Analysis by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 28 2005 (IPS) — When the United States decided to sell 12 sophisticated F-16 fighter planes to Indonesia about 10 years ago, the London-based human rights organisation Amnesty International did not raise its customary objection to the sale of lethal equipment to a politically repressive regime.

"It is very difficult to link F-16 fighter planes to human rights abuses," a spokesman for Amnesty International USA was quoted as saying.

The objections from human rights groups have been mostly against the sale of armoured cars, assault rifles, tear gas, torture equipment and anti-personnel landmines – all of them considered more "lethal" than fighter planes in the hands of human rights violators.

Last week, the United States announced plans to sell the identical F-16 aircraft to Pakistan, probably as a payoff for its cooperation with Washington in the global war against terrorism.

But former U.S. Senator Larry Pressler, an opponent of arms sales to Pakistan, has a different take on the proposed sale.

"I know that we want to be friends with Pakistan because of the terrorism thing, but you don’t fight terrorism with F-16s," he said.

The only reason Pakistan wants F-16s, he believes, is because the aircraft is capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

In an apparent attempt at evenhandedness, Washington has also offered unspecified quantities of combat aircraft to Islamabad’s longtime rival India, which like Pakistan is also a nuclear power.

During a phone conversation with U.S. President George W. Bush last week, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed his "great disappointment" over the proposed sale not only because it would accelerate a new arms race in south Asia but also threaten the stability of the region.

But U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice puts a positive spin on the proposed sales.

"What we are trying to do is to solidify and extend relations with both India and Pakistan, at a time when we have good relations with both of them – something most people didn’t think could be done," she told the Washington Post.

The notion being pushed by proponents of the sale – that F-16s can be a reward for Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terrorism or a tool for fighting terrorism – "is both laughable and dangerous," says Frida Berrigan, a senior research associate at the World Policy Institute’s Arms Trade Resource Centre, a New York-based think tank engaged in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade.

While the U.S. State Department insists the offer of F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan will "improve regional security", she said, the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of high-tech weaponry will ramp up tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi, accelerating their already fierce antagonism and arms racing,

"F-16s are not an appropriate reward for Pakistan’s limited cooperation in the U.S led war on terrorism – and Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharaff has cooperated only when cooperation was convenient and helped to further consolidate his power," Berrigan told IPS.

"And it is unlikely that Pakistan will use the planes only to hit terrorist targets, resisting the urge to threaten India with its new found strength," she added.

Berrigan also warned that the most dangerous aspect of the transfer "is that it opens the door to new sales to rival India as well – a door the U.S. arms industry has long been pushing on."

"This move is good news for Lockheed Martin (manufacturer of F-16s) and other arms manufacturers, and bad news for counter-terrorism efforts, as well as for stability, security and development in the region," she added.

The United States and Pakistan have had a longstanding love-hate relationship over F-16 fighter planes.

The delivery of some 28 F-16s was aborted in 1990 because, under new legislation restricting arms sales, Washington could not certify that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons.

The planes, most of which had been paid for by Pakistan, are still held in storage in a U.S. airbase in Arizona.

Meanwhile, the U.S. offer of fighter planes to New Delhi also includes a proposed deal for the licensed production of the aircraft in India, which has a relatively advanced military industry in Asia.

According to some military analysts, the U.S. defence industry has remained cynical of Indian plans to buy U.S. aircraft in general because they are rarely followed through.

Traditionally, India has depended on Russian and European weapons systems instead of U.S. equipment.

"India has already announced competition for up to 126 new fighter planes," says Bill Dane, a senior aviation analyst at the Connecticut-based Forecast International, an aerospace market research and consulting company.

He said that India is obviously upset over the potential sale to Pakistan, and the U.S. offer to also sell F-16s to India could backfire, putting the United States out of the running from a list of possible suppliers for many years to come.

"India’s requirement is the real plum as they want 100 to 126 units, while Pakistan is unlikely to get more than 18 to 24 fighter planes," Dane told IPS.

India’s expected insistence upon licensed assembly and production by Hindustan Aeronautics could also preclude an F-16 buy, even if New Delhi was amenable to ordering from the United States, he added.

"India has a dismal record in implementing both indigenous production schedules and in phasing licensed building of offshore equipment," he said.

While India may possibly desire a long-term relationship with the United States, New Delhi may feel it is being "coerced" into dependence on Washington regarding supply of spare parts and training. This could eventually result in a U.S. stranglehold on the Indian military.

"Overall, I believe the joint offer of F-16s has less than a 50:50 chance of securing a sale to India, and will likely serve more as ammunition to anti-U.S. faction in the Indian government," Dane added.