A new Congressional Research Service report on "U.S. Arms Sales to Pakistan" recently obtained by the FAS provides a succinct overview of recent U.S. arms sales to General Pervez Musharraf's regime, the tumultous fifty-year history of US security assistance to Pakistan, and presidential authority to stop such sales. The release of the report coincides with a worsening political crisis in Pakistan and growing Congressional and public discontent over the United States' multi-billion dollar military aid program for General Musharraf's beseiged and increasingly authoritarian regime.
The 4-page report, which was written by veteran analyst Richard Grimmett, contains several noteworthy observations. According to the report, arms transfer agreements with Pakistan totaled more than $3.5 billion in 2006 - nearly equal to the combined total of arms sales to the troubled South Asian nation from FY1950 to FY2001. These statistics reflect a sudden and dramatic shift in US arms trade policy toward Pakistan after September 11th that transformed the country from pariah state to major aid recipient practically overnight. Within weeks of the attack, the Bush administration waived prohibitions on arms transfers to Pakistan that were imposed following tit-for-tat nuclear tests with India in 1998 and the coup that brought President Musharraf to power in 1999. Since 2001, Pakistan has become one of the largest recipients of U.S. security assistance, including arms transfers; from FY2002 to FY2006, Musharraf's regime has received nearly $1 billion in Foreign Military Financing (grant aid provided to foreign countries specifically for the purchase of US weapons), and has signed government-to-government agreements for nearly $4.34 billion in U.S. weaponry, according to the Defense Department.*
The CRS report also notes that U.S. law gives the president the power to terminate arms sales at any point, a particularly timely observation in light of growing Congressional discontent with arms sales and military aid for Pakistan. On November 8th, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden warned that "if President Musharraf does not restore his nation to the democratic path, U.S. military aid will be in great jeopardy." On the chopping block would be "big ticket weapon systems intended primarily to maintain the balance of power with India," including the 36 F-16 fighter aircraft promised to the Pakistani military last summer. The F-16 has become a symbol of America's on-again, off-again relationship with Pakistan, and the multi-billion dollar deal signed last year was seen as the completion of the latest repproachment between the two countries. The current tumult in Pakistan suggests that the sale may have been premature, however, and that a more gradual resumption of major arms sales - preferably pegged to significant, lasting progress in regards to regional peace and stability, democratic governance and effective counter-terrorism operations - might have been more prudent.
Should President Musharraf survive the current challenge to his rule but fail to take significant steps to restore democracy and rule of law, US policymakers will face a difficult choice: cut off some or all arms sales to Pakistan for the third time in four decades and possibly jeopardize ongoing counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan (and America's reputation as a reliable arms supplier and ally), or deliver F-16s and other weapons to an increasingly authoritarian and unpopular regime and sully America's image as a champion of human rights and democracy. With any luck, the current crisis will be resolved in a way that precludes this tough choice. Regardless, the F-16 sale - and arms sales to Pakistan more broadly - underscore the need to error on the side of caution and restraint when arming potentially volatile and unstable countries.
*This number does not include commercial arms exports. For data on licenses issued for commercial exports to Pakistan, see the State Department's section of the annual "Section 655 report." For data on deliveries, see page 67 of "Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales And Other Security Cooperation."
For more information on U.S. arms sales and military aid to Pakistan, see
"U.S. Arms Sales to Pakistan," Congressional Research Service, 8 November 2007."Biden calls for New Approach to Pakistan," 8 November 2007.
"Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1999-2006," Congressional Research Service, 26 September 2007.
Annual
"Section 655" report on US Military Assistance. Includes country-by-country summaries of US arms sales by commodity.
"Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales And Other Security Cooperation," Defense Security Cooperation Agency, September 2007. Includes annual dollar value totals for US arms sales and military aid to each country from FY1997 - FY2006, and cumulative data from FY1950 - FY1996.
"Combat Aircraft Sales to South Asia," Congressional Research Service, 6 July 2006.
"Lawmakers Scold Administration Over F-16 Sale to Pakistan," FAS Strategic Security Blog, 23 July 2006.
Transcript of Panel Discussion on Arms Transfers to India and Pakistan, 28 january 2003.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
Please stop being fooled.
Follow your own advice.
Look at it this way: Benazir Bhutto has been detained twice in the last few weeks. Each time, she was released within a day or two. Would anyone give President Bush credit for pressuring Musharraf? I doubt it, but I don't doubt that Bush will be blamed for all of this "unrest" in Pakistan. It's happening under his watch, after all, to which I say YES, it is. Who got Musharaf to allow Bhutto back in the country? It wasn't the Islamic parties, that's for sure.
I'm of the opinion that Bhutto is corrupt, but may be necessary to the resolution of the Pakistan-India-Taliban dilemma. She's the devil we know, over the devil we know is worse, Osama Bin Laden. It's a scary choice, which brings me back to Musharraf; if he can continue to control the army, after he takes the "uniform" off.
I'm still not sure what grounds the Pakistani Supreme Court overturned his election. Under their ruling, his whole presidency would be rendered invalid, including all of his executive orders, and laws he signed. A military General has been running the nation for several years, and he was recently re-elected, in an election that was boycotted by much of the opposition.
I don't worry about the weapons that we sell to Pakistan too much. They can't maintain these weapons for a prolonged period, without US support. And believe me, these weapons need constant maintenance, and support, to be functional.
How many of the Left Wing wackos on this site will actually be able to understand your excellent analysis of the Pakistan/Taliban/Bhutto/Musharraf dilemma?
How ironic, again, that the US is spending $500,000 per MINUTE on the war in Iraq (not an exaggeration, an actual number) under the guise of spreading democracy (Made by Haliburton?), we are the ones again keeping another dictator in power. Or, at best, asking him to make a deal with a corrupt ex-PM who has Interpol warrants out for her.
Then we will wonder in 10 years why the Pakistanis hate us so much and why the 3-5% Islamic party support will grow to 30-50% at that time. It's called the Doh!MadStick Policy instead of Foreign Policy of a sane government interested in a safe future for America.
Thanks.
Imran
http://imran.com/media/blog/ for more.
You and I agree on many things as conservatives. However, the foreign policy you're suggesting sounds more like isolationism than anything else.
Economically, and budget-wise, we agree.
As for Ron Paul, we disagree. He has many good ideas, but he has a very small following. I think we should throw our full weight, as conservatives, behind a candidate who actually has a chance to win.
We don't have any business dictating that any other country needs to be a democracy. Democracy works better when there's a more uniform education level, common language, belief system...that sort of thing. We forget that back in the 1800s here in America, our country plunged into civil war over different beliefs also. What did President Lincoln do? He squashed the rebellion, and restored order. Was it clean and nice? NO. It wasn't. Many people died in this cause to restore order.
Let's not be so hasty and arrogant to assume that we understand Pakistan, Asia, or India so well. Spend time with real people from mainstream parts of their society, go there, and don't believe all you read in newspapers and watch on CNN.
Your post is just one more reason why the United States must make a fundamental change in its geopolitical policy. The endless policy of intervention, manipulation, installation and removal of puppet dictators, bribery with "aid" and military transfers that serve as a lifeline for the burdensome onerous military - industrial complex MUST STOP. The lies that the right propounds, i.e., that we will be infiltrated by terrorists and it's better to fight them there than here have nothing to do with reality. The mess that we are in in the Mideast and Southwest Asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan) are the results of our policy of intervention. By removing the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953, and installing our puppet the Shah, we earned the hatred of the Iranian people and laid a foundation for the Ayatollah Kohmeini. By getting ourselves involved in the Russian-Afghanistan conflict, we created what became the Taliban whom we then had to remove because they sheltered Al Queda, whose leader Osama B-L turned against the US when we occupied Saudi Arabia in the George Bush the First Gulf War, which had NOTHING to do with sovereignty or justice and EVERYTHING to do with oil. WE created our Vietnam War because we stupidly sided with the French in their post-war attempt to hold onto their Southeast Asia colony. That was how we repaid Ho Chi Minh who rescued down American pilots in WW II, and who loved our Declaration of Independence.
Americans who believe that g-o-d is on their side and that whatever we do is right had better wake up. EVERY nation in this world has the absolute right to self-determination regardless of what we believe. The Founding Fathers understood this. They would be horrified should they return to see the tangle of alliances and obligations we have undertaken. Yes, our country is mighty. But there is a fine line between the judicious use of power and being a bully. Bullies are not liked in the schoolyard and they are not liked in the world community.
The situation in Pakistan is grim. And we have only ourselves to blame.
I'm glad there is at least talk of US troops going into Pakistan. However, that's probably as far as it will go unless the nukes are in play...........which isn't likely.
I'd be embarrassed for our CIA if there weren't at least strategies being explored regarding Pakistan. That kind of thinking is what they're paid to do.
In regards to the possibility of misuse or diversion of US weapons, I would not dismiss the threat of blowback entirely. While Chris is correct that F-16s and other major platforms need constant maintenance and spare parts, a hostile regime might be able to keep at least some of the planes operational through illicit procurement networks. Of greater immediate concern, however, is the potential threat posed by night vision devices and other U.S. weapons that may be of interest to terrorists and insurgents in neighboring Afghanistan. Right now, the night vision equipment is closely monitored by the US military through stringent end-use monitoring, including regular physical inventories. Whether Musharraf's successor would abide by US end-use and retransfer restrictions, let alone intrusive monitoring arrangements, is anybody's guess.