea Al-Muslimi, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. He's also the co-founder and chair of the Sana'a Center for Strategic Studies. In 2013, he testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the U.S. secret drone program. And we're also joined by Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa Division. Her recent piece in the Los Angeles Times is headlined "The U.S. is quietly helping Saudi Arabia wage a devastating aerial campaign in Yemen."

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Sarah Leah Whitson, explain what the U.S. is doing in Yemen.

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: What the U.S. is doing goes well beyond providing military assistance, as in the weapons that are actually being used in this war. What's less known and less understood, and what the U.S. government has been very deliberately vague about, is that the U.S. is actually sitting in the Riyadh Command Center providing targeting assistance—this is what they've told us—as well as providing refueling for aircraft. Now, the targeting assistance, it is what's most problematic, because we don't know whether they're providing targeting assistance on a strike-by-strike basis, whether they're just reviewing the strike lists, whether they're actually telling the Saudis what they should strike. And that is what we are asking the United States to come clean about. We want to know exactly which strikes the U.S. government has provided assistance for.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you've also documented the use of—by the Saudis, of cluster bombs in their attacks. Could you talk about that, as well?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Yes. So, the U.S. and the United Kingdom have both sold cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. And now we have documented finding in strikes the duds of American-made cluster munitions. Recently, some British-made cluster munitions were also found. These cluster bombs were used in civilian areas and civilian sites, including, for example, Sana'a University, where there were remnants of cluster munitions.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the issues you emphasize in your Los Angeles Times piece is that Saudi Arabia has been on what you call a "global arms shopping spree" and is now the world's largest purchaser of weapons.

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: It's true. It's a petrodollar-funded acquisition campaign, and it has been going on for a long time. The figures I cited of their purchases from the United States just last year of $20 billion is just a piece of it. They are a shopper from many, many European countries. And if you look at the arms that they've been buying for the past two decades, the figures are just staggering. What I think is even more surprising is that UAE, with a population of less than a million people, a fighting-age population of, you know, a couple of 20,000 or 30,000 men, is the fourth largest purchaser of weapons and is fighting, actively fighting, in five wars. It's just—it's very hard to comprehend the purpose of these weapons, but it's very clear that the narrative of a Sunni-Shia war, of this enmity between Saudi Arabia and Iran, is very, very lucrative for defense companies.

AMY GOODMAN: And how much are U.S. companies profiting?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, just last year, $20 billion. If you look a five-year ratio—and the figures are not always easy to come by, because they're hidden sort of as contracts and when they're going to be fulfilled and when they're not going to be fulfilled—the figure just from the United States is well over $50 billion.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Farea Al-Muslimi, I'd like to ask you to talk about the humanitarian crisis that's resulting from these constant attacks and bombardments on Yemen.

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: Sure. I mean, this is something that has been going through the last year. The humanitarian situation has gotten really bad, or really worse than it was. What's, I guess, more striking in this war in Yemen is humans are kind of the weakest cycle in this intense fighting happening between the Houthis and between the Saudis, whom—both sides have very little, if any, consideration for humanitarian laws and for international war laws. This is a serious issue because it's not just the bombing that has—you know, and the extensive fighting that has been killing civilians, but also the imposed internal and external siege on the country have made medicine, food and all sorts of basic lives close to impossible to get in some areas, even if you had the cash. The problem of fuel shortages, the problem of—has created a lot of—or much of a black market, much of a black market around Yemen.

But more importantly, despite the fact, you know, both sides, the Houthis and the Saudis, have been claiming to fight each other, actually, the biggest payer or the biggest consequences of this war have been civilians around Yemen, not, I think—I'm pretty sure that the 6,000 figure of those died the last year are much less than they are actually—they are actually in the ground. I'm sure it's much, much more than this. It's just very hard right now to document, to travel around the country, and it's very hard for international media to continue following the news in Yemen. There is obviously other crises in the region, like Syria, Libya, that has gotten a lot of attention, comparatively speaking, to Yemen, and have, in a way—in a way or another, have made Yemen's space in the international media and in the international even aid work attention very much limited than it actually needs or much less than the catastrophe on the ground.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Farea, I want to go to—back to 2013, when you testified in Washington on Capitol Hill about the U.S. drone war. You spoke a week after your home village was hit by a U.S. drone strike.

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: What Wessab's villagers knew of the U.S. was based on my stories about my wonderful experiences here. The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know and that I love. Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time. What the violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant. There is now an intense anger against America in Wessab.

This is not an isolated incident. The drone strikes are the face of America to many Yemenis. I have spoken to many victims of U.S. drone strikes, like a mother in Jaar who had to identify her innocent 18-year-old son's body through a video in a stranger's cellphone, or the father in Shaqra who held his four- and six-year-old children as they died in his arms. Recently in Aden, I spoke with one of the tribal leaders present in 2009 at the place where the U.S. cruise missiles targeted the village of al-Majalah in Lawdar, Abyan. More than 40 civilians were killed, including four pregnant women. The tribal leader and others tried to rescue the victims, but the bodies were so decimated that it was impossible to differentiate between those of children, women and their animals. Some of these innocent people were buried in the same grave as their animals.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Farea Al-Muslimi, the response of the members of Congress when you testified afterwards? And obviously, nothing much has changed in terms of the drone strikes, but your assessment of the impact that this is having on Yemen?

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: I mean, clearly, the issue of the U.S. policy in Yemen is not, you know, since last year, since it started, unconditionally supporting the Saudis in this big warfare, but even goes back to 2013 and much before that, when it conducted a lot of airstrikes, but also drone strikes, around Yemen. What's, I guess, you know, as much as—and this is not just something new, but I think something that will always carry with the legacy of a President Obama, which is, you know, compared to his relative success in Cuba, with the nuclear deal, Yemen has been one of the big dark marks in his eight years in the presidency. First of all, you know, he used the drones in one year comparatively much more than even Bush used in eight years. But then it went on to this support of unconditional airstrikes in Yemen with the Saudis.

But even more—I think even much more dangerous than the arm deals is this international protection at the U.N. Security Council. Let's not forget, last year, the United States and the United Kingdom and much of the big powers blocked the attempt to create an international investigative committee on war crimes that have been possibly committed in the conflict in Yemen. Despite the fact there has been a clear evidence of multiple war crimes have been committed, the United States and a lot of the Western countries have blocked any attempt to investigate this, have even provided an easy path and easy, comfortable support for the coalition in the U.N. Security Council, but overall in the Western decision-making cycles.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the media coverage, Farea? And I want to put that question to Sarah Leah Whitson also. Where is the media spotlight on the catastrophe that is Yemen right now?

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: I mean, it's unfortunately not as much as it should be, very, very limited. But there is kind of also strict rules have been imposed by both the Houthis and the coalition and the legitimate government. Both are not, obviously, doing anything good around the country, so they have imposed strict conditions and strict lines against, you know, even attempting to travel to the country, or even very, very strong, tight or very oppressive, even on those journalists around the country—even those right now in Sana'a or in Yemen have been jailed multiple times. And some have been used as human shields by the Houthis. At the same time, other journalists have been killed in airstrikes around the country. So, it's—you know, it's a problem where there isn't already much correspondents and much media in Yemen, but even it has just got much worse since this last coalition or since this last war started earlier last year.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Sarah Leah Whitson, what you think the media needs to pay attention to?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, I was just in Yemen last week, and I can say that it's very hard for international media to operate in Yemen, particularly to get out of, for example, Sana'a, because it's just simply very dangerous. And airstrikes are a real, live threat. There are land mines, there are cluster munitions. It's a very high security risk for journalists to get out, particularly to the areas that have been the worst struck. We've been trying to do our best in that circumstance. Very brave U.N. workers have been trying to do their best to get aid. But it's not an easy war to cover.

What I find more disturbing, understanding the limited coverage, is the absence of a framing of a narrative into the terror that's being brought on the Yemeni people. You know, there's this global outrage when Brussels Airport and a coffee shop is struck, and Yemenis are asking me, "Why is there no global outrage when our schools, when our universities, when our hospitals, when our clinics, or when football fields, when playgrounds are bombed with U.S. bombs? Where is the outrage at attacks on civilians here in Yemen?" And the absence of that parallel framing, of that comparison, is very, very difficult for Yemenis to understand.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the prospects for some kind of a negotiated settlement or peace between the warring factions?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, we can hope for it. Every time there's a major attack on civilians, like the recent attack on a marketplace where Saudi bombs killed over a hundred civilians, and there is a bit of outrage from the U.N. that comes from that, the Saudis immediately talk about a ceasefire and a peace process. Clearly, the war is going very badly for the Saudis, in that they're not effectuating their gains, they're not displacing the Houthis from power, they're not able to restore former President Hadi to power. And there's a lot of pressure domestically on Saudi Arabia to wrap it up. The Emirates already wants out. They've reduced their troops by half. They realize this was not a good idea. So I think there are a lot of pressure, good pressure points to get Saudi to wrap up this war, end this war. But whether that will bring peace to Yemen is very hard to say, because the country has been so seriously disrupted, not just politically, of course, but on a humanitarian scale.

AMY GOODMAN: You were very critical, Farea Al-Muslimi, of The New York Timesop-ed, "Yemen's President: A Path to Peace." What did you object to?

FAREA AL-MUSLIMI: Well, it's not objection, but, I mean, very few people would make people like, you know, Hamid Karzai or Nouri al-Maliki look fine. Unfortunately, our president is one of those people. I mean, there has been so much happening in Yemen and so much destruction have been done the last year and a half and before that, and it is very hard to imagine the Houthis' ability to have done this harm or for the Saudis, if it was not for his and his Cabinet's misperformance around the country and in their—in achieving their duties. It's very hard to see the president claiming 85 percent of the country is liberated, while he's still outside the country, while still remotely.

There has been serious issues in Yemen. There has—a lot of political failure has happened the last three years. And unfortunately, you know, whether the president or the Houthis or the team that has been running the country are a big part of this problem. And it's very hard to imagine any way forward with this mentality of blaming or of mentality of, you know, not taking responsibility of what they should have done in Yemen over the last few years. It's hard to imagine that anything could have been fixed or could be fixed in the near future, as we are still having this big failure by the government, but also this failure to act upon the international resolutions, 2216. And it's a serious issue. For example, we have Hadhramaut in the east side of the country, where it's literally taken by al-Qaeda, one of the richest and one of the biggest areas in Yemen, while the Cabinet and the president and the government has done nothing to liberate this from al-Qaeda. It's a very serious issue we have in Yemen that, you know, not just the Houthis and not just all of this coup sides by Saleh, but also by the government and by the regime that is not doing what it should have been doing since the last four years.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Sarah Leah Whitson, finally, in our last minute, how hard is it to find out what the U.S. is doing in Yemen right now? And what should the U.S. know, people, the U.S. population, know?

SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, more importantly, the U.S. population should know that the United States government is actively fighting in this war. According to the laws of war, it is a party to the conflict. It's helping. It's fighting alongside Saudi Arabia, supporting the war in Yemen, that is indiscriminately bombarding Yemeni children, Yemeni schools, Yemeni hospitals. And it will be very hard for President Obama to complain about violent extremist attacks that attack Paris and Brussels, even Ankara, when our weapons and our military personnel are assisting Saudi Arabia commit terrible attacks on Saudi schools and Saudi hospitals. That's going to come back to us. To the U.S. government, we have an open question: What are you targeting? Tell the American people what you are targeting in Yemen.

THE REASON FOR WARS

THE ABSURD TIMES

THE REASON FOR WARS

 

 

            It is not clear how far back we have to go to establish that there has never been a "just" war in the sense it was fought over some cause.  Wallerstein posits the 17th Century as the real start of Capitalistic Imperialism or Colonialism, and that is a good point to start, it would seem. 

            Surely the Vikings were nor really interested on some notion of liberty of serving Thor.  Eric the Red established Greenland, so called because he was a real-estate developer who thought it was a better sounding name than Iceland.  The Trojan war surely was not over Helen.  But let us look to more modern times.

            Wars came to develop because capitalism has to grow or die.  Exploitation of natural resources from other continents became profitable. 

            Perhaps more modern times are more easily documented.  We know that Nobel, of the Nobel Peace Prize, invented dynamite and eagerly sold it for enormous profits to any and all buyers.  Heartbreak House by Bernard Shaw is perhaps the best depiction, along with Major Barbara, of this idea.  The are much more fun to read and more accurate than most "history" books. 

            When WW1 was finished, which was over colonies (Germany didn't have any to speak of), they were forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles.  John Maynard Keynes at the time said that this would only eventually lead to another war.  It did.  It is no secret that Henry Ford made a fortune building tanks for Nazi Germany and, we the U.S. bombed one of his factories in Germany, he sued the U.S. for damages and won.  The war was immensely profitable for weapons manufacturers, provided zero unemployment in German and close to that in the U.S.  It was immensely profitable in dollars.  (Yeah, 30 million Russians were killed along with millions of other, but hey, if you're going to have a war, somebody's going to get hurt, right?) 

            The US makes a fortune in weapons manufacture.  Even when ISIS captured billions of dollars of weapons we sent to Iraq, so what?  Just sell more to Iraq again.  It's a win-win situation.

            Right now, the Saudis are claiming they are only bombing weapons depots so the evil Shia do not get them.  But they do have many of them and, hey, we can sell more to the Saudis, or anyone else who will buy them.  Israel used the Gaza slaughter to later hold a large "fair" where they demonstrated the "battle-proven" drones.  New the call is to sell weapons to Ukraine (only defensive weapons, of course, just as long as the profit is high enough).

            Below is a discussion of a new book that talks about weapons sales, but the author is very careful not to use the word "capitalism," which is why we have done him the courtesy of supplying it beforehand:

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2015

Are Obama’s Record Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and Iraq Fueling Unrest in Middle East?

As Saudi Arabia continues U.S.-backed strikes in Yemen and Washington lifts its freeze on military to aid to Egypt, new figures show President Obama has overseen a major increase in weapons sales since taking office. The majority of weapons exports under Obama have gone to the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia tops the list at $46 billion in new agreements. We are joined by William Hartung, who says that even after adjusting for inflation, "the volume of major deals concluded by the Obama administration in its first five years exceeds the amount approved by the Bush administration in its full eight years in office by nearly $30 billion. That also means that the Obama administration has approved more arms sales than any U.S. administration since World War II." Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, and author of "Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AARON MATÉ: We turn now to the major increase in U.S. arms exports under President Obama. As Saudi Arabia continues U.S.-backed strikes in Yemen and Washington lifts its freeze on military aid to Egypt, new figures show the majority of U.S. weapons exports under Obama have gone to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia tops the list at $46 billion in new agreements. William Hartung writes that even after adjusting for inflation, "the volume of major deals concluded by the Obama administration in its first five years exceeds the amount approved by the Bush administration in its full eight years in office by nearly $30 billion." That also means the Obama administration has approved more arms sales than any other U.S. administration since World War II.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about these figures, we’re joined now by Bill Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. His latest book is, "Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex." He recently wrote an article headlined, "The Obama Arms Bazaar: Record Sales, Troubling Results." Welcome back to Democracy Now! , Bill. Talk about the numbers. Talk about the weapons. Where are they going?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I was astonished in researching the article that Obama had sold this much. I mean, I knew there were record deals with the Saudis, but to outsell the eight years of Bush, to sell more than any president since World War II, was surprising even to me who follow these things quite closely. The majority, 60 percent, have gone to the Persian Gulf and Middle East and within that, the Saudis have been the largest recipient of things like U.S. fighter planes, Apache attack helicopters, bombs, guns, almost an entire arsenal they’ve purchased in just the last few years.

AARON MATÉ: What do you think the Iran nuclear deal, if anything, portends for U.S. sales to the Middle East? President Obama’s about to call a meeting at Camp David with the leaders of all the Gulf nations. Do you see them exploiting that to call for increased U.S. military purchases from the U.S.?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Unfortunately, yes. You would think a reduction of tensions should reduce the arms sales, but the Saudis have been screaming about the deal, saying you’re letting Iran off the hook — which is not the case. Therefore, you have to bulk up our armaments, which is kind of insane given the amounts that have already gone there.

AMY GOODMAN: So how does the Obama administration spending on military weapons — and is it the Obama administration spend money on military weapons or just allowing the weapons to be sold to these countries? And how does it compare to the two terms of the George W. Bush administration?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Primarily, these are sales because the Saudis and others in the Gulf can afford them, the exceptions being aid to Egypt and Israel which are the biggest recipients of U.S. military aid. Under Bush, they sold about $30 billion less than the $169 billion of the first five years of Obama. So already in five years, he’s outsold what Bush did in eight years.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for war in the world?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think we’re seeing the results now. As mentioned in the prior segment, Saudi Arabia is using U.S. weapons to bomb Yemen, civilians have been killed, Egypt is not exactly a democratic regime, as we know. Now they’ve opened sales against them. They’ve supported dictators for many years, prior to Obama, which helped in one hand spark the Arab Spring, but also has armed the counterattacks by places like Egypt and the Saudis going into crush democracy movement and Bahrain as well as the government there. So it has been force — a negative force for many years. But I think it is spinning out of control now.

AMY GOODMAN: And your piece also points out that it is not just U.S. arms going to regimes. When countries go haywire and into chaos like in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, U.S. weapons in up in the hands of militants.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Exactly. We don’t know the full numbers but in Iraq, the security forces abandoned large amounts of the weaponry to Isis. U.S. armed rebels in Syria armed by the CIA, went over to join Isis. There’s $500 million missing of weapons in Yemen. Some think it’s gone to the Houthis some think it’s gone to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Of course there’s arms on both sides because the government and the forces have split in this war. So it’s quite possible every side of that war in Yemen may have some level of U.S. weaponry. So it’s really gone haywire. It’s sort of what I call the boomerang effect, when U.S. arms end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries.

AMY GOODMAN: I’d like to ask about a recent exchange between Deutsche Bank analyst Myles Walton and Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson during an earnings call in January. Financial industry analysts use earnings calls as an opportunity to ask publicly-traded corporations like Lockheed about issues that might harm profitability. Hewson said that Lockheed was hoping to increase sales and that both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region were "growth markets."

MARILLYN HEWSON: Even if there may be some kind of deal that is done with Iran, there is volatility all around the region and each one of these countries believes they’ve got to protect their citizens and the things that we can bring to them help in that regard. So similarly, that’s the Middle East. And I know that’s what you asked about, but you can take that same argument to the Asia-Pacific region, which is another growth area for us. A lot of volatility, a lot of instability a lot of things that are happening both with North Korea as well as some of the tensions between China and Japan. So in both of those regions, which are growth areas for us, we expect that there is going to continue to be opportunities for us to bring our capabilities to them.

AMY GOODMAN: During the call, Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson, who you were just listening to, also noted that 20 percent of Lockheed’s sales in 2014 were international, that is, to non-American customers. She added, Lockheed has set a goal to get to 25 percent over the next few years. Can you talk about the significance of this, Bill Hartung?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, there’s been a slight blip in Pentagon procurement. Still quite high, but the companyies need to grow constantly. And so they’re looking to up foreign sales to make up for any reductions at the Pentagon. As we heard in the clip, they’re looking to areas of conflict. And it’s not surprising, but I’m surprised that she said it so explicitly. She was asked about the Iran question, would that depress the market. She basically said, oh, there’s plenty of turbulence there, don’t worry about it, as there is in East Asia, these will be our growth markets. So she is more or less acknowledging they thrive on war and the threat of war, which is not surprising to a lot of people, but nonetheless, to say it like that, I think is a bit shocking. To just put it right out there.

AARON MATÉ: I want to ask you about drones. Earlier this year, the White House announced it will allow foreign allies to purchase U.S. made armed drones for the first time. Under a new policy American firms can sell their drones abroad, but will be subjected to a case-by-case review. Talk about this policy. Your were very critical of it.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes. I mean, it’s got some rhetoric that makes sense. You can’t use these drones to repress your own population, for illegal surveillance, to attack you neighbors. But as we’ve seen in other cases, once they’re sold, very little control over how they are used. And given the regimes in the Persian Gulf, they’ve already sold unarmed predators, or about to, the UAE, so it’s quite possible we’ll see in the context of the war in Yemen, perhaps armed drones sold to these countries. And it’s fine to say we’re going to control their use, but the record in Iraq and Yemen and elsewhere makes that quite dubious.

AMY GOODMAN: As we see the Obama administration’s dramatic acceleration of U.S. weapons sales abroad, can you talk about the U.S. requirements on the licensing of weapons and weapons-related exports?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, the industry has wanted relaxation for years. The Obama administration finally delivered that. They took things from the State Department, which does a somewhat better job of vetting human rights and so forth, and took thousands of items and put them in the Commerce Department which historically has been involved in promoting arms sales, not vetting them. So it’s going to be easier for some countries to get arms without a license and those countries will become hubs of smuggling, no doubt. So it’s going to be counter to even the narrowest security interests of the United States, but it’s something industry has wanted for quite a while.

AARON MATÉ: On the positive side, the world’s first treaty regulating the arms trade took effect last year. The Arms Trade Treaty. The U.S. has signed it, the Senate hasn’t ratified it. But you write that that is still a positive thing.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes, I think, compared to Bush, which was joined at the hip with the NRA and wouldn’t go near the Arms Trade Treaty, at least the U.S. administration signed it; although a somewhat weaker version that some of us would have liked. It commits them on paper not to sell to human rights abusers, not to let arms that may be involved in corruption. Obviously, that has been violated, in my opinion, in some of the current sales to the Middle East, but it’s a standard that they should be held to because they did sign that treaty.

AMY GOODMAN: So they sign the treaty and they accelerate weapons sales abroad. Would you say the — financing the weapons industry is actually a motivation for being involved in wars abroad?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: I think it’s one element. I think there is an ideological element, I think there’s an element of just U.S. global reach and global control. But, certainly, a reinforcing point is to sell arms and to help these companies. And it sometimes it is made quite explicit. When they sell to the Saudis, for example, the Pentagon points out it will create x number of jobs in the United States. So they’re not shy about talking about the jobs aspect.

AMY GOODMAN: So weapons industry does better under the Democrats than the Republicans?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: I would say, at the moment, they’re doing better on the arms sales front. Slightly —

AMY GOODMAN: And where do their contributions go?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well they tip usually depending whoever is in power. So they’re about two-thirds Republican in the Senate and the house, which is controlled by Republicans. They’re quite supportive of Obama. There’s such a flood of money from everywhere, sometimes it’s hard to follow one stream within that huge flow of money.

AMY GOODMAN: Well we want to thank you, Bill Hartung, for being with us. Final question, what are you recommending?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well I think the Obama administration should live up to its principles on the Arms Trade Treaty. I think Congress should take a closer look at some of these sales, speak out against them. I think civil society groups which oppose this, should make their voices louder because in many cases, most Americans don’t even know this is happening.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Hartung is Director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. His latest book, "Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex." We’ll link to his piece, "The Obama Arms Bazaar: Record Sales, Troubling Results." .

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->