"The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom...[and] America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

This quote from President Bush's 2005 State of the Union address open the World Policy Institute's report on US military aid and weapons sales to the developing world since 9/11. The report shows how, in practice, sales of American military hardware are often channeled in the direction of regimes which use the equipment precisely to suppress democratic movements and stifle freedom.

The first table in the report ranks US overseas military sales to developing nations in 2003 by country.

The top ranking overseas customer for US military equipment in 2003 was Saudi Arabia ($1.17bn), a country infamous for its human rights abuses and disdain for the freedom of its citizens (as well as lots of oil). Number two is Egypt ($1.05bn), a dictatorship with no qualms about using violence and torture to quiet any dissenting voices.

Number three on the list is Israel - a country with a healthy democracy and no record of oppressing its own citizens (notwithstanding the use of such weapons against Palestinians, which is too complex an issue to address here). A point worth making, however, is that in addition to direct sales of $845 million, the US provides Israel with over $2 billion per annum in military aid. This military aid to Israel represents over 10 per cent of all US aid. When economic aid is included (and let's face it, Israel is does not have the typical profile of an aid beneficiary) the figure rises to around 17 per cent.

Further down the list are Kuwait (7th position, $153 million, poor human rights record, no democratic elections, lots of oil), United Arab Emirates (8th position, $110 million, see Kuwait) and Uzbekistan (13th position, $33 million, you know the rest).

Since 9/11 many new allies in the "War on Terror", regardless of their human rights credentials, have been "unblacklisted" and added to the list of military aid beneficiaries. These countries include Pakistan (now receiving more that $200 million in military aid in spite of a still ambiguous relationship to terror organisations), Algeria (famous for suspending democratic elections in the knowledge that they would bring an Islamist party into power) and Uzbekistan.

There are two points to be made about this pattern of arms sales and military aid. The first refers back to the George Bush quote at the top of this post. This policy undermines US claims that it is standing with the allies of freedom and supporting democratic movements in the Middle East. In many countries the "tyranny in our world" is being actively sustained by US military hardware. As has been recently demonstrated in the case of Uzbekistan, the choice of unsavoury bedfellows compromises the US's ethical pronouncements, and subsequent failures to provide the necessary outright condemnation of tyrannical acts demonstrates the inherent hypocrisy between US rhetoric and policy.

In the "War on Terror" it needs to be recognised that there is more than one type of terror. We are continually warned of the potential impact of terrorism, but hear all too little of the reigns of terror perpetrated by many dictatorships around the world, many of whom receive their weapons from the United States (at least until it is deemed geopolitically propitious to invade them). A consistent policy would see the US taking a much stronger position against such regimes rather than propping them up in order to fill the coffers of the American defence industry.

The second point relates to the self-defeating nature of such funding (unless you are an arms manufacturer, that is). As the World Policy Intitute report indicates, in the last seven major conflicts which have seen US troops in action, they have been fighting against forces armed with US weaponry (Iraq, Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Haiti, Somalia, Iraq again, and Panama). At the time of the arms sales to these countries it was not deemed likely that they would be used against the US, demonstrating the short-termism of such policies, particularly in respect of sales to unstable regimes.

The ambivalence of the US position thus becomes clear. If Saudi, Kuwaiti, Egyptian or Uzbek people win their freedom (as is presumably the desire of the freedom and democracy loving US Government), which way will they turn? Will they use the arms they inherit as allies of the US or as their enemies? Even the most generous supporter of the US freedom and democracy movement would surely be far from certain of the sympathy of populations which have been kept down with US supplied weaponry. It seems likely, therefore, that we are witnessing the beginning of another version of the good old American parlour game of Arm, Denounce, Invade and Rearm.

The irony is that there is already legislation on the US statute book to regulate the provision of military equipment in a responsible manner. The 1976 Arms Export Control Act limits supply of arms to countries which will use them for self-defence, internal security and in United Nations sanctioned operations only. In addition, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits military aid and sales to countries demonstrating "gross and consistent" patterns of human rights abuses. It seems that the US administration is once again demonstrating that, in its attempts to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, it believes that it is above the law in applying the principles which rest upon such institutions to its own actions.