twilight2000-digest Monday, June 2 1997 Volume 1996 : Number 048 The following topics are covered in this digest: Study warns of new regional arms races (fwd) ISRAELI DEFENCE INDUSTRY THREATENED WITH COLLAPSE (fwd) (long) Turkey Wants to Buy Attack Helicopters (fwd) Question. Re: Question. Reposting Help Re: Question. Another forward Lockheed Martin Wins Spanish Contract (fwd) UAE Seek Mirage 2000 Upgrade (fwd) China Sells Cruise Missiles to Iran (fwd) Weapons 'R' Us: Russia Rivals The West's Arms Technology (fwd) INDIA: Article: Russian Weapons Poor Quality (fwd) Burma Road of WWII Fame Now Brings Arms From China (fwd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:11:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Study warns of new regional arms races (fwd) From=20another ML... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal use. http://www.msnbc.com:80/news/76884.asp Study warns of new regional arms races=20 European group blames inadequate disposal of surplus weapons=20 REUTERS=20 BONN, Germany =97 The failure of many of the world=92s largest countries to adequately dispose of surplus weapons resulting from post-Cold War disarmament has led to dangerous new regional arms races, a European think-tank said Tuesday. The Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC) said in its latest annual report that countries such as the United States, Russia, Germany, Britain and France were major suppliers of surplus weapons, often at knock-down prices.=20 =93The ready availability of low-cost, but still highly lethal, equipment is changing the nature and scope of the arms trade, distorting the numbers of buyers and sellers and fuelling regional arms races,=94 BICC said in a report summary. The BICC, created in 1994 with United Nations support to research the conversion of arms to civilian uses, said Turkey, Greece, Pakistan, Morocco and a number of Middle East countries were the main recipients of surplus weapon exports. The end of the Cold War =97 symbolized Tuesday by the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act in Paris =97 has led to a huge disarmament that is likely to continue in the next few years. The BICC estimated that between 1990 and 1995 some 165,000 conventional weapons, 18,000 nuclear warheads and thousands of tons of chemical weapons became surplus. While most had been scrapped or converted, around 18,000 surplus conventional weapons and hundreds of thousands of small arms and light weapons had during that time flooded the arms market. =93Such weapons are often the source of new conflicts and wars: disarmament in one part of the world can lead to the opposite in another, if it is not accompanied by responsible and appropriate conversion concepts,=94 it warned. The think tank urged disarming nations to do more to control their surplus holdings and to build into disarmament treaties precise agreements on what was to be done with surplus weapons. More efforts were also needed to deal with a legacy of old and abandoned weapons including an estimated 110 million still-uncleared landmines around the world and vast chemical munitions such as those dumped in the North and Baltic Seas after World War II, it said. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:01:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: ISRAELI DEFENCE INDUSTRY THREATENED WITH COLLAPSE (fwd) (long) From another ML... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal use. http://defence-data.com/page593.htm ISRAELI DEFENCE INDUSTRY THREATENED WITH COLLAPSE REF XQQIE XQQMA May 26th, 1997 Israeli defence industry chiefs, are wrestling with the view that within three to five years Israel's defence industry could face collapse, as larger, more efficient and far richer contractors from the United States and Europe lure Israel's customers away with cheaper prices and superior systems. This gloomy projection came from Yosef Rein, a specialist defence consultant, when he was invited to address a meeting of Israel's most senior defence industrialists. Rein is reported as saying, "In another five years, our technology will be old and we won't have the money to invest in research." Rein's warning comes as a significant dispute develops between Israeli defence contractors and the Defence Ministry. Contractors say reorganisation is vital; that duplication in production must be eliminated; government companies such as IAI must be privatised, and union power reduced. "The defence industries cost Israel a loss of close to NIS 2 billion a year," says Knesset member Yehuda Harel, a member of the Knesset Finance Committee. "Most of the companies are not vital to Israel. What is manufactured at IAI can be bought at Elbit or imported except for a few things." Defence Ministry officials say the industry is rebounding from a slump and that the years ahead look rosy. Their vision is that of robust production lines around the country; expanding markets in Asia and Europe; and a slow process of attrition that will gradually eliminate excess manpower in the government-owned industries. Defence officials suggest the figures present the proof. In 1996, Israeli defence exports were $1.6 billion. Defence Ministry Director-General Ilan Biran expects that figure to leap to $1.7 billion in 1997, and hopes for an additional boost to $2 billion. Whilst there is clearly a difference of opinion between government and industry with regard to Rein's report, both sides do agree on one thing: that the relatively good times being enjoyed by the industry could be short-lived unless Israeli contractors respond quickly to the market and become efficient enough to offer prices that can beat the Americans or Europeans. That, officials and executives say, requires a lean corporate structure and ample financing. A reflection of this can be seen in the statistics recording the productivity of defence industry workers. In Israel, each worker has a productivity rate of $111,000, over $30,000 less than the $140,000-$150,000 rate of workers in US or western European industry. The latter figure is also expected to rise as a rash of recent mergers and proposed mergers go through. These include Lockheed Martin and Loral; McDonnell Douglas and Boeing; Thomson SA in Paris with the Lagardere Group. Rein's proposal calls for the reorganisation of both state and privately-owned contractors into six divisions under one management. Assets would total $2.5 billion and each division would have an individual function. * The first would upgrade and sell warplanes, as well as produce unmanned air vehicles (UAVs). This would be the result of a merger between divisions at Elbit and IAI. * The second would handle commercial aviation, and include portions of IAI and TAAS. * A third division would be electronics and space, including military electronics. This would include departments of IAI, Rafael, TAAS, Tadiran Ltd., and Elisra Electronic Systems Ltd. * The fourth would deal with ammunition and include parts of TAAS and Rafael. * The fifth would handle armoured vehicles, including upgrading and protection of artillery and would merge parts of TAAS, Rafael and IAI's Ramta plant in Beersheba. * The final division would be responsible for tactical missiles and include portions of Rafael and IAI. Defence industry analysts say the government is not taking this reorganisation proposal seriously. Zev Bonen, a former director of Rafael and now a researcher at the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, disapproves of Rein's approach. He advocates that the government should first reorganise its own industries, and then sell off those divisions it no longer needs. "We're too small to do too many things in too many places," he says. "It doesn't mean I'm against competition, but there's enough competition in the world." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:15:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Turkey Wants to Buy Attack Helicopters (fwd) From=20another ML... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal use http://defence-data.com/page612.htm Turkey Wants to Buy Attack Helicopters=20 May 30th, 1997 Turkey, a member of NATO, has asked manufacturers of militar= y=20 helicopters to enter into a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for a Turki= sh=20 order of 145 attack helicopters worth some $3.5 billion.=20 After an extended period of considering whether to exclude= =20 American companies, as a protest to Washington, Turkey has decided to invit= e the=20 Americans despite the ongoing shadow embargo against the country by Washing= ton=20 on arms sales transfers - namely, the US decision to freeze the shipment of= 10=20 Super Cobras, three frigates and four Sea Hawk helicopters, following Turke= y=92s=20 order in April 1995 for 10 Super Cobra helicopters worth $150 million.=20 Turkey's first step in the bidding process is for 50 helicop= ters=20 out of the total 145. A run list of the seven companies in the frame to ten= der,=20 with helicopter type include:=20 =B7 The A-129 International (Mangusta), built by August= a. =B7 Tiger, the Franco-German design built by Eurocopter= =2E =B7 Russia's Mi-28 Havoc and Mi-24 Hind helicopters. =B7 The Russian KA-50 and KA 52 built by Kamov. =B7 The King Cobra, an advanced version of the Super Co= bra, built by Bell-Textron. =B7 The Apache Long Bow, built by McDonnell Douglas. =B7 The Comanche Reconnaissance and RAH-66 attack helic= opter,=20 jointly designed by Sikorsky and Boeing. The companies have until the end of October to submit their= =20 proposals, when a shortlist of four will be selected before the final choic= e is=20 made in 1998.=20 The helicopters will be built at Turkish Aerospace Industrie= s=20 (TAI) facilities near Ankara.=20 In due course, Turkey aims to increase its number of assault= and=20 general purpose helicopters to some 750, largely by manufacturing under lic= ence=20 in country.=20 Over the next 25 years, the Turkish General Staff are said t= o be=20 budgeting on $150 billion to fund its military equipment programmes and=20 operations; with $60 billion for its army, $25 billion for the navy, and $6= 5=20 billion for its airforce.=20 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:03:25 EDT From: cdneely@juno.com (Charles D Neely) Subject: Question. From which mailing list are these coming from. I would like to know about them. I didn't get any mail from this list for a long time last night. I sent a message about replacing my gaming books. Did anyone get that message. It didn't even come back to me. Does anyone know anything about the American Defensive Preparation Society. I found it in the book of associations and want to know about them. Thank You David Neely ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:29:36 -0700 From: Hale Subject: Re: Question. Charles D Neely wrote: > I didn't get any mail from this list for a long time last night. I sent > a message about replacing my gaming books. Did anyone get that message. > It didn't even come back to me. I didn't get your message about replacing your books. > Does anyone know anything about the American Defensive Preparation > Society. I found it in the book of associations and want to know about > them. Never heard of it, sorry. But I to would like more info on it to. TTFN Ron Hale ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 23:09:01 EDT From: cdneely@juno.com (Charles D Neely) Subject: Reposting Help I lost my gaming books in a flood this weekend and I need to replace them. Since the books are out of print I am having trouble finding new ones. I would appreciate any help that you can give me. David Neely ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 13:20:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Re: Question. Greetings Charles: > From which mailing list are these coming from. I would like to know > about them. They came from a variety of lists (I was cleaning out my mailbox last night), including two Jane's MLs,a couple of other gaming lists, and a disarmament issues list. > I didn't get any mail from this list for a long time last night. I sent > a message about replacing my gaming books. Did anyone get that message. > It didn't even come back to me. > Didn't see it. > Does anyone know anything about the American Defensive Preparation > Society. I found it in the book of associations and want to know about > them. Never heard of it. Another forward.... >For personal use only. > >http://pnp.individual.com/cgi-bin/pnp.BuildIssue > >Four F/A-18 Hornets Delivered to Malaysia > > ST. LOUIS, May 29 /PRNewswire/ via Individual Inc. -- Four McDonnell >Douglas-built (NYSE: MD) F/A-18 Hornets arrived at the Royal Malaysian Air >Force >(RMAF) base in Butterworth, Malaysia, May 26. The 8,228 mile flight originated >at St. Louis' Lambert International Airport. The state-of-the-art strike >fighters touched down in Butterworth at approximately 11:56 a.m. Malaysia time. > > The F/A-18Ds are the first four of eight two-seat model Hornets >ordered by >the RMAF. The remaining four aircraft are scheduled for delivery in August >1997. > Four RMAF pilots and four U.S. Navy pilots manned the controls as the >aircraft made their way to Malaysia. The four Hornets were accompanied by a >KC-10 tanker aircraft that provided air-to-air refueling. En route to Malaysia, >the crew made stopovers in Hawaii and Guam. > > The eight Hornets will fulfill strike and interdiction missions as >part of >the RMAF modernization program. Initially, the aircraft will be used to train >RMAF pilots. > > McDonnell Douglas is providing a logistical package that will support >aircraft operations at the RMAF base at Butterworth. The RMAF Hornets are >equipped with the upgraded Hughes APG-73 radar and two General Electric F404- >GE-402 enhanced performance engines. > > The first flight of a RMAF F/A-18D occurred Feb. 1, 1997, in St. Louis. >McDonnell Douglas officially presented the first RMAF F/A-18D to Malaysian >Minister of Defence Dato' Syed Hamid Syed Jaafar Albar March 19, 1997. > Malaysia is the first nation in Southeast Asia to purchase and >receive the >F/A-18. Other countries which have ordered or are currently flying the Hornet >are the United States (Navy and Marine Corps), Canada, Australia, Spain, >Kuwait, >Finland, Switzerland and Thailand. > > SOURCE McDonnell Douglas > > /CONTACT: Patricia Frost of McDonnell Douglas, 314-234-6996/ (MD) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 13:23:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Another forward From another ML... > 40mm were useful, but 20mm guns proved ineffective in stopping > incoming attacks. (They might inflict damage against planes as they > flew over ... after dropping their ordnance ... but against Kamikazes > they were ... too late.) Note the US Navy's switch to automatic > dual-purpose 3"(76mm?) secondary gun mounts, after WWII. > The USN developed the 3"/50 twin mount as a response to the Kamikaze threat. They are better classified as semi-automatic weapons. They were non-penetrating mounts so you only needed sufficient deck area for the mount and ready lockers and didn't have to worry about what was underneath the deck. The mounts were layed out very similar to the the quad forties. There were two gunlayer positions, and four loader platforms that moved with the mount. The guns were semi-automatic because they had 4 (?) round drum loaders that were filled manually. Then several ammo handlers ran around between the mount and the ready lockers feeding the loaders. Once the ready service lockers were empty, reloading depended upon the design of the ship. Some ships had ammo lifts from the magazines to a handling room near the mounts. Others didn't. Either way reloading the lockers and mount was a manual process. Various fire control systems have been used with the 3"/50's over their life. When the guns were used with a FCS, there were pretty good weapons for their day. With or without a FCS there are still pretty good against patrol boats and other small surface targets. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:04:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Lockheed Martin Wins Spanish Contract (fwd) Greetings All: From another ML... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal use. Reposted with permission from defence-data.com Lockheed Martin Wins Spanish Contract June 2nd, 1997 Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $251 million contract for the production and testing of four AEGIS weapon systems for the Spanish Navy's F-100 shipbuilding programme. Work is expected to be completed in 2004. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: UAE Seek Mirage 2000 Upgrade (fwd) Greetings All: From another ML.. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal use. Reposted with permission from defence-data.com http://defence-data.com/page616.htm UAE Seek Mirage 2000 Upgrade June 2nd, 1997 The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is seeking to upgrade its inventory of French made Mirage 2000 fighters. The upgrade would bring the Dassault built Mirage 2000, which Abu Dhabi bought in the mid-1980s, up to the level of the new Mirage 2000-9. Besides the upgrading programme for its Mirage 2000, the UAE is also looking to purchase some 20 Mirage 2000-9 aircraft - 18 front-line combat aircraft, and between two and four extra aircraft for training. The estimated value of the contract is FR 14 billion, excluding weapons systems. The Mirage 2000-9 is a derivative of the Mirage 2000-5 air defence and ground strike aircraft, which France has already sold to Qatar and Taiwan. The Mirage upgrade programme is in addition to the UAE's requirement for an additional 80 combat aircraft, currently the subject of a competitive bid between Dassault's Rafale and Lockheed Martin's F16. The Mirage 2000-9 contract is expected to be signed in the next few weeks once price negotiations have been resolved. Other French companies looking to have a share in the Mirage contract, include Snecma, which makes the Mirage radar and avionics, and Matra, a subsidiary of Lagardere, for its Mica and Magic missiles. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:05:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: China Sells Cruise Missiles to Iran (fwd) Greetings All: From another ML... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal use. Reposted with permission from defence-data.com http://defence-data.com/page615.htm China Sells Cruise Missiles to Iran June 2nd, 1997 Reports that China has sold cruise missiles to Iran are confirmed by US government officials. The missiles in question are China s C-802 ship-based anti-ship cruise missiles, roughly equivalent to the French made Exocet missile, which Iraq used against the USS Stark in 1987 with devastating effect, killing 37 Americans. Analysts are concerned that the ship-based cruise missiles will be used to enhance Iran's ability to disrupt Persian Gulf shipping and challenge international maritime forces in the region. Intelligence reports also indicate that China may be supplying Iran with the mobile land-based version of the C-802, which would be more difficult to detect. The issue of Chinese weapons sales to Iran has clouded relations between Washington and Beijing over recent weeks. With Chinese President Jiang Zemin due to make a state visit to the US later this year, the Clinton administration is seeking to improve relations, not sour them with confrontations over arms sales. Nonetheless, this serious diplomatic challenge continues. A week ago, the US administration imposed economic sanctions on two privately owned Chinese companies that have recently sold chemicals and chemical processing technology to Iran, providing Iran the wherewithal to develop nerve gas weapons. Some military analysts consider that the acquisition of C-802s will enhance Iran's ability to block the vital Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's crude oil is transported. Others counter this fear by pointing out that Iran itself is economically dependent on oil exports through the Strait, and therefore has little incentive to block it. Opinions aside, there are military indicators to suggest that the Gulf region will remain an area of world-wide concern, whilst there is a universal dependency on its oil reserves. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:10:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Weapons 'R' Us: Russia Rivals The West's Arms Technology (fwd) Greetings All: From another ML... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal use only. http://www.csmonitor.com/todays_paper/graphical/today/intl/intl.7.html Monday June 2, 1997 Edition Christian Science Monitor Weapons 'R' Us: Russia Rivals The West's Arms Technology Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor MOSCOW -- Russian military barracks may be crumbling for lack of investment, and the morale of troops along with them. But somehow the men and women who make weapons systems are still scraping enough money together to stay at the cutting edge. From secret submarine bases deep inside the Arctic Circle to the empty steppes of southern Siberia, Russian scientists are manufacturing fighter planes, ships, and missiles that match or outperform the best that the West can produce. And even if their own forces can't afford to pay for the arms, they can sell them to foreign armies. A budget crisis keeps Russia's Army poorly equipped, but that doesn't stop Russian arms dealers from selling cutting-edge weaponry to the highest bidder. In the air, the Su-37, the newest plane to roll off the Sukhoi production line, can do tricks that appear to defy nature. More maneuverable than any other plane aloft, the Su-37 can come to a halt in mid-air, hover, and even fly backward. Underwater, the "Severodvinsk"-class submarine, whose prototype has been undergoing tests for the last two years, is regarded by American experts as the most advanced nuclear-powered submarine in the world. It is even more silent - and thus harder to detect - than the "Akula" class subs now in service, which caused a stir in 1995 when one popped up off the United States coast without having been spotted. Russia does not sell any of these nuclear submarines to foreign navies, but it is happy to export "Kilo"-class diesel-powered subs to countries such as Iran and China. They stand out from the competition, according to Russian designers, by their low noise levels, high maneuverability, and more powerful weaponry. Russian arms salesmen are also pushing another top-of-the-line product wherever they can: the S-300 air-defense system, which is similar to the American-made Patriot missile system. But S-300 does some things better, international arms experts say, and it does all of them for a lot less money. Once upon a time, Moscow let its allies around the world buy Soviet weaponry at giveaway prices, as a way of cementing its political influence. Today, as the state arms-export company Rosvoorouzheniye puts it, the government "has allowed the corporation to work out ... export policies which ensure higher economic efficiency and secure its position in hard-currency markets." In other words: Cash or credit, but either way you pay full price. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:03:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: INDIA: Article: Russian Weapons Poor Quality (fwd) Greetings All: From another ML... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal use only. Title: INDIA: Article: Russian Weapons Poor Quality [FBIS Transcribed Text] It is high time India calls the Russian bluff. For years, Moscow has been sweet-talking, arm-twisting India to buy its untested and, often unreliable, military hardware. India has been tempted by Russia's liberal credit terms and promises of latest hardware hot off the design board. In a bipolar world, with not much in the kitty for military imports, India had no other choice but to accept whatever was offered by an ever- willing Moscow. But today with the Soviet Union relegated to a chapter in world history and with Moscow talking dollars, India need not bother much about the noises being made by the Russian arms industry on the former's attempts to buy some 500 tanks from Czechoslovakia. Past experiences can teach us a good lesson, on hindsight at least. A close scrutiny of the MiG-29 contract will reveal the way Russians have been treating India, its supposed ally. The Rs 2,210- crore contracts to buy two squadrons of MiG-29s were signed between September 1986 and February 1989. The aircraft, later nicknamed Baaz, went into service by 1990. But within two years, the aircraft engines began packing up at an alarming rate. Of the total 188 engines available for operation, 139 (74 per cent) failed prematurely and had to be withdrawn for repairs. At least 62 engines had not even completed half the prescribed overhaul life of 60s hours. The then Defence Secretary had admitted in a parliamentary committee hearing that MiG-29 had the "worst record". Extensive studies carried out by the air force revealed that Mig- 29s had a design deficiency. The Nozzle Guide vanes had a tendency to collapse. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) sent innumerable communications to its Russian counterparts to replace the defective nozzle guide vanes as it was a design defect. The Russians even refused to acknowledge the MoD's request, though the MoD left no stone unturned to make the Russians see reason. The Defence Ministry even offered to pay the repair charges. India, finally, ended up paying more than Rs 250 crore for repairing the prematurely failed engines. The Russians took so long in repairing the aircraft that the three MiG-29 squadrons functioned at less than half the prescribed strength for a considerable period of time. In a note, the MoD categorically stated that the Russians "failed to honour their obligations to provide spares or other equipment as well as repair or overhaul facilities for 10 years from the date of delivery in spite of being continuously impressed upon them the urgency in this regard through protracted correspondence and meetings at various levels." The Russians also let New Delhi down by not showing any interest in the request for setting up production facilities. It took very long in agreeing to collaborate on setting up of overhaul facilities for the aircraft in India. Though an inter-governmental agreement was signed for setting up such facilities in 1990, the Russians took their own time in approving the draft contract forcing the project to be delayed for more than six years. The case of a naval hardware, called Article TEM-3, presents another facet of Russian arms deals. The $4.35 million contract was signed with the Russian State Arms Trading Corporation, Rosvooruzhuni, in April 1993. In July 1994, eight sets of Article TEM-3 reached India but without the cables which were a critical component. When the Indian Embassy in Moscow approached the firm for the supply of cables, it said those were not part of the contract. Since the hardware was of no use without the cables, the Naval HQ through the Indian Embassy asked the firm either to supply the cables or take back the equipment. The Russian firm refused to do both and as a result, the equipment is lying in the naval store without any prospect of its early use in the near future. The inside story of the Russian missile contract amply illustrates the "special bond" which is often cited at official functions and during the exchange visits of dignitaries. It also reveals that Russians are ruthless businessmen. They make no bones about protecting their interests even by cheating on the contract provisions. In November, 1991, the MoD had signed a contract with a Russian firm to supply R60 MK air-to-air missiles for the Indian Air Force. Each missile cost Rs 10 lakh. As per the contract, the missiles had a guarantee of 12 months from the date of delivery and had a shelf life of eight years. The missiles reached India in April 1992 and field tests were conducted within two months of the delivery. Trials showed that at least 15 of the missiles were unserviceable. The Air HQ, as per the provisions of the contract, asked the firm to replace the defective missiles free of cost. The Russian firm declined to do so. The Russians said they would like to send their own specialists at India's cost to verify the claim. The Air HQ declined and insisted on getting the missiles replaced. In the meantime, India signed another agreement to buy some more of the R-60 MK missiles at Rs 14 lakh per piece. Eight of the new lot were found to be defective during the trials bringing the total amount of faulty missiles to 23. The IAF's attempts to revoke the warranty clause in the contract failed to move the Russian firm which insisted on sending its own team to assess the missiles. At the end of the day, India had to agree to the Russian terms and shelled out a few lakh to host the firm's specialists for 15 days. Even then, at least 11 missiles are currently lying in stock waiting to be repaired. The Russians are playing a double game like any other country with extensive interests in arms industry would. It is a disturbing development for Indian planners who find it difficult to look at Russia as anything else than a friend and an ally. Cut out the diplomatic rhetoric and you will see Russia's increasingly friendly overtures to China. It will not hesitate to snuggle up to Pakistan if it gets the right price. The significance of Russia's interests in the serial production of Sukhoi-27s and nuclear projects in China should not be ignored by Indian planners in South Block. It is a lesson to learn. Since Russia is scouting for potential customers for its arms industry, India need not betroth itself to one source. The pitfalls of such an option had become so glaringly clear during the dismemberment of the Soviet Union when a large number of Indian aircraft, warships and tanks had to be parked for want of spare parts. Moreover, the global arms market is no longer limited to the Russian or American shores. New countries are fast emerging as potential suppliers of quality military hardware. Israel and South Africa stand out among them. They have a burgeoning arms industry which needs major customers like India for sustenance. Countries like Ukraine and Czechoslovakia can also be explored as potential suppliers of military hardware. Indian defence planners should now realise that Russia is just one among arms suppliers. No longer the cheapest. Never the best. So if the Russian arms industry grumbles about Indian freedom to buy from where ever we chose to shop, ask them to come up with a competitive price. And a quality product. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:09:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Burma Road of WWII Fame Now Brings Arms From China (fwd) Greetings All: From another ML... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For personal, noncommercial use only. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-06/01/094L-060197-idx.html Burma Road of WWII Fame Now Brings Arms From China Rangoon's Rulers, Shunned in West, Are Buoyed by Asian Neighbors By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 1 1997; Page A20 The Washington Post PYIN-U-LWIN, Burma -- Fifty-seven years ago, the main road through this small resort town northeast of Mandalay served as a gateway to the famous Burma Road, a vital supply line through the jungle for war materiel being shipped north by the United States and its allies into China for use against the Japanese. Today, the rutted, two-lane highway is still being used to transport armaments, but the flow has been reversed: Chinese-made weapons are coming south on Japanese-made trucks at the behest of the military government of Burma, which uses some of the arms to help keep its restive citizens under strict control, according to Western officials. Burma's generals became notorious in 1988 for brutally suppressing student protests and in 1990 for annulling a democratic election won by an opposition party. Since then they have been able to forge normal economic relations with few developed nations. "Only the door to China has been open" without interruption since then, a diplomat said in Rangoon, the capital. As a result, the government has relied heavily on weaponry imported from China -- and lately from Russia as well -- to keep its military forces equipped for offensives against insurgent ethnic minorities and to preserve domestic order. Buying military equipment from China is only one of several ways that Burma has been able to evade a Western-led embargo on trade. Narcotics merchants in China also have played a helpful role in Burma's continued export of near-record levels of opium gum for heroin production, and wealthy investors from a few other Asian nations have been spending just enough money on new Burmese hotels, real estate, mining and manufacturing projects to keep the country's economy afloat. The economic or political support Burma gets from other Southeast Asian countries and from China has "effectively annulled the West's attempt to induce domestic political change through international pressure," said Muthiah Alagappa, a Malaysian political scientist and senior fellow at the East-West Center in Hawaii. Besides providing access to weaponry and economic breathing room, Burma's China connection also gives it important refuge from the world's disapproval, according to a diplomat. "If they keep deepening the relationship, Burma will always have China to turn to" if needed to veto trade sanctions that might be sought by the U.N. Security Council, he said. Exact figures on China's military trade with Burma are elusive. The relationship is not openly discussed here. But the shipments include hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of tanks, personnel carriers, rockets, mortars, artillery, assault rifles, grenade launchers, trucks, attack aircraft and helicopters, according to a recent analysis by Andrew Selth, an Australian defense intelligence official, with which officials from two other governments concurred. China also has sold Burma naval vessels, including some armed with anti-ship cruise missiles, and has trained Burmese military personnel. Members of the ruling junta signify the importance they attach to this relationship by making a rare public appearance each year at the Chinese Embassy's national day celebration in Rangoon. Although most artillery and other heavy armaments have been deployed in rural areas, some of the Chinese-made tanks and automatic weapons have been used in displays of force aimed at dissenters in major cities. Western and local sources say some of the Chinese armaments have entered the country near the town of Mongyu, then south along the road to Lashio -- a city with more than 50,000 ethnic Chinese -- before passing through the teak forests and coffee plantations around here to reach Mandalay, Burma's second-largest city. Pyin-U-Lwin is dotted with important military facilities, including the Defense Services Institute of Technology. Much of Burma's arms purchases evidently have been financed by China at discounted interest rates, according to these sources. But China may also have been paid in valuable Burmese goods, such as timber, agricultural products, minerals and gems. The road north to China also is frequently used to transport opium gum derived from Burmese poppies. Chinese narcotics merchants then smuggle it elsewhere in the region, and later ship the resulting heroin to the United States, U.S. officials say. Some of the drug profits allegedly have been plowed into commercial investments or been used to help buy food for troops and import additional weapons. Having been blocked by Washington and its allies from gaining access to international loans, "the regime is essentially depending on drug money to get it through" and keep the economy afloat, according to a longtime foreign observer in Burma. A recent visitor on a drive along the road near here saw a handful of green Burmese army trucks dodging immense potholes on their way south, each packed high with boxes and crates covered by heavy tarpaulins. The ruling generals in this country control a wide range of private businesses as well as military forces, so the items might well have been Chinese-made commercial appliances instead of armaments, and have been destined for the public marketplace in Mandalay, several Western officials said. The United States, Britain and Germany, which formerly had equipped much of the Burmese army, imposed an embargo on military trade with the country beginning in 1988, after the "retired" military officials that had ruled the country with an iron fist since 1962 officially stepped aside in favor of more direct rule by active military personnel. The Clinton administration, citing the forced closure of all Burmese universities and other Draconian government measures to stifle dissent, last month expanded controls on U.S. trade with Burma by barring most new investments by American firms in commercial and energy projects. It also has lent rhetorical support to Aung San Suu Kyi, a 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate and democracy activist in Burma whom the regime has barred from making public speeches or meeting with foreign reporters. But Suu Kyi's calls for worldwide economic isolation of the country have had no apparent impact on China or Burma's other Asian neighbors. Singapore is now the leading source of overall foreign investment in Burma, with Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Japan also playing important economic roles here. Officials in Thailand have been quoted by Thai newspapers as hailing the U.S. sanctions as a potential boon to that country's own commercial prospects in Burma. A visiting Singaporean businessman said in an interview here, "We have a different standard than America does for human rights and foreign trade. These people are free to pursue their own work." Western diplomats here say many of Burma's neighbors are willing to overlook the government's abuses because they seek access to its cheap labor and abundant natural resources, including rare hardwoods and some of the world's finest jade and gems. Thailand, in particular, is said to be worried that serious political instability in Burma would push refugees across its border. @CAPTION: The clock tower in Pyin-U-Lwin was a gift from Queen Victoria during Britain's colonial rule of Burma. @CAPTION: Ethnic Chinese take tea at temple in Pyin-U-Lwin, on road to Mandalay from China. The temple was built by immigrants from Yunnan Province, China. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1996 #48 ************************************