NO New Nuclear Weapons... NO New Nuclear Targets... NO New Pretexts For Nuclear War... NO Nuclear Testing...
NO Star Wars... NO Weapons In Space...
NO All Types Of Weapons, War & War Culture...
We have only one WORLD yet! If we destroy it, where else will we go?

Arms Resource Center
Update May 16, 2002




Our friend Lora Lumpe just published a wonderful report entitled,  "U.S. FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING: GLOBAL REACH, GLOBAL POWER," which concludes that, "the September 11 attacks have become the justification for a sweeping disregard for human rights and democratization concerns."

The report, published by Foreign Policy in Focus, warns that, "if in this current effort U.S. forces intervene and provide training in support of regimes repressing legitimate political activism and/or using torture or coercion to maintain power, they are likely to foster, rather than diminish, political violence around the globe."

The report is online at http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/miltrain/index.html


The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has been busy. They redesigned their website (it looks great). They have also published an important new report, FEDERAL CONTRACTOR MISCONDUCT: FAILURES OF THE SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT SYSTEM. In the report, POGO finds that, "many of the U.S. government's largest contractors have been found to have repeatedly broken the law or engaged in unethical conduct." BUT, "they are never even temporarily suspended, let alone debarred, from gaining additional government contracts, contrary to Reagan/Bush era laws."

POGO's research found that, since 1990, 43 of the government's top contractors paid approximately $3.4 billion in fines/penalties, restitution, settlements and Superfund clean-up costs. Furthermore, four of the top 10 government contractors have at least two criminal convictions. And yet, only one of the top 43 contractors has been suspended or debarred from doing business with the government, and then, for only five days.

Who are the biggest culprits? Our buddies in the arms industry. Here is a summary of the track records for repeat offenders from 1990-2002:

* General Electric: 63 instances of misconduct or alleged misconduct resulting in approximately $982.9 million in fines/penalties, restitution, settlements, and Superfund clean-up costs.

* Lockheed Martin: 63 instances of misconduct or alleged misconduct resulting in approximately $231.9 million in fines/penalties, restitution, settlements, and Superfund clean-up costs.

* Boeing: 36 instances of misconduct or alleged misconduct resulting in approximately $358 million in fines/penalties, restitution, and settlements..

* Raytheon: 24 instances of misconduct or alleged misconduct resulting in approximately $128.7 million in fines/penalties, restitution, and settlements.

Read the report online at www.pogo.org/p/contracts/co-020505-contractors.html

POGO has also added a searchable database of these companies' misconduct, www.pogo.org/db/index.cfm


William D. Hartung

Headline writers throughout the world predictably treated the announcement that the United States and Russia are on the verge of signing an agreement to reduce their deployed strategic warheads by two-thirds over the next ten years as an historic breakthrough.  After all, it's over a decade since the world's two nuclear superpowers came to any sort of agreement for further nuclear weapons reductions. 

But as Michael R. Gordon made clear in an analysis piece in the May 14th edition of the New York Times, the agreement leaves the Bush administration free to do pretty much anything it wants to do in the field of nuclear weapons.  While Gordon gets credit for the most detailed early analysis of the pact, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show on Comedy Central got to the heart of the problem when he said that the agreement will move us from a position where "instead of being able to blow the world up 11 or 12 times over, we'll only be able to do it 4 or 5 times."

The agreement sets no schedule for reductions, as long as the desired levels - 1,700 to 2,200 deployed weapons compared with roughly 6,000 on each side now - is reached by 2012.  In theory, either side could even increase deployed weapons between now and 2012, as long as they come back down to the agreed levels by the end of the ten-year period of the agreement. Weapons withdrawn from active service do not have to be destroyed - thousands may be saved as part of the "active response" force the Bush administration wants to maintain so that it can redeploy weapons on short notice. 

Research and development of new kinds of nuclear weapons, like the bunker-busting "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator," will not be restricted, and missile defense development can move full speed ahead. In fact, even once the agreement takes force, the United States will continue to make massive new investments - at least $33 billion in new spending in the next five years alone - on its "New Triad" of long-range strike systems, missile defenses, and a revitalized nuclear weapons production complex.  And that doesn't even take into account the additional billions the administration will be spending on the militarization of space, which Rumsfeld and company see as the "new high ground" for guaranteeing U.S. military superiority for generations to come.  If this does allow enough "flexibility" to U.S. nuclear war planners, either side can withdraw from the agreement with just 90 days notice.  No wonder one Bush official described it as "our kind of agreement."

Even taking into account the fact that the pact is really more of a "nuclear weapons modernization pact" than an arms control or disarmament treaty, advocates of permanent nuclear reductions and nuclear abolition face a serious challenge in making this clear to the American public.  Photo ops of President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin making nice at their mini-summit next week, combined with the bumper sticker slogans about a "new kind of relationship" between Washington and Moscow, will make it hard to get people to focus on the underlying dangers of the new agreement.  It's not as if anyone is wishing for a raging feud between Bush and Putin.  The problem is that the agreement represents a short-term marriage of convenience between two leaders trying to solve their own immediate political problems, an agreement which could be invalidated at any point with a change in the prevailing political winds. 

Putin needs to show that his courting of Washington and NATO has been reciprocated in some fashion, while Bush wants to quiet fears about a new nuclear arms race and demonstrate that he's not an aggressive unilateralist..  That's fine for them, but all the most important issues - such as eliminating Russia's remaining arsenal of thousands of tactical warheads and meeting U.S. and Russian obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to make an "unequivocal undertaking" to eliminate their respective nuclear arsenals as quickly as possible - are either ignored or contradicted by the new pact. 

Even as the Bush-Putin agreement grabs the headlines, there are signs of life in Congress. Last week the Senate Armed Services Committee cut more than $800 million from the administration's missile defense plan and eliminated the $15.5 million in funding for the aforementioned "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator."  These issues will be debated on the floor of the Senate either next week or after the Memorial Day break, as administration supporters try to restore funding for these dubious and dangerous programs.  


For a more detailed analysis of the Bush-Putin agreement, see Bill Hartung's May 14th piece on Commondreams.org, "Bush-Putin Agreement: Making the World Safe For Nuclear Weapons?"; and keep an eye out for our new report About Face, which details the role of the arms lobby and corporate-backed conservative think tanks in shaping the Bush administration's nuclear posture.  It will be posted on our web site, at www.worldpolicy..org/projects/arms, by Monday, May 20th.

If you haven't seen it already, you should read Theresa Hitchens excellent essay, "Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette?," which is posted on the first page of the Center for Defense Information's web site, at www.cdi.org.  Among the many telling quotes in the piece is one from former Lockheed Martin Chief Operating Officer Peter B. Teets, who now serves as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force and Director of the National Reconnaissance Office in the Bush administration: "I believe that weapons will go into space.  It's a matter of time.  And we need to be in the forefront of that."

The Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has released a new, 450-page report, Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction, by Joseph Cirincione with Jon B. Wolfstahl and Miriam Rajkumar.  Details on ordering the study are available on Carnegie's web site, at www.ceip.org, if you click on "Non-proliferation project."  The site also contains a "Path to the Summit" section, with news and analysis on the run-up to the Bush-Putin summit.



William D. Hartung

A year and one-half into his tenure and on the brink of pushing the military budget over $400 billion per year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has finally decided to cancel a major weapons program in the name of military "transformation."  His weapons cut of choice is the Army's $11 billion Crusader program, the largest project of United Defense, whose largest shareholder is the Carlyle Group, an investment firm which employs such former Republican luminaries as former Reagan Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci (chairman), former Secretary of State James Baker, and former President George Herbert Walker Bush (for the occasional $100,000 speech or overseas marketing trip). 

Despite the program's strong political ties, Rumsfeld and his inner circle decided that the system just doesn't meet the needs of the lighter, more rapidly deployable, precision-targeted military force they are hoping to build.  The formal announcement of the cancellation was moved up after lobbyists for the Army leaked the decision to key supporters of the system on Capitol Hill * most notably Senators Don Nickles and James Inhofe and Rep. J.C. Watts, all of Oklahoma, where an assembly plant for the Crusader was scheduled to be built.  The Army lobbyists also distributed talking points to Congress that suggested that foregoing the Crusader would put U.S. ground troops at risk in future conflicts (to see the talking points, go to the web site of the Project on Government Oversight, at Initially, it appeared that the lobbying snafu was going to be the end for Army Secretary Thomas White, who was already enmeshed in problems stemming from his relationship with his former employer, Enron. 

But instead, Rumsfeld spared White after forcing him to make a mea culpa in front of the Pentagon press corps which one observer suggested had the tone of a Stalinist show trial.  The decision to save White seemed to come from two directions: 1) The Bush administration's posture of never admitting a mistake; and 2) the fact that Rumsfeld feels that a duly chastised White will be a "team player" from now forward.

The Crusader decision still needs to get through Congress, but veteran Pentagon correspondent Pat Towell of Congressional Quarterly expects Rumsfeld to prevail, primarily because unlike the V-22 Osprey, which was rescued by the Texas and Pennsylvania delegations despite efforts by former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to cancel it, the Crusader doesn't have a big enough "pork barrel posse" (in the form of delegations from large states) to buck the Pentagon.  But the fight over the Crusader may create a smokescreen that will distract attention from the larger question raised by George C. Wilson in the May 11th edition of National Journal: "Is the Crusader the Beginning, or the End, of Reform?"  Wilson cites an April 29th memo by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz which notes that even without moving the missile defense program into production mode, existing Pentagon weapons purchasing plans will cost 250 billion between now and 2007, and $600 billion thereafter, just to pay for systems already in the pipeline.  That doesn't count new spending for equipment needed to prosecute the administration's war on terrorism (e.g., replacement bombs, ammunition, and so forth).

So, something has to give, even with a $400 billion Pentagon budget.  Wilson's question is whether Rumsfeld and Bush will have the staying power to cut other high profile programs like the V-22 Osprey and the F-22 fighter (which may have its production run cut from 339 to less than 200), or whether they will cave to pressure from industry, Congress, and the military services.  As former Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak notes in the piece, "When you say 'I'm going to stop a program," the political-military-industrial complex rolls in there and says, 'No you aren't.'" Wilson ends by noting that "If Bush wimps out on Crusader and other cancellations, the military-industrial-political complex will roll on its merry way and continue to take taxpayers to the poorhouse in Cadillacs."

You may be wondering what will happen to the "truly needy" executives of the Carlyle Group if Rumsfeld succeeds in cancelling the Crusader.  Not to worry.  According to an excellent investigative piece by Walter Pincus which ran in the Washington Post on May 14th, after purchasing Carlyle in 1997 for $173 million in cash and $700 million in borrowed funds, Carlyle has already "reaped more than $400 million in dividends and capital gains from United."  The company also distributed over $4 million in lobbying funds from 1998 to 2001 to well-connected Washington insiders like former Pennsylvania Representative Joseph McDade, former Indiana Senator Dan Coats, and the late Marvin Leath, former Democratic representative from Texas.  When Carlyle moved to make a public offering of United Defense shares in 2001, shareholders and executives cashed in again.  Prior to the offer, the company refinanced $180 million of its original purchase price with a $600 million loan, more than half of which ($387 million) went straight back to shareholders as dividends.

When the actual public offering took place in December 2001, the company raised $225 million, much of which went to stockholders and executives, including "performance bonuses" of over $100,000 each to United Defense board members Gen. Austin Peay and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili.  Performance bonuses are rarely given to board members, who are not involved in the day-to-day operations of a firm.

Pincus further notes that even if Crusader is canceled, United Defense will seek a big, fat cancellation fee from the Pentagon.  It looks like Donald Rumsfeld's ex-college roommate and long-time associate Frank Carlucci won't do so bad after all, even with the cancellation.  While Rumsfeld deserves credit for canceling a program so dear to the hearts (and wallets) of his political cronies, it would be interesting to know if his one and one-half year delay in canceling the program, which had already been targeted by Bush on the campaign trail, had anything to do with letting his good old friend milk some more money out of United Defense before the program was eliminated.   



Michelle Ciarrocca

"Do as I say, not as I do," is President Bush's motto these days. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters last week, "The president's message to the Congress is to hold the line on spending." He continued," We are a nation that has a deficit, and it's important for Congress to not add excessive spending to make the deficit worse."  Seems that the President has forgotten that it is HIS $379 billion defense budget request for 2003 that is $52 billion over last year's budget, and $100 billion bigger than the last Clinton defense budget! Congress is following his lead.

The House and the Senate Armed Services Committee have passed their versions of the 2003 Defense Authorization Bill. As Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post wrote, "With polls showing the American people strongly behind President Bush's fight against terrorism at home and in Afghanistan, the war is fueling an appetite for defense spending that has, for the moment at least, superseded the usual election-year concerns on Capitol Hill about deficit spending."

Democrats and Republicans alike have been asking for more defense spending -- let the battles begin. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wants to cancel the $11 billion Crusader artillery system, the House wants to keep it, while other Members of Congress are hoping to add in their pet projects.

The House approved its version of the 2003 defense budget, which totals $383.4 billion (about $4 billion more than the Bush request and not including Bush's $10 billion war reserve fund), in a vote of 359 to 58. Gearing up for a showdown, the House included funds for the $11-billion Crusader program. Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr., the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, was left shaking his head. "It is the hardest thing to do, to take a weapon out of the budget," he said. "It is just so easy to put one in." The Los Angeles Times reported, the "White House Budget Office promised to recommend a veto if the defense authorization bill required funding for the Crusader." The House version also includes funds for research into nuclear-tipped missiles, or bunker busters.  For a detailed list of the House mark-ups go to the Council for a Livable World website  www.clw.org/milspend/fy03houseauth.html

The Senate Armed Services Committee finished its' mark-up of their version of the  $393.4 billion Pentagon request, which held off on a decision about the Crusader for the time being, but cuts the administration's $7.6 billion missile defense funding request by some $800 million. However, funding for the Ft. Greely test bed was approved. The majority of the funds taken from the missile defense request was transferred to Navy ship building programs. The Senate version also attempts to reinstate oversight and testing requirements to missile defense programs and cuts the administration's request for $15.5 million for work on a new nuclear bunker buster. The Senate is aiming to bring the bill to the floor next week, before Memorial Day recess. For a detailed list of the Senate mark-ups go to the Council for a Livable World website www.clw.org/nmd/senmarkup03.html

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) won a modest victory this week when the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of an amendment to the 2003 defense authorization bill. The amendment requires the Secretary of the Air Force to obtain authorization and appropriation of funds before the Secretary can enter into any lease for 100 Boeing 767 tanker aircraft. "This action is an important step forward in providing the necessary oversight and scrutiny that this $26 billion tanker leasing deal obviously needs," McCain said. He added, "this has nothing to do with national defense and everything to do with taking care of Boeing."        

Two reports were released last week, both estimating the leasing arrangement to cost almost twice as much as outright buying the planes. The President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said it would cost $26 billion to lease the 100 aircraft, compared to $18 billion to buy the planes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it could cost $40 billion to lease, operate and later buy the planes. However, negotiations between Boeing and the Air Force are ongoing so all the figures are estimates until a final deal is arranged. And, as the Seattle Times points out, "Boeing is the only company with a patent on the crucial tanker boom used to deliver the fuel, it likely has the leverage to build in some extra profit."

Just as Oklahoma lawmakers Rep. J.C. Watts and Sen. James Inhofe are fighting on the Hill to save the $11 billion Crusader built by United Defense Industries, Boeing has the backing of lawmakers from Washington, Kansas, and North Dakota, who are also ready to put up a fight. Whether or not the Boeing tanker deal makes sense for U.S. taxpayers in the long-term, in the short-term the deal means jobs for their states.

The House also added funds to the $27 billion emergency supplemental request submitted to Congress in March by President Bush. According to the Los Angeles Times the $3.2 billion in add-ons are for 12 new H-60 helicopters for the Army National Guard, 10 JPATS training aircraft for the Navy, 6 TH-67 "Creek" training helicopters, $96 million for engine upgrades to F-15 and F-16 aircraft and more than $1 billion in Navy shipbuilding increases. The House committee accepted amendments to include $200 million in aid to Israel and $50 million in aid to the Palestinians.


The provisions stating that the funds should be provided "notwithstanding any other provision of law" have been removed.

The $30 million which the administration requested for financing indigenous forces who would aid US interests appears to have been entirely removed.

The Senate is waiting until the House is finished with their version of the bill before scheduling their own mark-up.


There were several important successes in the House concerning aid to Colombia included in the supplemental:

The Committee draft of the bill KEEPS the human rights and fumigation restrictions in place.

Due to concerns by members of Congress that the shift in mission from counter-drug to counter-terrorism would pull the US into Colombia's civil war, the committee draft of the bill said that US funds could support counter-terrorism efforts in Colombia ONLY UNTIL THE END OF FY2002.

See the Latin America Working Group's update - http://www.lawg.org/supupdate.htm



Visit the Friends Committee On National Legislation (FCNL) website at www.fcnl.org/act_lam_current/lam425_02.htm#con for action alerts and updates.

"WAR PROFITEERING: CASHING IN ON THE POST 9-11 DEFENSE BUILDUP," Julian E. Barnes, US News & World Report, May 13, 2002.

"TOO MUCH IS NEVER ENOUGH: BUSH'S MILITARY SPENDING SPREE," Michelle Ciarrocca for more detail about the emergency supplemental on Foreign Policy In Focus 


or check out the April 18th email update. 


* "Making the World Safe for Nuclear Weapons," William D. Hartung, AlterNet.org, May 15, 2002. www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13141

Also on Common Dreams www.commondreams.org/views02/0514-07.htm

* "U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq," Jonathan Reingold, Common Dreams, May 9, 2002.  www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

* "Rewarding Indonesia while Ignoring Congress," Frida Berrigan, Global Beat Syndicate, May 6, 2002. www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/berrigan050602.html

Frida Berrigan
Research Associate,
World Policy Institute
66 Fifth Ave., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10011
ph 212.229.5808 x112
fax 212.229.5579

The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade.www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms

To sign up for our monthly email Updates, please contact Frida Berrigan.

This issue dedicated to such distinguished author Karen ARMSTRONG &
The Arms Trade Resource Center for its essential role and mission.
This e-magazine is under the umbrella of The Light Millennium, Inc.,
which granted a NOT-FOR-PROFIT organization
status based in New York since July 17, 2001.

YES For The Global Peace Movement, YES Loving & Caring Each Other, YES Greatness in Humanity, YES Saving Our Unique Mother Earth,
YES Great Dreams For Better Tomorrows, YES Emerging Positive Global Energy, YES Global Transparency and YES Lighting Our Souls & Minds.
If you wish to receive The Light Millennium's media releases, announcements or about future events,
please send us an e-mail to:contact@lightmillennium.org



@ The Light Millennium e-magazine created and designed by
Bircan ÜNVER
. 9th issue. Summer 2002, New York.
URL: http://www.lightmillennium.org
Thank you very much to all for being part of The Light Millennium.
Submissions any time. For recent updates please visit our new page TODAY.

The Light Millennium global e-platform produced on the Mac platform and Netscape Browser.