Rogue Planet

U.S. Policy Is Fuzzy on Arms Purchases From Former Warsaw Pact Nations

By Walter Pincus
Monday, September 29, 2008; A17

What is the U.S. policy about supplying weapons to Afghanistan that come from Russia and former Warsaw Pact countries? Can the U.S. military deal directly with foreign countries that have these weapons and the ammunition that goes with them? Or must they go through private contractors, who act as middlemen and profit from such transactions?

Since 2003, the U.S. military has purchased, through private contractors, billions of dollars worth of former Warsaw Pact arms and ammunition for Iraq and Afghan security forces, rather than buying them directly or seeking donations of such equipment from countries that are coalition members. In June, Congress was told by an Army general that U.S. law and government procurement regulations required using contractors to purchase such ammunition.

Last Tuesday, however, Maj. Gen. Jay Lindell, commander of the Combined Air Power Transition Force in Afghanistan, told Pentagon bloggers during a teleconference that he was outfitting the Afghans with used, Russian-designed Mi-17 helicopters that were donated by the United Arab Emirates and purchased directly from the Czech and Slovak republics. In addition, he said, negotiations are underway to buy new ones from Russia.

He said the Afghans received Russian-made aircraft because "that's what the Afghans know how to fly and maintain so very well." Negotiations with Russia are "happening right now to determine the number of aircraft that we will purchase and the delivery dates," he said.

US to Seek Extradition of Bout

Straight from the horse's mouth - looks like the DEA has done very well. I particularly like the 'here, use my cell phone so the conversation can be legally intercepted' trick. Reports state that Bout and his associate, Andrew Smulian, were offering the SAMs and 'armor piercing rocket launchers' from Bulgaria.

International Arms Dealer Charged in U.S. with
Conspiracy to Provide Surface-to-Air Missiles and
other Weapons to a Foreign Terrorist Organization

Michael J. Garcia, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Michele M. Leonhart, the Acting Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), announced today the unsealing of charges against Viktor Bout, a/k/a "Boris," a/k/a "Victor Anatoliyevich Bout," a/k/a "Victor But," a/k/a "Viktor Budd," a/k/a "Viktor Butt," a/k/a "Viktor Bulakin," a/k/a "Vadim Markovich Aminov," an international arms dealer, and his associate Andrew Smulian for conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (the "FARC") – a designated foreign terrorist organization based in Colombia. Bout was arrested yesterday by Thai authorities in Bangkok. According to the Complaint unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

Between November 2007 and February 2008, Bout and Smulian agreed to sell to the FARC millions of dollars worth of weapons –- including surface-to-air missile systems ("SAMs") and armor piercing rocket launchers. During a series of recorded telephone calls and emails, Bout and Smulian agreed to sell the weapons to two confidential sources working with the DEA (the "CSs"), who held themselves out as FARC representatives acquiring these weapons for the FARC for use in Colombia.

In addition, during a series of consensually recorded meetings in Romania, Smulian advised the CSs, among other things, that: (1) Bout had 100 SAMs available immediately; (2) Bout could also provide helicopters and armor piercing rocket launchers; (3) Bout could arrange to have a flight crew airdrop the weapons into Colombian territory using combat parachutes; and (4) Bout and Smulian would charge the CSs $5 million to transport the weapons. During one of the meetings with the CSs, Smulian provided one of the CSs with a digital memory stick that contained an article about Bout, and documents containing photographs and specifications for the SAMs and armor piercing rocket launchers that Smulian had previously said Bout could provide.

Arms-export probe arrests link Pennsylvania, Russia

By John Shiffman
Inquirer Staff Writer

WASHINGTON - A Wilkes-Barre area firearms shop owner and a Russian broker of military gear have been arrested as part of an illegal arms-export investigation, officials said yesterday.
The Russian, Sergey Korznikov, and the American, Mark Komoroski of D&R Sports in Nanticoke, Luzerne County, are charged with conspiracy to smuggle goods overseas. The charges have not been publicly announced, but were confirmed by officials familiar with the case.

They have been under investigation by agents of the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement; the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives; the Pennsylvania State Police and the Commerce Department for nearly two years.

Federal agents raided D&R Sports in late 2006, and a related affidavit cites billing documents that authorities say showed the two men smuggled $247,000 worth of restricted gear to Russia, Kuwait and Japan without obtaining the proper licenses.

In August, sources said, federal agents seized a shipment from D&R to Korznikov's Russian company, Tactia. The manifest said the shipment was filled with clothes, but actually included restricted rifle scopes and weapon magazines. A person familiar with the case said that D&R failed to obtain the appropriate federal export licenses for those items.

Iraq says US behind in arms deliveries

Only a fraction of $2b order has been filled

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff  |  November 3, 2007

WASHINGTON - More than a year after the government of Iraq paid more than $2 billion to the US government to purchase weapons and equipment for their military and police force, most of the equipment has yet to be delivered, slowing the ability of Iraqi units to take greater responsibility for their country's security, according to Iraqi officials.

In October 2006, Iraq obtained congressional approval to purchase 50,750 M16 rifles and 24 King Air reconnaissance aircraft, among other items. But so far, just 7,000 of the rifles and none of the aircraft have been delivered, according to a US Department of Defense spokesman. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has said that the US government delivered about $600 million worth of military equipment to the Iraqis, and that between $2 billion and $3 billion in supplies are still on order.

Pentagon officials say that large orders take time and that the US military has large orders pending, which adds to the manufacturing backlog. But Iraqi officials have expressed frustration over the delays.

U.S. Small Arms Policy: Having it Both Ways

This relatively quick read provided by the World Policy Institute contrasts the U.S.'s export and arms trade policies with its 'shadow' polices, discussing supply to the Mujahadeen in Pakistan as well as the covert small arms trail (and the subsequent losses) to Iraq. 

In conclusion the author claims, "If the United States is not prepared to amend its own policy, it can hardly claim the high ground over those leaders who clandestinely supply lethal weapons in pursuit of their own ideological or mercantile interests."  But isn't that what the U.S. was founded on?  The idea of saying one thing and doing another?  I'm pretty sure I heard that on South Park, or something.

The full read can be found here.

$2.257B for Iraqi Army Guns, Vehicles & Logistics

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency announcement of 25 September 2007.

More info on the Major Arms Sales notification process for Foreign Military Sales .

The FMS Advantage

US looking to speed up arms deliveries to Iraq: Gates

Thu Oct 4, 4:26 PM ET
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the United States is looking for ways to speed the delivery of arms to Iraqi security forces, acknowledging that the current system is too slow.

His comments followed criticism by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani who said Iraq was buying 100 million dollars in light military equipment for its police from China because US arms producers could not meet Iraqi demands quickly enough.

Gates said he was not worried about Iraq's purchase of AK-47 assault rifles from China, but was concerned that the US foreign military sales system was delivering weapons to customers too slowly.

At a press conference with Chilean Defense Minister Jose Goni, Gates added that the issue also had come up in his talks in Chile, the third stop on a Latin American tour.

"This is an issue that we have to look into and see what we can do in the United States to be more responsive and be able to react more quickly to the requirements of our friends," he said.

"Unfortunately, the FMS (foreign military sales) program was set up in a way that was not intended to provide sort of emergency or short term supplies as in the case of Iraq. We are trying to figure out how to do that better," he said.

Arming the Iraqi security forces has taken on greater urgency because US plans to withdraw US combat brigades from Iraq will mean shifting the burden for security to the Iraqis.

U.S. lone major holdout on arms trade regulation

By Charles J. Hanley
Associated Press
Published on: 10/01/07

United Nations —- Britain, Japan, Australia and others are pushing for an unprecedented treaty regulating the arms trade worldwide, in a campaign sure to last years and to pit them against a determined American foe, the National Rifle Association.

In what U.N. officials say is an "overwhelming" response, almost 100 governments have submitted ideas for such a treaty, to be reviewed over the next year. Kenya cited an "extremely urgent" need for controls on the international gun trade, echoing the sentiment in much of guns-besieged Africa.

But in the U.S., the NRA says it sees a creeping attempt to limit civilian gun ownership within nations —- even though the focus now is on setting standards for arms exports and imports.

The international issues "necessarily will come to involve at some point domestic laws and policies regarding firearms," said former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, a leading NRA voice on the subject.

But "that's not what we're looking at here," countered Greg Puley, of the Control Arms coalition of pro-treaty advocacy groups. "The point is to control trade in weapons that contribute to conflict and atrocities."

The NRA and other U.S. gun lobbyists helped blunt earlier efforts at the United Nations to rein in the weapons trade. Last December, the U.S. delegation cast the lone negative vote when 153 nations approved a General Assembly resolution initiating this new treaty process.

Bush, Howard Ink Defense Trade Cooperation Export Control Treaty

Inside U.S. Trade
September 7, 2007

Vol. 25 No. 35

President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard this week signed a defense trade cooperation treaty similar to the one signed earlier this year between the U.S. and United Kingdom, easing export controls on certain munitions items. A State Department official said the Bush Administration hopes to agree to implementing arrangements within six months, which will enable the Administration to seek Senate ratification.

The U.S.-Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty is similar to the U.S.-UK Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty, which Bush and then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair signed in June. Howard on Sept. 4 told reporters the treaty would allow Australians to enter the U.S. defense technology market "on the same basis" as UK companies.

Specifically, the treaty with Australia will lift International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) license requirements for U.S. Munitions List items to a trusted set of Australian companies and the Australian government, for trade related to certain government projects, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Dan Price said in a Sept. 5 press briefing in Sydney.

However, many of the details are left to the implementing arrangements, which are still to be negotiated. Congressional aides this week said they had not yet received a copy of the treaty, but in the case of the U.S.-UK treaty, the implementing arrangements are expected to define the scope of exceptions to the U.S.' right of refusal for re-exports (Inside U.S. Trade, July 20).

Congressional aides said the Administration did not notify Congress of the treaty until shortly before the signing, and that the treaty would avoid House consideration because only the Senate must ratify a treaty, as the UK treaty did. One of these aides said Congress first learned of the treaty from the press before the Administration informed Congress of its plans, which was also the case for the UK treaty.

Separately, a UK private-sector source said the UK treaty's implementing arrangements may be concluded in October.

U.S. Arms Exports and Military Assistance in the “Global War on Terror”

Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, little has changed in the Bush administration’s strategy with regard to U.S. arms exports. The Bush administration is still supplying high technology weapons and millions of dollars in military assistance to allies in the “war on terror.” Support for the United States – either in its quest to stamp out international terrorist networks, or for its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – seemingly takes precedence over other criteria usually taken into account when the United States considers an arms transfer.

According to long-standing tenets of U.S. arms export policy, arms transfers should not undermine long-term security and stability, weaken democratic movements, support military coups, escalate arms races, exacerbate ongoing conflicts, cause arms build-ups in unstable regions, or be used to commit human rights abuses. However, in the last six years, the Bush administration has demonstrated a willingness to provide weapons and military training to weak and failing states and countries that have been repeatedly criticized by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations, lack of democracy, and even support of terrorism.

Since 2001, CDI has sought to thoroughly evaluate and analyze this trend of increased military assistance. Over the last six years, CDI has profiled 25 countries that have a unique role in the “war on terror” through the strategic services they have provided to the United States as it conducts anti-terror operations across the globe. The series features analysis of the current political situations in the profiled countries, taking into account other indicators of the relative stability and openness of the country, such as military expenditures, total number of armed forces, and the human rights situation as assessed by the U.S. State Department, alongside an evaluation of U.S. military assistance to these countries over the past 17 years – the post-Cold War years.