VENEZUELA’S
DEFENSE SPENDING
Recently Venezuela has come under attack by the Bush administration for its new military equipment purchases. The State Department argues that Venezuela’s military spending represents a threat to its neighbors, but the U.S. Government’s own numbers show that many other Latin American nations spend far more on national defense with little or no objection from Washington.
Defense Spending in the Region
According to the Department
of Defense, Venezuela’s closest neighbors spend many times more each year on
defense [see chart below]. Colombia’s
military expenditures are three and a half times higher, and Brazil’s budget is
a staggering 12 times larger.
NATIONAL
DEFENSE SPENDING BY COUNTRY (2004 & 2005)[1]
The difference is even more pronounced when
these numbers are presented as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [See
figure below]. According to the World Bank, Venezuela’s defense spending by
GDP actually decreased yearly between 2001 and 2004. Only in 2005 did it slightly increase from
1.17% to 1.2% of GDP, according to the Central Intelligence Agency.[2]
|
DEFENSE SPENDING/ GDP RATIO Source: World Development Indicators 2006 (World
Bank) |
||||
|
Military expenditure (% of GDP) |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
|
Colombia |
3.83 |
4.12 |
4.36 |
4.34 |
|
United States |
3.1 |
3.42 |
3.78 |
3.98 |
|
Chile |
3.71 |
3.81 |
3.44 |
3.86 |
|
Ecuador |
1.83 |
2.3 |
2.36 |
1.95 |
|
Bolivia |
1.7 |
1.72 |
1.64 |
1.61 |
|
Uruguay |
1.77 |
1.66 |
1.57 |
1.39 |
|
Brazil |
1.92 |
1.86 |
1.56 |
1.39 |
|
Peru |
1.85 |
1.26 |
1.27 |
1.2 |
|
Venezuela, RB |
1.75 |
1.46 |
1.35 |
1.17 |
|
Argentina |
1.35 |
1.21 |
1.18 |
1.02 |
|
Paraguay |
1.01 |
0.93 |
0.89 |
0.7 |
|
Honduras |
0.65 |
0.83 |
0.76 |
0.68 |
|
El Salvador |
0.79 |
0.76 |
0.71 |
0.66 |
|
Guatemala |
0.69 |
0.56 |
0.48 |
0.4 |
|
Mexico |
0.54 |
0.5 |
0.46 |
0.42 |
This resulted in $1.61 billion in defense spending
that same year.
Other nations in the region have consistently
increased their
military spending as a function of GDP over the
years. By this
calculation, Venezuela currently ranks behind
Colombia, Chile,
Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil and Peru. The United States,
of course, is by far the largest spender in the hemisphere,
devoting nearly 4% of GDP to military spending. In
pure dollar
amounts, the U.S. military budget is more than 300
times larger
than that of Venezuela.
What’s more, Venezuela’s big-ticket equipment
purchases
have consisted primarily of helicopters and transport
aircraft,
rather than weapons-carrying machinery.[3]
By way of contrast,
Chile has recently purchased one hundred Leopard II
combat
tanks from
Germany, two French-Spanish submarines
with missile capabilities, ten F-16 fighter bombers
with medium
range air to air missiles from the United States and
another
batch of eighteen refurbished F-16 bombers.
U.S. Arms Embargo on Venezuela
But only Venezuela has
been singled out by Washington with an arms embargo. This indicates that the restrictions are a result of Washington’s
political differences with Caracas rather than any concern for security. The embargo may impede Venezuela’s ability
to maintain its current equipment supplies and its ability to defend
itself. Military analyst John Pike,
quoted by the Associated Press, notes that over time the embargo could have
serious repercussions because most of the country's planes are U.S.-made. The
ban could "ground a significant fraction of their Air Force." [4] This includes not only military planes but
cargo and domestic carriers as well.
And since the embargo includes a ban on spare parts and maintenance
assistance Venezuela may be forced to overhaul their entire equipment supply in
order to have a stock that can be repaired and maintained into the future.
The embargo was enacted May 15, 2006,
after the State Department conducted what it called "a hard-eyed
assessment” of Venezuela’s “cooperation” with the United States in the war on
terrorism. Department spokesman Sean McCormack suggested the decision came
after the U.S. ruled that Venezuela was not doing enough to combat terrorism.[5]
The ruling, however, overlooks recent
actions by the Venezuelan government to work with Colombian and U.S. officials
to reduce narco-trafficking and reign in alleged terrorist leaders in the
region. Such cooperation has led to the arrest of high-level Colombian rebel
leaders and major international drug busts.
In addition, Venezuela has
increased border patrols along the Colombian border to both reduce the amount
of narcotics passing through Venezuela’s borders as well as to ensure the
capture and return of Colombian rebels illegally hiding in Venezuelan
territory.
Even Venezuela’s opposition-dominated press has
reluctantly acknowledged President Chavez’ actions to improve cooperation. Last year El Universal reported on
the Venezuelan government’s instrumental role in the capture and return of FARC
rebel leader Gentil Alvis Patino to Colombia.
In the article, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe was quoted saying, “I
wish to give President Chavez my thanks publicly as a champion in this
effort….”[6]
In May 2006 Uribe again praised Chavez for his help in the peace process with
another rebel group, the ELN.[7] Nevertheless, Thomas Shannon, head of
Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State Department continues to claim that
Venezuela is not “cooperating in counter-terrorism activities in any meaningful
way.”[8]
International Pressure
The United States has gone far beyond merely banning
sales of its own equipment to Venezuela.
Recently there have been efforts to block the sale of Spanish patrol
boats and Brazilian jets to Venezuela, even though most of this equipment was
to be used to further increase drug patrols and counter-narcotics
missions. The move puts Venezuela in a
catch-22 position, as the embargo impedes Venezuela’s ability to combat
terrorism and narcotics along its border.
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos and
Defense Minister Jose Bono expressed frustration with the United States’
attempt to characterize the Spanish purchases as “arms.” Foreign Minister
Moratinos told Agence France Presse, “I explained to Secretary of State Rice
what has been called this so-called sale of arms. It has not been a sale of arms.
It has been a sale of military equipment, that means planes, transport
planes, patrol boats.” Furthermore, Moratinos underscored that the deal
involved “no military offensive equipment”.[9] And on November 28, 2005 the Associated
Press reported that Defense Minister Bono said “neither the boats nor transport
planes were armed and the patrol planes were only equipped for
self-defense. 'This is not a
warplane.'”[10]
Despite this knowledge the State Department continues to claim that Venezuela’s recent equipment purchases “could contribute” to destabilization in the region, and may further jeopardize Venezuela’s efforts to combat drug trafficking and defend its borders.