Higher defence budget for new submarines

“We were waiting for the call to shoot,” an elderly man told me prior to a meeting on the acquisition of new Dutch submarines (Feb 15, 2016). In 1962 he had been embarked on a submarine when the Indonesians transported troops by sea to Papua New Guinea, at that time the last but contested Dutch colony in Asia. The call did not come and thousands of Indonesian troops entered Papua to throw out the colonizer – and become the new colonizer.

The old man told more exciting stories. Sailing near – making close-up pictures - or even just under Russian vessels during the Cold War. They also entered a US carrier battle group – a group of naval vessels organised around an aircraft carrier - without being noticed. Recently the Dutch website marineschepen.nl published a similar story. In 1999 Dutch Walrus submarine was able in an exercise to virtually sink the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt plus 8 escorting vessels. It shows the power and danger of submarines.

The meeting on the Dutch submarine acquisition, organised in The Hague by the Officers Associations (GOV) and the Dutch Atlantic Commission, can bee seen as the start of a public campaign for higher military expenditures to be able to buy new submarines. The attendants at the meeting unanimously agreed that without a budget increase this will be impossible. But for what reason should the Dutch need those expensive invisible boats? How will they find their way on the worldwide, supply-driven market for submarines? Former Secretary of Defence Wim van Eekelen, sitting on the front row, asked how the costs would be kept under control. He had bad memories about his own time in government when costs of a similar project had run out of hand. The Walrus scandal is one of the more well known Dutch political affairs. “We will fence the costs and the general accounting office is already involved,” reassured speaker Commander Niels Woudstra of the Dutch military academia.

The meeting in The Hague was a warming-up for the Parliamentary debates beginning in March 2016 – with a round table, technical briefing and the official start of the acquisition process. The military staff already seems to have made up its mind; research investments in the new boats started years ago. At the Ministry of Defence a staff engineer has been silently working on the development of the new ships. Before now, the MoD had not want the plans for the subs to make headlines while the defence budget was being cut. Engineer Van den Broek-de Bruijn can finally present her work in public. In June 2016, she will speak in Lillestrøm, Norway at the Underwater Defence Technology (UDT) fair on Submarine Performance and Requirement Evaluation Method. After working on her own for many years she is now part of a whole team preparing the acquisition process. Only a nod by the Parliament is needed to get the process in motion.

For years, the Dutch military staff has been preparing the acquisition of new submarines, amidst decreasing defence spendings. Now the time seems to be ripe and the plan has been presented at a meeting in The Hague. During the meeting it became clear what the Ministry of Defence wants. A medium submarine, something between a big nuclear one and the smaller ones used in the littorals for home defence. A submarine which can operate efficiently in the salt water of the Red Sea and the sweeter seawater of the Baltic Sea (both with its own upward pressure, which has big effects on weight needed to submerge and thus the size to trim the submarine) and in deep water and shallow littorals. It must be expeditionary, which means that it can operate robustly in all fields of the spectrum of violence, independent if necessary after it has left the harbour.

Weaponization must be divers and flexible. The current class of Dutch submarines has a torpedo to sink a big ship – last example of big a ship sinking is Argentine cruiser General Belgrano during the Malvina's/Falkland conflict, 1982, with the deaths of 323 Argentine crewmen - but has no weapons for smaller opponents nor for anti-air warfare. The submarines must be future-proof for thirty years; be more silent than the present Walrus-class, able to take more Special Forces (SOF) on board including their equipment; have capabilities for different forms of intelligence gathering, have an air independent propulsion (AIP) system, and large network centric capabilities for communication and coordination. And they must be able to operate with drones; an armed underwater branch of unmanned vehicles (UUV's) is looming over the horizon. This last development makes a future-proof submarine a major challenge. Many of the tasks – intelligence gathering, even shoot to sink operations, find other submarines – will be done in the future by even more silent UUV's with longer endurance capabilities to submerge.

Bigger and more capable, means more expensive, but also raises the question who will built the boats. The big Dutch submarines wharfs are gone, but the Netherlands still has submarine export activities. Every year, a number of arms export licenses are granted for equipment to upgrade or overhaul the Taiwanese submarines, ordered by Tapei at Wilton Feijnoord late 1980 (See table 2010-2014). The technology know-how is still in the country; in the MoD, and in ship-design bureaus Nevesbu and Marin. But the ships will will have to be built elsewhere. Considering the special wishes of the Dutch navy, only few of the international wharfs will be able to build it.

Dutch export licenses for Sea Dragon-class submarines, 2010-2014
Source: Maandrapportages militaire goederen 2010-2014

“It will be the Germans.” my neighbour in the meeting murmurs. But although German HDW/Thyssen wharfs might have a lot of experience, they have only build smaller ships so far. In fact there are only two obvious parties with the required experience, Kockums from Sweden and the Australian Submarine Corp. Together they were the major parties which build the Collins class submarines, based on a Kockums (471) design. In early 2015, the most prominent Dutch conglomerate of ship wharfs Damen preluded on the Dutch acquisition by joining forces with Saab Kockums. Commander Woudstra of the Dutch navy said clearly in The Hague: “We do not know yet where we will buy them. But we will involve the Golden Triangle and international partners, such as Norway and Canada.” Involving the Golden Triangle means the ministry, the defence industry and the knowledge and research institutes, and in fact says that he will try to give the Dutch naval industry part of the job.

Competition on the market for submarines is severe. Asia is potentially the most interesting regions looking for extension of its fleet. “Estimates put the number of modern diesel-electric submarines operating in the Pacific at upwards of 130 by 2020,” states retired naval officer Krokel (Naval Institute Proceedings, February 2016). When the Netherlands – with a third party like Kockums - will enter this competition, it will contribute to the push factors on this market and make it even more supply driven. When you start to invest in the development of a new weapon system, exports can already be anticipated. You cannot blame the shipbuilders for wanting to gain from investments. Damen shipyard wants “to explore future opportunities in the international submarine market,” and ”in addition to this [potential Walrus-class submarine replacement programme] project, Saab and Damen will also explore ways in which they might bid jointly on other submarine procurement programmes.”

While being build, the vessels will already become partly outdated by the UUV revolution. For some tasks however big ships will continue to be indispensable, like for SOF-transport in/out areas where secret operation is desired, or for on the spot translation and analysis of gathered intelligence. (Dutch submarines were used the past decades for intelligence gathering on three continents.) To keep those special 'niches' for the Dutch forces, the defence budget will have to grow. And that will make the Netherlands again a party on the international market for submarines. But however sensational the stories of the military planners are, the acquisition must be regarded on a cost and profit level. The Dutch parliament should consider twice if this very expensive acquisition suites the Netherlands and – first and foremost – if it does contribute to a more secure world.

Meer altijd maar meer

De NAVO-budgetten voor wapenaankopen groeien. In het NAVO rapport over het jaar 2015 stelt de militaire verdragsorganisatie dat in 2014 17,4% van de uitgaven van de NAVO-lidstaten werden gebruikt voor materieelaankopen. In 2015 was dit 2 procent meer, namelijk 19,7%. Jane's Defence Weekly (3 februari 2016, blz. 12) schrijft dat bij 23 van de 28 bondgenoten de uitgaven voor nieuw materieel toenamen. De NAVO is nog steeds verantwoordelijk voor meer dan de helft van de wereldwijde militaire uitgaven. Die groei is dan ook goed nieuws voor de wapenindustrie. In absolute cijfers betekent de 2 procent bijna US$ 18 miljard. Om een idee van verhouding te geven: US$ 18 miljard ongeveer de gecombineerde omvang aan wapenimporten door de 14 grootste klanten in 2014.

Deze voor de wapenindustrie gunstige ontwikkeling wordt veroorzaakt door de perceptie dat de wereld steeds gevaarlijker wordt. Achtereenvolgende Secretaris Generaals van de NAVO hadden allemaal een zin die ze keer op keer herhaalden: NAVO lidstaten moeten meer uitgeven aan defensie. Vaak werden en worden deze woorden begeleid met een bont scala aan dreigingen, zoals ISIS, Rusland, China, Taliban, terrorisme, vuile bommen, migranten, klimaatvluchtelingen, cyberaanvallen, en ook de traditionele klacht over free riding over de rug van Amerikaanse uitgaven. Dat de NAVO meer dan 50% van alle wereldwijde militaire uitgaven voor haar rekening neemt (de VS alleen is al verantwoordelijk voor 35%) wordt nauwelijks genoemd. Rusland, gezien als een grote bedreiging, is verantwoordelijk voor slechts 4,5% van de wereldwijde militaire uitgaven. Het leeuwendeel van de wapenaankopen gaat al ten koste van de westerse belastingbetaler, maar het constante herhalen dat de wereld een gevaarlijke plek is geworden blijkt eindelijk vruchten af te werpen. Een groot aantal NAVO-leden hebben hun militaire budgetten verhoogd, met name voor wapenaankopen.

AntiWar.com, een Amerikaanse website met informatie over en tegen oorlogen, publiceerde onlangs een artikel waarin de de standpunten van de Amerikaanse presidentskandidaten worden vergeleken. De schrijver, Thomas F. Lee, beschrijft hoe alle kandidaten stellen dat de wereld zich in een gevaarlijke situatie bevindt. "Amerika moet een leidende positie nemen in een gevaarlijke wereld," meent Hillary Clinton. Om zich te distantiëren van naïef optimisme stelt Bernie Sanders: "We leven in een moeilijke en gevaarlijke wereld, en er zijn geen gemakkelijke of magische oplossingen." (...) Marco Rubio's campagne website dendert binnen met: "De wereld is nog nooit zo gevaarlijk geweest als vandaag."
Lee veronderstelt dat die opmerkingen over toenemend gevaar zullen leiden tot nog hogere militaire uitgaven. Hij adviseert zijn lezers om eerst naar de feiten te kijken. Het is minder beroerd dan veronderstelt. Het aantal slachtoffers van gewapende conflicten daat wereldwijd al jaren, om maar eens iets te noemen. "We moeten bereid zijn om die vooruitgang te benoemen met een geestdrift die betrokkenheid stimuleert. Bevrijd van ongegronde zorgen, kunnen we werken aan een vreedzamer en menswaardige wereld," concludeert Lee.

Het is niet alleen Lee die ons vraagt naar de wereld te kijken op een manier die we niet meer gewend zijn. Het Nederlandse maandblad Militaire Spectator (nr. 1, 2016 blz. 18/04) publiceerde een langartikel over de toenemende veiligheid in de wereld gedurende een lange periode. De auteur, majoor Ducheateau-Polkerman, werkt bij de Staf van het Commando Landstrijdkrachten (CLAS). Dit terwijl de minister Hennis-Plasschaert van Defensie herhaaldelijk spreekt over een minder veilige wereld. "Politici, hoogwaardigheidsbekleders en 'de gewone burger' lijken ervan overtuigd dat de wereld steeds onveiliger wordt. Ze lijken elkaar bovendien na te praten. Dit “ondanks de geringe harde bewijzen hiervoor. Er is juist des te meer hard bewijs voor het tegendeel." Volgens deze militaire expert wordt het gevoel van gevaar gebruikt om een hoger budget los te weken voor het Ministerie van Defensie. Het aanwakkeren van angst is een effectief instrument om een groter stuk van de taart te krijgen.

Thomas Lee merkt op dat het schilderen van een slechtste situatie ook gebruikt wordt als een mechanisme om aandacht te trekken voor een kwestie. Soms is dit noodzakelijk. Er zijn inderdaad delen van de wereldbevolking die moeten leven in ernstige en gevaarlijke situaties. Zoals de bevolking in Jemen, waar een wrede en in het Westen nauwelijks opgemerkt oorlog gaande is. In 2014 verkocht het Nederland wapens aan zes landen die deelnemen aan de Saoedische geleide coalitie in de oorlog in Jemen, zoals Stop Wapenhandel en Pax onlangs schreef in een brief aan ledenvan de Tweede Kamer. De Tweede Kamer bespreekt eerdaags het Nederlandse wapenexportbeleid van 2014.  
 

Het Nederlandse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken heeft beloofd te onderzoeken of Nederlandse wapens zijn gebruikt in de oorlog in Jemen, maar waarschuwde in een recente brief aan het Parlement dat dit onderzoek moeilijk zal zijn omdat 1) de Saoedische coalitie tegen externe controles is en 2) het vooral gaat om de verkoop van componenten.

Het eerste argument doet wenkbrauwen fronsen. Nederland levert wapens aan landen die niet bereid zijn om inzicht te geven in het gebruik ervan? Zelfs niet als er bezorgdheid bestaat over schendingen van het internationaal recht en de mensenrechten? Het tweede component-argument is gemakkelijk te weerleggen. Het onderzoeksrapport van Stop Wapenhandel, dat de aanleiding was voor het ministerieel onderzoek, begint met de identificatie van door de coalitie gebruikte houwitsers, F-16 gevechtsvliegtuigen, fregatten, patrouilleboten en tanks van Nederlandse origine of met Nederlandse onderdelen. De Nederlandse overheid hoeft niet te zoeken naar onderdelen, het moet gewoon kijken naar de wapens waarin deze onderdelen worden gebruikt en naar de geweren, kanonnen en tanks die gebruikt zijn voor het afvuren van de geleverde kogels, granaten en raketten.

Het goede nieuws is dat de wereld een veiligere plaats is dan je zou denken op grond van de krantenkoppen. Het slechte nieuws is dat het goede nieuws is wordt overschreeuwd door een sterke en krachtige lobby voor hogere militaire uitgaven en meer wapenhandel.

Martin Broek

Donderdag 11 februari 2016 tussen 15:00-18:00 zal het jaarlijkse wapenhandel debat plaatsvinden. Het is live te volgen op http://www.tweedekamer.nl/vergaderingen/livedebat/thorbeckezaal

More always more

NATO budgets for arms acquisitions are growing. In the NATO report on 2015 the military treaty organisation states that in 2014, 17.4% of NATO members budgets were used for acquisitions. In 2015 this was 2 percent more, namely 19.7%. Jane's Defence Weekly (Feb. 3, 2016, p. 12) writes that 23 of the 28 allies have increased their spending on new equipment. As NATO still counts for over half of world's military expenditures, this is wonderful news for the defence industry. In absolute figures the 2 percent increase means that almost US$ 18 billion is added to the materiel budgets. To give an idea of the size of this figure: this is comparable with the combined budgets of the fourteen highest ranking arms importers of 2014.

This rewarding development – for the arms industry, that is - stems from the perception that the world is becoming more dangerous. Successive NATO Secretary Generals have had one line which they repeated over and over: The members need to spent more on defences. Often this was and is accompanied by the mentioning of a wide variation of threats, such as ISIS, Russia, China, Taliban, terrorism, nuclear, migrants, climate refugees, cyber attacks, and also the traditional complaint about free riding on US-expenses. That NATO is already responsible for over 50% of of all global military expenses (US alone is responsible for 35%) is hardly ever mentioned. Russia, considered a major threat, is responsible for only 4.5% of global miliary spending. The lion share of arms purchases is already on the burden of Western tax payers, but the constant repeating that the world has become a dangerous place is at last paying off. A large number of NATO members have increased their military budgets, especially for acquisitions.

AntiWar.com, an American website with information on and against wars, published an article by Thomas F. Lee. Lee writes on the positions of the candidates for the US presidential elections. All candidates state that the world is in a dangerous situation. “America must lead in a dangerous world,” solemnly says Hillary Clinton. Relieving us of naïve optimism, Bernie Sanders advises: “We live in a difficult and dangerous world, and there are no easy or magical solutions.” (…) Marco Rubio’s campaign website thunders: “The world has never been more dangerous than today.”

Lee supposes that those remarks will lead to higher military spending and advises his readers to look at the facts first. Those facts are not as bad as suggested: “We must be willing to tell the truth about continuing human progress in a spirit that encourages excitement and engagement. Freed from unwarranted fear, we can work to accelerate the journey toward an even more peaceful, humane world,” he concludes.

It is not only Lee who asks us to look at the world in a way we are no longer used at. The Dutch monthly Militaire Spectator (no 1, 2016 pp. 4-18) has a long read on the increasing global safety over a long period of time (in Dutch tables in English). The author, Major Ducheateau-Polkerman, works at the Central Staff offices of the Dutch Army (CLAS). She notices that globally the number of victims in conflicts is showing a downward trend over the past decades, although minister of Defence of the Netherlands Hennis-Plasschaert speaks repeatedly about a less secure world. “Politicians, high ranking officials and the 'ordinary citizen', they all seem to think that the world becomes insecure. They also seem to repeat each other.” But “their is no hard evidence for this. On the contrary, there is ample evidence of the opposite.” According to this military expert, the perception of danger is used to get higher budgets for the MoD. Creating fear is a common tool to get a bigger piece of the State's cake.

Thomas Lee noticed that painting the worst situation is used as a mechanism to attract attention to a subject. Sometimes this is inevitable and necessary; some populations are indeed in grave and dangerous situations. Such as the population inYemen where a cruel and in the West hardly noticed war is going on. In 2014 the Netherlands sold arms to six countries participating in the Saudi led coalition in the Yemen war, as Stop Wapenhandel and Pax recently wrote in a letter to Dutch Members of Parliament about to discuss 2014 Dutch arms export policy. The Dutch ministry of Foreign Affairs has promised to investigate if these Dutch weapons have been used in the war in Yemen, but warned in a recent letter to Parliament that that this research will be difficult because 1) the coalition is against external inspections, 2) it is mainly the sale of components.

The first argument should raise eyebrows. The Netherlands delivers weapons to countries who are not prepared to give insight in their use? Even not if there are concerns about human rights and violations of international law? The second components-argument is easy to refute, as is shown in a Stop Wapenhandel research report on which the investigation promise is made. The report starts with the identification of coalition-used howitzers, F-16 fighter aircraft, frigates, patrol vessels and tanks of Dutch origin or containing Dutch components. The Dutch government does not have to look for components, it simply has to look for the weapons in which these components are used and the cannisters, guns, cannons, and tanks which are firing the delivered grenades and missiles.

The good news is that the world is a safer place than one should think when reading the papers. The bad news is that the good news is over-screamed by a strong and powerful lobby for higher military expenses and more arms trade.

Martin Broek
Written for Stop Wapenhandel

Thursday 11 februari 2016 between 15:00 – 18:00 the Dutch annual arms trade debate takes place. It can be watched live at http://www.tweedekamer.nl/vergaderingen/livedebat/thorbeckezaal

Dutch missile technology to Saudi Arabia?

Germany "supports the supply of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia," concluded Left Party Bundestag member Jan van Aken in a reaction to the deliverances of components for Tornado and Eurofighter combat aircraft, parts of howitzer and mortar ammunition, and armoured transport vehicles to the Saudi kingdom. The exports were authorized as part of joint projects to which Germany committed itself. According to the German government, this was export to other European countries, not to Saudi-Arabia. The same logic, although on a smaller scale of export, is followed by the Dutch government when for example justifying the export of Sea Sparrow missile components.

Saudi Arabia is the notorious sponsor and source of inspiration for much of Islamic violence in the wider Middle East, staging military and financial interventions in order to create stronger salafist influence. Internally, the country has a repressive policy against women and minorities which is amongst the worst in the world. But Saudi Arabia is also spending billions of its oil dollars on arms, making it the third or fourth military spender in the world (depending on calculation method used).

Last week Riyadh declared that the building of four naval vessels by Lockheed Martin in the US is too expensive – between 3 and 4 billion US$ each - and goes too slow (it can take up to seven years). The statement can be seen as part of the negotiations over price and schedule of the ships. The Saudi acquisition is part of a US$ 20 billion programme to refresh the ageing U.S.-built Saudi fleet operating in the Persian Gulf, according to a State Department notification issued in October. Shortly after the Saudi complaint Lockheed could rescedule and build quicker.

According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA ) 532 Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) will be sold to the Saudi's as part of the programme. Here the involvement of Netherlands starts. The country participates in the NATO Sea Sparrow Consortium since the beginning e.g. through Fokker and Thales. Most of the Sea Sparrow project concerns sea launched missiles but a 2012 arms fair showed Fokker and Thales involvement in some land based Sea Sparrows. The last two Sea Sparrow contracts, reported on the website of the US Ministry of Defense, the mentioned the Dutch as producers. October 30, 2015 a contract was issued valued at € 15.3 million, of which 60 percent by the the Sea Sparrow Consortium. An April 2, 2015 contract for Sea Sparrow Block 2 missile engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) requirements was issued for $517,300,000 (€ 474.7m). The Netherlands will pay for 5 percent of this contract and perform 3 percent of the work. The result in real figures is € 14 million. Research institute TNO also played a role in the work on the missile and developped the system which provide the data to optimise raid annihilation.

The Sea Sparrow sales can also be found in the monthly arms export reports by the Dutch government. In 2014 (the latest published) three exports to Denmark of Sea Sparrow components are reported, one to the United Arab Emirates, and one to the VS. Together the exports are valued at € 8.1 million. But the rather vague description 'technology for guided missiles' [Technologie voor geleide raketten] is also used in the reports so the conclusion it is likely many more are under-reported but took place.

The Fokker Special Products website makes no secret of Sea Sparrows technology production. The Supplier Quality Assurance Requirements Fokker has signed – regarding selling Sea Sparrow components – states: “Full traceability of the supply chain shall be guaranteed and be proven by the paperwork.” So it can be known in which missiles for which destination the components are assembled. It enables the Dutch government to control if sales have the destination Saudi Arabia. But such action is not to be expected, because it is antagonising the US and our ally in Riyadh. A new sale of weapon components to Saudi Arabia is in the making. And will the Netherlands follow the German example where words are nice but policy wrong. Or will it be stopped?

Martin Broek 28/01/2016

Beertje

In zijn artikel over de boze Russische beer stelt Steven Derix dat Moskou met 81 miljard dollar meer geld uitgeeft dan de meeste Europese NAVO-landen, waar de defensie-uitgaven zijn gedaald tot ruim onder de 2 procent. De cijfers van het befaamde Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) voor 2014 laten inderdaad zien dat Frankrijk met 62,3 miljard dollar, het Verenigd Koninkrijk met 60,5 miljard dollar en Duitsland met 46,5 miljard dollar Rusland voor zich moeten dulden (zie tabel). Daarvan waren de militaire uitgaven in 2014 volgens SIPRI 84,5 miljard dollar. Andersom stelde het Britse IHS (uitgever van militaire tijdschriften en handboeken) afgelopen juni zelfs dat het VK (60,9 miljard) boven Rusland (57,7 miljard) stond in 2015.

Je zou de militaire uitgaven ook kunnen vergelijken met die van de EU. Die waren in 2014 278 miljard dollar of met die van de hele NAVO van zo'n 900 miljard. NAVO-landen investeren bovendien een groot deel van hun budget in nieuwe wapens. Putin kiest naar verluidt voor het verhogen van de weddes om steun van militairen te kopen. (Ik laat het gestook en de kernwapens buiten beschouwing, maar de NAVO heeft ook meer kernbommen en betere raketafweer.) In 2015 steeg het budget van Rusland nauwelijks. Al met al staat die boze beer naar militaire uitgaven gemeten plots naast een veel grotere neushoorn en een nog grotere olifant. Zelfs minder dan 2% van het BNP die de NAVO-landen uitgeven aan de krijgsmacht is ruimschoots voldoende om die voorsprong te behouden.

EU-country	ME in million US$
France	62.289
UK	60.482
Germany	46.455
Italy	30.909
Spain	12.732
Poland	10.499
Netherlands	10.086
Sweden	6.573
Greece	5.318
Belgium	5.190
Denmark	4.457
Portugal	4.201
Finland	3649
Austria	3.257
Romania	2.543
Czech Republic	2.023
Ireland	1.191
Hungary	1.164
Slovak Rep.	988
Croatia	875
Bulgaria	837
Estonia	509
Slovenia	490
Cyprus	423
Lithuania	377
Latvia	299
Luxembourg	297
Malta	59,8
Total	278.173
http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database

figures for action

“Developing nations from 2011 to 2014 received 62% of the value of all international arms deliveries.” It is a text from the annual report 'Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2007-2014,' published December 2015. The newest edition of this annual report appeared almost against expectation. The previous issue was published in 2012; annual was hardly accurate any more.

The report is written by Catherine A. Theohary for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). She replaces Richard F. Grimmett, who has been the author for such a long time that the report had become known as the Grimmett-report. The rebirth of the report with a new author was launched with a media strategy. It was a week after publication before it became really public. This gave the New York Times the possibility to write an exclusive article which was cited in papers all over the world. The US$ 10 billion growth to US$ 36 billion annual US arms exports made headlines. Russian sales declined slightly from US$ 10,3 to US$ 10,2 billion. Remarkable is also the position of Sweden as number three with US$ 5,5 billion of exports. Giorgio Beretta, an Italian anti-arms trade activist tweeted that four EU-countries are among the prominent arms sellers at the Middle East bazaar: France, UK, Germany, and Italy.

The Korean press site Chosun Ilbo cited the fact that South-Korea, with imports valued at US$ 7.8, was the largest arms buyer world wide in 2014. Not something to be proud of, as activists from four continents made clear in October last year at an arms fair in Seoul.

For me the search engine of Adobe reader goes directly on digging for 'Netherlands'. The catch? In 2014 the Netherlands took the ninth position on 'arms transfer agreement,' with a value of US$ 900 million. This predicts high results for the next year on arms exports. The Netherlands takes already the eleventh position (2007-2014) considering world wide arms exports. The report underlines already familiar knowledge based on a variety of sources.

Another report also published in December is less noticed by the press. The World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers - often abbreviated as WMEAT-report  - of the US State Department is one the most handy overviews on military expenditures, troop levels, arms sales and imports worldwide etc. But with figures on the years 2002-2012 it crawls behind other sources. The Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (SIPRI) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), publisher of the Military Balance, gave military expenditure figures for 2014 already. Both can be consulted on the internet and are the source for a wiki lemma on military expenditure. The most used source of arms trade figures is SIPRI, an organisation with a wide range of different sources and easy-to-use spreadsheets. The European Union will probably publish its 2014 figures in March 2016. The 2013 figures were published March 2015. This is rather late, as Stop Wapenhandel pointed out in a press statement last year. Officially figures are due to be publish as late as December of the year following the year it provides figures for. The EU figures are easy to organise and search with the EU export browser on the website of the European Network Against Arms Trade (ENAAT). In the blink of an eye you can see that our friends in Riyadh are the second most important destination of arms from human rights friendly EU.

WMEAT lags far behind with 2012 figures in December 2015. It contains the statement that arms exports are reducing the state deficit, because the ratio between in- and export are largely in favour of exports: US$ 102 billion annually (a remarkably high figure in comparison with other sources) versus US$ 4 billion. What WMEAT does not observe is that the US debt has reached a level of US$ 20 trillion – more than 100 percent of the US BBP – which is mainly due to warmongering and military acquisitions. The US would not even meet the criteria for entering the EU with this performance. WMEAT gives noteworthy figures for the period 2002-2012: the US was responsible for three quarters of all arms trade, the European Union for a tenth, Russia for a twentieth and China for less than 2 percent. However remarkable press will not take note of three year old figures.

The only press publications on WMEAT has been one by a South Korea website writing on the number 1 position of neighbour Japan as arms importer. Japan's military is still vividly remembered in Korea for it's decennia of military occupation. A week later – more importantly - the Chinese People's Daily published a Op-ed ending with the text: “The 'peaceful nation' is just a temporary cover. Once it is set off by some international affair or other excuse, the Japanese government will abandon the banner of peace and show its true colours. The whole world, therefore, should stay alert to Japan’s intentions.” China has been another victim of Japanese imperial forces, but is currently involved in a strive for influence in the region with the US (and Japan, seen as the US biggest aircraft carrier in the region). Figures can be used for several purposes, beating the drums in conflict is obviously one of them. All the more reason to use this kind of figures to advocate arms reductions.

For precise fact on Dutch arms trade, it is best to use the website of Stop Wapenhandel. This organisation used its counter report to the official Dutch annual arms export report and monthly overviews of export permissions and transit to highlight that Dutch arms export reached its all time high in 2014, and also painted the full picture of the negative effects of many of these sales. Because as a writer in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote 'Peace on earth? Not until the U.S. stops selling arms and making war.' This is the core point. One can read EU where it writes US. Or the Netherlands, Belgium, Flanders, Italy, France, UK, any country or region exporting arms. Arms export policy and controls exist on paper. But a strict implementation is something yet to be seen; economic and foreign policy interest play a more important role. It seems to be sensible in the framework of the struggle for peace to concentrate more on our own governments than on blaming far away countries supported by our governments with military and economic support. More actual information – on 2015 e.g. - would be helpful in these efforts.

Martin Broek 13/01/2016
written for Stop Wapenhandel

US Defense Contracts with Dutch participation (20/04/15 - 12/01/16 )

January 12, 2016 (Release No: CR-007-16)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/642757

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $28,842,000 not-to-exceed, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This delivery order provides for air vehicle retrofit modifications associated with the F-35A fuel tank overpressure engineering change proposal in support of the Air Force, and the governments of Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, and Norway. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (62 percent); Ogden, Utah (28 percent); and Palmdale, California (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2017. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 aircraft procurement (Air Force); 2016 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force); and international partner funds in the amount of $14,421,000 will be obligated at time of award, $6,656,033 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases of the Air Force ($26,855,466; 93.11 percent); and the governments of Netherlands ($1,633,244; 5.67 percent); Italy ($201,880; 0.70 percent); Norway ($100,940; 0.35 percent) and Australia ($50,470; 0.17 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

December 29, 2015 (Release No: CR-250-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/639485

Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, is being awarded a $13,495,233 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024‑15‑C-5408) for procurement of 19 SM-2 Block IIIA Zumwalt flight-test-rounds for DDG 1000 class Ships (Zumwalt configuration). This contract modification also involves a purchase for the Netherlands as a result of an international agreement between the governments of the United States and the Netherlands. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona (50 percent); Andover, Massachusetts (25 percent); Mountain View, California (11 percent); Camden, Arkansas (4 percent); San Diego, California (5 percent); Chandler, Arizona (3 percent); Hudson, New Hampshire (1 percent); and Redmond, Washington (1 percent). Work is expected to be completed August 2018. Fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation; fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); fiscal 2016 operations and maintenance (Navy); and Memorandum of Understanding (Netherlands) funding in the amount of $13,495,233 will be obligated at the time of award. Contract funds in the amount of $10,691,917 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract modification was not competitively procured in accordance with the authority from 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (1) and FAR 6.302-1 (a) (2). The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.

December 21, 2015 (Release No: CR-245-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/637649

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $1,171,206,489 advance acquisition contract for the advance procurement of long lead time materials, parts, components and effort to maintain the planned production schedule for F-35 low rate initial production lot 11 aircraft. The advance acquisition effort includes 80 F-35A aircraft (28 for the U.S. Air Force; 6 for the government of Norway; 4 for the government of Turkey; 8 for the government of the Netherlands; 8 for the government of Australia; 10 for the government of Israel; 6 for the government of Japan; and 10 for the government of South Korea); 7 F-35B aircraft (6 for the U.S. Marine Corps; and 1 for the United Kingdom); and 4 F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy. This contract also includes an undefinitized contract action for production of 2 F-35A aircraft for the U.S. Air Force and F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (55 percent); El Segundo, California (15 percent); Warton, United Kingdom (10 percent); Orlando, Florida (5 percent); Nashua, New Hampshire (5 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (5 percent); and Nagoya, Japan (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2019. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Air Force, Navy), fiscal 2016 aircraft procurement (Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps), non-U.S. DoD partner and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $847,929,604 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchase for the U.S. Air Force ($401,509,516; 34.3 percent); U.S. Navy ($256,433,369; 21.9 percent); U.S. Marine Corps ($106,500,000; 9.1 percent); non-U.S. DoD partners ($207,069,044; 17.7 percent) and foreign military sales ($199,694,560; 17 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales program. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-16-C-0033).

November 30, 2015 (Release No: CR-229-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/631575

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded $9,018,848 for firm-fixed-fee-price delivery order 2067 to exercise an option against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-11-G-0001) for follow-on integrated logistics support/engineering services in support of the Harpoon/Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response missile system and Harpoon launch systems for the Navy and the governments of Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Netherland, Oman, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed in St. Charles, Missouri (91.84 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (5.47 percent); Yorktown, Virginia (2.64 percent); and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (0.05 percent), and is expected to be completed in January 2017. Fiscal 2016 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds; and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $9,018,848 are being obligated on this award, of which $2,425,166 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Navy ($2,425,166; 26.89 percent); and the governments of Korea ($986,268; 10.94 percent); Taiwan ($783,148; 8.68 percent); Turkey ($506,886; 5.62 percent); Japan ($504,179; 5.59 percent); Egypt ($503,268; 5.58 percent); Saudi Arabia ($421,531; 4.67 percent); Australia ($381,336; 4.23 percent); United Kingdom ($347,333; 3.85 percent); Canada ($254,720; 2.82 percent); Chile ($241,248; 2.67 percent); Israel ($207,323; 2.30 percent); Portugal ($202,207; 2.24 percent); India ($189,909; 2.11 percent); Thailand $186,382; 2.07 percent); Singapore ($154,170; 1.71 percent); Bahrain ($140,478; 1.56 percent); Kuwait ($99,253; 1.10 percent); United Arab Emirates ($95,726; 1.06 percent); Malaysia ($95,506; 1.06 percent); Oman ($94,404; 1.05 percent); Netherlands ($82,669; 0.92 percent); Germany ($66,136; 0.73 percent); and Denmark ($49,601; 0.55 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

November 9, 2015 (Release No: CR-216-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/628342

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $112,779,000 modification to a previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-15-C-0003) for the procurement of additional long-lead time items necessary for the manufacture and delivery of low-rate initial production Lot 10 F-35A aircraft for the Air Force and Lot 11 F-35A aircraft for the government of the Netherlands. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (30 percent); El Segundo, California (25 percent); Warton, United Kingdom (20 percent); Orlando, Florida (10 percent); Nashua, New Hampshire (5 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (5 percent); and Cameri, Italy (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2019. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Air Force); and non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participant funds in the amount of $112,779,000 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchase for the Air Force ($99,060,000; 88 percent) and non-U.S. DoD participants ($13,719,000; 12 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

October 30, 2015 (Release No: CR-209-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/626771

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, is being awarded $16,619,241 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the NATO Seasparrow Missile System Design Agent engineering and technical support. The contractor shall provide a variety of Design Agent program management, engineering, technical and logistics services and supplies necessary to provide effective life cycle support and modernization of the NATO Seasparrow Project Office Combat System Division portfolio, which includes the MK 57 NATO Seasparrow Surface Missile System, the MK 48/56 Guided Missile Vertical Launch System, MK 41 Vertical Launch System related software and equipment, and a variety of lab and special test equipment. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $89,080,693. This contract combines purchases for the Navy and the governments of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Turkey as part of the NATO Seasparrow Consortium. The Navy share is 40 percent of the program, and the partner nations will combine for 60 percent of the program. Work will be performed in Portsmouth, Rhode Island (94 percent); Marlborough, Massachusetts (3 percent); and San Diego, California (3 percent), and is expected to be completed by November 2016. Fiscal 2015 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $2,027,741; fiscal 2008 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $653,250; fiscal 2015 international funding in the amount of $570,629; and foreign military sales funding in the amount of $100,000 will be obligated at time of award. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(4). The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-16-C-5418).

September 25, 2015 (Release No: CR-184-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/620608 


Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, is being awarded a $264,805,607 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for an AIM-9X system improvement program to provide additional capability and resolve obsolescence issues for the Navy, Air Force, and the governments of Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Belgium, Netherlands and Turkey under the Foreign Military Sales program. The effort includes engineering services required to incorporate new AIM-9X missile components and associated software updates into the Lot 17 and Lot 19 production programs. This effort will also provide development, integration, and flight test support for AIM-9X Block II hardware and software. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona (95.5 percent); Andover, Massachusetts (2.3 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (1.5 percent); and other various continental U.S. locations (0.7 percent), and is expected to be completed in September 2020. Fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy and Air Force), and foreign military sales funds, in the amount of $46,424,785 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($24,783,835; 53.35 percent); Navy ($10,746,165; 23.15 percent); and the governments of Turkey ($3,340,868; 7.2 percent); Netherlands ($1,900,000; 4.6 percent); Belgium ($2,098,917; 4.5 percent); Singapore ($1,960,000; 4.3 percent); Malaysia ($1,310,000; 2.8 percent); and Korea ($285,000; .1 percent). This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-15-C-0121).

***

Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, is being awarded a $227,047,688 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract (N00019-15-C-0092) for procurement of 447 AIM-9X Block II all up round tactical full-rate production Lot 15 missiles for the Navy (102), Air Force (243), and the governments of Japan (9), Korea (76), Romania (12), and Israel (5).  In addition, this modification provides for the procurement of 129 Block II captive air training missiles for the Navy (54), Air Force (60), Army (2), and the governments of Korea (2), Romania (6), and Israel (5); 7 special air training missiles for the Army; 174 all up round containers for the Navy (44), Air Force (85), Army (10), and the governments of Japan (3), Korea (19), Romania (7), and Israel (6); 4 captive test missiles for the Army (2), Navy (1) and Air Force (1); one test asset for the Navy; spares for the Navy, Air Force; and 12 lots of spares for Australia (1), Finland (1), Singapore (1), Korea (1), Switzerland (1), Morocco (1), Belgium (1), Saudi Arabia (1), Oman (2), the Netherlands (1), and Romania (1).  Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona (43.74 percent); Andover, Massachusetts (10.08 percent); Valencia, California (6.63 percent); Ontario Canada, Midland (5.54 percent); Rocket Center, West Virginia (5.49 percent); Vancouver, Washington (5.07 percent); Goleta, California (2.86 percent); Cheshire, Connecticut (2.05 percent); Heilbronn, Germany (1.88 percent); Simsbury, Connecticut (1.61 percent); San Jose, California (1.48 percent); Anniston, Alabama (1.31 percent); Cincinnati, Ohio (1.22 percent); Maniago, Italy (1.21 percent); Chatsworth, California (1.11 percent); San Diego, California (1.04 percent); Montgomery, Alabama (0.60 percent); Orlando, Florida (0.55 percent); Newbury Park, California (0.50 percent); El Segundo, California (0.50 percent) Claremont, California (0.43 percent); Joplin, Missouri (0.39 percent); Lombard, Illinois (0.28 percent); El Cajon, California (0.15 percent) and various locations inside and outside the continental U.S. (4.28 percent).  Work is expected to be completed in December 2017.  Fiscal 2013, 2014, and 2015 missile procurement (Air Force and Army); fiscal 2013 and 2015 weapons procurement (Navy); fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy); and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $227,047,688 are being obligated on this award, $815,817 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 2304(c) (1).  This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($113,451,928; 49.97 percent), the Navy ($53,057,371; 23.37 percent); the Army ($4,187,870; 1.84 percent); and the governments of Korea ($38,156,051; 16.81 percent); Romania ($7,398,811; 3.26 percent); Japan ($4,461,206; 1.96 percent); Israel ($3,667,822; 1.62 percent); Singapore ($702,297; 0.31 percent); Oman ($572,508; 0.25 percent); Finland ($421,032; 0.18 percent); Belgium ($442,585; 0.19 percent); Saudi Arabia ($284,386; 0.13 percent); Australia ($149,523; 0.06 percent); Switzerland ($50,117; 0.02 percent); the Netherlands ($41,614; 0.02 percent); and Morocco ($2,567; 0.01 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales program.  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. 

September 2, 2015 (Release No: CR-168-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/616022 


Lockheed Martin Sippican Inc., Marion, Massachusetts, is being awarded a $20,045,915 modification to previously awarded contract N00024-11-C-6404 to exercise option year four for the production of MK48 Mod 7 Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System Functional Item replacement kits and related engineering services. This modification includes foreign military sales (FMS) to Canada and the Netherlands. Work will be performed in Marion, Massachusetts (95 percent); and Syracuse, New York (5 percent), and is expected to be completed by May 2018. Fiscal 2015 weapons procurement (Navy); FMS (Canada and Netherlands); fiscal 2015 operation and maintenance (Navy); and FMS (Netherlands) funding in the amount of $20,045,915 will be obligated at time of award, and $49,958 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.

August 28, 2015 (Release No: CR-165-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/615285

Thales Raytheon Systems Co. LLC, Fullerton, California, was awarded a $82,606,668 cost-plus-fixed-fee, multi-year, foreign military sales contract (Finland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Chile) for sentinel radar technical/logistical services. Funding and work location will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2018. One bid was solicited with one received. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-15-D-0058).

August 4, 2015 (Release No: CR-147-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/612905

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $431,322,997 modification to the previously awarded Lot IX F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter advance acquisition contract (N00019-14-C-0002) for the procurement of production non-recurring items. These items include special tooling and special test equipment items that are critical to meeting current and future production rates for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps; non-U.S. Department of Defense participants; and foreign military sales customers. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (35 percent); Palmdale, California (10 percent); Nashua, New Hampshire (8 percent); Preston, United Kingdom (7 percent); San Diego, California (5 percent); Orlando, Florida (4 percent); Marietta, Georgia (4 percent); Torino, Italy (4 percent); Merrimack, New Hampshire (4 percent); Eagan, Minnesota (4 percent); Hauppauge, New York (2 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (2 percent); Alpharetta, Georgia (2 percent); Rolling Meadows, Illinois (2 percent); Cheltenham, United Kingdom (2 percent); Grenaa, Denmark (1 percent); Hoogeveen, Netherlands (1 percent); Melbourne, Florida (1 percent); Salt Lake City, Utah (1 percent); and Garden Grove, California (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2018. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force), non-U.S. Department of Defense participant, and foreign military sales funds in the amount of $431,322,997 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This modification combines purchase for the Air Force ($150,136,184; 34.81 percent); Navy ($75,068,092; 17.40 percent); Marine Corps ($75,068,092; 17.40 percent); non-U.S. Department of Defense participants ($75,392,333; 17.48 percent); and foreign military sales customers ($55,658,296; 12.91 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales program. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

June 30, 2015 (Release No: CR-123-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Article/606881

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $19,641,417 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) for requirements development and maturation efforts for the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter Air System. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in March 2016. Fiscal 2014 research and development (Navy and Air Force); fiscal 2015 research and development (Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp.); and Cooperative Partner funds in the amount of $19,641,417 will be obligated at the time of award, $1,655,373 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchase for the U.S. Navy ($5,597,287; 28.7 percent); U.S. Air Force ($5,408,209; 27.54 percent); U.S. Marine Corps. ($3,904,548; 19.7 percent); and the Governments of Australia ($710,521; 3.61 percent); Canada ($337,155; 1.7 percent); Italy ($466,752; 2.38 percent); Netherlands ($217,537; 1.1 percent); Norway ($711,221; 3.62 percent); Turkey ($1,359,110; 6.92 percent); and United Kingdom ($929,076; 4.73 percent) under a Cooperative Agreement. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

June 25, 2015 Army (Release No: CR-120-15)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Article/606878

Raytheon Co., Tucson, Arizona, was awarded an $8,310,252 modification (P00066) to foreign military sales contract W15QKN-08-C-0530 (Netherlands) for 100 Excalibur 155mm projectiles and 12 palletized containers. Work will be performed in Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; McAlester, Oklahoma; Farmington, New Mexico; East Camden, Arkansas; Valencia, Santa Ana, Inglewood , Chino, Healdsburg and Corona, California; Anniston Alabama; Cincinnati, Ohio; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Joplin, Missouri; Lowell, Massachusetts; McKinney, Texas; Woodridge, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; Congers, New York; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Karlskoga, Sweden; and Glenrothes and Plymouth, United Kingdom, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 30, 2015. Fiscal 2015 other procurement funds in the amount of $8,310,252 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, is the contracting activity.

Wapens en vrede op aarde

Op Eerste Kerstdag wordt het jaarrapport 'Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2007-2014,' gebruikt voor een artikel in de Int. New York Times. In die jaaruitgave is flink de klad gekomen. De voorlaatste uitgave stamde al weer uit 2012.

Het rapport is geschreven door Catherine A. Theohary voor de onderzoeksafdeling van het Amerikaanse congres (CRS). Ze vervangt daarmee Richard F. Grimmett, die sinds mensenheugenis als auteur op het coverblad van de jaarlijkse publicatie stond. In wandelgangen werd over het Grimmett-rapport gesproken. Er was dit jaar sprake van een mediastrategie bij de lancering. Het rapport werd pas een week na publicatie openbaar. Dat gaf de New York Times de gelegenheid een stuk te schrijven dat vervolgens werd overgenomen door kranten wereldwijd. De enorme groei van de Amerikaanse wapenexporten met 10 miljard dollar naar 36 miljard dollar waren dan ook nieuwswaardig. De Russische verkopen daalden licht van 10,3 naar 10,2 miljard. Opvallend is ook de positie van Zweden als nummer drie met 5,5 miljard aan verkopen. Een Italiaans anti-wapenhandel activist twitterde dat vier EU-landen bij de belangrijkste verkopers naar het Midden-Oosten zitten: Frankrijk, VK, Duitsland, en Italië.

De Koreaanse site Chosunilbo citeerde dat Zuid-Korea met 7.8 miljard aan contracten de grootste wapenimporteur was in 2014. Dat is niet iets om trots op te zijn, maakten activisten uit vier continenten in oktober bij een wapenbeurs in Seoel duidelijk.

Wat mij betreft gaat de zoekmachine vrijwel onmiddellijk op 'Netherlands'. En ja hoor in 2014 scoorde Nederland, met een negende plek, hoog als het ging om het sluiten van contracten. Het ging om een waarde van 900 miljoen dollar. Dat voorspelt hoge ogen bij wapenleveranties in de jaren erna. Nu al staat Nederland (2007-2014) als exporteur op een elfde plek. Het rapport onderstreept daarmee een al bekend beeld.

Minder opgemerkt werd een ander Amerikaans rapport dat in december werd uitgegeven. Het zogenaamde WMEAT rapport van het State Department. WMEAT staat voor World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers. Het is een van de handigste overzichten op het gebied van militaire bestedingen, troepensterkte, etc. Maar het loopt met cijfers voor de jaren 2002-2012 hopeloos achter op andere bronnen. The Stockholm International Peace and Reasearch Institute (SIPRI) en the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) publicist van de Military Balance geven de militaire bestedingen over 2014. Beide zijn te raadplegen op het internet en dienen als bron voor wiki voor de militaire uitgaven. Voor wapenexportcijfers gaat vrijwel de hele wereld naar SIPRI dat een scala aan verschillende cijfers goed vindbaar op de site plaatst. De Europese Unie komt vermoedelijk in maart 2016 met de Europese wapenexportcijfers voor 2014. Afgelopen maart kwamen die voor 2013. Ze zijn makkelijk te vinden in de EU export browser van het Europese Netwerk tegen de Wapenhandel (ENAAT). Je ziet in een oogwenk dat onze vrienden in Riyadh nummer twee bestemming zijn voor de mensenrechtenvriendelijke EU.

WMEAT komt daar dus ruimschoots achteraan kakken met cijfers voor 2012 in december 2015. Dan kan je wel stellen dat wapenexporten goed zijn voor het terugdringen van de staatsschuld. Dit aangezien de verhouding in- en export ruimschoots uitvalt in het voordeel van het tweede, $102 miljard per jaar (overigens een opvallend hoog bedrag) versus $4 miljard. Het is wel een opmerking waarin iets wringt. De teller staat op twintig biljoen schuld – meer dan 100 % van het BBP – en is vooral ontstaan door oorlogsvoering en militaire aankopen. De VS zouden met deze staat van dienst de EU niet inkomen. WMEAT komt ook met opvallende cijfers dat in de periode 2002-2012 de VS ruim driekwart van de wapenhandel voor haar rekening nam, de EU ongeveer een tiende, Rusland een twintigste en China minder dan een 2%, maar daar gaat de pers drie jaar later niet meer voor zitten.

Voor precieze gegevens rond Nederlandse wapenexporten kan je niet om de site van Stop Wapenhandel heen. Deze organisatie liet in een tegenrapport bij het jaarlijkse wapenexportrapport van de overheid en de maandoverzichten van vergunningen voor exporten en doorvoer niet alleen weten dat de Nederlandse wapenhandel in 2014 een all time high bereikte, maar ook waar de schoen wringt. Want zoals een schrijver het in de Pittsburgh Post-Gazette formuleerde 'Vrede op aarde? Niet totdat de VS stopt met wapenhandel en oorlogvoeren.' Om die harde werkelijkheid gaat het uiteindelijk. VS kan je vervangen door EU, Nederland, België, Vlaanderen of welk land of regio met een eigen wapenexportbeleid dan ook. Wapenexportbeleid en -controle zijn er niet voor niets. Maar van strikt toepassen is geen sprake; economische en machtspolitieke argumenten hebben nog steeds de overhand. Het lijkt dan ook zinnig in het kader van de strijd voor vrede nog wat vaker de pijlen op de Regering te richten dan landen elders te beschuldigen die kunnen doen wat ze doen door onze militaire en economische steun. Wat informatie over 2015 zou daarbij helpen.

Martin Broek

Geschreven voor Konfrontatie

Belastingontwijking en wapenproductie/Tax evasion and weapon production

PERSBERICHT – Belastingontwijking en wapenproductie: Brievenbus-wapenindustrie in Nederland

Amsterdam 21-12-2015 – Veel wapenbedrijven gebruiken Nederland voor het ontwijken van belasting, schrijft Stop Wapenhandel in een vandaag gepubliceerd rapport. Zeven van de tien grootste wapenproducenten ter wereld hebben een belastingconstructie in Nederland, en meer dan de helft van de wapenproducenten uit de top 100 grootste wapenbedrijven heeft een holding of vestiging in Nederland. Dat betekent dat van elke twee dollar die wereldwijd wordt verdient met wapenproductie, er een via een financiële constructie in Nederland loopt.

“Belastingontwijking door wapenbedrijven is dubbel cynisch. Alle bedrijven profiteren van infrastructuur die uit belastingopbrengst wordt betaald, maar bij wapenbedrijven worden ook de producten grotendeels betaald uit belasting: de grote wapenbedrijven verkopen het merendeel van hun producten aan nationale staten," zegt auteur Martin Broek.

“Bovendien wordt ook veel militaire onderzoek en ontwikkeling door overheden gesubsidieerd, of uitgevoerd in samenwerking met een publiek gefinancierde universiteit en/of onderzoeksinstituut.”

Stop Wapenhandel legde de gegevens van de top-100 wapenbedrijven naast gegevens van de Kamer van Koophandel en vond een groot aantal bedrijven met brievenbusmaatschappijen in Nederland. Wapenbedrijven profiteren op alle mogelijke manieren van overheidsgeld maar dragen zo weinig mogelijk bij.

--------------------------------
Research report:
Tax evasion and weapon production Letterbox arms companies in the Netherlands

Many arms companies use the Netherlands for tax evasion constructions, writes Stop Wapenhandel in a research report published today. Seven out of the ten biggest global arms companies have tax constructions in the Netherlands. More than half of the top 100 biggest arms companies have a holding or establishment in the Netherlands. Which means that of every two dollars earned with weapon production, one is having the Netherlands backing up its financial structures.

Stop Wapenhandel checked the top-100 of global arms companies against Chamber of Commerce information and found large number of arms producing companies with shell companies established in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is notorious for its tax evasion possibilities.

Published December 2015 in cooperation with Transnational Institute

Download rapport Tax evasion and weapon production: Letterbox arms companies in the Netherlands.

QinetiQ in top-100 table changed:

QinetiQ (niet die / not this in Wijchen) (see also TSG International, LLC (there is a KvK registration)

65

QinetiQ2

UK

1,017.90

79.00%

De mens en mot als wapen

Afgelopen zomer was Damiaan Denys een van de zomergasten. Denys is hoogleraar psychiatrie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam en verbonden aan het AMC-zieknhuis. Hij richt zich op angst en dwangstoornissen en past bijvoorbeeld diepe hersenstimulatie toe bij psychiatrische stoornissen. Denys vertelde dat hij door DARPA was gevraagd om medewerking, maar het niet had gedaan.

Voor wie de Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) enigszins kent is het geen verrassing dat ze hem vroegen. Angst bestrijden past bij maken van efficiëntere soldaten. Ook de wijze waarop de in Amsterdam werkzame pyshiater werkt sluit aan. DARPA doet onderzoek naar technologie die de militair vrijwaart van slaperigheid (zodat hij 24/7 kan vechten) of die hem met een chip aanstuurt om afleidende gedachten en angst te onderdrukken. De toekomst van de soldaat als zelfs neurologisch aangestuurde vechtmachine is dichterbij dan we willen weten.

De Jong keek glazig: DARPA? Hij had er nog nooit van gehoord; en is vast de enige niet. Toch is het een onderzoeksinstelling met een enorm budget en breed onderzoeksveld naar alles wat de oorlog kan gebruiken. De totale omvang van het budget voor 2015 was US$ 2,91 miljard (exclusief geheime programma's). Dat is vergelijkbaar met de totale jaarbegrotingen van Princeton en Harvard samen. Die Universiteiten zijn wel breed bekend.

Een groot deel van die leemte in kennis is te verhelpen. Een lijvig boek, The Pentagon's Brain, van de Amerikaanse journaliste Annie Jacobsen (die haar sporen verdiende bij het Los Angelos Times Magazine ) brengt de ontwikkeling van het instituut in kaart van de oprichting in 1958 (als ARPA) tot 2015 als het wordt aangestuurd door centrale personen in de Amerikaanse defensie-industrie, het Pentagon en de wetenschap.

Het is een Amerikaans boek. Met een Amerikaanse vertelwijze. Niet alleen wordt communisme consequent tegenover democratie gesteld, maar ook door verhalen te schilderen waarin de mens en waar hij vandaan komt kleur brengt op de wangen van de bedenker van Agent Orange en de waterstofbom; de american dream in de wereld van militair onderzoek. Het leest mede daardoor als een trein. Je zou bijna vergeten dat je het niet alleen voor je plezier leest, maar ook om er wat uit op te steken over de ontwikkeling van wapens en militaire kennis en technologie: wat was, wat is en wat komt. Vooral die laatste vraag houdt DARPA bezig; verrassen, niet verrast worden is de doelstelling. Vandaar ook de belangstelling voor zich ontwikkelende velden als neurowetenschap.

Het ruim 500 pagina's dikke boek begint vlak na de Tweede Wereldoorlog met atoomproeven, het raketschild volgt (met het idee een magnetisch veld in de ruimte te creëren met behulp van kernexplosies, zowel de Sovjet Unie als VS doen hiernaar proeven). Veel van de verbonden wetenschappers zijn – door start van de organisatie – dol op de bom, maar het idee vanuit het Pentagon om de Hồ Chí Minh route te vernietigen met het gebruik van kernwapens ging de groep wetenschappers die zich verzamelde onder de mythische naam Jason te ver. Er zouden per jaar 3.000 tactische kernwapens nodig zijn om de aanvoerlijn van Noord naar Zuid-Vietnam permanent kapot te bombarderen. Veel DARPA projecten, zoals de drone, M-16 geweer, begonnen wel tijdens de Vietnamoorlog.

Toch werd ARPA uit het Pentagon gezet. Na de oorlog in Zuidoost-Azië is de het een van de vele instituties die zijn geloofwaardigheid is verloren. Het mag zich alleen nog op militaire projecten richten. Vandaar ook dat het in 1973 een D voor zijn naam zette. “Als de Instelling moest gaan overleven en schitteren, dan zou het zichzelf opnieuw moeten uitvinden,” (p. 238) schrijft Jacobsen. Dat lukte en daaraan hebben we te danken dat een mot tijdens zijn metamorfose ingeplante bedrading, een zender en ontvanger opneemt in het weefsel van hersenen en lichaam. Dat is geen toekomst, maar gebeurt al en is een voorbeeld van een zogenaamde biohybride, gedeeltelijk dier en gedeeltelijk machine. De motten moeten worden uitgerust met sensors of explosieven.

Het overgrote deel van de onderzoeken is confidentieel: “als DARPA bezig is met het klonen van mensen, dan zullen we dat later pas weten” (p. 436). Zoals Columbus zocht naar nieuw land, zo zoekt DARPA methodes om wetenschap in te zetten om toekomstige oorlogen te vechten, inclusief killer robots en in extremis met soldaten die met “afstandsbesturing of -controle” opereren. Ze zet ook wetenschap in om methoden te vinden het publiek daarmee vertrouwd te maken.

“De kracht van DARPA is dat het vragen financiert,” (p. 433) zegt David Gardiner die onderzoek doet naar methoden om verdwenen ledematen opnieuw aan te laten groeien. Hoe gemakkelijk die subsidie potjes opengaan, bleek toen in 1973 Bob Taylor binnenkwam die onderzoek wilde doen naar de mogelijke samenwerking tussen computers van verschillende universiteiten. Na 20 minuten stond hij weer buiten met een miljoen dollar om zijn onhaalbaar geachte idee uit te werken. Dat informatie de weg van de minste weerstand zoekt op het internet is van dat geslaagde onderzoek het resultaat.

Wilfried lees dat boek. Volgens mij zal het je boeien. Het is geschreven met dezelfde oprechte belangstelling voor de betrokkenen als waarmee jij sporters, jazzmusici en fotografen tot leven brengt. Het opent bovendien het zicht op wat science fiction leek, maar science wetenschap is geworden. Hoe angst te overwinnen is vanzelfsprekend van belang in militair onderzoek. Denys zou ingeschakeld zijn voor dit onderzoek, als hij dit financiële aanbod met grote kans op vervolg niet op ethische gronden had geweigerd. Je gast liet je dat weten tijdens die Zomergastenuitzending eind augustus. Hij verdiende applaus. Maar belangrijker is dat het niet alleen aan Denys is om wat te vinden van het gebruik en de aansturing van de wetenschap door militairen en defensie-industrie voor de meest vergaande ideeën. Het is aan alle 21ste eeuwse burgers. Het boek The Pentagon's Brain zet je daarover aan het denken.

 Geschreven voor Konfrontatie.