What gain, then sell. but not much

What to buy, and then sell.  but not all

Features of military-technical cooperation between the U.S. and foreign countries

British newspaper The Financial Times said the intention of the Gulf of weapons purchased in the United States at 123 billion dollars. More than half the price of purchases — 67 billion accounted for by Saudi Arabia.

The massive supply of South American instruments provide Riyadh and other partners to complete Washington's military an advantage over Iran. Israel, in turn, can not worry about their safety, because the president of the United States Barack Obama assured Jewish control of the country, that the Saudis will not receive under the terms of the contract or new technologies or strategically unsafe for Israelis weapons.

Beyond these, in general, for obvious political skills of professionals in the military-technical cooperation between the U.S. and the Arab countries have remained in the shadow of macroeconomic motives of the transaction, and then they can make a huge difference.

The fact that a severe concern overseas politicians lack the U.S. foreign trade is with countries that are active exchanges with the United States. The specific reason for this is that these countries are sold in the United States is much more products and raw materials than acquire American products. Saudi Arabia is the most striking example here: U.S. sets consume its oil, while the inhabitants of the kingdom do not wish well, and can not take the South American products in amounts equivalent to the amount delivered by the "black gold". Partially fill the import of hydrocarbons U.S. can only export tools. Apart from it is difficult to find any other south american product that were bought to Arab countries in the amount of 10's billion dollars.

Implementation of the scheme "oil-for- tool"Is the perfect tool for the U.S. to reduce trade imbalances. The embodiment of this technique is provided by the fact that the arms market is different from any other market ever own full politicization: traders do not need to crush the head of the fluctuations of supply and demand, you only need to skillfully take advantage of the foreign powers and the dependence of the partner countries.

Iraq, which is one of the largest exporters of hydrocarbons in the world, is also uniformly embedded with Washington in the scheme of mutual deliveries guns in exchange for Iraqi oil. First of September news agency referring to the newspaper USA today said that Baghdad plans to buy U.S. weapons and military equipment worth more than 13 billion dollars. In question in the main on the supply of armored vehicles. In addition to this agreement, the Iraqi government ordered the U.S. 18 fighters F-16IQ Fighting Falcon at 4.2 billion dollars.

To ensure the supply of weapons to the massive amount of the tens of billions of dollars, it is better to have a political justification of, the path of military-technical cooperation as a protective measure against the global threat. Such danger, obviously, is Iran.

Midst of war and political professionals no flaws in those who believe that U.S. concerns about the "Iranian threat" is just flashy camouflage the real motives of temper. Indeed, just behold, Washington, inflating "iranofobiyu" seeks to strengthen its position in the region, to increment the export of arms and thus provoke the flow of funds in the defense industry. Only one 67-billion deal with Saudi Arabia exceeds the one-year Russian arms exports almost seven times and all available on this day, the Russian Federation has order book tool (37 billion dollars, according to Rosoboronexport) — more than twice.

At the same time, in the middle of professionals is not that quite a few people who would agree with the statement that the reduction of trade with the lack of supply of guns is for Washington just as the fundamental purpose, as, for example, stimulation of the South American defense export contracts or "strengthening of security" region.

Yet Washington's actions in the international arena clearly demonstrate that the South American politics very seriously concerned about the problem of the growth of trade and are ready to tackle the lack of decisive steps to eliminate the circumstances that contribute to its escalation. This was evident in US-China relations. America has with China (as well as with Saudi Arabia), there is a continued lack of a large double-sided. The U.S. Congress the basic premise of this prepyadstviya considers "unfair" policy of manipulating the yuan, the Chinese government carried out. Under the manipulation here is understood Beijing's decision to tie course the yuan to the greenback, keeping it undervalued course, that, in view the power of the United States, equivalent to obtaining Chinese companies an unfair export subsidy. Small course RMB prevent the export of U.S. products to China, while imports of Chinese products is on the very highest level. Washington asks Beijing to reconsider the policy of the establishment of the renminbi and go for the strengthening of the national currency, in the unlikely event threatening to introduce imported from other countries tariffs on Chinese products.

China refuses to make demands of America, claiming that the Yankees' desire to increase their own exports, forcing other countries to revalue course their own national currencies, it is illegal from the standpoint of the principles of the WTO trade protectionism.

The peak of the crisis in trade relations between the United States and China came in the spring of 2010, when the U.S. Congress began to aggressively talk about the need for legislative measures against Chinese exporters. Washington's tough stance against the intransigence of Beijing made the conditions for the emergence of the so-called trade war, which is expressed in the introduction of each other punitive sanctions and protective duties, threatening trade relations. The likely consequences of a "trade war" most experts in the field of international trade dubbed tragic and warned that the favorite in this war will not — lose everything. In the end, the parties were required to begin negotiations on mutual concessions and the possibility of a "trade war" (more precisely — the appearance of its acute phase) markedly decreased. But the contradiction is very strong, so that Washington and Beijing were able to agree on a fairly long period of time — the ground for the conflict will not disappear.

The problem is that the United States for political reasons can not resort to the export of weapons to the Middle Kingdom. Under the criteria of Washington must seek from Beijing to revalue the yuan and Chinese companies in order to deprive the tremendous (According to experts USA) dignity in the South American. It is entirely possible that the charge of "manipulating the yuan" would not have happened if the military-technical cooperation of America and China can conclude contracts for the purchase of billions of dollars of U.S. arms, as is the case when it comes to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states — partners of the U.S. .

Like this post? Please share to your friends: