Not mentioned by the media

A nasty consequence of a very beautiful word such as free market is being free to sell whatever you want. Apart from drugs, because they could kill people.

On the February 6 2009 issue of the Fpif (Foreign Politics in Focus), an on-line Think thank on USA foreign politics (that I have been addressed to during another class I am attending at Ramapo), I have read an article on USA weapons sales. I wondered how many people know about it. Since it is a very important matter for the nation, people should be aware of it. But why, then, I have never heard any comment on it on TV or the papers. Not even last weekend when the president presented the budget to the public and raised again, like every year, the tax payers money destined to military expenditure, under the name of ‘defense’ expenditure? People should know how the government spend their money. Or maybe this is so obvious that it is not even needed to be mentioned in the news? When I read the article I remembered I already had heard about it from a book I studied at university for an exam of contemporary history. But then, because nobody has never mentioned it again to me, I kind of removed it from my mind.

“The Pentagon announced last October a deal for the sale of $6.5 billion in arms to Taiwan, including 30 Apache attack helicopters, 330 Patriot missiles, and 32 Harpoon missiles.
The Taiwan sale is but one of hundreds of deals the Bush administration made in its two terms. In 2008, as in each of the previous seven years, the United States led the world in arms sales at $32 billion. In 2006-2007, the U.S. sold weapons to more than 170 nations, up from 123 at the start of the Bush administration. These arms deals are supposed to accomplish a range of foreign policy goals: winning influence, gaining access, maintaining and encouraging friendly regimes, as well as bolstering the U.S. balance of payments and domestic economy. At the same time, these large-scale weapons sales prop up teetering regimes and dictatorships, sow discord, promote violent solutions to international problems, and result in widespread civilian suffering. In fact, U.S. weapons "played a role in 20 of the world's 27 major wars in 2006-07," according to a December 2008, report from the New American Foundation. Weapons from the United States are now present in half of the major armed conflicts currently taking place worldwide. And 13 of the 25 leading U.S. clients were either undemocratic and/or guilty of human rights violations, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Korea, Kuwait, Egypt, and Colombia.”
Senator Joseph Biden complained in 1982. "We had close to $30 billion worth of the most sophisticated arms in the world in Iran." And yet, "without a shot being fired, the Shah was marched out of the country." Now, "all those weapons are either lying dormant or have become accessible to the Soviet Union." Indeed, massive arms sales proved better instruments for dealing with balance of payments problems than for charting a sustainable foreign policy.
Though the years immediately after the end of the Cold War brought a sharp decline in arms sales, this trend was soon reversed. Within a few short years arms-makers adapted, and the administration of Bill Clinton obliged with aggressive marketing and massive subsidies. Presidential Decision Directive 34, issued in February 1995, articulated the new strategy of promotion of arms sales: "the United States continues to view transfers of conventional arms as a legitimate instrument of U.S. foreign policy — deserving U.S. government support — when they enable us to help friends and allies deter aggression, promote regional security, and increase interoperability of U.S. forces and allied forces." Both directly and indirectly, neoliberalism and globalization of the post-Cold War decade were very good to arms exporters.
Building on this trend — and spurred by the events of 9/11 — the Bush administration took arms exports to a new level.
James Carter, "Obama: Cut Arms Exports," (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 6, 2009).

I was wondering why these facts are not in the news every day if they are so an important for the foreign policy of the country? What do you think? They should be forced to mention such kind of things? No, they are actually free not do mention such things. Why bother? It is disturbing. This is not what people want to hear. But they are the one who pay for it. Shouln't they know what they pay tax for?

Why the government does not mention this too much? When they do they call it defense. The government could tell the tax payers whose money are used to build these arms: “Listen, we are investing your money. These sales are beneficial for the economy and you will benefit of them too.” Why not? Probably because the government is aware that building an economy on selling weapons (as their primary use id that of killing people) is immoral.

They don't mention it also because making this public by talking about it on TV every day could lead American people to protest and say that they don’t want to invest their money in such kind of business sector. Some of them would say that they prefer to invest in something that does not kill people, even if it is less profitable. I believe many American people would do so. If reminded constantly on TV they would do it. But if reminded just once they would forget about it the day after like I did.

Some people could think that this is a result of the unstoppable flow of progress. And this is just another way to say that they find it OK as they think they could be benefit from it too. But are we really sure that the fact that the rich companies in a country become richer means that everyone becomes richer?
It is a little bit like in Italy. Some people voted for Berlusconi (including myself, and twice as far as I remember) because they thought that if its companies were getting rich the country would benefit from it too. To be honest nothing of the kind has happened so far. Not at all. People still get the same wages. Where are these money? So could it be that the ones who benefit from these sales in the USA are most of all big companies? What is the relationship between these big companies and people in power? How do they convince them in investing money in their business? Threatening them? Like it happens in Italy?
Other people would not want it to be said. Because it harms the reputation of the nation abroad. But this is even more immoral, isn’t it?

I really share the hope of the author of the article that things are going to change. And I believe that yes, they can. Especially as the Vice president seemed to oppose such kind of things. But people should say something to convince the government on such a matter. Otherwise the government could think that people are not concerned by this at all. But who should tell people if both the government and the press are free not to do it?