Conventional Arms Transfers: Exporting Security or Arming Adversaries?

Abstract

In this study, Michael Klare examines the dichotomy in the U.S. response to conventional and unconventional arms proliferation. With the end of the cold war, however, this has begun to change. While the spread of NBC munitions continues to be seen as an especially significant peril, many policymakers now view conventional arms transfers as a similar problem, with a comparable requirement for international controls. But a consistent policy and strategy has been difficult to develop because of competing pressures and demands: on one hand, there is a pressure to follow through on pledges to establish international controls on conventional arms traffic; on the other, is pressure to preserve long-standing military relationships with friendly foreign governments. The author maintains that the United States cannot pursue both objectives and expect to accomplish its stated policy goals of regional stability in the world where loyalties and alliances are breaking down and in which every nation is scrambling to advance its own national interests. He concludes that in today's uncertain and chaotic world, it is safer to view most arms transfers as a potential proliferation risk rather than as an assured asset for U.S. national security.