As the war on terrorism continues and the Bush Administration keeps up its push for allies in the anti-terrorism coalition, the principles of human rights and using non-military solutions to conflict are being overlooked. Arms transfers and military aid have become the gift of choice of the Bush Administration in its attempt to make and keep friends quickly and easily.

However, far from producing the desired outcomes of peace and stability, this strategy is instead spreading instability and fueling conflict. One of the most disturbing possible outcomes of this policy is that some of the weapons that Washington is sending abroad could ultimately wind up in the hands of America's enemies. Many of those countries receiving aid are in highly unstable regions, where increased military aid only inflames and exacerbates the conflict and further fuels the cycle of violence.

Immediately after the September 11 attacks the administration lifted sanctions on Pakistan and India, which were put in place after both countries conducted nuclear weapons tests in 1998. There were, however, additional legal restrictions blocking arms exports to Pakistan and other allies.

In order to circumvent these regulations, the administration included a provision in the anti-terrorism bill that would have negated almost all arms export controls on all countries for the next five years. The proposed language would have also waived provisions that prevent counter-terrorism and non-proliferation aid from going to states that had not been cooperating on terrorism or that had excessive human rights violations.

Because of strong opposition from Congress, the proposal was significantly altered. The law that did pass drops remaining barriers on arms exports and military aid to Pakistan for two years. Those barriers included:

• A ban on security assistance to governments that have had a military coup,
• Restrictions on aid to states that have defaulted on loans,
• Sanctions from the nuclear- missile-test control regime.

The law also shortens the congressional notification period for transfers of excess U.S. weaponry to any country if the transfers were in response to or for prevention of terrorism.

Shelving Controls on Arms Exports

However, the administration is still attempting to shelve arms export controls, and it has shifted to a piece-by-piece strategy. The administration, along with some members of Congress, are slowly carving away at current restrictions on arms exports. They have won individual waivers for a number of countries and are putting the pressure on for more. While each individual waiver seems minor on its own, taken together they signify a major change in United States arms export policy.

This fall Congress passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to remove restrictions on arms sales to Azerbaijan, which had been prohibited from receiving security assistance because of its ongoing conflict with Armenia. In an attempt to be balanced, Congress also allotted Armenia $4.3 million in military aid and training.

On January 9, Tajikistan was removed from the State Departments list of those states barred from receiving U.S. military goods and services, because of its cooperation with the war on terrorism. Senior administration officials are also reconsidering the restrictions on military aid to Indonesia. These were put in place after the 1999 massacres committed by the Indonesian army in East Timor.

Yemen and Uzbekistan, countries that in the past have received little or no U.S. military aid because of their records of corruption and human rights abuses, are now in the front of the line to obtain much more. Uzbekistan gave U.S. forces access to its intelligence and its territory and has received non-lethal military equipment as well as a substantial increase in aid for military training. President Bush has requested $40.5 million in economic and law enforcement assistance for Uzbekistan this year, up from $5.9 million in fiscal 2001.

Recently, government troops in Yemen, who were trained and armed by the U.S., attacked a tribal group believed to be shielding al Qaeda fighters. Now there is a $400 million aid package for Yemen in the pipeline that would reportedly include U.S. special forces training.

In addition, the administration is increasing military aid to states who have been fighting their own wars. In November, President Bush offered the Philippines $92.3 million worth of excess military equipment. The aid is intended to help Manila fight the Abu Sayyef, which allegedly has ties to the al Qaeda network. U.S. soldiers are helping to train Filipino soldiers who are actively fighting members of Abu Sayyef.

The administration is trying to win increased flexibility from Congress to help the Colombian government fight the FARC, insurgents now called "narco-terrorists." The U.S. is also initiating a training program in the former Soviet republic of Georgia-which will involve training roughly 1,200 Georgian soldiers and providing them with light weapons, vehicles and communications equipment-at a cost of $64 million.

The State Department is beginning a program for combat and weapons training for Kenyan soldiers as part of the African Crisis Response Initiative, previously limited to non-lethal peacekeeping training. This shift could clear the way for U.S. forces to use Kenyan bases in an eventual attack on terrorist camps in Somalia.

Also, the Defense Department Appropriations Act includes $17.9 million for a new "Regional Defense Counter-terrorism program." This will fall mostly outside the human rights restrictions and transparency requirements placed on the State Department.

The fight against terrorism must be multifaceted and multilateral and must address the root causes of terrorism - poverty, disease, and environmental degradation. Ultimately, terrorism is a weapon of the politically weak or frustrated. It is a weapon of those who are, or believe themselves to be, unable to have their grievances addressed through conventional means. Recognizing that as a global power the U.S. will always be the target for terrorists, the best defense for the U.S. is to ensure that its foreign policies promote those values for which the U.S. stands. We must promote basic human rights and democracy. By waiving human rights requirements on arms exports and supporting oppressive regimes we are essentially shooting ourselves in the foot.

Recently, U.S. officials acknowledged that in 1994 Iran bought U.S.-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles in Afghanistan. The missiles, left over from the era when Washington was arming the anti-Soviet mujahadeen, were sent by Iran to a terrorist group based in Lebanon.

Suggested Action:

Tell the U.S. Government not to counter terrorism with small arms. The Bush Administration and some members of Congress have been promoting arms sales and military aid as the best way to win foreign government support for the U.S. war on terrorism. Since September 11th, the U.S. government has:

• Provided $73 million in military equipment to Pakistan,
• Offered $92 million worth of weapons to the Philippines,
• Planned a new military aid and weapons package for Turkey and is considering wiping out $5.5 billion in military loans,
• Dropped ban on arms sales to Tajikistan,
• Suspended sanctions against Azerbaijan
• Provided $42.2 million in military aid and training for Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan,

Arms sales are not the answer. Most of the states to which the U.S. is increasing arms sales and military aid are in highly unstable regions. India and Pakistan are on the verge of a major war after Islamic militants attacked the Indian Parliament in December. Azerbaijan and Armenia are still locked in conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-majority enclave in Azerbaijan. Turkey and the Philippines have been cited for human rights violations in their long-standing fights with rebels. Kenya and the Central Asian republics have poor human rights records.

Lifting restrictions on the transfers of weapons may be politically expedient, but it is not good policy. History has shown that sending weapons and military aid to regimes in regions of conflict not only intensifies the violence in those regions, but can also boomerang to hurt U.S. and U.N. interests. In Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and even Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers have faced U.S.-origin weapons or technology in the battlefield. In countless other countries, U.S. weapons sold with disregard for human rights have been used to displace, repress, or kill innocent civilians.

We must tell Congress and the administration that we are strongly opposed to lifting restrictions on weapon sales, which were put in place to protect lives and to support democracy and human rights. There are better ways to build a coalition in support of the U.S. struggle against terrorism, such as economic aid packages or debt relief. These inducements are less likely to end up arming terrorist groups or assisting state-supported repression, and could reduce the poverty that is often the breeding ground of terrorism.

o Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. In your letter, point out the danger of sending weapons to unstable regions and repressive states.
o Urge Congress to use economic and humanitarian aid, instead of military aid, as incentives for our allies in the war on terrorism. Let them know that you favor the highest possible standards for weapons exports.
o Go to http://www.clw.org/atop/intro.html to sign a petition urging the president to exercise caution while exporting weapons, training and military aid.

Sample Letter to the Editor:

Since September 11, Americans have looked to our government to help us feel safe again. But over the last few months, the U.S. government has undertaken some policies that undermine the safety of individuals abroad. In the name of fighting terrorism, Washington has lifted arms embargoes against India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan. It has also offered increased military aid to the Philippines and Turkey and is developing closer military ties with Armenia, Kenya, and the Central Asian states. Most of these states are either involved in, or on the verge of, violent conflict. By sending arms into these regions, the U.S. government may provoke, prolong, or intensify conflicts in which civilians are often the ones who suffer most. Clearly the U.S. needs to cement relationships with strategic partners in its effort to reduce the risk of terrorism. But economic aid or other non-military incentives would do a lot more over the long run to win the confidence of foreign citizens and to bring to them the same safety and stability we seek in this country.

General Assembly
The 213th General Assembly, in its continuing concern for a world whose countries and peoples are able to live in peace and security, expresses its concern regarding ongoing circumstances of violent conflict, fueled by the availability of small arms and light weapons and:

1. Reaffirms the voice of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in support of worldwide efforts in the building of a universal culture of peace, knowing that such an endeavor requires addressing specific patterns of behavior and systems that seem to defy resolution.
2. Recognizes that the human, social, economic, and environmental devastation that is occurring and is enabled by the circulation and availability of small arms and light weapons is a matter of international concern.
3. Calls on the United States government to fulfill its obligations to increase its support for the United Nations in ways that enhance the United Nations' ability to engage in preventive diplomacy, nonviolent conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding, in order to reduce the number of violent conflict situations currently existing, to seek their resolution in nonviolent ways, and to provide the mechanisms and skills that can ultimately remove war as a method of solving conflicts in human affairs. (Minutes, 2001, Part I, p. 275)