Online NewsHour: Forum: Arms sales code of conduct -- July 2, 1996

ARMS SALES CODE OF CONDUCT

July 2, 1996

NewsHour coverage of the U.S. military.

Browse past Online NewsHour forums

Should foreign military arms sales be subject only to loose restrictions and the free market economy, or should there be distinct guidelines to whom we sell our weapons? This issue, which potentially touches on the livelihood of thousands of American workers and the shape of U.S. foreign policy, is being debated this week in the Senate. The bill in question is S-326 (HR-772), better known as the "Code of Conduct" bill. Introduced into Congress by bipartisan sponsors, Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), the "Code of Conduct" would prohibit arms exports to any government that does not meet the criteria set out in the law, unless the President exempts a country and Congress passes a law affirming that exemption. The four conditions a country would have to meet in order to be eligible for U.S. weapons are: democratic form of government, respect for basic human rights of citizens, non-aggression (against other states), and full participation in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms. Present policy leaves the issue largely up to Presidential discrestion, on a country by country basis.

Opponents of the bill, who include Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Republican Rep. Dan Burton, argue that it will accelerate downsizing for an industry that has already seen 1.5 million layoffs since the end of the Cold War in 1989. Global arms spending has receded to 1970's levels. By extension, the U.S. Arms business, opponents say, has seen sales shrink from a high of $21 billion in 1987 to $12 billion in 1994. It doesn't, they say, need further help in this area from Congress. President Clinton has also come out against the bill. He reasons that arms sales are a key part of the foreign policy leverage that he needs to be an effective world leader.

Supporters of the bill, who include Democrats and conservative Republicans such as Rep. Bob Dornan, counter that unrestricted sales of arms overseas feeds international instability. They point to past U.S. arms customers Iraq, Haiti, Liberia and Somalia as examples of countries who have come back to haunt American foreign policy. Under the "Code of Conduct," the lack of democracy in these countries, amongst other issues, would have prevented sales. As the country presently making the most sophisticated weaponry and holding 65% of global arms sales, supporters argue that the "Code" would go along way to helping promote "Pax Americana."

Our Forum asked: How will the "Code" effect the Presidents ability to carry out foreign policy? What will its results be for arms industry workers? What if stricter arms sales policies solve nothing and boost the market share of other weapons producing countries with less strict policies, such as France and Russia? What tangible gains will the bill provide?

Rep. Cynthia McKinney's answers to your questions are below.

Walter Duffet of Pittsburgh, PA asks:

Your bill, in spite of being very forward thinking in international affairs, is on the brink of defeat. If it ultimately doesn't pass Congress to become law, do you still feel you will have achieved something? If so, what? What next steps do take if it fails?

Rep. McKinney replies:

We have already achieved a lot. The Code of Conduct, as with most efforts in international affairs, is a long term effort and an educational process. Although the Code was not approved by the 104th Congress, 157 Members of Congress voted for the Code, and on July 25, 35 Senators support the Code. This was the first Senate vote on arms control in over 20 years. We are hopeful that the Code will be successful next year - or the year thereafter.

Orde W. Lawrence of Victoria, British Columbia asks:

What kind of reaction have you got for your bill from foreign governments? I ask this because I know countries like France and Israel don't worry much about who buys their weapons. The French even helped the Argentines arm Exocet missiles during their war with Britain over the Falklands. It seems to me that such countries would be happy to have less U.S. involvement in international arms sales.

Rep. McKinney responds:

This is an excellent question which addresses a major concern. I am happy to say that similar efforts are underway in other Western democracies which export arms. The European Community and several of its individual members are undertaking efforts which are similar to and supportive of the Code. Moreover, former President Arias is leading an effort at the United Nations. It is very important to keep in mid that the United States is the largest supplier of arms; therefore we must take the lead in controlling arms sales.

George St. John of Hartford, CT:

How do you answer the Presidents contention that your bill would restrict his ability to effectively carry out his foreign policy agenda? U.S. arms can be a useful tool to bring wavering nations over to the American sphere of influence.

Rep. McKinney responds:

We believe that all successful foreign policy is the result of collaboration between the President and the Congress. We believe that the Code will strengthen the Presidents hand in dealing with countries that do not respect basic human rights.

Arlo Spencer of San Diego, CA

Your bill, if successful, would cut U.S. arms sales and U.S. jobs by extension. What answers do you have for the laid off workers that your bill would create? What about their future?

Rep. McKinney responds:

American workers who produce weapons are already among the most highly skilled workers in the world. I support funds to prepare these worker to find new jobs in our rapidly expanding economy. We should also do more to help some arms producers to convert to other production. We should keep in mind that significant production of American weapons takes place in other countries through coproduction and licensing.

Jeremy Muggeridge of Atlanta, GA asks:

What if your bill does pass? What effects do you foresee it bringing on the international stage?

Rep. McKinney responds:

As I noted earlier, this effort is already on the world stage. The EC and many of its members, as well as the U.N. are already engaged.

Program
Support
From: