|
National Radio Project1714 Franklin Street #100-251 • Oakland, CA 94612 • 510-251-1332ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. For permission to reproduce and/or reprint, please contact us. |
MAKING CONTACT Transcript: #42-00 Beyond the Sky's Limit: U.S. Military Spending Phillip Babich: This week on Making Contact.... Peter Ferenbach: Of the money that Congress actually decides how to spend, over half of it goes to the military. It's about 18 times what goes into education, for instance, which is ostensibly everybody's biggest priority this year. William Hartung: Lockheed-Martin has given millions. They've skewed their money heavily towards conservative Republicans who have been looking after Star Wars spending. House Republicans added $80 million for something called "Navy Feeder Wide" which is a version of missile defense that would be based on ships, and that would benefit Lockheed-Martin directly. Phillip Babich: Both major political parties are pushing for greater military spending; this at a time when the U.S. military budget is at Cold War levels and has been increasing over the past few years. On this program, we take a look at some of the weapons U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for, and what military spending priorities lie ahead. I'm Phillip Babich -- your host this week on Making Contact -- an international radio program seeking to create connections between people vital ideas and important information. In a briefing paper from the Al Gore for President campaign, the Vice President proposes to spend $100 billion dollars of the projected federal budget surplus over the next ten years on national security. This money is in addition to a $112 billion dollar increase for military spending over the same period agreed upon by Congress, the White House and the Pentagon in 1999, bringing the total military spending to about $320 billion per year over the next ten years. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush is proposing to spend a less hefty chunk of the projected surplus on the U.S. military. But he's solidly in favor of a more expansive National Missile Defense System than the one Al Gore supports. Bush's Star Wars plan, according to some figures, could cost as much as $240 billion dollars. With all this military money being thrown around, one might ask: Where's the war? Peter Ferenbach is the executive director of California Peace Action. The group's primary focus is to get the public involved in issues around military spending and foreign policy. Ferenbach says that the current military budget is already out of control. Peter Ferenbach: It's over $300 billion. It's about two and a half times the combined military budget of Russia, China and the six countries that are identified as the so-called "rogue nations". Obviously there's a lot of racist assumptions in that definition, but in any event, two and a half times as large as those combined budgets. Right now the politicians are stumbling over one another to throw money at the Pentagon. It's almost embarrassing to watch. Phillip Babich: Ferenbach adds that as long as the U.S. public believes that current -- and increasing -- levels of military spending are justified, it will be business as usual at the Pentagon. Peter Ferenbach: You know, I heard Dick Cheney recently say that, you know it's a percentage of the gross national product. You know, the military spending is the lowest it's been since the year before Pearl Harbor, right? You know, come on! If you look at the size of the economy, this statistic is ridiculous. As long as you say they know better, we're going to have a situation where education as a federal budget item gets $42 billion and the Pentagon gets more than $300 billion; where housing gets $12.3 [billion] versus $310 [billion]. It's an outrage. And if we look at the things that are really facing in our communities and which are really about national security, it's you know, it's people don't have a place to live. Our schools are crummy. People don't have health care. Working people work two jobs. You know these types of things are a much greater threat to our country than Russia and their $8 billion military budget. I mean come on, it's a joke. Phillip Babich: Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is more than willing to spend lavishly on military programs, according to Miriam Pemberton, with the Washington DC-based Institute for Policy Studies. Miriam Pemberton: It's really interesting to look at the programs that Congress funds that the administration has not even asked for. One for example, is $460 million more than the Navy wanted for amphibious assault vehicles. And they're going to be built in Senate majority leader Trent Lott's district. So, it's pretty clear how that money came to be in there, and it has nothing to do with the force structure requirements set by the Pentagon or what the Pentagon thinks it needs to carry out its mission. It's just about pork. Phillip Babich: Heavy military spending continues on former President Ronald Reagan's dream of Star Wars, a national missile defense system. According to a recent report titled, "Tangled Web: The Marketing of Missile Defense, 1994-2000," co-authored by William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, U.S. taxpayers have spent $70 billion on national missile defense research and development programs over the past 18 years. William Hartung, senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute, joins us from his office in New York City. Bill, thanks for joining us. William Hartung: Yes, thanks for having me. Phillip Babich: Sure. Well, proponents for of the National Missile Defense System want the U.S. military to have the capability to shoot down an enemy missile headed for the United States. There was a successful test in October, 1999; a failed test in January, 2000 and another failed test in July, 2000. What's your assessment of the viability of a national missile defense system? William Hartung: Well, I think it's unworkable technically, but also it's dangerous strategically. It's not the best way to defend the country. For the most part, missile defense is being pushed by conservative ideologues who view it as Ronald Reagan's dream that must be realized. And these folks seem to have forgotten that even Ronald Reagan didn't build Star Wars. When he had the choice, he decided instead to finally take Gorbachev up on his offer and reduce nuclear weapons. And I think, likewise, the best way to protect us from any possible threat is to reduce nuclear weapons: to engage countries like North Korea to cap their missile programs, as they have done currently under negotiations that the Clinton administration had been pursuing for some years. So, I think a lot of the threat of missiles is exaggerated. But even if these countries were to get ballistic missiles it'd be. the strongest defense we have is deterrence. It's not great but basically they would know that were they to launch ballistic missiles at us, they and their countries would be destroyed in return. And that kept the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War from attacking the United States, and it would certainly keep North Korea or Iraq from attacking us, if they even had missiles which can reach our shore, which they don't have. But there's no end of proposals from the folks who are the true believers, because this is their mission in life to build missile defense. And of course, the contractors and some of the folks in the Pentagon will laugh all the way to the bank if we blow additional billions of dollars on this. As you pointed out in the opening, we've already spent $70 billion since Ronald Reagan gave his Star Wars speech. And we have almost nothing to show for it, certainly nothing that's going to defend our country. Phillip Babich: What are some of projections that you've come across for a completed. the cost of a completed national missile defense system? William Hartung: The Clinton-Gore approach which would initially start with some interceptor missiles in Alaska and then possibly add some in North Dakota, would cost a minimum of $60 billion. George Bush's plan which has not been very carefully sketched out, but he is contemplating weapons in space, on ships, on aircraft and planes in the atmosphere and on land: kind of a multi-tiered Ronald Reagan Star Wars umbrella kind of approach. That could easily cost $240 billion or more. So it would probably the most expensive undertaking that the Pentagon has ever contemplated. And it's amazing, really breathtaking, to see George W. Bush just blow off these proposals and these numbers as if we can afford this without having to sacrifice in other areas. Phillip Babich: You mentioned some conservative ideologues and private contractors who are strongly supporting and have been strongly supporting the National Missile Defense System. Can you name a few ideologues and the corporations that are behind this? William Hartung: Yes, there's a group called the Center for Security Policy run by a gentleman named Frank Gaffney who is so conservative he basically had to leave the Reagan Pentagon when Reagan started making arms deals with the Russians. When he set this thing up shortly after leaving the Reagan administration, he got funding from conservative foundations. But he also got money from Lockheed-Martin, which at that time was Lockheed, but he's getting money from many of the major missile defense contractors. One of his contributors and a close associate of his organization is Donald Rumsfeld who is the one who put out a report a couple summers ago, raising the alarm bell about the North Korean missile threat. Now Donald Rumsfeld is not only a contributor to this pro-missile defense group, he's on the board of Empower America which did ads against Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer and Harry Reed, taking them to task for not supporting the Republican version of a missile defense, claiming they were leaving our American families defenseless. So to have a partisan like him appointed by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey to do what was supposed to be an objective assessment should be a national joke. But in fact, Rumsfeld has been taken seriously. He has changed the character of the debate such that because of his commission and the way those findings were spun in public, we're now cowering about a North Korean threat that really doesn't exist. I mean, they've tested two missiles in ten years. Both of those tests were failures. They're now in the midst of a rapprochement with South Korea. They can barely feed their own people. We're spending more for our military virtually than they spend on their entire economy. So the notion that that country is going to launch a ballistic missile at us is so unlikely as to be not really worth even planning for, given all the potential threats and problems that our country faces. But because people like Frank Gaffney, like Donald Rumsfeld, like Kurt Weldon who runs the R&D subcommittee in the House that funds a lot of this stuff, because they have pushed so vigorously for this, because corporations and conservative foundations have helped them and because until recently Bill Clinton and Al Gore have kept meeting them half way--have never put their foot down--basically we're throwing good money on a system that really has very little prospect of defending us and is quite likely to spark a new global arms race. Phillip Babich: And the corporations are behind this? William Hartung: Well the big four are Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Ratheon and TRW. And the four of them in the last couple years has split over $2 billion in R&D and development contracts for missile defense. Lockheed-Martin just got a $4 billion contract extension for a system called FHAD, Feeder High Altitude Defense system. And that's a system that has succeeded in only two out of eight tests. Now if I was in the major leagues and I was batting 250, I would not get a $4 billion contract extension. But because Lockheed-Martin has hired the former head of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, is totally wired in Washington, they are able to get that kind of money for a program that they were almost fired from two years ago because of the technical, which is the cost overruns. And FHAD now is one of the programs as being put forward as the possible alternative to the National Missile Defense program that President Clinton has put on the shelf. So these contractors have no end of proposals. They're willing to spend our money literally until the end of time if we let them. But I think somebody has got to stand up to them and say: This is not a defense program for our country, this is basically a boondoggle to bail out defense contractors who have had a very difficult time in this recent years really managing any kind of sophisticated program without major problems, major mistakes not to mention a certain amount of corruption. Phillip Babich: I've been speaking with William Hartung, Senior Research Fellow at the World Policy Institute. Bill, thanks so much for joining us on Making Contact. William Hartung: Yes, thanks for having me. Phillip Babich: You're listening to Making Contact, a production of the National Radio Project. If you want more information about this broadcast, we'll be giving out our toll free number at the end of this program. Another area of intense military spending is on nuclear weapons development. In 1992, the U.S. government began a moratorium on full-scale nuclear weapons testing. But, nuclear weapons are still a cornerstone of U.S. military policy. The U.S. Department of Energy's "Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program" is a multi-billion dollar project to maintain and upgrade the nation's nuclear arsenal without full-scale testing. Correspondent Ed Rippy has more: Ed Rippy: The B61-11 Earth Penetrator nuclear bomb was certified safe and reliable under the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Instead of a full-scale test of the bomb, the weapons labs used a combination of scaled-down tests and computer simulations to determine that it would work. Western States Legal Foundation is an anti-nuclear weapons organization in Oakland, California. Executive director, Jacqueline Cabasso, explains what declassified documents reveal about Stockpile Stewardship: Jacqueline Cabasso: What it really is is a program to replace every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, to design new nuclear weapons, to do research and development of other kinds of high-tech weapons for the future--including spaced-based weapons and weapons that may blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons. Ed Rippy: The U.S. government says it's not building new bombs, just modifying the ones it has. But the B61-11 is the first nuclear bomb that can penetrate 50 meters of earth to destroy underground bunkers. Stockpile Stewardship costs over $4.5 billion a year, more than the Cold War average for nuclear weapons research, design, development and testing. It includes a giant laser-driven fusion reactor in Livermore, California, a high speed 3-D X-ray camera in Los Alamos, New Mexico and so-called sub-critical tests. These are tests of bombs modified so they don't create a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. The U.S. government claims sub-critical tests don't violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty since they have no measurable nuclear yields. The experimental facilities produce data which scientists feed into their computers to predict what happens to nuclear weapons as they age and the effects of changes in bomb design. None of this is needed, experts say, simply to maintain the current stockpile. Again Jacqueline Cabasso: Jacqueline Cabasso: It's really to train a new generation of nuclear weapons designers. And the Department of Energy does admit that. It is also to maintain and expand understanding of nuclear weapons science. The Department of Energy does admit that. It is also to--according to one lab spokesperson who was showing a chart at some meeting with all of the programs under Stockpile Stewardship--the way we are going to maintain our nuclear weapons superiority. Ed Rippy: Dr. Robert Civiak is a private consultant who used to work in the federal office of Management and Budget, analyzing the Stockpile Stewardship Program. He says that, while the United States urges other countries to give up nuclear testing, Stockpile Stewardship sends a threatening message to the rest of the world. Dr. Robert Civiak: We're asking the rest of the world to forego development of nuclear weapons but the United States has this aggressive program to understand...push the limits of nuclear weapons science which will give us the ability to develop new nuclear weapons, new kinds of nuclear weapons without underground testing if we are successful. And it's threatening to other nations. Ed Rippy: Department of Energy officials preferred not to be recorded for this story. But in a press release, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said: "I am proud to again certify to President Clinton that the nation's nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable, thanks to the dedicated efforts of the men and women of the Department of Energy's Weapons Complex." He went on to say: "What's at stake here is the operational readiness of the nations' nuclear arsenal and our ability maintain that readiness without the need for underground testing. The Departments of Energy and Defense continue to succeed in this critical mission." The unclassified executive summary of a secret report on the program mentions a plan to build new plutonium triggers for the warheads on some submarine launched missiles. The report also stresses the need to train a new generation of weapons scientists before the current ones retire. Some parts of Stockpile Stewardship are still under construction such as the National Ignition Facility, Livermore's laser-driven fusion reactor. It suffered repeated cost overruns and delays. Tri-Valley Citizens Against A Radioactive Environment, a citizens group in Livermore, has fought the laser project every step of the way. Executive director, Marylia Kelly describes some of the technical problems in igniting thermo-nuclear fusion. Marylia Kelly: Livermore Laboratory has not yet come up with a target for the laser beams to hit that might be ignition capable, even though the lab has worked on this for many years already. Right now Livermore lab is looking at three different materials for the target, two kinds of plastics and berillium. Each of those materials has its own unique problem, and none of them can be certified as a sort of baseline ignition capable target. To resolve these problems and come up with a target, again, may take many more years and many, many, many millions of dollars. Ed Rippy: Despite the problems and delays, the Department of Energy says it will do whatever it takes to make the laser work since it's a vital part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. For Making Contact, this is Ed Rippy. Phillip Babich: The U.S. government also spends money to assist U.S.-based arms manufacturers in selling weapons abroad. The arms trade worldwide totals about $800 billion dollars in revenues annually. The United States has a huge stake in this trade as the number one exporter of arms in the world. U.S. taxpayers spend about $7 billion dollars each year subsidizing weapons exports to foreign countries, while U.S. weapons manufacturers make billions of dollars in profits. Making Contact's Orla Rapple has more: Orla Rapple: On August 30, 2000, peace activists took to the streets in San Francisco and other cities across the United States to rally against the U.S. government's plan to send approximately $1.5 billion in aid to Colombia. The U.S. plan ostensibly put in place to help the Colombian government to fight drug traffickers calls for more than $1 million to train and equip the Colombian army and police force. It includes the delivery of 18 Blackhawk helicopters and 42 Huey II helicopters. Many people at the rally, held on the day that President Clinton was visiting Colombia to demonstrate his support for the plan, pointed out that instead of alleviating Colombia's problems, this money was in fact doing nothing more than making a profit for military corporations that manufacture equipment sent to Colombia. Orla Rapple: Military aid is not the only way in which foreign countries procure weapons from U.S. corporations. Weapons made in the U.S. are sold, leased and given to governments throughout the world. In 1999, approximately 138 of the planet's 190 independent states took delivery of U.S. military equipment or training. Last year, U.S. companies made nearly $12 billion in foreign arms sales. According to the annual Congressional Research Service Report, U.S. corporations are by far the biggest supplier of weapons in the world, accounting for 38% of the global total. Selling arms abroad is big business for weapons manufacturers, and most arm companies have a niche in this foreign market, according to Eric Flodon, the director of the Conventional Arms Transfer Project, an organization which monitors government policy and encourages sensible limits on the arms trade. Eric Flodon: There's a wide variety of different things: small weapons manufacturers are selling things like M-16s and pistols overseas and those would be your small gun manufacturers, Remington and those types of companies. And then everything from there all the way on up to the largest items like fighter jets and things along those lines. Lockheed-Martin has a very active market in F-16s. It's one of the most successful foreign sales export items in the country. General Dynamics makes tanks and armored personnel carriers, which they sell overseas. So you really name it, the United States is able to provide almost any country with the type of weaponry and equipment that they need. Orla Rapple: Arms transfers have been a primary instrument of U.S. foreign policy since the 1970s. The U.S. government justifies foreign arms sales by arguing that recipient nations need U.S. arms in order to take responsibility for legitimate self-defense. There are several principal means by which America can export weapons and military services abroad, including foreign military sales, direct commercial sales and equipment leases. Most arms deals begin with contact between a foreign government and what's known as a U.S. security assistance organization. These consist of military personnel located in diplomatic posts and embassies abroad. Security assistance organizations help foreign militaries define their needs, provide them with data on American military equipment and function as the primary in-country point of contact for U.S. weapon contractors. However, in some cases, U.S. companies directly market their weapons to countries. Tamar Gablenick is the director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project of the Federation of American Scientists in Washington DC. Tamar Gabelnick: Sometimes it's the foreign approaching the embassy, the U.S. embassy on site and saying: We're interested in a certain weapons system. What do you have; what can you sell us? And sometimes it's the U.S. government or the U.S. embassy, but also the U.S. government going around and almost creating a need and going to a foreign capitol and saying: We really think that you're threatened. Like in the Middle East, Secretary Cohen has been going around and talking about threats from Iran and Iraq. And trying to convince the countries of the Persian Gulf that they really need this warning system, early warning system, that perhaps those countries weren't even thinking that they need it ahead of time. But Cohen obviously wants to make this sale. Orla Rapple: There are currently 24 governments ineligible to import any American weapons, including Iraq, China and Rwanda. The U.S. State Department imposed these restrictions due to United Nations Security Council mandated arms embargoes, chronic warfare or evidence that the government in question sponsors terrorist activity. However, as Tamar Gabelnick points out, the U.S. is supplying arms to countries that are accused of human rights abuses. Tamar Gabelnick: There is really limited legal restrictions on who may receive U.S. arms and military training. There's one restriction that says countries that are involved in gross and consistent human rights abuses shall not receive U.S. arms or training. But because it's so vague and so serious, basically the government can justify delivery to any country. Eric Flodon: There are several countries that the U.S. supplies weapons to which are engaged in either ethnic conflicts or interstate conflicts. Orla Rapple: Eric Flodon: Eric Flodon: Turkey, for example. Turkey is engaged in a war in the south with its Kurdish minority. It has been fighting this war for many, many years. And because Turkey is a NATO ally and a strong partner with the U.S. in the region, the U.S. is a major supplier for Turkish weapons. There are many groups in the United States and also in Turkey who are opposed to this and feel that until Turkey has a...at least a decent human rights record the United States should not supply them with weapons. Orla Rapple: Meanwhile U.S. companies are also arming Greece, Turkey's main rival, with proposed deals worth over $5 billion in 1998. For Making Contact, I'm Orla Rapple. Phillip Babich: Many groups in the United States are working to challenge heavy military spending. One example is the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee. Mary Loehr is director of that organization. Mary Loehr: I personally became a war tax resistor seventeen years ago. I don't want my taxes going to pay for killing, basically. And so I became a tax resistor without knowing about this group actually. Phillip Babich: Loehr adds there are other ways to be a war tax resistor. Mary Loehr: Some people choose to file their taxes and to write a letter of protest, saying: I wish this weren't so, and I wish there were a legal way for me to be a tax resistor. And they file their taxes. Some people file but they withhold a percentage: sometimes it's a symbolic amount, sometimes it's around 50% because that's the percent around which goes to pay for the military so it's budgeted in the federal budget. Some people file and withhold the whole thing, and some people choose not to file. Some people choose, as I did earlier, to stay under a taxable income. Phillip Babich: Another example of challenging military spending, says Peter Ferenbach of California Peace Action, is old-fashioned lobbying. Peter Ferenbach: Basically, giving them hell at every possible opportunity. You know, right now we're in the middle of a campaign called Peace Voter. And one of the big focuses is that at every campaign appearance and every campaign candidate forum and when the candidates appear on the radio, we make sure there are people there who basically want to confront the politicians about these things. And what people have to do is attend those events; go to the town meetings and put the pressure on. When politicians face a tough question in front of a room full of people about these things, they don't like it and they squirm. And if that doesn't happen then they're just going to chug along and do what they do. The letters, the phone calls, but most of all being there and talking about it and getting those issues out are ultimately what makes the change. Phillip Babich: That's it for this edition of Making Contact: A look at U.S. military spending. Thanks for listening. And, special thanks this week to Robert Frazier for recorded portions. We had production assistance from Orla Rapple. Laura Livoti is our managing director. Peggy Law, executive director. Associate producer, Stephanie Welch. Senior advisor, Norman Solomon. National producer, David Barsamian. Women's desk coordinator, Lisa Rudman. Prison desk coordinator, Eli Rosenblatt. Production assistant, Shereen Meraji. And, I'm your host and managing producer Phillip Babich. If you want more information about the subject of this week's program, call the National Radio Project at 800-529-5736. Call that same number for tapes and transcripts. That's 800-529-5736. You can also go to our website at www.radioproject.org. Making Contact is an independent production. We're committed to providing a forum for voices and opinions not often heard in the mass media. Our theme music is by the Charlie Hunter trio. Bye for now. |