'Buy America' measure retained in defence bill.

London Financial Times ^ | Published: September 26 2003 21:41 | By Peter Spiegel in London and Edward Alden in Washington

[.cnI redruM]

The Pentagon has dropped its opposition to controversial legislation that would direct the US to shun overseas suppliers in purchasing parts for essential weapons systems.

The bill, which had faced a threatened veto from the White House, was watered down in negotiations between Duncan Hunter, the House armed services committee chairman, and Paul Wolfowitz (pictured), deputy defence secretary. In a "discussion draft" dated September 10 obtained by the Financial Times, the Pentagon is given wider authority to disregard the provision, permitting the defence secretary to grant waivers "in the interest of national defence".

But the new language would still force the Pentagon to issue the waivers on a product by product basis, which could cause significant delays.

"We would be sending a very strong signal to our trading partners that we were trying to eliminate international suppliers from our defence programmes," said Jon Etherton of the Aerospace Industries Association, which represents defence suppliers. He said that, in practice, such waivers were rarely issued.

The "Buy America" measure, which was inserted into the annual defence authorisation bill by Mr Hunter, has been watched intensely by arms manufacturers in both the US and abroad who fear that huge extra costs may be imposed.

The failure to strip the entire measure from the bill has angered John Warner, chairman of the Senate armed services panel, who this week wrote to cabinet officials warning it would harm US allies that had assisted in Iraq and Afghanistan, a clear reference to the UK. He said he feared "trade retaliation" if the measure were passed by Congress, which could "jeopardise our $50bn annual trade surplus in aerospace products".

Andy Card, White House chief of staff, headed a meeting on Friday of top administration officials to consider the issue.

[.cnI redruM]

Once again, protectionists shoot first and ask questions later. With NATO joint interoperability standards being what they are, most of those countries will have very little trouble building their own copies of pretty much any mass produced capability we currently stock. A prime example being the Morfire System which is made in GB and is virtually analogous to the M95 MFCS. BAE also produces a MTWS that is almost on a par with what Raytheon builds as of the current date.

If these countries were all 2 decades arears of our technology, this policy would work. These countries would have no choice but to buy ours even if we didn't buy there's. Instead, we've set up a Hatfield vs. McCoy relationship in one of the few fields were we actually do run a surplus.

[longtermmemmory]

This is nothing more than continued protectionism in an existing military trade war. France recently urged for similiar legislation for all EU members.

The Galeleo project to produce the European controlled GPS system specifically has a mandate to not use American products.

Imagine what would happen at the next "iraq" and france refused to supply components or got some foreign supplier to not supply components.

[.cnI redruM]

OK, so we can always justify shrinking the world. Compare our public schools to their public schools and then sever the technological ties between the US and Europe. 25 years from now, we will be the ones so very badly behind. Until we reform our education system to the point where US technology exists without the H1B visa, we don't need to cut off our nose just to spite our face.

[So Cal Rocket]

We don't want to rely on any foriegn country to supply critical components of any vital weapons system. I don't care WHO they are or HOW friendly they are - we can't depend on another country for our national defense.

Case in point... the Swiss provide a part for the Cruise Missile - and refused to deliver any more right before the Iraq war.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Last I knew...10 years ago...the M-249 SAW was a product of Fabrique Nationale (Belgium?). Pain in the %^&%$ to clean.

[longtermmemmory]

consider the state of the US ship building industry. The only thing keep what remains alive is the military ship building.

The most recent attempt to make a civilian cruise ship ended in government mishandeling. (hijacking of good intentions)

There is no US ship building if we need to move men and materials by sea. (even the phantom fleet from WWII has been decomissioned)

One warning: Howard Dean said the USA does not need the worlds strongest military. That is 100% wrong. The USA must continue to be #1 in military, ecconomy and most especially currency (the dollar must dominate). The world does not coddle the second best.