ALLAN NAIRN: Indonesia is a prime military and political client of the United States, as well as being a dictatorship and one of the most repressive regimes on Earth, and the regime which is responsible for two of the greatest bloodbaths of the 20th Century, the '65-'67 massacre of the communists and others, and then the killing of the 200,000 East Timorese.

Admiral GENE LaROCQUE: Welcome once again to "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR."

Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a democracy know what it's all about. It means freedom and liberty for individuals. We Americans are proud of our democracy, but many Americans now are beginning to ask if we're so proud of our democracy, why in the world are we selling weapons to dictators around the world, weapons which will be used by those dictators to oppress their own people and to attack their neighbors. That's a good question and our program is about that today.

NARRATOR: In 1975 Indonesia invaded East Timor following Timor's independence from Portugal. The Indonesian military, led by military dictator General Suharto, has, according to independent estimates, wiped out one-third of the Timorese population either through massacre or enforced starvation. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned Indonesia for its brutal acts in East Timor. The United States continues to furnish the Indonesian military with weapons.

This is Dili, the capital city of East Timor. On November 12th, 1991, thousands of Timorese gathered to visit the grave of a young man who had been killed when the army stormed a church two weeks earlier. The footage that you will see was taken just inside in the cemetery where people ran to escape the shooting in the street. Two American journalists, Allan Nairn, a correspondent for The New Yorker magazine, and Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio, survived the massacre.

Allan Nairn describes what happened just outside the cemetery and beyond the camera's view.

Mr. NAIRN: And as the people gathered outside the cemetery, after holding up banners protesting the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, a large group of soldiers came marching up in formation and I went and stood between the soldiers and the crowd, together with Amy Goodman from Pacifica Radio. And as the soldiers marched up in formation, they just kept coming -- They turned the corner and then all at once in unison, the soldiers opened fire on the crowd. There were several thousand people standing outside the cemetery. And the soldiers were just gunning people down. And as they were doing this, they started beating me, beating me with their rifle butts, with their M-16s. And the street was full of bodies. People were falling everywhere. The street was running with blood and the soldiers just kept on shooting for from five to ten minutes. 

And they kept on beating me and beating Amy. And at one point, they held the M-16s to our heads and were screaming, "Politique!" "Politique!" which means politics, which is prohibited in East Timor. And we said back to them, "America! We're from America." And I think that's the thing that kept them from executing us, because it seemed to impress them. I think they realized that there might be a political price to pay if they killed Americans, even though at that very moment they were killing just dozens of Timorese all around us. And eventually, probably something from 100 to 200 Timorese were killed in that massacre.

INTERVIEWER: What happened to you?

Mr. NAIRN: I received a fractured skull.

NARRATOR: The United States has armed and continues to arm dictators who use US weapons against their own and neighboring people. These dictatorships don't have free elections and are often controlled by the military.

In the 1980s, the United States and its military contractors sold or gave weapons and training valued at $175 billion to three-quarters of the nations of the world. Forty percent of this, $70 billion, went to arm 50 dictators.

In Fiscal Year 1991 alone, the United States agreed to sell $63 billion worth of weapons to 142 nations. Thirty-eight percent of this, or $24 billion, went to arm 42 dictators.

The president still plans to arm dictators in the coming year. This book contains President Bush's proposal for military assistance to foreign countries. The White House submits one of these to Congress every year.

For 1993, the president is asking that weapons and training valued at $33 billion be provided to 154 nations. Again, 38 percent of this, $12.7 billion, is slated for 58 dictators.

Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a prominent writer. We asked him why America provides military assistance to so many countries around the world.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK: Well, the reason why we ought to do it is where there are countries that have genuine threats to their security and we want to help them deal with these threats. Some-times there are other reasons which are less worthy ones, which are just to encourage or to buy some goodwill. 

NARRATOR: The United States has armed dictators for a mixture of cold war and economic reasons. George Smiley, the fascinating main character in John Le Carre's novel The Secret Pilgrim, describes his view of the behavior of the West during the cold war: 

"We protected the strong against the weak and we perfected the art of the public lie. We made enemies of decent reformers and friends of the most disgusting potentates."

During the cold war, the United States supported dictators as long as they were anti-communist. We shipped arms to dictators like the Shah of Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, Noriega in Panama.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: Well, I think the threats were much greater, in general, during the cold war. There was a sense of competition between the two superpowers, which led to a feeling that the advance of one country as against its neighbor in this or that corner of the world or one of various competing forces within a country might reverberate somehow in the overall balance of power.

NARRATOR: Today, that cold war rationale is gone. Then why are we still arming dictators?

The United States continues to arm dictators for economic reasons: access to oil and minerals, US business investments, and profits for weapons manufacturers. In addition, arms exports help keep production lines open, decreasing the cost of weapons for the United States military.

American military contractors, facing a shrinking market at home, are increasingly selling their wares to the Third World -- with the help of the US Government.

However, arming the world, and especially dictators, could cost us in the long run. Providing arms can aggravate tensions between rival neighbors and spur arms races. It increases the deadliness of conflicts when they erupt.

Through the practice of arming dictators, the United States has supported a host of unsavory characters who flagrantly abuse the human rights of their citizens.

James Phillips is a specialist in Middle East politics at The Heritage Foundation. He believes that human rights should not be used as a standard to determine who gets our weapons.

JAMES PHILLIPS: I just think that the focus on the discussion for US arms exports should be on US national security interests rather than on human rights, or the economic situation in the country, or the state of political reforms. We're not using arms to change the internal situation of these countries; we're sending arms to protect these countries from external attack. And I think that should be the number one consideration.

NARRATOR: However, arming dictators can harm the United States is very practical ways. If American arms are used to keep unpopular or murderous dictators in power, anti-Americanism is likely to grow. And if "our man" is overthrown, someone hostile to the United States is likely to attain power.

Look at Iran. The United States considered the shah to be its pillar in the Middle East. Iran was our number one arms customer during the 70s, just as Saudi Arabia is now. When the Iranian people overthrew the shah in 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini gained power on a wave of anti-Americanism. Our pillar had crumbled. For over a decade, Iran has been anti-American and anti-Western, and is only now beginning to show signs that it might emerge from its isolation.

With this background in mind, let's return to the situation in Indonesia.

Since General Suharto became the military dictator of Indonesia, the United States has provided him with weapons and training valued at $1.7 billion, even though Indonesia is a country which has faced no external threats. We've provided the Indonesian military with modern weapons of war, such as fighters, helicopters, M-16 rifles and a variety of missiles. President Bush has no plans to curtail this flow of arms. For Fiscal 1993, the president has requested $86 million worth of weapons and training for Indonesia.

Why are we aiding the Indonesian military? We aided them in the past because of the cold war and the Vietnam War. Both of these wars are now over. Then why are we still arming the Indonesian military?

Let's see what President Bush has to say. In his administration's request for foreign aid, it states that, while Indonesia is a poor nation, "its economic potential is great. The archipelago contains vast reserves of oil, gas and strategic raw materials." Located between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Indonesia is a major oil-producing nation and a member of OPEC.

In addition, the president points to Indonesia's status as the world's largest Muslim nation with a population of over 180 million people.

The president makes special mention of US business interests in Indonesia, with annual trade of over $5 billion.

Allan Nairn believes that these economic relations are the overriding US reasons for continuing to arm Indonesia.

Mr. NAIRN: When I spoke to State Department people after visiting East Timor initially and asked them about what Indonesia was doing in East Timor, their response was to say, well, East Timor is not important, what's really important is the US business relationship with Indonesia, and that's the way they look at it.

After the massacre on November 12th, a massacre which was witnessed and survived by American journalists, the US State Department condemned the massacre, but then said in the next breath that they were going to continue US military aid to Indonesia.

NARRATOR: State Department officials declined to appear on this program to present the administration's views on this subject.

The United States has known and condoned the atrocities committed by the Indonesian military, led by General Suharto, since the beginning of his rule in 1967. In fact, the US Central Intelligence Agency helped bring General Suharto to power by providing the Indonesian military with names of communists and political activists who were subsequently executed. In the process, between 300,000 and half-a-million people were killed.

Mr. NAIRN: This was a case where the US was part of the crime. The US was providing the weapons, the US knew what was going on and they continued to provide the weapons, and hundreds of thousands of people were murdered.

NARRATOR: Indonesia is not the only example of a US-supported dictatorship. Consider Zaire, located in the heart of Africa. Since military dictator Mobutu Sese-Seko came to power in 1965, also with the assistance of the CIA, we have supplied the Zairian military with weapons and training valued at $664 million.

Mobutu has one of the worst human rights records in the world. He, like Suharto, uses his US-trained military forces to repress his political opposition. In addition, the United States has provided Zaire with over $1 billion in economic assistance, much of which Mobutu has pocketed. Mobutu's estimated wealth is in the billions of dollars, while the average Zairian makes only $180 a year. His thievery has cast Zaire into turmoil, prompting France and Belgium to send troops to evacuate their citizens.

Stephen Davis is a senior analyst at the Investor Responsibility Research Center and a respected authority on Africa.

STEPHEN DAVIS: Well, Mobutu's government is, by far, the most autocratic in Africa. It's really one-man rule. He derives his legitimacy in the country from two sources. One is power, the use of the armed forces. The other is his legitimacy by virtue of his closeness to the United States and, in particular, to President Bush.

NARRATOR: Why are we so friendly with this dictator and why are we giving him weapons? After all, Zaire has faced no external threats. Slightly more than one-quarter the size of the United States, Zaire has an abundance of natural resources, including minerals used by US weapons manufacturers.

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Herman Cohen gives some other answers.

Secretary HERMAN COHEN (congressional hearing): "For many years, Zaire has been a loyal ally in international fora. Most recently, Zaire provided us valuable support as a member of the Security Council during the Gulf crisis. Zaire supported our policy on Angola. And Mobutu was responsible for initiating the long process that led to the end of civil war in that country."

NARRATOR: Stephen Davis asserts that Mobutu helped the US military supply Angolan rebels with weapons and skimmed off a good portion of the covert aid for himself.

Mr. DAVIS: The CIA, in the 1980s under the Reagan administration, funded the development of a secret base, known as Kamina. And with that base, the United States, in a covert program, was able to funnel assistance, military assistance to rebels in Angola, who were attempting at that time to rebel against a Soviet-supported government in Angola.

NARRATOR: Although Congress has cut off aid to Zaire for 1992 and 1993 -- or until free and fair elections are held -- the Bush administration continues to lend legitimacy to Mobutu. The administration has called on him to share power until elections are held.

Mr. DAVIS: We've used Mobutu in a similar way that we used Noriega in Panama. We sort of turned our eyes away from the human rights abuses and thievery that that administration has been involved with in return for Mobutu serving as our agent in Angola and other parts of Africa. It's only a matter of time before Mobutu falls and the United States will seem to have been on the wrong side.

NARRATOR: While Indonesia and Zaire are clear examples of dictatorships, many other nations are not so neatly defined. For instance, we usually don't think of Saudi Arabia as a dictator-ship, but what else do you call a country in which there are no elections and one man controls it all?

F. Lee Bailey, the well-known American lawyer, recently wrote an open letter to President Bush, asking for help in the case of Muhammad Al Fassi, whose life is in danger because he advocated democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, Mr. Bailey cannot help his client, for

"In Saudi Arabia, there are no real courts, no lawyers are allowed, and no rights are permitted. No charges need be filed, no access by anyone to the accused need be granted, and no accountability for the most brutal torture and bestial treatment is ever required."

Amnesty International confirmed Mr. Bailey's story and has urged its members to work urgently for Muhammad Al Fassi's safety.

Saudi Arabia is our number one arms customer. Over the past decade, Saudi Arabia has purchased from the United States and its military contractors weapons and military construction valued at $30 billion. The United States has trained the 77,000-man Saudi military and armed them with modern weapons of war: fighters, tanks, transport planes, helicopters and a variety of missiles and launchers. 

Despite calls to restrain arms sales in the Middle East, the Saudis have recently stepped up their arms purchases. In 1991, Saudi Arabia agreed to purchase $16 billion in weapons from the United States and its military contractors.

Why are we arming the Saudi military? The close relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has long revolved around oil. It is now estimated that Saudi Arabia sits atop 29 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and 45 percent of Persian Gulf reserves. Nevertheless, only 10 percent of US oil needs are supplied by Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Mark Katz is a political science professor at George Mason University and the author of Russia and Arabia. He believes that US arms sales to the small Saudi military are used to symbolize our support for the king and his ruling family.

Dr. MARK KATZ: Saudi Arabia, for example, it can buy tens of billions of dollars worth of arms, but it really has a very small armed forces establishment. It's not clear what it can actually do. In fact, it's not clear that they can really handle the weapons that they already have. I think that their arms purchases are, in a sense, made for symbolic purposes. In other words, the fact that America is willing to sell arms is a message that America is willing to defend Saudi Arabia.

NARRATOR: James Phillips wants to see the Saudis build themselves up militarily.

Mr. PHILLIPS: I think I would rather see us sell arms to the Saudis and let them defend themselves than have to deploy US troops on a permanent basis to Saudi Arabia. I don't think that would be that acceptable to the Saudis or to the American people.

NARRATOR: This continuing Saudi military build-up makes the Israelis uneasy and may complicate efforts for a Mideast peace.

In addition, our military support for the Saudi regime may well encourage anti-Americanism in the long run. The Saudi regime faces internal opposition which it has effectively stifled so far.

Mark Katz believes that revolution in Saudi Arabia is very unlikely today. But, he adds, the United States may someday relive its Iranian experience in Saudi Arabia.

Dr. KATZ: If the Saudi monarchy is ousted, the most likely successor will be a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist government, one that is highly anti-American because of the American support for the monarchy for all those years, and that's going to be a problem.

NARRATOR: Now, let's turn our attention to Latin America, where the United States has frequently supported and armed military regimes. El Salvador is a prime example. 

A peace agreement ending El Salvador's 12-year civil war was finally signed in January 1992.

The United States Congress played an important role in ending this war. It stopped funding it. After supplying the Salvadoran military over the past decade with over $1.7 billion worth of weapons and training, Congress massively reduced US aid. This reduction in military assistance gave the needed push to the Salvadoran government to end the war by compromise. But it remains unclear if the Salvadoran military, which the United States restructured, trained and armed, will adapt to this new- found peace.

Robert White is the knowledgeable and outspoken former US ambassador to El Salvador. He believes that peace could have come to El Salvador over ten years ago had the Reagan administration not funded the repressive Salvadoran military.

Ambassador ROBERT WHITE: If the Salvadoran military is -- you know, basically they are sort of mercenaries of the United States Government. That army couldn't exist unless your tax money and mine paid for them every day.

NARRATOR: Despite the cover of elections, El Salvador is no democracy. Ambassador White claims that President Christiani has limited power and that, at least until the peace agreement, the military made the important political decisions.

Ambassador WHITE: There's a grave problem and that is that the military still acts as the final arbiter of who can and who cannot participate in the political system. And they decide that issue with deadly force, so you take your life in your hands.

NARRATOR: The United States armed El Salvador for cold war reasons. President Reagan supported the Salvadoran military, claiming that FMLN rebels were armed by the Soviets, Sandinistas and Cubans. US taxpayers picked up the tab for the training of the Salvadoran military and armed them with transport planes, helicopters, armored vehicles, counter-insurgency fighters and artillery.

Joshua Muravchik agrees with the Reagan rationale for providing aid.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: I think that it was a correct judgment by the United States that arming the government and allowing it to hold up its side of the civil war was a lesser evil than allowing the communists to take over in that country. But, in any situation where we get involved in that way, we take on a measure of responsibility for what goes on there.

NARRATOR: Over 70,000 Salvadorans have been killed and over one million have been made refugees -- that's one-third of the population -- as a result of this 12-year civil war. Ambassador White estimates that the US-supported Salvadoran military is responsible for 90-to-95 percent of these deaths.

Ambassador WHITE: Think of the famous cases: The killing of Archbishop Romero. The killing of the American churchwomen. The killing of the Jesuits. These were all done by the military, even though the Bush White House tried blame the killing of the Jesuits on to the revolutionaries. It simply was not true. 

It's our tolerance of military abuses that is in good part responsible for the reign of terror that's been inflicted on El Salvador over the last decade.

NARRATOR: While El Salvador may now be on the mend, the United States continues to arm dictators elsewhere. 

Mr. NAIRN: The government will invoke human rights and will talk about crimes against people when those crimes are committed by official enemies of the United States. But when the United States itself is party to the crimes, as in Indonesia or Central America or elsewhere, it denies them or does not talk about them.

NARRATOR: It's not in the long term interest of the United States to arm dictators. They will eventually fall, leaving bitterness and anger in their wake.

Mr. DAVIS: In the long run, dictators cannot count on the support of their own people. Ultimately, they will fail. And when they fail, the United States fails because it's seen that we are on the wrong side.

NARRATOR: With the cold war over and a more cooperative era in international relations upon us, it's long past time to stop arming dictators.
 

Produced by the Center for Defense Information 
Scriptwriter: Kathryn Schultz 
Segment Producer: Nick Moore 
Show Number: 528