US weapons sales with India, Pakistan?

[Ranger]

Is this really a good idea? Pakistan may be somewhat our ally now, but they may not be in the near future. And selling weapons to India seems like a dumb idea also.
Officials in India said Saturday they welcomed a U.S. offer of nuclear cooperation.

In a statement issued in New Delhi, the Indian ministry for external affairs said the U.S. government has offered to cooperate with India in the fields of civilian nuclear energy and nuclear safety.

Friday, India had criticized the United States for selling F-16 fighter jets to rival Pakistan, saying that it could disturb the military balance in South Asia.

While announcing the proposed sale of F-16s to Pakistan, Washington also offered New Delhi a wider array of weapons system and the option of producing them in India.

In the same announcement, the Bush administration also had offered to help India meet its energy needs, saying that the United States wants to see India as a major world power.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=c2eb556e99fa7abe

[Lateralus]

Not really a big deal, the F-16's are like 30 years old. We would do the same thing we did in Iraq, impose sanctions first and eventually their fleet would become deteriorated. Not to mention we would probably bomb where they were hiding first.

[huzefa]

Is this really a good idea? Pakistan may be somewhat our ally now, but they may not be in the near future. And selling weapons to India seems like a dumb idea also.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=c2eb556e99fa7abe

Not sure what you're getting at. Why would the world's strongest democracy selling weapons to the world's largest democracy be a dumb idea? It's not like the US is selling it to some military dictator or something....

[Ranger]

Not really a big deal, the F-16's are like 30 years old. We would do the same thing we did in Iraq, impose sanctions first and eventually their fleet would become deteriorated. Not to mention we would probably bomb where they were hiding first.
But the possibility of getting dragged into an Iran-Iraq-like conflict isn't very comforting. :)

huzefa: I do view India as a democracy, but I don't really consider them to be an ally.

[Pharoh]

I believe it to be a good and sound idea.

[Myster X]

US is the biggest weapons dealer in the world.

[Ranger]

Sigh. Where are the liberals?

[eXcentris]

I don't see it as a big deal. I also don't see Europe selling weapons to China as a big deal. At least, I'm consistent. :)

[Ranger]

I have a select list of countries I'm cool with selling arms to, but Pakistan and India aren't really on the list. It wasn't so long ago that many were afraid that the two were going to have a nuke war with each other.

[DVD Polizei]

The US needs money for the Iraq War.

[Pharoh]

I don't see it as a big deal. I also don't see Europe selling weapons to China as a big deal. At least, I'm consistent. :)



Another victory for the Bush administration.
:up:

[Venusian]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Are we really sure Pakistan is going to be our friend in a year or two? Are we really sure India won't take out Pakistan when it gets a chance?

[classicman2]

huzefa: I do view India as a democracy, but I don't really consider them to be an ally.

I don't consider Pakistan to be our ally either.

As for the selling of aircraft to India :up:

[Pharoh]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Are we really sure Pakistan is going to be our friend in a year or two? Are we really sure India won't take out Pakistan when it gets a chance?



India has nothing to gain by striking pre-emptively and much to lose. They will only respond to attacks from Pakistan, with the likelihood of such attacks decreasing daily. These sales continue that downward trend.

I too am somewhat worried about the long term future of Pakistan, but believe it to be a clear case of the devil you know. The US is counting on a great deal from President Musharraf, more than most realise. Keeping our friendship strong and viable is in our best interests, as is not allowing others, (China and Russia), to fill the void created by our backing away from Pakistan. This is not to say there aren't issues with the relationship, but it is the right move at this time.

[natevines]

I don't see it as a big deal. I also don't see Europe selling weapons to China as a big deal. At least, I'm consistent. :)

Doesn't the EU have a weapons embargo on China that doesn't expire for at least another year?

[Pharoh]

Doesn't the EU have a weapons embargo on China that doesn't expire for at least another year?



Last year the EU voted to lift the embargo. If I recall the date correctly, it was set to expire on June 30th. Facing fierce pressure from the Bush administration, as well as from member nations, especially after China's public statement regarding taiwan, the decision has been delayed. Mr. Chirac still favors lifting the embargo.

[classicman2]

I have a select list of countries I'm cool with selling arms to, but Pakistan and India aren't really on the list. It wasn't so long ago that many were afraid that the two were going to have a nuke war with each other.

Is Egypt on that list?

Is Saudia Arabia on that list?

Is Israel on that list?

[Ranger]

Is Egypt on that list?
No.
Is Saudia Arabia on that list?
Hell no!
Is Israel on that list?
(deep voice) Yes.

Taiwan is on the list also, but I think that is about it... :)

Edit: Oh, ok, so there's also South Korea and Australia.

[Red Dog]

Is this really a good idea? Pakistan may be somewhat our ally now, but they may not be in the near future.


C'mon man. It worked so well with our arms sales to Iran in the past. ;)


To answer the question, I don't particularly see it as a problem.

[Pharoh]

C'mon man. It worked so well with our arms sales to Iran in the past. ;)





It actually did work out far better than the alternatives would have.

[Red Dog]

It actually did work out far better than the alternatives would have.


If you subscribe to the theory of containment.

[eXcentris]

The EU weapons embargo as well the 1998 EU Code of Conduct which regulate the export of military equipment and dual-use goods outside the EU are filled with loopholes and, in reality, are largely symbolic. The EU also uses a very strict definition of "arms" so while the French cannot sell fighter planes and the German cannot sell tanks, they can still provide China with all the parts they need to modernize their military. And if China wants "complete" weapon systems, they get them from Russia and Israel.

So let's not jump to conclusion and raise that Mission Accomplished banner yet, because it's a "victory" for the Bush admin only on the surface. :)

[Pharoh]

Yes except that this weapons embargo as well the 1998 EU Code of Conduct which regulate the export of military equipment and dual-use goods outside the EU are filled with loopholes and, in reality, are largely symbolic. The EU also uses a very strict definition of "arms" so while the French cannot sell fighter planes and the German cannot sell tanks, they can still provide China with all the parts they need to modernize their military. And if China wants "complete" weapon systems, they get them from Russia and Israel.



Like how EU arms sales to China doubled last year from the previous year? Sounds to me, from the reality and from what you are saying, there is no need to lift the embargo. Let the message stand.

[eXcentris]

Like how EU arms sales to China doubled last year from the previous year? Sounds to me, from the reality and from what you are saying, there is no need to lift the embargo. Let the message stand.

Conversely, if you use the EU perspective, keeping the embargo makes no sense. While lifting it would not cause arms sales to increase dramatically, this "gesture" would be rewarded with lucrative business contracts in other sectors.

[Pharoh]

Conversely, if you use the EU perspective, keeping the embargo makes no sense. While lifting it would not cause arms sales to increase dramatically, this "gesture" would be rewarded with lucrative business contracts in other sectors.



I believe it would change the scope of arms sales somewhat significantly, though I agree that it would not be the end of the world. However, effects of the political message it would send would be rather numerous. I obviously also don't agree with the propping up of China as a buffer to America's status as a hyperpower, an explicit goal of some within the EU.

[Pistol Pete]

I'm certain that embedded somewhere deep in the guidance system software for these planes is the following:
<pre>if(received_self_destruct_signal_from american_opponent) {
nosedive_straight_into_ground();
}</pre>
Nope, I don't see any problem with this sale.

[Ranger]

If you subscribe to the theory of containment.
What was that all about again with Iran, we did not want the USSR to seize Iran to interfere with the flow of oil to the western nations?

[Pharoh]

What was that all about again with Iran, we did not want the USSR to seize Iran to interfere with the flow of oil to the western nations?



Partially. The official term most used to describe the situation is "regional stability."

[Pharoh]

Sorry for the extremely short response, so I will try to respond with a not quite as short one.

When speaking about American foreign policy in the Middle East, Iran in particular, relating to the Soviet Union three events are of utmost importance.

1. The post World War II period.

During the war Soviet and British forces were stationed in Iran, as were some American forces. Iran was used as a strategic stationing point, and of course its oil was quite important for the war efforts as well. It was agreed upon that all parties would vacate Iran within six months after the end of the War. The Soviets never did leave. On the contrary, they became quite active in internal Iranian affairs, even setting up two separatists’ regimes, which Soviet troops allowed to operate freely and with impunity.

These developments obviously did not sit well with America, who had been aware since the 20s of the necessity of Middle Eastern oil and of Soviet designs on the region. America, led by President Truman, pressed their concerns to both the Soviets directly, the UN, and to Reza Shah Pahlavi, who had been in power in Iran since 1941, and who looked to the US for aid, primarily for money and to counter British and Soviet influence. There is some debate as to whether Truman threatened the use of force against Soviet forces, but the Soviets did pull out of Iran. The Shah was also convinced forcefully confront and eliminate the separatist regimes.

The Soviets were gone, there was only one power in Iran, and America was almost the sole benefactor. These events set the stage for America's new dominance in the Middle East, the need for the new found sources of Middle Eastern Oil, the specter of Soviet desires, and something perhaps more dangerous.


2. Nationalisation of the oil industry.

By the time Eisenhower became President the primary focus of American foreign policy had become the limiting Soviet influence, especially over US backed nations. The Middle East was the centerpiece of this policy of containment, with Iran and Israel being the most important bookends. Under this backdrop came the nationalisation of the Iranian oil fields by Moham med Mossadegh, who soon thereafter became the prime minister. The nationalisation was not received well by the west, and an oil boycott was implemented and the Iranian economy greatly suffered. During this time a great deal of unrest and turmoil existed in Iran. Communist influence within Iran grew significantly. That was a primary reason for the US going along with the boycott despite the pleas of Mossadegh. The situation worsened so bad that Mossadegh was removed from power for a short time. However, when he was returned to power it was with greatly increased powers. It was at this time, August of 1953, that the Shah left Iran for an "extended vacation."

The US administration, led by Dulles, was increasingly concerned about the growing influence of the Soviets and of internal communists. This concern grew after the oil boycott, for it was believed that Mossadegh during this time was growing close to the communists. It is also fair to point out that many scholars debate just how much of a role the Soviets played in these events, whether they were almost exclusively internal affairs. Many also question whether Mossadegh was anywhere close to the Soviets or Iranian communists. Regardless, that was the view of the administration, a view fueled by the British. These concerns, along with the now growing authoritative power of Mossadegh, prompted the United States to conduct a covert operation which ultimately led the Shah being returned to power. Mossadegh, who had the support of the people, but not of the army, was soon detained and sentenced to house arrest. This began the long history of antipathy towards the United States by the Iranian populace.

The Shah however was now firmly in control, and he entered into a partnership with the United States, a partnership which not only gave the US, and the European Recovery Program, the necessary oil, but also one which basically excluded all other nations, including Britain and, more importantly, the Soviet Union. The influence of the Soviets was gone from Iran, at least for the time being. This arrangement also created the much sought after regional stability and Iran served as a buffer against Soviet advances unto Saudi Arabia and Egypt.


3. Revolution.

The Shah was not a popular figure when he was returned to power by the United States, and his reign over the next twenty-five years did nothing to change this. In fact, his pitiful human rights record made the Islamic revolution possible. It culminated in the overthrow of the Shah and the ascension of Ayatollah Khomeini. The rest of the story should be obvious; hostages taken, renewed Soviet courtship of Iran, and the Iran-Iraq war.

It was global chess match played out over fifty years, one in which many believe the stability of the post WWII world was at stake. The blocking of the Soviet Union in the most vital region of the world, and the creation of stability, was tantamount to the United States. It is up for each to decide if it was worth it or not. My views should be apparent.




Another interesting note: there is a school of thought, backed up quite well by some, that many within the US government over the years never felt the Soviet threat to be the greatest one to the Middle East and American interests there. That honor would go to Arab and Persian nationalism. If, for example, one ever wonders why a particular member here constantly refers to the importance of the "free flow of oil," it is because that was a central tenet of American policy, and was explicitly stated by many within the US government, and that Arab or Persian nationalism was the main potential impediment to that free flow of oil. Perhaps, just perhaps, they were right.



(I apologise for this too being a woefully inadequate answer. Maybe I can fill in some of the many blanks tomorrow.)

[Ranger]

Interesting summary. Thanks. Obviously a complicated situation. I think the revolution wasn't just brought up on poor human rights, but many were accusing the Shah of stealing billions of dollars and they wanted it. I'm curious about the extent of Soviet (then Russian) influence in Iran. I see Russia recently made a deal with Iran to continue the nuclear project. And Iran turning down an offer to be a member of the WTO shows how much they're bringing in from oil sales alone.

Of course, I think we shouldn' have given Iran weapons regardless of any possible Soviet takeover. I'd have just prefer to just move on and seek oil sources elsewhere.